Romney Wins But Takes a Beating

Peggy Noonan makes some interesting observations about Iowa's Republican primary results, and Mitt Romney's bruising victory.

The Iowa results almost perfectly reflect the Republican Party, which, roughly speaking, is split into three parts—libertarians, social conservatives and moderate conservatives, who went for Ron Paul, Mr. Santorum and Mr. Romney respectively. The three parts of the party have been held together by agreement on three big issues: spending (which must be cut), taxing (which must be reformed), and President Obama (who must be removed). 

These three issues have force. Taxes and spending are the ties that bind, the top and bottom crust that holds the pie together. They're the reason the party is still the party, and not the splinter groups. The third element, Mr. Obama, is this year equally important. 

That strikes Noman as being both right and wrong.   The interminable string of debates has revealed a party that is very broad minded.  So, it's no surprise that Iowa voters spread their ballots over a number of ideologically distinct candidates.

The three categories--libertarian, social conservative and social liberal (rather than "moderate conservative," a label that masks rather than highlights the actual divide: social issues)--seem fairly to capture large blocs of Republican voters, but even more importantly, aspects of the conservative mind.

Most conservatives at some level want to be left alone by aggrandizing powers, to have as few external demands as possible placed on them so that they can choose their own loyalties, responsibilities, causes and expenses closer to home.  They are leery of impositions that pose as grand social crusades, especially when the benefits redound to select actors and are administered by unaccountable bureaucrats in faraway places.  Libertarianism appeals to this desire.

Most conservatives have a sense of limits, especially moral limits.  They know that they are not God, so they don't claim a right to behave like one, especially in matters of life and death or longstanding moral convention.  They recognize an order to reality, and know that a culture based on disorder is both destructive of the individual, and doomed.  Social conservatism appeals to this self-knowledge.

Most conservatives don't want to be told what to do.  They want the liberty to make sense of the world as they see fit, and don't want to be imposed upon by the particularism of others who see things differently.  They resent having to genuflect to pieties not of their own choosing.  Social liberalism appeals to this impulse.

Despite the results in Iowas, Noman doubts that the Republican Party is split equally between libertarian, social conservative and moderate voters.  He suspects that, much as for the nation as a whole, the majority of Republican voters incline towards social conservatism while the people with Party power and voice incline towards social liberalism.  Republicans in the heartland gravitate toward values, while people in the big cities like the one Peggy Noonan lives in gravitate toward fiscal autonomy.

Both groups have values, and both care about fiscal matters.  But, liberal Republicans identify more with the moral values of liberal Democrats than with those of conservative Republicans.  They seem to resent that someone else's scruples might prevent them from enjoying the fruits of their labor as they see fit.

Social conservatives share the fiscal concerns of nearly all Republicans, who know that there is no such thing as a free lunch and that when you dance to the music, you have to pay the piper.  They are responsible people who know that both personal entertainments and financial dealings are subject to restraint.

Note that compromise on supposedly moderate grounds, by stressing only tax and spending issues, directly satisfies only liberal Republicans' critical concerns.  What keeps social conservatives in the Republican Party despite getting the short end of the compromise is the Democratic Party's frightening devotion to the culture of death.

Were President Obama sensible enough not to have (1) Kevin Jennings queer the nation's schools, (2) Kathleen Sibelius force people morally disgusted by abortion to fund it, (3) Janet Napolitano snoop on returning veterans and pro-lifers, (4) Cass Sunstein nudge the economy and middle class over a cliff, (5) Van Jones green (i.e., communize) federal agencies, and, generally, (6) chip-on-the-shoulder deconstructionists steer the reigns of government, social conservatives might be more inclined to splinter than eat a pie the crust of which appeals but doesn't completely satisfy.

Tuesday's vote didn't evidence a Party split three ways at the soul.  The real story was Rick Santorum's showing, the crucial aspect of which was evangelical support for a Roman Catholic.  At the critical moment, evangelicals inclined towards a Catholic, which, if sustainable throughout the country, would be a rapprochement of historical significance.

Should the divide that separates followers of Christ evaporate in American electoral politics, America's political landscape would be rocked, and its culture reclaimed.

Imagining President Santorum

Iowans select a Republican candidate for president today.  Whoever the eventual standard bearer is, Noman wishes him (or her) luck and support from his competitors for the nomination.  The Republicans will need every resource available to unseat President Obama and the mainstream media, his coalition partner.

Rick Santorum's rise in the final weeks of campaigning has surprised many, including Noman.  The fickle finger of fate came around to him at a highly opportune moment.  It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Santorum has always been a personal favorite.  The man has integrity, and it shows.  He is what people say they want in a politician, but rarely vote for: someone they can trust, who won't tell them one thing and do another; who tells you where he stands and stands where he tells you; who chooses politically incorrect principles over his own personal and political interests; who will reason with the opposition rather than demagogue and defame it.

Some people don't like him because he is Roman Catholic, pro-life, sees the family rather than the individual as the core unit of civil society, thinks that Darwinism should not be granted a monopoly position in the science curriculum, and sees a positive role for government in shaping economic outcomes.  Except for the latter, these are things that Noman likes about him.

Santorum is a foreign policy realist, not to say a hawk.  Noman couldn't imagine President Santorum or his Administration kowtowing to foreign dictators, apologizing for or relinquishing America's role in the world, funding population controllers in foreign lands or succumbing to Arabs', Persians' or Marxists' hegemonic aspirations.

Domestically, he seems committed to protecting failed industries in order to preserve manufacturing jobs.  That's not economically smart.  But, it's decent, and understandable.  He's sincerely aiming to protect blue collar workers and families, even if they are union, not because they are union.  Unlike any Democrat, he's not engaging in a political quid pro quo with captive constituenta at others' expense.

Perhaps he'll grow to think outside of the box on economic matters--to see that what's needed to protect people's jobs and homes is the opening of markets to new industries rather than the shackling of them to old ones.

What his detractors truly despise, however, are his traditional moral values and unabashed willingness to champion them, even suffer political martyrdom for them.  He is politically incorrect to the max, and fearless, which makes him harder than most to corrupt, intimidate or reduce to pandering.

Kathleen Sibelius, Van Jones, Kevin Jennings and Janet Napolitano wouldn't feel at home in a Santorum Administration.  Its focus on life over abortion, the private economy over the public one, traditional family over revolutionary fabrications, and the mainstream over the extreme would disqualify their likes from its project.


Unfortunately, Noman could not confidently say the same of a Romney or Gingrich Administration.

Regardless, Rick Santorum is an honest man with strong convictions that he doesn't hide or try to mask behind vague rhetoric.  The pull quote widely attributed to him in today's news cycle says it all: "Polls change. Convictions shouldn't."  To Noman's mind, a Santorum Administration would provide a welcomed relief from the Statist convictions animating the current one.