The straw hadn’t even settled in Ames, Iowa when Texas Gov. Rick
Perry announced he would be seeking the 2012 Republican
presidential nomination. Yet even Perry’s entry wasn’t enough to
stop the
clamor for House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to throw
his hat into the ring. The Ryan buzz was then swiftly followed by
another round of
rumors about a Chris Christie bid.
What is it that keeps Republicans searching despite a field that
by some measures ought to be full? Some of it is a sense that there
is something lacking in the current group of contenders, whether it
be gravitas or the intangible qualities of national leadership.
Others fear that no one presently running can unite the
conservatives they need to win the primaries with the swing voters
who will decide the general election.
But the biggest void many Republicans hope Perry, Ryan or even
Christie could fill is that of consensus conservative. There are
many conservatives running for the Republican nomination right now.
Most of them, however, appeal only to slices of the conservative
movement.
Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are drawing heavily from
social conservatives, though Bachmann has also worked to tap into
the Tea Party’s fiscal conservatism. Ron Paul’s supporters view him
as the gold standard of conservatism, but many hawkish Republicans
consider his foreign policy views are worthless fiat currency. Mitt
Romney attracts certain business-minded conservatives and
establishment Republicans, while leaving activists cold.
The distinctions between the different groups can be overstated.
Christian conservatives are among the strongest fiscal
conservatives in the country. Some polls have shown Tea Party
supporters tend to be quite conservative on social issues as well
as economics. But it is clear there has been a search for a
full-spectrum conservative, a quest that predates the 2012
presidential race.
Last time around, many hoped Virginia Sen. George Allen would be
the consensus conservative. Allen lost reelection to the Senate in
2006, dashing any hopes for a top-tier 2008 presidential campaign.
Romney tried to position himself as the “four-legged stool”
conservative, but his Massachusetts record and rhetoric made this
difficult. This produced a groundswell for Fred Thompson, who
entered and then underwhelmed.
The problem goes back even further. Since the beginning of
modern American conservatism during the Cold War, only two
Republican candidates — Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan — have
united the movement. Apart from Goldwater and Reagan, conservatives
have tended split their support among various candidates. The
eventual Republican nominee is normally the establishment candidate
who can win the most conservative votes.
Most campaigns for the Republican nomination follow the pattern
of the 1988 race to succeed Reagan. George H.W. Bush was the
Reagan-backed frontrunner, ensuring a critical mass of conservative
support. There were candidates to his right, chiefly Pat Robertson
and Jack Kemp, but they split conservatives into rival camps. Bush
was also helped by the fact that another viable candidate, Bob
Dole, appeared to be running to his left.
Bush won the nomination. Eight years later, Dole finally got the
nod by following the same playbook. Many conservatives backed Dole
while Pat Buchanan, Phil Gramm, and Steve Forbes split the vote to
his right. Lamar Alexander ran vaguely to Dole’s left. Then in
2000, George W. Bush won plurality conservative support with
Forbes, Alan Keyes, and lesser candidates running to his right and
John McCain running to his left.
Will history repeat itself this time around? On his campaign
website, Rick Perry bills
himself as a “Reagan Republican.” He has no cap and trade,
Romneycare or TARP bailouts in his background. Emphasizing American
exceptionalism, Perry’s stated rationale for his campaign is
vintage Reagan: getting Americans “to believe that America’s best
days are ahead, that we are not consigned to a fate of high
unemployment and rising prices, and that our place in the world can
once again be secure with a policy of peace through strength.”
For his part, Paul Ryan appeals to economic, social, and
national security conservatives while running on one of the party’s
most ambitious conservative domestic initiatives since the
Kemp-Roth tax cuts. Ryan is recasting supply-side economics for a
country that is basically broke. His message nevertheless resonates
with a broad cross-section of movement conservatives.
Chris Christie gives the impression that every day he is
carrying out the domestic equivalent of Reagan firing the air
traffic controllers. Before the bipartisan battles in Wisconsin, it
was Christie who took the fight to the public sector unions.
Christie showed that groups once thought to be untouchable — like
teachers — could be confronted successfully.
Of the three, only Perry is running. Others have tried to play
the role they are being asked to fill only to come up short. This
much has clear: conservatives have been looking at the Republicans
who want to lead them and have been left wanting more.
