RSS Feed MenuWho 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.
Will M // Jul 28, 2010 at 11:14 am
Re Huckabee – ish. He’s within margin of error of 2nd for a state that Romney’s been looking bound to win for over the last year. Romney even moved house there, after all.
In Iowa, by contrast, Huckabee’s had a strong lead in every poll there since he won the Iowa caucus in 2008. Moreover, given Palin’s negatives amongst independents, and the ability of independents to vote in Iowa’s caucuses, is it not highly likely that she’s going to lose Iowa?
I’m far more interested in which of the 4 pre-Super Tuesday states Gingrich thinks he’s going to win. He seems to be running in all 4, with no great prospect in any of them…
Elvis Elvisberg // Jul 28, 2010 at 11:27 am
I’d be wary of reading too much into poll results on this topic. After all, if you poll people on issues, they often come out to the left of both parties– eg, willingness to tax, public option. But if you ask people if they’re liberal or conservative, way more people say “conservative.” These labels are tough to figure.
DeepSouthPopulist // Jul 28, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Paul jumped up on the national radar because of his opposition to perpetual war.
In this sense, war opposition is Paul’s “brand”; it’s what makes him stand out from every other Republican.
The critics who want to write off Paul as a Tea Party whack job should take note:
//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.
TAZ // Jul 28, 2010 at 12:55 pm
You need to be carefully reading anything into what todays Republicans say, such as, “Republicans who regard the party as “too conservative” are currently a small group”.
Its my belief that all that is left of the Republican party is the Neocons, Tea partiers, and Crazies.
It naturally makes sense that a small percentage sees the party too conservative.
I consider myself still a member of the Republican party in theory, but describe myself as an independent publicly.
For the record, I wrote Ron Paul in the past election…. no wonder I dislike Palin so much.
Annikan // Jul 28, 2010 at 1:17 pm
“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”
…Or maybe by too conservative they mean too conservative on social issues, not fiscal issues. If they agree with Ron Paul on social issues (not that he’s the ideal, but he’s better than most, including many liberals) but not fiscal issues, then they’d be Democrats.
DFL // Jul 28, 2010 at 1:32 pm
It must be summer for an obscure poll to be so scrutinized. In actuality, Ron Paul wins the votes of libertarian-minded voters who choose to register as Republicans rather than waste their votes on the Libertarian Party. Paul does worst with the military wing of the Republican Party and the neo-conservatives. Wall Street, for a long time more dependent on the government than what it would like to think, dislike Paul as well. He is a threat, however tiny, to the financial aparatus of the country.
Madeline // Jul 28, 2010 at 1:36 pm
If they agree with Ron Paul on social issues (not that he’s the ideal, but he’s better than most, including many liberals) but not fiscal issues, then they’d be Democrats.
Isn’t Paul pretty mainstream conservative on social issues except for drug legalization and the death penalty?
sinz54 // Jul 28, 2010 at 1:50 pm
David Frum: 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.
That’s exactly how Obama got elected President.
CitizenWhig // Jul 28, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Ron Paul is no libertarian, or rather, he is only a libertarian with regard to the Federal government. He is right-wing on most issues, but gets a pass from the media because he often sidesteps social issue questions by stating that he thinks it should be left to the states. However, once left to the states, if Ron Paul had his way, he would outlaw abortions, put doctors who perform abortions in prison, outlaw civil rights legislation, and repeal environmental regulations (because he thinks global warming is a “hoax”).
I admire his willingness to take unpopular stances and think unconventionally about certain issues (the Federal Reserve and medical marijuana), but he is still a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I think he sheds light on many issues that are commonly swept under the rug, but he is a social conservative who wishes to impose control over people’s lives like all the rest, he just wants that control to be imposed by state governments rather than the national government.
CentristNYer // Jul 28, 2010 at 2:16 pm
sinz54 // Jul 28, 2010 at 1:50 pm
“That’s exactly how Obama got elected President.”
