Who is more right-wing, Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich? It’s a complicated question with no obvious answer – unless you are a New Hampshire Republican primary voter.
For them, the answer is overwhelmingly clear: Newt Gingrich is the most right-wing available Republican; Ron Paul, the least right-wing.
That is – if you believe today’s new survey from Public Policy Polling.
The headline news in the poll is the horserace standings: Romney leads the way with 31% to 14% for Newt Gingrich, 13% for Paul, 12% for Huckabee, 9% for Palin, 3% for Tim Pawlenty, and 1% for Mitch Daniels.
For those interested in the shape of this important state party, however, the most fascinating news is found below the headline.
Among those who are broadly happy with the current direction of the GOP, Romney leads Gingrich 42-12.
Among those who think the party is currently “too liberal,” Gingrich draws even with Romney, 22-22.
But among those who think the party is “too conservative,” Ron Paul leads Romney 24-22.
Among those who identify with the “tea party,” Paul ranks 5th, at 9%. Among those who say they would be favorably impressed by a candidate endorsed by Sarah Palin, Paul runs weakest. He runs strongest among those least likely to be favorably impressed by a Palin endorsement.
What can this mean?
Some thoughts:
1) Paul’s weak overall performance in NH suggests that Republicans who regard the party as “too conservative” are currently a small group, so we ought to begin with caution about over-interpreting from a possibly non-representative sample.
2) But if the information does have any validity, it suggests that those voters who want a more liberal GOP are much more concerned with foreign affairs and social issues than with modernizing the GOP’s economic message. If Palin and Gingrich are the right wing of the party and Paul the left, then this is not a party divided over, eg, healthcare policy or the extension of unemployment insurance benefits. Same point is suggested by the lack of enthusiasm for Paul among New Hampshirites who identify with the Tea Party’s anti-debt, anti-tax message. In NH at least, the Tea Party looks more like the Perot Party than the Paul party.
3) Romney has not (yet) offered many specific economic ideas. If Romney leads because of his presumed competence in economic policy, that suggests that Republicans are looking less for new ideas, than for a trusted brand: lower taxes, less regulation, the private economy will sort itself out in time. As yet, and maybe forever, the crash of 2008 has not prompted any rethinking of past economic views among core Republicans in NH.
4) If a candidate is saying something that people want to hear, they have an amazing ability to shut out the parts of the message they don’t want to hear. Those more liberal Republicans who like Paul’s message on foreign policy and drugs seem amazingly able to shut out the parts of Paul’s message that are actually most important to Paul himself.
5) Notice how poorly Mike Huckabee is doing in NH. If Sarah Palin can beat him in Iowa, Huckabee’s road to the nomination suddenly looks very rocky.
WillyP // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:01 pm
annie,
Say what you want, but I won’t have this gem forever attached to my name thanks to the enduring nature of the internet…
“Obama got elected President because (besides Hillary Clinton who was my first choice)he was clearly best suited to the job at hand. He mightily impressed me with the way he actually thought solemnly about the issues and not just give predictable slogans. I was impressed with him then, and still impressed given the multitude and magnitude of the problems he has face now in this country against a wall of resistance – including hate and fear-mongering from the other side because he’s a half-black man (and some people simply cannot stomach that).”
Clearly best suited? You’re talking about somebody with almost no practical experience outside rabble rousing, err, community organizing!
yikes! talk about a poorly thought out vote!
CitizenWhig // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:24 pm
WillyP:
I don’t think anyone is happy when American industry relocates its operations to a foreign country. But if that is your argument, then our solution is to relax regulation until we have the working conditions and air quality of China. Would this make you happy?
I thought not. My point was that if you remove the national regulatory infrastructure, it would encourage individual states to relax needed regulation to the lowest common denominator level. If you want to argue about the rationality of national regulatory standards, be my guest. I would not advocate that the solution is to devolve those responsibilities to the state level. Our national trade policy is an entirely different issue upon which we may find some agreement.
