By Sean Evans and Nick Ubels – Email
Print Edition: February 1, 2012
Have a hard time following conversations about the American primaries? Have no fear. Sean and Nick discuss and debate American politics for the everyman, so even your cat can follow along! Soon you, too, will be able to name-drop in drunken conversations with PoliSci students. Stay smart, stay informed. It might be the USA but it affects us Canadian kids too.
Sean: Campaign promises are often extraordinary – “vote for me, and your lost pets will come home.” “Vote for me and I’ll eliminate world hunger, lower taxes and increase governmental services.” The general public has become used to these grandiose promises, and this year is no different. The grandiose promise this week? While campaigning in Florida, the home state of NASA, Newt Gingrich promised “By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American.”
First, this is an obvious attempt at getting votes from an economy that greatly benefits from the space industry. What is somewhat humorous is the hint at a second term – let’s get through these primaries first, Newt. Second, where the funds for this multi-billion dollar project will come from is unclear – Gingrich simply said that he believes that “private companies” will fund the mission. Sounds like a classic campaign promise that will quickly take a back seat to bigger issues – like a massive pile of debt and a weak dollar.
Nick: As crazy as his claim seems, it might also be a brilliant political gambit. After all, it’s Gingrich’s arrogance that inexplicably won him so much support after the South Carolina debates. Now, his pledge to conquer the final frontier and assumption of a second term radiate the sort of implacable confidence that Romney could only dream of. His justification for this plan screams American exceptionalism.
I have to admit that I’m a bit of a space exploration junkie (our future lies in the stars and all that jazz). But while Gingrich’s strategy may win some support from Ray Bradbury, Buzz Aldrin and their ilk, this ultimately seems like a pretty short-sighted grab for attention that could alienate (no pun intended) destitute and out-of-work Americans looking for economic relief. If this election is about one thing, it’s income inequality. And nothing says “out-of-touch” more than expanding non-essential government programs while slashing services that would most benefit a hurting people.
How do you think Gingrich’s platform will, should he clinch the nomination, hold up against Obama’s optimistic, populist platform he outlined in his recent state of the union address?
Sean: Well, Nick, I don’t think Newt Gingrich’s platform would hold up against Obama come November. To be quite frank, Obama and Gingrich are essentially two sides of the same populist coin. While Gingrich may be temporarily pandering to the libertarian movement that has propelled Ron Paul to a national level, many ideological conservatives (not just Republicans – there is a difference) can see right through this charade. And hear me now: the supporters of the libertarian movement will vote by principle, not by party. Gingrich will be hung out to dry in November. Here is the thing: many independents and Republicans alike are choked about the Wall Street bail-outs, economic injustice, and the state of the national debt and monetary system. Newt Gingrich would have an awful hard time calling out Obama on the bail-outs, while he voted in favour of them. Newt Gingrich would have a terrible time trying to convince voters that he will fight economic injustice — all Obama has to do is point back to the millions Newt earned from Freddie-Mac. Finally, on the issue of the monetary system and national debt, Newt Gingrich has a history of financial irresponsibility and has just recently come on board with the policies of Ron Paul, calling for a gold standard and a balanced budget while still promising moon bases, a strong international military presence, etc. I think the people honestly concerned with these issues will see right through Gingrich’s platform.
To be honest, if it comes down to Obama vs Gingrich or Obama vs Romney, I see no difference. All three have similar economic policies that will continue to expand the national debt level.
Back at you, Nick. Do you see any fundamental differences between Gingrich and Obama?
Nick: In terms of their economic policies? It’s definitely not as wide a gap as some would care to believe. I think there’s two fairly distinct approaches as to how the money is spent — Obama favouring social programs, unemployment, government works projects and Gingrich increased military spending and, uh, moon bases. Of course there are pretty significant differences as far as social issues are concerned, but those decisions are more often the responsibility of the judiciary, not the executive.
