More on the Republican “Thanksgiving Family Forum” in Iowa
Yesterday, after watching it myself, I said that the GOP “Thanksgiving Family Forum” from Iowa had been by far the most adult debate of this election season, and strongly recommended watching it.
I continue to recommend that (and the video is embedded at right, with the actual discussion beginning about the 37 minute mark). It is a highly admirable, intelligent and mature conversation about the nexus of faith, politics, morality and the U.S. Constitution, and stands as a superb tribute to the organizers, to the moderator Frank Luntz and to the candidates who participated. It is revelatory on a far deeper level than any other debate you are likely to see in this (or possibly any other) election cycle.
But since we are in the middle of a horse race, and an important one, I will offer a couple of comments on who I think benefited most from the event.
Firstly, I think you have to consider who had the most to gain. This debate was aimed most of all at voters in Iowa, and in particular what you might call “values voters;” i.e. the kinds of people who attend church weekly and take very seriously what are called moral issues or social issues (not that economic issues are without their moral dimension as well). In that context, there are a number of candidates whose credentials and track record on these kinds of issues was already pretty established: Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. So in a certain sense, they had the least to gain in this forum, although they all acquitted themselves very well and that fact should not be underrated as the campaign progresses. (Perry in particular may have helped his credibility significantly with his confident and sincere demeanor in the wake of some rocky times at more conventional debates.)
However, the way I look at it, there are two candidates who have been doing well in recent polling in Iowa, but don’t necessarily have a very solid base with “values voters,” and these are the two who had the most to gain: Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. And I think that both did gain significantly by virtue of their seriousness and the strength of their thinking. Ron Paul may well have allayed fears that he just doesn’t care about moral issues at all—that he is just a feckless libertarian. On the contrary, he made the case very well that increased freedom allows the moral sense of people in local communities to assert itself more strongly, and that this is where such issues belong: in the churches and the town halls across the nation. To my mind, however, Newt Gingrich did himself the most good, coming across both with his usual mastery of the issues and the full historical background to them, but also with a formidable degree of passion. With him, the fear among these voters may be related to his colorful personal life and perhaps his unpredictability. On his personal life, he exhibited humility, and on the issues, solidity. He also just plain had some great lines. Newt’s rise in the polls is the real thing, I think, and if he resists succumbing to some kind of dangerous arrogance with his status as the new frontrunner, this now may well be his race to win or lose. (Which is one amazing tribute to the power of positive campaigning. Really.)
Speaking of frontrunners, conspicuous in his absence was Mitt Romney. Also missing was the other candidate in the race who professes the Mormon faith, namely Jon Huntsman. I’m mystified. To the extent that there are concerns floating out there that electing a Mormon president might not be the best thing to do, here was a perfect opportunity to exhibit thoughtfulness and strength on issues of faith, morality and politics, and to prove that there is an enormous common ground in that area that outweighs the differences. Huntsman is hardly worth considering on the matter since his candidacy is barely there anyway, but why on earth would Romney pass up this opportunity? Especially when he has been doing unexpectedly well in the Iowa polling? Perhaps, if he fails to win the nomination, his non-participation in this event will be looked back upon as one of his fatal mistakes. Certainly, I think it was a terrible mistake, and reduces him in my estimation beyond the already not-very-high level he already was occupying.
|
|
So there’s one more candidate who was there, and who I haven’t mentioned, and that’s Herman Cain. I think he basically did alright, but his appearance won’t cure the fact that his star is on the descent. I do not ascribe the descent of that star to the sex-harassment allegations, but rather to a pattern of flubs that indicate he just hasn’t taken on the task of running for president with sufficient seriousness. In particular, his woeful way of handling questions on life issues some weeks ago would not have impressed the kinds of voters who were paying attention to this forum, and while he came across sincere and likeable yesterday, he did nothing to blow away all such concerns.
So, and in summary: advantage Newt.