As far as my forebears are concerned, I admire the inventive and entrepreneurial spirit that made this country an economic world power. In hindsight, I think we can all agree that such progress was often borne on the backs of hardworking labor that suffered working conditions that would be deemed cruel by today’s standards. I won’t even get started on the repression of small business ventures by the immoral and sometimes illegal actions of large monopoly enterprises. We have learned lessons from our history and understand the positive and negative consequences of our forebears actions. Presumably, we can proceed in a more thoughtful and sophisticated manner in order to lessen the negatives. I understand that this requires nuance, a concept with which the modern conservative movement struggles.
anniemargret // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:26 pm
willyP: c’mon willy, give it a rest. That ‘rabble rousing/community organizing’ schtick is SO 2008.!
Obama is President now.
The problem rests with the Republicans who haven’t a leader to put against that ‘community organizer’ in 2012. Who? Palin? I hear she is the front-runner – holy cow. Huckabee? nice guy but no national appeal. Romney? I’ve got some respect for his smarts but he’s all over the place these days like a willow-o-the-wisp. Jindal? Nice guy too, but again…no national appeal.
Instead of continuing to slam Obama about his past, which basically is a non-starter anyway given he won, you’d best be debating the merits or demerits of the above named individuals.
btw….You say I had a ‘poorly thought out vote?’ As opposed to what? The Palin fans that say she should be President because 1) she’s a great mom or 2) because she is a Christian, or 3) she is a ‘pitbull with lipstick” or 4) because she’s a Real American?
I can go on, but you get the picture. If anyone is talking about poorly thought out votes, it’s Republicans and Palin as the front-runner!
Krom // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:36 pm
I know WillyP is just intentionally being a useless idiot, but allow me to present information that would have taken approximately six seconds to locate via Google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama
Apparently being a lawyer, law professor, state senator and national senator don’t count as “practical experience”. Do you have to be in the military to qualify for this vaunted honor?
anniemargret // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Krom: none of that above education and experience matters, evidently to Republicans. They still prefer Palin, and that says it all.
S.L. Toddard // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Frum’s premise is that if liberal New Hampshire Republican primary voters like Ron Paul, that means Paul is on “the left”. This is categorically false (one’s beliefs and tendencies define their placing on the political spectrum, not others’ opinions of one). The claim is literally untrue, and demonstrably so.
I wonder if Frum gets a bump in hits whenever he attacks Paul, and that is why he and his stable of writers obsess so much about the Pauls.
Let me ask another question: if Republican readers of right-wing sites familiar with Frum were asked whether Frum was on the “right” or the “left” of the party, what would their verdict be? There is a reason FrumForum sells shirts that say “Who you callin’ RINO?”
msmilack // Jul 28, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Doesn’t New Hampshire — like Iowa — tend to vote differently than the rest of the country?
msmilack // Jul 28, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Is there some other way to look at the data besides right and left? I think maybe those categories have become very limited in their use, particularly as applied to Republicans. There is no way that Rand could be associated with liberal policies under any circumstance that I can think of (e.g. civil rights enforcement, etc.). I actually think Rand and Gingrich are both representative of extremes within the party and that the only person who could even be remotely competitive with Obama needs to move toward the center. Daniels seems like the best choice though that is at least partly because we know less about him; but also I’ve not heard him say anything that squarely pegs him into either extreme.
msmilack // Jul 28, 2010 at 7:51 pm
S.L. Toddard
You asked: “Let me ask another question: if Republican readers of right-wing sites familiar with Frum were asked whether Frum was on the “right” or the “left” of the party, what would their verdict be?”
