Let’s talk about 2016! (Republican primary, Part 2)

Editorial note: This article is the third installment in a series about prospective 2016 Presidential candidates by Noah M. Horwitz. On Saturday, he wrote at length about Democratic candidates. On Sunday, he wrote at length about Republican candidates in a subset he called “Establishment Conservatives.” This evening, he will write about Republican candidates within the “Tea Party Conservatives” subset.

I opined last evening that there are four basic categories of prospective Republican candidates for President. The “Establishment Conservatives,” “Establishment Tea Party,” “Fringe Tea Party” and “Outcast.” The main distinction between the outcast and the other categories is the presence of some semblance of political experience. The main distinction between the “fringe” and the “establishment” is how well-renowned the individual is on the national stage. Finally, Tea Party is a bit of an arbitrary descriptor, as there is no monolithic organization to which a member might belong, but I have done my best to weed out the so-called RINOs, to borrow the group’s lexicon. For example, in the 2012 Republican primaries, Herman Cain and Donald Trump would be “outcasts.” Michele Bachmann was “Fringe Tea Party,” Rick Santorum was “Establishment Tea Party” and Mitt Romney was “Establishment Conservative.” Hopefully, that clears it up.


1. Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas
Cruz came out of nowhere to defeat Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst in the 2012 Republican primary for the Senate, marking the beginning of the end for the Lieutenant Governor and the beginning of the beginning for the closest thing the Tea Party has has for a leader since its inception. A former Solicitor General of Texas with a sterling track record at the US Supreme Court, as well as a graduate (magna cum laude) of Harvard Law School, Cruz is undoubtedly brilliant. That being said, I’ve never really noticed his assumed intellectuality being used in politics. Cruz goes for the gut through soppy speeches replete with straw-man arguments and sometimes outright fabrications. But it works for him, and he is reasonably the frontrunner for this contest.

Pick a conservative issue, Cruz has put his money on it. He lacks the strange libertarian excesses of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) while still maintaining nearly cult-like following from many in those same circles. Much ink will be spilled in the next couple years asking if Cruz is the Republican version of President Barack Obama, once also a first-term Senator with higher ambitions. Both have mothers whose families have been in this country for quite long, but both have fathers who were foreigners.

I equate Cruz with Obama because of one key reason, far removed from the parallels I just highlighted. Cruz is the “Tea Party Messiah” in a way that Obama definitely was –and to a limited extent, still is– among younger crowds. I wrote at length on this subject last year up in Boston, and already see the initial effects for Cruz on the other side. If Cruz is serious about running for President, which I believe he is, he will need to move back to the center, progressively taking more and more stands on issues that will be sure to tick off his obstreperous base. But, if the “Obama effect” holds true, he will be infallible. That could be a dangerous mix for the Democrats, which is why I am confident that Cruz stands a good chance of clinching the general election against Hillary Clinton. I still think Clinton is favored, but not by that much.

2. Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky
Paul, the son of longtime Texas Congressman Ron Paul, is every bit the politician that he father was not. He backs away from conspiracy theories, but has most of the courage to take a stand on civil liberties and foreign policy issues. He is unequivocally opposed to NSA Wiretapping, the USA PATRIOT Act, and most everything going on at Guantanamo Bay. He believes in isolationism, though he may fight tooth and nail against it being characterized by that word.

On other issues, Paul is surprisingly reasonable. He was supportive of the Supreme Court’s recent decision Windsor v. United States (striking down the Defense of Marriage Act), though he remains virulently opposed to same-sex marriage on a state-by-state level. Earlier this year, he co-sponsored a bipartisan piece of legislation that would generously liberalize requirements for felons to vote. He has even come out in favor of some limited relaxing of drug laws, much like his father.

Of course, Paul more than makes up on conservative bona fides with the rest of his positions. He believes that abortion in all cases –even the life of the mother– should be illegal and a constitutional amendment to that effect should be implemented. He opposes all gun control, government intrusion in healthcare and is radically opposed to many entitlement programs. His libertarian foreign policy arguments surely will draw the ire of the neoconservative establishment.

3. Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida
Rubio is an interesting figure. His positions on many political issues are notoriously hard to get hammed down, given how fluid they are depending on the day of the week. Specifically, on immigration reform, Rubio has been on both sides of the fence more than once. Originally a vociferous supporter of comprehensive reform, even a co-sponsor of the Senate bill, Rubio infamously changed his mind once he began taking flack on the matter.

More recently, however, he reportedly was back to talk over decisive action on the immigration front. In doing so, he has effectively become hostile against both sides on the issue. Not only the Tea Party, but pro-immigration reform groups now view his word as useless.

On other issues, such as climate change, Rubio has unequivocally stated his grave doubts on the topic, making him a late-night punchline for a number of evenings. While there are plenty of specs that would make Rubio an ideal candidate on paper, he has just had a few too many stumbles in the limelight. I mention the silly little water bottle incident not because I think it marks poorly upon his performance that night, but because it showed that the rest of his speech was utterly unremarkable. If a nominal screw-up like that occurs, it is only harped upon incessantly when there is nothing else good to cover–the 24 hour media has to cover something!

4. Paul Ryan, Congressman from Wisconsin
Ryan, obviously, was Mitt Romney’s running mate in the 2012 Presidential election. For whatever reason, failed Vice-Presidential candidates never fare very well when they run for the top-spot the next go-round. Dan Quayle, Joe Lieberman and John Edwards immediately come to mind. Sarah Palin never even got around to running.

