Let us momentarily move to an alternate reality. One where everything in the world is exactly the same except South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford did not embark upon an affair with an Argentinean woman, lie about it, deceive his staff, his constituents and his wife and ruin his political career. No, let’s just take that one part of the equation out. So now, is it a good thing that Sanford won’t be a 2012 contender? On some level – maybe.
Sanford was never going to win the White House. A conservative, slow talking, boring, white man from South Carolina who was despised by significant portions of his own state GOP would never have beaten President Obama. Indeed, a Sanford candidacy could have invited a Johnson style landslide as Democrats would have had an easier time painting him as more of an extremist. It’d be tough to do that with to the same extent with Romney or Pawlenty.
That said, however, the loss of Sanford will be felt on the trail and, on the whole, the party is clearly worse off. Sanford’s brand of libertarianism was unique in a party that has lost its way on issues of limited government. Arguably there was no other mainstream Republican political figure in the country who could have carried forward that banner like than Sanford.
Increasingly the ‘12 GOP primary is looking like a battle of ‘08 has beends – Romney v. Huckabee v. Palin v. Pawlenty.
And now the 2012 primary will be a replay of the 2008 primary: a game of “who’s the true conservative?” Had Sanford been in there, there would have been no doubt who that was.
As far as whether it’s good for the party, was it good for the party that Barry Goldwater was crushed in the 1964 general election? Was it good for the party that Ronald Reagan mounted a bruising, bitter campaign against an incumbent Republican President in 1976, only to lose that fight and soften up Gerald Ford for the 1976 general election? At first blush, those are political disasters. But in hindsight, those losses were critical for inspiring a return to party principles that later resulted in tremendous successes.
I believe that that’s what Mark Sanford would have been in 2012. He may have won the nomination but he would not have won the presidency; Obama will almost definitely be reelected, no matter what. However, he would have provided a rallying point for disaffected conservatives and a valuable point of reference for all those people who don’t quite understand what Republicans stand for, at least in any positive sense.
I believe what happened to Mark Sanford today has important historical implications; not earth-shattering, but important. Those effects go beyond their immediate impact on the 2012 primaries and general election, they extend to the direction of the Republican Party and its ability to inspire adherents and would-be adherents for some years to come.
I think the idea that Goldwater was some amazing catalyst for later conservative gains is a bit overrated. Republicans didn’t come back in 1980 because of anything that happened in ‘64, they came back because this country had grown tired of the excesses of liberalism. True, Reagan and several other notable Republicans became national figures through Goldwater’s loss. Ultimately, however, their future wins can be ascribed to other, far more important factors.
I think you could have been right about Sanford changing the direction of the party, but we’ll never know now. Hopefully the remaining ‘12 contenders won’t fall into the same useless rhetorical battles of the ‘08 primary.
Note how many high-profile Republicans/conservatives trace their engagement/conversion back to Goldwater or Reagan. Bringing those people into the movement allowed it to have more talented and inspired people around to take advantage when political conditions became favorable.
Seven writes: “And now the 2012 primary will be a replay of the 2008 primary: a game of “who’s the true conservative?” Had Sanford been in there, there would have been no doubt who that was. ”
Respectfully, I think this is too hasty a proposition, and would like to offer a few counterpoints:
1) Remember that the last primary battle was waged early in 2008. Things were different then, just as they will be different from where they are now in 2012. So we don’t know for sure what issues will be raging in early 2012 but I’m betting they’re going to be different from those raised early last year, when we were still on the tail end of the c.1985-2007 “Era of Easy Money.” Also, perhaps more significantly, Republicans will not be competing against each other to both appear conservative while simultaneously competing to run away from/not mention President Bush. Instead they will have Obama’s record to run against, and by then it may not be a good one.
2) Some of the players will have changed. Yes, Romney and Huckabee will probably be there. I am betting that Palin will have (has?) become such a polarizing figure and bad joke that she won’t be. Pawlenty was certainly discussed as a Veep candidate last time but did not actually get in on the action, so we have no idea what kind of flavor he would add to the fight. Romney and Huckabee might indeed engage in a “who’s the true social conservative” battle but it would be interesting to watch Pawlenty and Romney square off. In the latter case, Huckabee would be marginalized and either way we would also get a candidate who might appeal to some of the Upper Midwest.
ConnScript writes: “I think you could have been right about Sanford changing the direction of the party”
Just because he doesn’t appear to have any viability left doesn’t mean he has wholly failed in this regard. We may look back on figures like Sanford and Ron Paul as having planted some seeds. It was their sort of rhetoric which inspired tea parties and may give new talking points to the politicians from the Republican party who “survive” them, talking points those individuals could not have used as effectively with Sanford still in the running.
A point was raised, however, elsewhere that brings into question the conventional wisdom that a so-called “boring white dude” can’t beat an “inspiring hopemonger” like Obama. As that writer put it (to paraphrase), if things haven’t gotten better at home and remain unstable abroad, the guy who looks boring and stodgy in 2008 against the inspiring “change” candidate with his big speeches, may now look sensible and reasonable while the big speaker may look pretty silly and ineffective. The elections of 1912 and 1920 demonstrate this aptly. T.R. and Wilson ran on more soaring platforms than stodgy Taft. But by 1920, it was Warren G. Harding who won the election, because people were sick of listening to Wilson’s soaring rhetoric and grand plans, and wanted, as Harding put it “not nostrums, but normalcy.”
and just as an aside:
Seven writes: “Obama will almost definitely be reelected, no matter what. ”
I really think it’s WAY too early to call this, too. I understand that the President remains an engaging and popular figure but the most recent polls have shown independents are souring on him. We all knew he’d get an extended honeymoon. If things improve domestically and abroad, he may remain extremely popular. But some of it is out of his control. Also, the demographic arguments that are frequently raised (”Republicans can’t get the black or Hispanic vote if Obama is the Democratic candidate” essentially) should bear in mind the statistical reading from Jay Cost on RCP several weeks back that demonstrated that the primary reason Obama won was the white suburban vote switching to him. I have some serious doubts as to whether places like Indiana will stay “blue” if things go sour.