Four states down, 46 to go! The Michigan primary has just ended, and the first three states are split between Huckabee (Iowa), Romney (Michigan), and McCain (New Hampshire). South Carolina is next up, with McCain holding onto a lead and Huckabee trailing slightly. Thompson and Romney can’t be quite counted out of that one, either. So we’ve got a tight one with no clear frontrunner… the question is if that’s good or bad. It’s both, really. It’s good that they’re all fighting a war in the trenches because the more competition there is anywhere on this earth, the better, in one way. Everyone is sharper when they’re competing, and the Republicans are competing hard right now.

The real problem is that competition can also divide us. That’s no problem if we can come together in the general election and win, but it’s a real problem if we don’t. The four frontrunners all suffer some kind of electability issue (meaning that they may have trouble being elected in the general election on some grounds), and three of them suffer it within their own party. I’m going to tell you just what I think harms each candidate’s electability in both the general election and the primary, and why some candidates would divide the Republican base badly. Now, if you buy into what I’m saying about each of them, you might come away with a bad taste in your mouth about all of them. That’s not my intention; instead, my intention is to inform you just what their problems are going to be. If I’m concentrating on problems of people, much less politicians, my analysis is going to be pretty negative, but I beg of you to remember the plusses each candidate has as well. That said…

Huckabee’s electability issue lies within several problems. First of all, he’s a tax raiser. Second of all, he’s a Compassionate Conservative (Jonah Goldberg, I think it was, had an excellent article on Huck’s Compassionate Conservatism in the National Review a few weeks ago that I’m currently unable to dig up a link to). He also likes the education lobby and is against school vouchers. Finally, his foreign policy is best summed up by the Golden Rule. Huckabee is the social conservative’s dream, and the fiscal and foreign policy conservative’s nightmare. He’s George W. Bush all over again but instead of cracking down on Iran like Bush does, he’d really rather talk to them. Huckabee governs with a heart, and he does have a heart of gold as best I can tell. The problem is that when heart and government mix, you get the New Deal, the War on Poverty, the Progressive Era, etc. Basically, you get big government. It starts out warm and fuzzy as it seemingly fixes all society’s problems (though the only thing that fixed the Depression was World War 2, for the record), but yet, when the problems die out, the bureaucracy does not. Eventually, it becomes a parasite on society, leeching off of what it can.

The fact is that big-C Compassionate Conservatism is a contradiction, in a way. See, conservatives who are compassionate are not at all contradictions. It’s when government is used as a tool of Compassion, with a big C that could also stand for “Coming of the Kingdom,” that it becomes a contradiction. We conservatives believe in an empowered people and a smaller government; not bailing out people who bought homes they couldn’t afford or telling people they can’t eat at McDonald’s because they’re too fat. If you seek the Founder’s opinions on this, look no further than James Madison, who once stood upon the floor of Congress with a copy of the Constitution and shouted, “show me the passage in this document that calls for the allocation of federal funds to noble causes!” (paraphrased). Compare that to when George W. Bush said, “when people hurt, government’s got to move.” Huckabee can try to downplay it, but he lines up with Bush because his heart seems to have a tendency to act in place of his brain. Huckabee upsets libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and foreign policy conservatives alike. The coalition of foreign-policy conservatives (whose vote is even more important in war time like this), small-government libertarians/economic conservatives, and religious conservatives would be fractured if Huckabee got the nomination. It’s a risk we may end up taking, but it could do damage to the American conservative movement.

The other candidate who would clearly damage the Republican base is Rudy Giuliani. Social conservatives could be called the loudest wing of the Republican party right now, and not without good reason. The court case that basically brought them into existence happened some 35 years ago, and it’s still not overturned. They’re getting anxious, as should all of us be when a voluntary genocide occurs in our own country. Giuliani hates abortion, and as far as we know, he always has. He worked to bring down abortions in New York City in his time as mayor, and he would do so in his time as president as well, I think. He’s promised to appoint strict constructionist (read: probably pro-life) judges to the Supreme Court, an issue many social conservatives hold dear. His advisors speculate a Giuliani presidency would be little different than this George W. Bush one with regards to abortion. Where’s the problem, then?

It’s in two places: the first is that Giuliani stated that, in the extraordinary (extraordinarily unlikely, that is) event that Roe v. Wade was overturned and a bill made it through both houses of Congress to his desk banning abortion, he wouldn’t sign it. The second is that he’s labeled pro-choice. Giuliani wants Roe v. Wade overturned, and he wants strict constructionist judges on the Supreme Court, making him initially effectively pro-life. However, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the issue is turned over to the states. I’d guess about 25 would enact abortion bans and 25 wouldn’t, at that point, and the Supreme Court would not rule any of them unconstitutional. However, Giuliani supports no federal attempt to ban the procedure, but only a lift of the federal protection of abortion (and I would guess funding of it). He’s not exactly the late Henry Hyde, but he hates abortion, will lend an ear to the pro-life lobby, and wants Roe v. Wade overturned.

The fact is that if he gets into the election against Hilary Clinton, a lot of social conservatives will still probably turn out, just as economic and foreign policy conservatives will still probably turn out for Huckabee. But the fact also is that social conservatives will complain, moan and probably won’t be holding any signs or doing any ground work for Giuliani, just as the other sides of the coalition probably wouldn’t be doing it for Huckabee. That is why Giuliani and Huckabee are the riskiest candidates in that they run the risk of dividing the Republican base.