Now, you may be curious why I placed Ryan in the Tea Party crowd, as opposed to the establishment. After all, he is a self-described policy wonk and is Chairman of the House Budget Committee. I think Paul Krugman at The New York Times recently did a fairly swell job of dispelling that notion. Ever since the days of his Vice-Presidential campaign, he has used plenty of fuzzy math.

Ryan has what I would call “typical” views on most political issues, particularly within foreign policy, but he is far more malleable by the base than many of his colleagues. For someone who has been in Congress since the Clinton administration, I am hesitant to apply the Tea Party label, but think he has really jumped on the ship quite effectively. In that regard, he is eerily reminiscent of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the Republican gubernatorial nominee.

Watch out for Ryan; that is, if he decides to run. He could easily run his campaign as a sort of successor to Mitt Romney. And say what you will about Romney, but the man has been vindicated on a number of issues since his failed campaign, particularly in the foreign policy sphere. I still do not think that Russia is the United States’ number one foe, but it is certainly more on our radar now than it was two years ago.

5. Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania
Santorum will have been out of politics for nearly a decade by this point, so I truly cannot tell why he would ever wish to take another longshot stab at the Presidency. Perhaps he is a glutton for punishment. Santorum has been making a plethora of trips to Iowa, and has publicly expressed interest in another run for the White House

I think Santorum is what I would call the “Eric Dick of the GOP primaries,” if he were to run again. The phrase, harkening back to last year’s failed Mayoral candidate, means someone who stands no chance of winning but could significantly affect the outcome nonetheless. Dick received over 10% of the vote in 2013, and I would expect him to garner a comparable percentage –much from the same people, low-information voters familiar with his commercials or amused by his surname– if he were tor run again in 2015. Not nearly enough to win, but certainly enough to have a huge impact if there were 8 candidates.

Similarly, Santorum has just enough support from evangelicals that he could win the Iowa Caucuses, even though he would be one of the last people that voters in 30+ States would ever support. This could throw a wrench into the plans of many candidates.

Hopefully, I get to the remainder of the candidates tomorrow. But for now, I’ve covered the frontrunners, as well as a couple others fortuitously mentioned in the same article despite having not a shred of a chance. As of now, the five frontunners are Bush, Perry, Cruz, Paul and Rubio. Two Floridians and two Texans.


Why I am a Democrat

My Grandfather was an ardent LBJ Democrat, and my father has made the full metamorphosis from Baby Boomer Rebel Rouser to Obama Democrat (which is every bit as hypocritical and intellectually anathema as its predecessor). Needless to say, both of these men did and do hold much more liberal views than me on most static (i.e., non-social) issues.

My freshman year of High Schools I founded a club, along with two good political friends, to foster political discussion in a non-partisan manner. The year was 2009, President Obama was still riding high and the Tea Party was just something that little girls did in their spare time. We named the club the “Young Independents Club.” This idea of independence and non-partisanship became deeply ingrained into the fabric of the club. While both the leadership and membership of the organization, during its four year existence, were dominated by young, liberal Jews, it never felt like a Young Democratic club. During that time, I fervently defended myself as an Independent, albeit a liberal one.

This all begs the question of why I have been such a loud supporter of the Democratic Party in the last year. Moderates typically make the point of noting which political party they agree with “more than 50% of the time.” That logic is not applicable in the least to myself. You see, while I probably do agree with the Democratic Party a little more than half of the time, it does not mean I agree with the Republican Party a little less than half of the time. In fact, I probably agree with them roughly 0% of the time.

That is because we do not have a centre-left party and a centre-right party, we have a centre-right party and a far-right party. Adlai Stevenson vs. Dwight Eisenhower was an election between a centre-left and centre-right candidate. If I had been 21 on Election Day back then, I would have been put squarely in the middle of these two candidates. Similarly, a hypothetical election between Bobby Kennedy and Nelson Rockefeller.

I’m not afraid to admit I am a moderate, and I will defend that position all day long. I believe Capitalism and Free Markets are the greatest economic system in the world, and I get uncomfortable when Elizabeth Warren Or Howard Dean starts talking about a socialized economy. I believe that a dovish foreign policy is horrendously naive and just plain stupid sometimes. Needless to say, going to a liberal arts college in Massachusetts, it is not that rare of an occurrence for me to be the most conservative person in the room.

Simply put, I am a Democrat because I am not a Republican, and I feel very, very strongly about not being a Republican. It is a pet peeve of mine when someone politically apathetic admits that Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum is “crazy,” but the rest of the Republican Party (read: Mitt Romney) is okay. To borrow a colloquialism, the inmates have taken over the asylum, as individuals such as Bachmann and Santorum are now considered the mainstream of the Republican Party. The latter individual received a hero’s welcome when he visited the Texas Capitol yesterday.

For example, I strongly believe in the right of couples to get married, regardless of their sexual orientation. That is not a fringe opinion, by any means. 58% of Americans support gay marriage, as do over 3/4 of young people. All three major political parties in the United Kingdom have supported the position for many years (before the Democratic Party did, for that matter). The Texas Republican Party, however, couldn’t even pass a bill this session to remove an unenforceable, directly unconstitutional law that prohibits “gay sodomy.” The party’s 2012 platform declares that homosexuality “tears at the fabric of society.”

I strongly believe in gun control. That is not a fringe opinion, either. 86% of Americans support universal background checks, among other hefty regulations on firearms. This is a non-issue in every other nation in the Civilized World. Again, the Texas Republican Party lives in an alternate reality, wishing to allow college students to bring their loaded weapons on campus or criminalize enforcement of Federal Laws.

There are countless other issues like this, including reproductive rights, equal pay, immigration, education and others. In each and every one, there is only one political party that exists within reality, the Democratic Party. That, in essence, is why I am a Democrat.