As the summer approaches and edges closer to next year's presidential campaign, the opportunity to charter a new course for the party has arisen. Thus far, polls consistently show Republicans thoroughly unhappy, unimpressed and unengaged with the list of likely, and even far-fetched, candidates for the party's nomination. Each of them has been trying to lay claim to the Reagan-mantle of conservatism, one that embraces social, fiscal and foreign policy conservatism.
Yet America is a very different nation than it was when Reagan ran for office. The demographics of the country have evolved, and national values have changed accordingly. Reagan found success in his ability to reflect those values and galvanize the people who held them. The current Republican field, however, lacks both the rhetorical skill and charisma Reagan had and his keen understanding of the American public.
Any examination of the Republican list of candidates must begin with the front-runner, Mitt Romney. Romney's strengths are well known: deep pockets, presidential hair and a background in executive leadership both as a governor and venture capitalist. But Romney's support continues to be a mile wide and an inch deep, with no one feeling particularly committed to him but supporting him nonetheless because he is the most polished (in a field where unfortunately that isn't saying much). He may have the credentials, but lacks the personality necessary to connect with voters.
In 2008, an ongoing criticism of Romney was that he was too polished, too calculated, and, as a result, he consistently fails to galvanize supporters and gain their loyalty. Not helping matters is his spotty track-record of conservatism, one perfectly respectable for a Northeastern governor but not at all acceptable for the Bible-belt, south-will-rise-again members of the party. And, not to mention, he has yet to articulate how his government-run, mandatory healthcare law differs meaningfully from Obamacare.
For all of Romney's shortcomings, however, he remains the only stable and, frankly, mainstream candidate Republicans have to offer. Huckabee polls well with the socially conservative, blue-collar wing of the Republican Party, yet is emblematic of the kind of populism that has proven too unfriendly to the party's fundamental values on fiscal policy.
The narrative on Tim Pawlenty remains that name-recognition is his biggest shortcoming. But the problem with Pawlenty is not just that he is a dark horse, but a thoroughly uninspiring one as well. He has been running for the 2012 nomination for what seems like at least six years but has yet to build any grassroots support. That takes serious, personality-like-glue talent.
The others, such as Michelle Bachmann, Donald Trump and even Sarah Palin, all carry polarizing personalities and are unpopular even within the Republican Party. The erratic nature of their public statements and campaigns, further, makes them unlikely standard bearers for the Republican nomination.
Two potentials who would make promising candidates and presidents are Mitch Daniels and Jon Huntsman. Both share extensive experience in executive leadership and in the private sector. They have track records of bringing small-government oriented results to modern fiscal issues, and they remain some of the most articulate communicators of conservatism. Yet they both remain relatively obscure and, perilously, both have become targets for the Republican Party's conservative right, one that remains convinced that both Daniels and Huntsman would make insufficient warriors in the culture wars. On that last point the Christian right is probably right, insofar anyone short of the 700 Club would fail to appease their social sensibilities.
A question then arises about the strategy Republican candidates are using in pursuing the 2012 nomination. Is continuing to appease the concerns of a faction of the party, the blue-collar, socially conservative segment of the population, worth the effects it is having on the Republican electorate? The fact of the matter is that present day concerns and the issues most pressing to Americans are those to do with fiscal matters and economic issues. Yet the party is not yielding its best and brightest largely out of fear of alienating the far-right, the result being a mixed field of, essentially, losers. Is another four years of Obama worth it to Republicans, just to keep the Christian right in the Republican fold?
The answer, for the short term at least, is yes. The incentive for a realignment within the party and change to the Republican party line requires more dramatic circumstances than the present ones provide. The fact remains that the socially conservative wing of the Republican Party provides a large chunk of the party's support and helps undermine Democrats' control of the working class voting bloc.
Yet national concerns will continue to move away from the issues that are pertinent to the breed of voters who make up the social-right, and Republicans must be prepared to adapt to such a change. The consequences of failing to do so will ensure that in the future, Republicans may only enter the White House with a visitor's pass.