One tries not to, but it’s hard these days, with an inundation of news about the Iowa caucus and anticipation of New Hampshire. Despite George Will saying of Rick Santorum, “Suddenly, a fun candidate“—seriously? Rick Santorum? I wanna party with you, George Will!—my own suspicion is that nobody really likes any of these people.
(Which is possibly why the Journal’s article about Michele Bachmann’s exit from the race is the paper’s most read story today.)
We now have left Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and in my view the guy with the best/only chance of beating Obama, who will never be nominated, John Huntsman. With the exception of Huntsman, who mostly seems sane and generally thoughtful, this is a dreary group, the weakest group of GOP presidential candidates in my lifetime. In that sense, they are a perfect reflection of their party generally.
And to be honest, I think that’s too bad—the country could use a healthy, serious debate between the two parties. It’s not like Obama has been a perfect president. (Though it’s fantastic that he’s appointed RIchard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau over the infuriated howls of Republican protest. Smart policy, smart politics.)
Instead, who knows what all the Republicans are talking about? “Taking back” our country and Obama’s “socialist policies” and “repealing Obamacare on day one” and such. I guess you play to your base in these primaries, but what if your base is a bunch of dyspeptic idiot zealots?
On the left and the right, a couple folks agree with me. In the New York Post, John Podhoretz blamed the abundance of televised debates for for boosting the candidacies of buffoons like Bachmann and Herman Cain. (Remember him? Weird, right?)
Debate Hell provided terrific copy for pundits, led to record ratings for cable-news channels, and helped enshrine Twitter as the news flavor of the moment. But it made the Republican Party look foolish and silly, not serious and sober in facing the problems of the present with solutions for the future.
And in the Times, Thomas Friedman says kinda-sorta the same thing, in his own Friedman-esque way.
Two things have struck me about the Republican presidential candidate debates leading up to the Iowa caucuses. One is how entertaining they were. The other is how disconnected they were from the biggest trends shaping the job market of the 21st century. What if the 2012 campaign were actually about the world in which we’re living and how we adapt to it? What would the candidates be talking about?
(One thing that struck me about the debates: The questioners were almost uniformly terrible, and had as much to do with the irrelevance of those debates to real life as the candidates did.)
So here’s my prediction, and you can quote me on it a year from now: Obama will win the election against Mitt Romney, who will prove a better candidate than many think, but without a mandate and without any compelling vision. You will never hear this from the networks and newspapers, of course, because they need to boost ratings and circulation and hope a presidential campaign can do it. (With this one, I’m not so sure.)
The races to follow that should be more interesting are the Senate and House campaigns….