GOP Primary Voting Trends

Our Founding Fathers contemplated and debated immense, radical thoughts...like what actually constituted human "rights", from whence they were derived and what power government should be allowed to wield over the people. There once was a time when even the common men of this country were willing to consider and argue about important, big ideas (westward expansion, slavery, anti-trust legislation, civil rights, etc.) as well. Sadly, thinking about things larger than yourself seems to have become an antiquated concept; the political squabbles of today would seem trivial to prior generations. Anyone who has been watching the results from this year's wide-open Republican primary elections is seeing what amounts to selfishness and "groupthink".

Most of this year's candidates have flaws that make them less attractive to some segment of the overall party. Much has been made of carrying forward the Reagan mantle...an ideological conservatism in three areas: social (traditional family values), fiscal (free-market policies and smaller government), and national security (through military strength and democracy-spreading foreign policy). Reagan knew that some political compromise, but not a compromise of principles, was necessary to join the diverse branches of conservative thought into a lasting majority. He said that, "you do not get to be a majority party by searching for groups you won't associate or work with." However, rather than rallying around the core conservative principles that Reagan embraced, today's Republicans have begun to increasingly retrench themselves into separate camps over narrowly-defined issues.

The early primary winners have left many wondering what is really going on in the Republican Party. In Iowa, Huckabee, a Baptist preacher (a social candidate), was able to parlay huge support among evangelical Christians into a win, despite the fact that he has a questionable fiscal record and no foreign policy experience. Then in New Hampshire, independent and socially liberal voters countered by throwing their support behind McCain (a national security candidate), with a "maverick" record that many conservatives distrust. In Michigan, economic woes became the campaign focus, therefore the successful former CEO (a fiscal candidate), and native son, Romney, got the win. In both the Wyoming and Nevada caucuses, Romney's regional connections (i.e., Mormonism and the Salt Lake City Olympics success in bordering Utah) were likely a factor in his wins. In every case, "identity" or "association" politics seem to have been the driving force for success, rather than conservative principles.

Finally, or so true Reagan conservatives hoped, came the South Carolina primary. In this contest, however, McCain emerged with a narrow victory over Huckabee, with Thompson a distant third and Romney a close fourth. Association politics was again evident - exit polling revealed that voters calling themselves evangelical or born-again Christians went 2-to-1 for Huckabee over McCain (46 to 23 percent). On the other hand, those who called themselves conservatives, but not evangelicals, went for McCain (32 percent) then Romney (23 percent) and then Thompson (21 percent) over Huckabee (18 percent). Unfortunately, rather than clarify things, these results further exposed that the small-picture view is the prevalent one.

Clearly, there is no consensus being reached among voters based on what is best for the country as a whole. Huckabee is garnering his support from single-issue social conservatives. McCain's appeal is with middle-of-the-roaders and military/foreign policy conservatives. Romney is the choice of pure fiscal conservatives. Giuliani hopes to seize the national security conservatives who could care less about social issues. Paul is attracting support from the libertarian-leaning fringe of the party that wants out of foreign policy altogether. Thompson, the one candidate that tried to talk about the conservative big picture, could not gain any traction; the media simply expected him to step down and address whatever small, current-event issue they felt was important...in other words, to be more like the others. Now he has pulled out of the race, leaving his supporters to pick from what's left.

What is becoming evident is that this primary campaign season is typical of what has been happening in our overall national political debate. Too many people have become single-issue voters, or are lured by targeted government program proposals. Too often, they fail to look at the big picture when considering which candidate to get behind, or whether or not to support a piece of legislation.

So why do voters seem to be willing to run off the nearest cliff with the rest of the lemmings rather than to step back, try to understand the lay of the land, and avoid the dangers? Partly, it is the fault of the mainstream media, which prefers to portray the early contests as indicative of the current direction of the party as a whole, rather than dissecting the real motives behind the votes. They insist on naming and focusing on a "front-runner" - a mirage that really doesn't exist, especially this election cycle. Voters in subsequent races then find themselves subconsciously leaning towards that designated candidate, in hopes of being with the winner in the end (another form of "groupthink"). But mostly, it is the fact that individual voters are too easily swayed by trivial matters; they don't demand of the candidates the attention necessary to truly determine their inner principles.

It is the duty of every Republican to carefully consider each candidate's philosophy and select the one that is best for the country as a whole...not simply the one that belongs to the same church, promises a specific benefit, is endorsed by a group or a celebrity, or once did something admirable. It is most important to keep in mind the big conservative ideas embodied in the Constitution - individual liberty, limited government, national defense, Federalism and rule of law - these founding principles can then be applied to the minute issues of the day, whatever they may be. Each of this year's candidates has their name on [virtually] every state ballot...from the first primary election to the last...and one's preferred choice can always be supported, regardless of the outcome of the previous contests and who the media thinks is the current leader.