Not so. Polls consistently showed that the electorate was with Obama on all of his key campaign issues: reforming health care, winding down the wars, getting tough with corporate abuses, reducing energy dependence. They heard him loud and clear and voted for what he promised.
It’s only the post-electoral FoxNews spin (“death panels!” “socialism!” “siding with the terrorists!”) that has chipped away at that support. But to suggest that people were somehow is duped is just plain stupid.
eugibs // Jul 28, 2010 at 3:09 pm
NYer
I think you inadvertantly damaged your own argument. Think about how vaguely you listed Obama’s campaign issues: ” reforming health care, winding down the wars, getting tough with corporate abuses, reducing energy dependence.” Who doesn’t support those things? The way you frame them makes them near universal policy preferences. That’s exactly what Obama was able to do during the campaign – he made himself a blank canvass on which many people of different ideological persuasions projected their hopes . However, when it came to actually governing, the real question is how do you achieve those results. And on these questions, once Obama was forced to get specific, his policies have tended to consistently poll well below his share of the 2008 vote.
Paleocon // Jul 28, 2010 at 3:19 pm
“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.”
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?
Annikan // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Ron Paul certainly is a pro-life libertarian, and a strict Constitutionalist, but I wouldnt call him a social conservative just because of his abortion stance. He simply believes in strictly following the constitution when it comes to pushing his views (which he applies to the abortion stance as well).
He did an interview with John Stossel (when Stossel was still on ABC), where he was asked what he would do if he were managing the government at the local level. His views on social issues outside of abortion (including marriage, drugs, gambling, prostitution) are extremely libertarian. He may have had some social conservative ties in the past, but based on that interview, he is extremely libertarian.
The reason I say his libertarian approach is better than some liberals is that you can have the ‘live and let live’ attitude without all the litigation (lawsuits) and other nanny-state controls that liberals will impose on people (such as telling you what food you can eat, prosecuting self defense, attacking alcohol and tobacco sponsorships, banning speech etc). If you dont believe me that left-wingers can turn into a different form of social authoritarian just look at Britain and their “anti-social behavior” laws or Canada and their “human rights tribunals.”
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Ron Paul and Liberal Republicans // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:21 pm
[...] Frum has a post talking about liberal Republican support for Ron Paul in a recent poll of New Hampshire GOP primary [...]
Granny T // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:27 pm
“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.”
Paul really increased in this poll from his results in 2008. Romney dropped slightly from his 2008 results. Huckabee polled about the same as his 2008 actual results and is still ahead of Palin and only slightly behind Gingrich; so I don’t think he’s doing as “poorly” as you seem to think.
Who in their right mind thinks Palin has a chance of beating Huckabee in Iowa? Huckabee still has a very strong Iowan base. Many of the Vander Plaats supporters (Tea Party members) are still furious at Palin for endorsing Branstad rather than Vander Plaats. She has no chance in Iowa. Branstad staff and supporters were mostly Romney people. Who does she really think Branstad would support?
Elvis Elvisberg // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:34 pm
eugibs– that could be true in theory, but it’s not how it actually worked in the real world. Obama actually had much more detailed policy proposals than McCain.
Annikan // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:35 pm
In short, I think liberals and conservatives are both authoritarian in their own ways. As someone who considers himself mostly libertarian, its a matter of choosing which candidate is the lesser authoritarian.
Im not as far out there as John Stossel or Ron Paul on certain issues. Im not opposed to the government banning or at least restricting prostitution, certain forms of gambling (i.e. slot machines but not poker, pure luck vs skill games) and hard drugs (even if I support harm reduction programs and less incarceration for drug crimes) as well as reasonable regulation of the environment and the financial industry. But it seems that extreme libertarians are needed to offset the influence of the vast majority of authoritarians we have in the media and in politics. There really arent that many politicians especially that care about issues on a micro level instead of a macro level.
