New Narratives in the Nomination Knife-fight?

                Although I don’t think that the results of the South Carolina Primary are going to change the final outcome of the Republican Primary Campaign, (more on that later this week), last night’s debate at USF clearly demonstrated that it has induced both front-runners to alter their campaign strategy in the short term.  At last night’s debate each of the two leading candidates introduced new campaign narratives.  Mitt Romney started what should be a concerted effort to frame the campaign as being about executive experience, management skills, and leadership.  Up until this point, one of Romney’s major selling points was the issue of electability.  Romney was seen as the candidate best suited to beat President Obama in a general election because he had the broadest appeal to centrists among legitimate Republican candidates (sorry Dane, but I’m not counting Huntsman as a legitimate candidate, he had 0 appeal to the right wing of the Republican Party).  This perceived electability was a big factor in Romney’s win in New Hampshire.  Of the 35% of primary voters who cited ability to defeat Barack Obama as the most important candidate quality, 63% voted for Romney, and only 12% voted for Gingrich (CNN Exit Poll).  Then, just a few days later in South Carolina, Gingrich turned things around with the 45% of voters who cited electability as the most important candidate quality, getting 51% of those votes to Romney’s 37%.  What happened?

                South Carolinians approached the question of electability differently.  They refused to accept the conventional wisdom that the candidate with the broadest appeal is the most electable candidate in a general election.  They instead thought that their best chance of defeating Obama lay in nominating the candidate who would provide the sharpest contrast with President Obama and could bring a more confrontational style to the campaign.  Whether they are right or wrong in this belief makes no difference to the outcome of the primary.  The end result is the same; Romney can no longer be assured of winning primary votes based on electability, especially in the South.  At last night’s debate, Romney repeatedly made reference to his impressive resume as a high level executive, manager, and leader.  He also made sure to bring attention to Gingrich’s lack of success in leadership or management positions.  His repeated claims that Gingrich “resigned in disgrace” as Speaker were particularly noticeable.  (Also, was anybody else reminded of Ben from Parks and Recreation repeatedly and hilariously referring to his own resignation as “resigning in shame”?)  While Newt is right to claim that saying he “resigned in shame” is a slight overstatement, it does draw attention to the fact that Newt was essentially forced out by dissatisfied members of his own caucus.  By focusing on this episode, Romney is setting Gingrich up as someone who talks a big game and has a lot of interesting ideas, but lacks the proven management and leadership skills to effectively run the country.  The Romney line from here out should, and likely will be, “we elected a big talker and a big thinker four years ago who ran on ‘hope ‘ and ‘change’,  we don’t need another one, we need somebody who knows how to lead as the chief executive of the country”.  If Romney is able to redefine the discussion as being about management and leadership, he wins the nomination, and likely the general election as well. 

                Gingrich, on the other hand, is now attempting to establish himself as Republican Aragorn.  He is returning from his self-imposed exile as the rightful heir to Reagan, and he will lead the Republican Party back to the Halcyon days of yesteryear.  He played up what is actually a pretty tenuous connection to Ronald Reagan throughout the debate and even name-dropped Barry Goldwater.  In his closing statements, Gingrich stated, “I went to a Goldwater organizing session in 1964, I met Ronald Reagan for the first time in 1974, I worked with Jack Kemp and Art Laffer to develop Supply Side Economics in the late ‘70s, I helped Governor Reagan become President Reagan, I helped pass the Reagan Economic Program, and I worked with the National Security Council on issues involving the collapse of the Soviet Empire”.  This would be a very impressive resume if it were not vastly overblown.  Gingrich was a back bench Republican Congressman while Ronald Reagan was in the White House.  Gingrich held no party office until 1989, when he was elected Minority Whip in the House, by which point Ronald Reagan had been replaced by George H.W. Bush.  Gingrich’s real legacy is the 1994 Republican Revolution and the “Contract with America”, which was a remarkable success story for the party.  Why can’t he just be happy with that?  For somebody who likes to constantly remind us how much he knows about history, he should know better than to place himself at the center of the Reagan years, when he was at most a marginal character. 

                The desire to take credit for everything good that has happened in American Conservatism since 1970 might be a symptom of a larger problem for Newt.  He is starting to come across as a little smug and arrogant.  Newt clearly thinks he is very smart, but comments about Romney trying “High School” debating tactics do not make Gingrich look more sophisticated in comparison, they make him look like a bully.  Gingrich needs to be careful in attempting to play up his role in past Conservative triumphs, he lest he enter Al Gore, “I invented the internet” territory.  He was dangerously close last night, and I suspect at least a few voters were turned off by his self-congratulatory tone. 

                It will be interesting to see if both Romney and Gingrich continue on their respective new courses and how much traction each narrative will gain in Florida, the most diverse and most important state so far this primary season.