If Ron Paul decides to launch an independent bid, I think that out of the three candidates (Obama, Gingrich, Paul), Gingrich’s position would be the most untenable in a national contest. Of course there are the die-hard Republicans who would still vote for the party candidate out of some sense of tradition or loyalty, but Ron Paul would have the Tea Party vote and Obama might be able to pull in the support of the Occupy movement. While Paul and Obama offer two very different potential solutions to income inequality in the United States, their platforms both suggest sensitivity to the plight of the everyman.
Speaking of out-of-touch, I’m interested to see whether Mitt Romney will be able to make a comeback in the next few states in the primary circuit. After the release of his tax return (Romney paid only 13.9 per cent on an income of over $40 million last year) which came on the heels of his big loss to Gingrich in South Carolina, he’ll have to make up a lot of ground to secure the nomination. That said, the outlook can change in an instant. Two weeks ago, it seemed like only a matter of time before Gingrich pulled out, but now he is considered to be the Republican front-runner.
What do you think of Romney or Paul’s chances of wresting the nomination away from Gingrich?
Sean: I honestly believe that this is still a three-man race. Although at the moment it looks like Paul is pretty much out of it, we are only four states into it. Just this evening (Sunday night), Paul has announced that he is committed to stay in the race until the Republican convention this summer. He is clearly in it for the long haul, and things can drastically change. What is interesting is that only Paul and Romney have their name on the ballot for all 50 primaries. While Gingrich and Romney have been hashing it out in Florida, Paul has been campaigning in Maine and preparing for a push in Nevada and some of the mid-west states – areas that he is more likely to gain traction and earn delegates through the proportional system rather than the winner-takes-all primaries, like Florida. There are still thousands of delegates to be awarded and this race is far from over. In fact, Paul recently won the Arizona GOP straw-poll with 85 per cent of the vote. While that is not necessarily indicative of the general population, Paul is clearly gaining traction with some Republicans. The question is whether or not Mitt and Newt will continue their current pattern of self-destruction – if they do, all bets are off. Who knows what skeletons those two have in their closets?
The fact that Paul has indeed committed to remain in the race until the convention leads me to believe that he is pretty convinced he still has a shot at winning the nomination. There is a real possibility that if the three reach a stalemate, the nomination may be handed out via a brokered convention at the GOP convention in August. While it is unlikely that Paul would receive the nomination, it would place him in the position to insure that some, if not many, of his ideas and platforms are added to the Republican platform for the coming election – something that may help them distinguish themselves from Obama.
Nick: Paul is polling 85 per cent in Arizona?! I have to say I’m a little surprised. But if Paul can pull that kind of support as the primaries move west, Gingrich and Romney would be facing a much more even battle going into the convention. Like you said, it would take a pretty radical departure from the Republican Party’s current platform for Paul to take the nomination in a brokered convention, but perhaps that’s just what they need to stand much of a chance in November.
There have also been rumours circulating lately that the GOP is pinning their hopes on bringing in a so-called “white knight” candidate at the convention if the contest is still to be decided. Some Republicans fear that a long, drawn-out battle would damage the candidates beyond electability, and considering the nature of some of the Super PAC attack ads we’re seeing, the prospect doesn’t seem too far fetched to me. Though Paul has managed to get through unscathed so far, perhaps a strong showing in one of the upcoming primaries will make his opponents reconsider where they should be directing their attacks.
Mitch Daniels, Indiana Governor, was selected to give the official rebuttal to Obama’s State of the Union address, a spot usually reserved for the opposition’s presumptive candidate in an election year. It’s likely that this was done so as not to favour one out of the current field of potential nominees, but there is also the possibility that he is being positioned as a GOP savior. I guess we’ll have to see what happens!
Stay tuned for next week, when Sean and Nick tackle campaign finances (who pays for what?) any political scandals that are sure to break out in the next week (we’re just getting started with the name-calling, we’re sure of it!) and if Obama can sway the hearts of the masses once more.