The attitude seems to be “Ya this law sounds good so lets pass it” (never-mind that an existing law probably already covers the offence, never-mind that too many over-broad laws already exist, never-mind that this regulation or requirement will limit an employers ability to expand their company, therefore choking new employment, or may open up a company to frivolous litigation and result in people losing their jobs). Basically the attitude seems to be “Ignore the unintended consequences of our actions as legislators.”
pampl // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:49 pm
“Authoritarian” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
WillyP // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:26 pm
this is, at best, only tangentially related. but consider its source:
“[The government] covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
-de Tocqueville
anniemargret // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:47 pm
sinz: 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).
And please….what were the Republicans offering? An over the hill out of touch military warrior who didn’t and wouldn’t ever see a war he didn’t like? (remember his stupid Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran ditty) – only he and his fans thought it was funny. I found it both alarming and immoral in a would-be leader. A man who didn’t know what was really going on economically. A poor choice all in all.
And then he chooses his sidekick? Palin! The gal who can’t find the time to put herself in front of a hardball interview, then and now. She was totally unfit to take the rank of VP (since she wasn’t even sure what a VP did), and was even more totally unprepared to take over if McCain had died in office . Millions of Americans like myself shudder to just even consider that inane possibility. I lost complete respect for him after this poor decision.
Obama is not perfect…but he thinks and he has heart. He is articulate and he listens. Perhaps too much and that would be my only criticism. He has gone the distance to try to work through problems with the Republicans only to realize their single approach is to ape Rush Limbaugh’s – “I hope he fails.”
CitizenWhig // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Annikan:
I’m familiar with Paul’s interview with Stossel. I wouldn’t put him in the same category as the usual suspects of hard right social conservatism, but he’s not a true libertarian. Paul deftly intertwines the terms “government” and “state” in different contexts so as to confuse their meaning. Is he only talking about the Federal government, or about all government? It’s hard to tell with Stossel pitching him softballs during the entire interview.
For the sake of argument, lets suppose that he is as liberal on these issues as you claim. How would it play out if his vision comes to fruition? He would remove regulation of the environment and leave it to private individuals to enforce their property rights in court. This would be madness. The example he gives is simple minded. He discusses how his home sits on a riverbank. In his own hypothetical, he feels it would be sufficient to merely give him recourse to enforce his own property rights if his upstream neighbor began polluting his river. Anyone who is familiar with adversarial systems realizes how expensive, time consuming and inefficient such a system would be. And on top of that, it would fail to protect the environment.
Additionally, we would be faced with a repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, repeal of the clean water act, and a removal of almost all regulation of financial markets. American culture would become regionalized and provincial. State governments would be competing for industry in their state, likely leading to weakened labor and environmental laws, not to mention the exclusion of the physically disabled from everyday life (no one really thinks that business will spend money to provide disabled access if not forced, do they?). In essence, we would return to the late 19th century. Enough robber barons and class warfare to make everyone miserable.
WillyP // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:49 pm
annie… living proof that a sucker is born every minute.
anniemargret // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:53 pm
willyp: And you are not? The view is different from our neck of the woods, Willy.
WillyP // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:55 pm
citizenwhig:
“State governments would be competing for industry in their state, likely leading to weakened labor and environmental laws”
Well you know, this happens on an international scale regardless of what state gov’ts do. in fact, the more we tax and regulate, the more we scare away industry and jobs.
does this make you happy?
do you think your forebears were so timid as to reject technological change and affecting the environment in unpredictable ways?
this brand of liberalism is a sort of Luddite-ism.
anniemargret // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Ron Paul is correct on mindless war. Wars that are defensive in posture are not where we are now. Iraq was not a defensive posture – it was a geo-political move and a protection for Israel. We are stilly paying the price for that poor decision.
And Bin Laden is still on the lam, almost 10 years after 9/11. Bush: “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
“I am truly not that concerned about him.”
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
3/13/02
I don’t agree with him on social issues, but I will say this at least for Ron Paul. He always comes across as a gentleman and while I may not agree with all his views, I can listen to him, and respect him despite.