Answer: I think it would first of all depend on who was answering the question and what biases they brought with them to the question; and second, would depend on the issue at hand. For example, if the subject were the environment, gay rights, or using simple fairness in describing the meaning of almost any domestic intiative enacted by Democrats (the reigning party), I’d guess the majority on the right would deem Frum left of center within the Republican right (not left of center in the overall spectrum — perhaps I am describing a RHINO); but if the subject were international affairs, particularly Israel, that old term “Neocon” would immediately be used (though I have never been clear about its actual meaning or if it really applies to him in equal measure to the other people it is used to describe). In any event, I think the majority would deem him right of center on international affairs involving military expenditure and American exceptionalism and left of center on domestic issues except for the economy where, like international affairs, deemed more right. Naturally, I am guessing and so making this up but I think he may prove the point that no one falls entirely into any one category. For that reason, perhaps he is the perfect example of how for a thoughtful Conservative, not any single label entirely applies. People are complex, the smarter the more complex; Frum is very, very smart so it fits that he would not be easy to categorize (which makes many people angry).
msmilack // Jul 28, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Paleocon // Jul 28, 2010 at 3:19 pm
You wrote: “How is it that those that believe our government can’t solve everyone’s problems all over the world are liberal, while those that believe that our government can build entire nations in foreign lands are labeled conservative?”
That is an excellent question and quite true. Could the difference be humility?
anniemargret // Jul 28, 2010 at 8:32 pm
msmilack: great analysis above. I especially like your attempt at ‘explaining’ Frum; perhaps that is why I am here. Even though I cannot consider myself a ‘true conservative’ (although that interpretation is still open to debate), I also have some streaks of conservatism within me.
In fact, I would venture to say that most Americans, while feeling that they must join a party or be labeled “right or left” “Dem vs Republican” etc…are actually moderate when push comes to shove. I have never felt comfortable with the radical left, and the radical right also depresses me. I have a feeling many people feel that way and struggle with issues, although some are a lot easier to embrace than others.
anniemargret // Jul 28, 2010 at 8:33 pm
…and some issues are so complex and so frustrating and so mired in emotion that they simply are not easily solved with ‘liberal vs conservative’ solutions.
msmilack // Jul 28, 2010 at 9:35 pm
anniemargret
I agree with you and your description of yourself could easily apply to me. I also feel it could apply to Obama. In fact it strikes me funny sometimes when people call him a socialist or a leftist because it seems so clear to me that he is actually quite conservative in how he governs but it’s not even an argument I’d want to have with most members of the GOP. David Brooks has written well on that subject (and was no doubt branded a traitor to the right for doing so). I’d give anything if we could eliminate the labeling of a person as strictly right or left, liberal or conservative; it really depends on the issue and people who are extremists worry me no matter what their point of view.
anniemargret // Jul 28, 2010 at 9:46 pm
-msmilack: I sometimes think perhaps we would do better as a nation if we didn’t have a two party system where everyone must get tightly locked into a woven tapestry of half-lies, half-truths, and exaggerations. I suspect there are moments where liberals might think conservatives have hit on a truth, and sometimes conservatives think liberals hit on a truth.
Or ‘truthiness’ as Colbert would say. Great word.
But of course we can’t go there. I’ve seen some real honesty on this blog, and I always admire it, whether it comes from the right, left or the middle. It would be better to just vote for an individual that embodies all that a person admires or desires in a leader and then them all try for the Brass Ring! The fact that what you say, that people who disagree with the party line, or admits the other side (might) occasionally speak the truth, but get trashed for it, says a lot about our national conversation.
(more like a screaming match!)
But that’s in Dreamland…but I occasionally go there when the news just gets too depressing.
mickster99 // Jul 29, 2010 at 1:05 am
I agree with Colbert that Frum is indeed “the balls of the Republican Party”. However, I believe Stephen also said that regrettably they are the cajones of a chihuahua.
msmilack // Jul 29, 2010 at 3:19 am
anniemargret
dreamland is a nice place to recover from the news.
WillyP // Jul 29, 2010 at 9:07 am
the proof is in the pudding. he’s a terrible president overseeing the worst economic recovery since 1932 and losing our european and israeli allies.
so fine, you think a few paltry, undistinguished years as a legislator qualify him as experience. i disagree. i point to his failure as president.
although, alternatively, he is doing a spectacular job at transforming america into a third world, tin pot dictatorship. gutting the industrial and commercial base through massive legislation that he doesn’t bother to read, outsourced to pelosi and reid, he chases away industry as few others could.
but sure. he did some time in the illinois state senate. his most remarkable vote was one in favor of partial birth abortion. as a U.S. senator, i can’t name one bill he authored.
look, we’re not talking about ted kennedy. we’re not even talking about tom daschle. we’re talking about an underwhelming legislator with deep socialist roots.
you may not find any of this pertinent to the discussion anymore. however, lift the veil and you’ll notice that he is acting precisely as an incognito socialist would act. and he’s dragging you and me down with the rest of the citizens.
oh, and not to mention, he’s now losing the war. great. i’m so glad mccain isn’t in office.
