2012

There’s a lot of premature discussion of the election of 2012. So why not be a pre-maturist and join in? One interesting commentator (hosertohoosier, a Canadian grad student who appears to prefer anonymity) suggests the following key constituencies within the GOP:

1. economic conservatives
2. evangelicals
3. national greatness conservatives
4. angry white working class males
5. moderate/liberal Republicans

He (or she) then adds that in 2008 McCain got the nomination by uniting groups 3 and 5. Huckabee was the choice of 2 and Romney, 1. In 2012, Gingrich, hosertohoosier believes, is the choice of group 1. Group 4's choice is Palin. Perhaps, he (or she) suggests, Pawlenty is group 3's choice. Huckabee or Palin could do well among evangelicals.

And there are many other long shots (or possibles)–including Charlie Christ, John Thune, Bobby Jindel, Mark Sanford, Haley Barbour, Jeb Bush, Mark Sanford, David Petraeus and so on.

But what strikes me is the new context (developed more in the posting which follows, entitled “Goodby Two Parties: Hello Danger”). Romney probably can’t get the nomination because of past indiscretions–in 2006, for example, he signed the Massachusetts health reform law which requires almost all residents of that state to buy health insurance coverage or face the loss of their personal income tax exemption.

But if somehow, he did get the nomination, he might well get independent votes, in large numbers, but would lose the Rush-Beck hard-liners. If, to adjust to this, he selected for his ticket someone who might appeal to this group–Paley again or Huckabee (if people get over the fact that he paroled someone who then murdered four police officers) or (heaven help us Beck or Rush)–he gains the hard liners but loses the independents.

With the exception of Petraeus, whose domestic views we know little about and who clearly has little experience in domestic programs (but who might, like Eisenhower in 1952 win although Ike first got himself the presidency of Columbia University and maybe that helped), all of the Republicans have this hard-line vs independent problem. Again, with the exception of Petraeus, what I think this means is that Obama gets re-elected unless (1) the economy has a double dip (or even without a double dip, unemployment stays very high–at least close to 8%, maybe lower) or (2) Afghanistan becomes a disaster.

For Obama, I should think this means he must use every dollar of unspent TARP money to lower unemployment, not to mention creating other initiatives. And, he must reverse what I think may turn into a nightmare–Afghanistan–into its opposite, using the George Aiken formula (the Republican Senator from Vermont). Declare victory and leave. And do so no later than mid-2011. And by leaving, I mean really leave. Virtually all, if not all, troops have to be taken out, although a small number of stand-by troops can exist not far away (maybe in Pakistan, if that country hasn’t disintegrated by then).

However, should these troops use drones, and I hope they do not, let us insist that this operation is not run, as it is now, to some extent, by the mercenary and undemocratic corporation, Blackwater, the head of which is the fundamentalist fanatic, Erik Prince. (See Blackwater, The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, by Jeremy Scahill.) [Blackwater recently changed its name to Xe. Prince resigned as CEO, but he remains chairman and sole owner of the network of companies now operating under the Xe umbrella. “Blackwater” is attempting to re-brand itself, given its scurrilous reputation in general as well as the specific murders it committed in Iraq.]

[Masochists might consider reading my September 22 posting, entitled “Who Are the Republicans?” It doesn’t have a neat array of 5 alternative constituencies, as above, but it does offer other ways of thinking about constituencies, even if the discussion of alternatives are broadened or marred by my antagonistic views to elephantitis.]