The Seinfeld Republicans

Ross Douthat had an interesting post over the weekend pointing out that every one of the Republican presidential hopefuls has some potentially fatal flaw that should keep him from winning the nomination ... but that somebody's got to win it. That person will be the candidate whose fatal flaw is deemed most tolerable by most people -- or, to put it another way, it will be the nominee who looks best in an ill-fitting suit. In response, Noah Millman pens a chewy analysis in which he explains why the Republican nominating contest is so dissatisfying. Contra Ross's claim that each of the candidates is a bad ideological fit for the GOP, Noah says none, save Paul, are even talking ideology. His conclusion:

So, basically, I don’t expect a brokered convention, and I don’t expect a long, drawn-out struggle for a nominee, and I don’t expect a nominee that has espoused any meaningful heterodoxies. Maybe that’s why this contest has been so maddening: because it could be about something, but the major candidates are determined to see that it isn’t, and yet this contest about nothing still has an uncertain outcome.

A contest about nothing (hence the Seinfeld reference). For some reason, my cut-and-paste function is not working properly, else I would post Noah's further reflections on the depressing fact that this is not a fight for the future of the GOP, because the candidates are not really talking about contrasting ideological visions. He says they're all about identity politics at the moment, i.e., looking for a candidate that incarnates the values of the party. But what are those values? What does it mean to be a Republican, or a conservative, in the post-Bush era?

I believe a Huckabee-Giuliani race would force a clear choice on the GOP, on a couple of fronts (unless the candidates refused to engage). First and foremost, it would settle the future of social and religious conservatism in the party. If Rudy won, he would transform the party in ways that would marginalize that constituency. If Huck won, he would transform that constituency and its relationship to the party in economically populist ways. Broadly speaking, he would Cameronize the Republican Party. I don't think he'd win the general election (unless the Dems nominated Hillary), but he'd certainly make the GOP competitive in the coming era of Democratic dominance.

Obviously, in a Rudy-Huck match-up, I'd be strongly on Huck's side. Despite my misgivings about him (which makes me a Paul voter, at least for now), given that choice, his is the path (social conservatism and economic populism) I'd rather see the Republican Party take. But at least there would be a clear choice. And I hope it does come down to Rudy vs. Huck, because even though they both try to muddy up the differences, they really do represent two divergent strains in contemporary conservatism.

I'd thought for a long time that Romney would be the eventual nominee because he's well-organized, but more importantly, as bland and business-y as he is, Republican primary voters like Old Regulars like him. But not this year. If he loses Iowa, and Huckabee keeps up this momentum, I'm afraid Romney's a goner. He might pull out a New Hampshire win, but then comes South Carolina, which is looking more and more like Huck territory. The anti-Huckabee forces will quickly coalesce around the most anti-Huck candidate, and that's Rudy. Then we have a great fight on our hands.