Republican Enthusiasm Vs Pragmatism (UPDATE)

Last week someone passed around a quiz to define where one stood on the ideological spectrum. I came out a “Statist Centrist,” primarily because I refused to take all-or-nothing positions on many issues. Most of my email friends came out further along the “Conservative” or “Libertarian” axis.

That is the divide that confounds this race for the Republican presidential nomination. The scales for ideologic self-identification are largely irrelevant, particularly for the selection of Republican presidential nominee. Republicans, and Republican-leaning independents, are all over the park, for various good and real reasons.

Many commentators ascribe this to lack of enthusiasm among Republicans for any.

Instead, it reflects a greater degree of pragmatism, although weighed differently by each, among Republicans. Any of the leading Republican candidates will do, but one or some more than others in hewing to a stronger line on one or more elements of particular concern to each Republican.

Democrats don’t have this “impediment.” They’re pretty much willing to line up behind anyone who will deliver power to their Congressional caucus, in order to move the country in the largely indistinguishable direction of more central control over our lives and pockets, weakening internal and external security, and abdicating foreign commitments.

I receive dozens of emails each day from the camps of Thompson, Romney, McCain and Giuliani, as well as some from Hunter’s. My sympathies lay with Duncan Hunter, probably the most conservative of the bunch, based on courage, consistency, experience, and in-depth knowledge. Yet, he lingers at the bottom of the pack, due to lack of funding, lack of MSM appeal, lack of national name recognition, conservatives focusing elsewhere, and thus lack of electability.

I don’t think anyone would call Hunter a “Statist Centrist.”

For that matter, that categorization, or “Statist Leftist,” would more apply to the Democrats.

That’s why labels will be less important in 2008 than previously. Or should be, as it will play into the Democrats’ hands, as there are more non-absolutists ideologically than there are absolutists.

Instead, in McCain and Giuliani we have obviously flexible men, and in Romney and Thompson a similar flexibility currently hidden behind words meant to appeal to a conservative Republican base during the primaries. McCain and Giuliani are doing less damage to their prospects in the general election, because they are keeping their appeal wider.

Will this impede more ideologic Republicans from enthusiastically supporting McCain or Giuliani, should they get the nomination? No, as all are unified in utter terror at Clinton or Obama.

What it does mean, however, is that the 2008 election will be more about concrete issues than about labels. That’s where the Republicans have the stronger arguments of wider appeal. Although the liberal leaning wording of polls show wide leaning toward “tax the rich,” toward “lessened foreign involvement,” toward “helping the poor,” and such, in the reality of the voting booth more decisions will be made based on individual character, of the voter and the candidate, and on self-interest, for financial and national security.

2008 will be a far more pragmatic election than ideologues of Right or Left expect.

That’s something to be enthusiastic about, especially for Republicans.

UPDATE: “One piece of bad news for liberals is that it seems that the self-assessed ideology of the American people is still somewhat right of center.”

That’s from a liberal, reflecting on a Pew study of how leading candidates fall on the ideologic spectrum compared to all, Democrat and Republican voters.

He also notes: “Looking at the GOP side where ideological distinctions between the candidates are more pronounced, it's interesting that all voters seem to classify the contenders almost entirely on the basis of cultural matters.”