Mitt Romney made sure he wouldn’t be dividing anyone before he entered the race by tweaking, to put it nicely, most of his positions prior to his announcing his bid for the nomination. He’s so strong, across the board: for the surge, for staying in Iraq as long as it takes, he knows how the economy works, he can make anything work including Washington, he doesn’t like amnesty and wants to secure the borders, he’s pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-taxes, and anti-gun control.

Yeah, on January 17^th, 2008 he is. Romney’s perception as a flip-flopper is true, in my opinion, but that truth is a little irrelevant. The fact is that he is perceived as a flip-flopper is infinitely more important. Just like with John Kerry in 2004, Romney can weasel his way out of nearly anything when he’s asked a question about it. (I have little doubt that if one were to remove that cap of iron he calls hair and the scalp beneath it, you’d find a mind with gears, ball-bearings, and memory chips.) But Romney, like Kerry, slithers wily around his position changes it in a way that’s almost too smart, almost too contrived and well-said, but leaves the viewer feeling a little wanting. Mitt Romney doesn’t suffer from one or two or three issues like Huckabee and Giuliani do. He suffers from across the board repulsion from both casual voters and many political junkies alike.

If he advances to the point of Republican nominee, as he walks off of the debate stage against Hilary Clinton, the buzz in nursing homes everywhere is going to be about just why John Kerry became a Republican and just how he got the nomination (not to mention how he colored his hair). And if Romney ends up debating Barack Obama, the question is going to be who that nice young fellow with the serious eyes and tanned skin is. What I mean is that I’m not repulsed by the idea of a Romney presidency entirely. I mean that I’m repulsed by the idea of Romney taking a 5-10 point loss to a Democratic nominee, which is what I predict will happen if he gets the nomination.

This all brings me to the candidate of my choice, personally: John McCain. McCain’s electability issue lies, like Romney’s, not in one single issue. Unlike Romney’s, however, it does not lie in a weak ability to attract independents. This, actually, is McCain’s strongest suit. The problem is that when you say the name “John McCain” to conservative ideologues, they shudder and shake their heads. Whether it’s the McCain-Feingold bill on campaign money, or the McCain-Kennedy(-Bush) bill on immigration, conservatives just have a bad taste in their mouth about John McCain. McCain’s a maverick who has come down opposite from conservatives several times on different issues.

The good news for McCain, though, is that if he runs against Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama, those conservative ideologues WILL without a single doubt show up to vote for him, and will probably hold signs and do groundwork for him as well. McCain isn’t their favorite Republican, but he probably is better than even their favorite Democrat, much less Obama and Clinton. McCain, then, doesn’t have the problem of really discouraging turnout like Huck or Rudy might because the people who don’t like him are mostly the people who really, really get it (meaning that they understand how important this election is). He also doesn’t have Romney’s problem of a downright unlikable personality and history. McCain, furthermore, appeals to independents and moderates everywhere because of his straight-talk style, heroic background and more moderate positions on some things. So while these ideologues bash and hate now, you just wait until he’s running against Hilary Clinton, then see how much bashing and hating they do.

Ah, I can hear the words of Rush Limbaugh even as I type this: “running as a conservative across the board as a mainstream American conservative works every time, [we don’t need to moderate on anything].” Since 1980, when Ronald Reagan made it truly popular to be a conservative, the label “conservative” has indeed defined American politics and American opinion, just like how FDR, in the 1930’s, wiped conservatism off of the political map until the 1964 presidential race. Since 1980 we’ve had 20 years of conservative Republicans and 8 years of a moderate Democrat in the Oval Office. I believe some 30-35% of Americans define themselves as conservative, some 15% define themselves as liberal, and the other 50-55% call themselves moderate. All that said, let’s not forget who the majority is.

The fact is that ideology, in politics, is often only as good as the people who espouse it. “Survival of the fittest” was once a common and respectable doctrine until Hitler took it as a basis for genocide. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs,” the basis for all Communism, sounded nice when Karl Marx said it, but is shamed today once we figured out just how it was put into practice behind the Iron Curtain by Joseph Stalin & friends. George Wallace, a longtime defender of segregation, could run for office today with all the same positions Mitt Romney has, but he wouldn’t win because he is George Wallace.

The point is that while conservatism is indeed popular, each election is different, and there is no uniform formula for winning elections. Mainstream American conservatism has proven to be a decent one over the last 28 years, but it is by no means foolproof. Not to mention that there is evidence that the definition of mainstream American conservatism could be changing. Why any old standard conservative won’t work in this election is because any old standard conservative rather describes (at least in the public opinion) George W. Bush and the 2002-2006 Republican Congress, both of which are extremely unpopular at the moment. In an excellent article some months ago in the National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru extolled the coming doom that the Republican party may be facing, citing endless poll numbers that show people’s unhappiness with… well… everything right now. The same old conservative with the same old positions and the same old personality isn’t going to do. John McCain may have been around Washington for a while, but in this case, it helps more than it hurts. The American people know this man, and they like him a lot. They know he hates the pork-barrel spending the Republican congress was famous for, they know he hates the fact that young American soldiers died because President Bush didn’t understand just how bad things were in Iraq for too long. We need someone a little different this time, someone the American people can trust to lead.