WillyP // Jul 29, 2010 at 9:21 am
and you know what, you might find me annoying and unspecific. i’ve tried being very specific, and the arguments just get mired in he said/she said antics. in the case of referring specifically to obama’s mentors and “spiritual adviser,” i’m told that it’s no longer important. right, 20+ years as a radical doesn’t mean anything once you translate that into electoral success.
if i try to get technical, i lose the audience due to ignorance. plainly, few people here are conversant in even basic economic principles. supply and demand to you people is a bourgeois tool to oppress the masses. (what do i mean? look at the entire healthcare debate. you libs want to lower costs while restricting supply. oh sure, you say you’re expanding access by reducing prices. but it never occurs to you that you’ll only create a shortage. micro 101.) if i try to talk about monetary policy or the effects of inflation, you are stupefied and disinterested.
if i refer to history, i’m told my examples do not apply to this day and age. FDR, i’m told, was a wise and caring leader. i’m told that capitalism had its day and was ushered away due to terrible “environmental” abuses and abuses toward labor. i’m told that private property is so 19th century, and that we should be more enlightened and share what little we have.
so yes, i find the discussion wanting. i find a bunch of liberals, who still don’t know exactly how to think about politics/government/society. whatever sounds good to them and their friends must be good, and the herd carries me and the rest of the conservatives off the depression cliff.
Krom // Jul 29, 2010 at 11:34 am
Fine, then stop posting.
Cato // Jul 29, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Of course the key to the survey and this article, is how do you define “conservative”? Labels have become meaningless as the word means much different things to many different people. Based on the results, it appears most polled were neoconservatives that equate conservative with empire, militarism and Israel and an acceptance of big government to accomodate the previous goals.
WillyP // Jul 29, 2010 at 1:03 pm
i won’t stop posting because i find it amusing.
i’m sure many of you are successful in your personal lives and careers. some of you probably have incredible knowledge in different fields and specialties. the talent pool is evidently quite high, just based on the ability to rationalize… we have at least one person – msmilack – who claims to have been an ivy league professor of english (is that right?). i love literature, but my LORD, what depressing politics this english professor has!
having said that, i find your civic knowledge almost non-existent – that is, it is all based on emotion – and civic beliefs borderline nihilistic. you are “liberals” with a lower-case “l.” you share nothing in common with 18th and 19th century liberals, who strove for explanatory theories on what allowed civilization to flourish. arguments i find here are not theoretically sound or even historically defensible – they are ad hoc, fear based, or class-based pandering.
to shunt some of the likely criticism: no, the advancement of theoretical arguments is not “ideological.” at least no more ideological than newtonian physics. sure, theory is at times wrong. but the job is to refine the theory, not to carelessly throw it out the window and declare all theory invalid because it supposes some predictability.
for example, you libs claim to want to expand health care access. to accomplish this, you propose a complicated, complex, confusing, and maddening scheme of government panels, price control boards, tolerance levels, comparative effectiveness research, redistribution, and the application of coercion to force insurers to pay for relatively minor procedures, or worse, cosmetic surgery.
now, we know that all these measures will send the price of health care UP, thus reducing access. yet, despite all the evidence and theory to the contrary, libs continually insist on such measures, and finally the panacea of fully socialized medicine.
WHY?
busboy33 // Jul 30, 2010 at 8:09 pm
“i won’t stop posting because i find it amusing.”
As do we all Willy.
As do we all.
WillyP // Jul 30, 2010 at 9:20 pm
i’m never answered. nobody can refute my basic assumptions. you libs hate me, but can’t say say.