Yet another epic firestorm engulfs the GOP primary as we head into the South Carolina primaries (for just a small sample see here, here, and here. This time, it is the attacks by Newt Gingrich,followed by Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Santorum on Mitt Romney’s days with Bain Capital. The backlash on the right against those candidates for attacking Romney has been cast as an “attack from the left” which has left a bad taste in the mouths of some, and raised questions about the conservatism of the “not-Romney” candidates for many others. I will submit here that the argument over whether attacks on Bain Capital are proper for GOP candidates are a red herring. The real issue here, as I see it, is not about “capitalism” and the ethics of Bain Capital, it is about Romney’s claim to be a job creator. Instead of the hysteria from some on our side that challenging Mitt’s business record is tantamount to abandoning the core principles of the GOP and conservatism, the real discussion ought to be about Mitt’s qualifications.

What we do know about Bain, is that sometimes their business model led them to divest holdings in the U.S. and move jobs overseas. This is often, sadly, a result of a poor business climate in parts of the U.S. That is what Romney needs to defend, Not the morality of moving (or eliminating) the jobs, but the idea that he is some sort of world-beating job creator because of his time in the venture capital and private equity business.

It is evident that Bain was not in the business of creating jobs. They were in the business of making money, and if that meant shipping jobs overseas or closing locations they acquired, then that is what they did. If it meant jobs were added to some companies, then that was fine also. Whatever made them money. There is nothing inherently wrong with that; no one goes into business to not make money.

What might be wrong, however, is for Mitt to claim some sort of mantle as a job creator, when he never really cared about jobs for Americans. Jobs or no jobs were merely a side effect of Bain’s mission. Romney is asking us to trust that he is qualified to take on the economic problems of the U.S. because he has this background at Bain Capital. That is the man’s main selling point to the American people.

Let’s give Mitt his due. He probably does know how jobs are created in the private sector; We can give him that, and not even grudgingly. What we can’t give him, yet, though, is a record of making that happen. He was all too willing to turn away from creating or preserving jobs when Bain’s interests dictated it. Fine, that was the business he was in. Yet, the question then becomes “what will he do when some political expediency requires the same sort of decision?”

Mitt has been squishy if not a downright leftist on the man-made global warming. Though he now pretends to some skepticism on the issue, this subject has been one of primary reasons why the majority of Republicans and conservatives have not been excited about his candidacy and question his authenticity. That places his Bain Capital background in a broader perspective. If Romney’s days at Bain are any sort of guide to his skills and business character (as he insists it ought to be), then we might be question how that approach might affect his decisions as President.

We know that Bain killed American jobs when it meant profit for the shareholders and investors. When political profit is at stake, will Mitt do what is right for America, or will he serve his own best interests? To someone whose driving interest (at least insofar as his touted qualifications for the office demonstrate) is self-interest, where does he go with on the global warming issue? Can we expect a carbon credit or a cap-and-trade system under a Romney Presidency? What about any number of other issues? Whether Bain Capital is good, or evil, necessary or sleazy, is beside the point. They do what they do (though some specific deals may be questionable), and it’s all apparently legal. It is also irrelevant. What is relevant is what his Bain days say about Mitt Romney’s character, and for that reason alone the discussion is both necessary and appropriate.

In yesterday’s front page blog, Leon Wolf seems to have started a mini-firestorm with his completely rational and well-argued point that if it comes down to Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee, then conservatives can take some comfort in that. His argument correctly observes that Romney is preferable to Barack Obama, but Leon also points out that if we take Romney simply at his word (a dangerous proposition, as I think he would agree), it shows that conservatism has pushed the GOP rightward. The basic contention is that the power of conservatism to shape the argument is evident because Romney knows that he has to pander to conservatives to win the nomination. Leon further argues that Romney, as the GOP establishment candidate, represents a more right-leaning vision for American than past post-Reagan establishment candidates.

At the time of this writing there have 430 comments generated by Leon’s post and a quick browse through them will show that he touched a very raw nerve for some and sparked a heated debate that at points went a bit over-the-top. So why the fuss? After all, he has said nothing particularly controversial. Most of us here a Red State, regardless of our preferred candidate, can (if a bit grudgingly) acknowledge that Mitt Romney would be a significant upgrade over President Obama. An honest read will show that Leon was most certainly not endorsing Romney. He was simply pointing out to those irresponsible posters who have indicated they would prefer not to vote if Romney is the choice, that their abstention is actually a vote for Obama. To not vote for Romney out of the foolish belief that there is no functional difference between the two is to fail to recognize what is actually happening here. For that, I applaud Leon, and his attempt to restore a bit of reason to the discussion. Look, I can’t stand Mitt Romney as a politician. I think he is too slick by half, and will say anything to get votes. His career is very much evidence of that. However, the natural antipathy I and so many other conservatives feel for Romney should not obscure the truth that equating Romney with Obama, the most radical leftist to ever occupy the White House, is a bit unhinged.

There is something more at work here, though, and this is where I would like to gently part ways with Leon, and perhaps shed a small amount of light on why his blog entry caused so much controversy. I take issue with Leon’s second contention that we should congratulate ourselves for moving the discussion rightward to the point that Romney has to speak conservative to have a shot at the nomination.As some pointed out in the comments to the article, the evidence of conservative success might appear in the rhetoric of GOP politicians, but it has yet to truly appear in the workings of our federal government. There has been little change in the years since Reagan in terms of a continual growth of regulations, laws, bureaucracy, and spending and the corresponding erosion of liberty. Talk is cheap, and it can sound as conservative as it likes, but the proof is in the pudding. The pudding that has been cooked up in D.C. for the past twenty-plus years has been getting more bloated, and more out-of-control. This more than anything, I think, explains why Leon’s sensible call for moderation in the anti-Romney rhetoric received such a mixed reception.

What those most frustrated with the possibility of Romney winning the nomination understand is that he represents no significant change, gradual or otherwise, to the general trajectory that the federal government has been on since Herbert Hoover’s disastrous attempts to deal with the Great Depression. Sure, the waves recede occasionally, but each time they roll back in they reach just a little bit higher up the beach. What is at stake in 2012, at the risk of sounding like an alarmist, is the long-term stability of our nation. The philosophical choice has never been more clear: we either reject the uncontrolled growth of the state and insist on meaningful, measurable change, or we affirm the unsustainable course of the policies of the past 80 years. It has never been more stark than it is today. No longer can we push the argument off to the side and act as if it doesn’t exist. This is what most conservatives instinctively understand. To elect a Mitt Romney, though he is no radical leftist on the order of Obama, is to vote for someone who has never shown an inclination to do much more than sustain the status quo. No, he won’t spend like Obama, and he might even accomplish some minor reform. Perhaps, in the best case, he might even halt for a time the expansion of the federal government. But neither will he countenance the type of systematic tearing down of the federal leviathan that the times require.

To elect Mitt Romney is to affirm the GOP way of doing things, which has all too often been the “go along to get along to get re-elected” path. They (Romney and his ilk) say many of the right things in order to get votes, but they do little once elected to effect systemic reform. What good they accomplish does little to arrest the headlong flight of the government into tyranny and financial ruin. That is why I believe any sort of “moderation” when it comes to Mitt Romney strikes so many the wrong way and feels like a “cave-in” to the Washington way.

I will vote for Mitt Romney if it comes to that. In spite of what I’ve written above, I will choose the path of slower decline that will buy us time to perhaps get it right before the whole country implodes. But I would much prefer we get it right now, and we ought to do whatever we can do to stop Mitt Romney. The stakes are too high, but if it is Mitt Romney, let us be practical and recognize that his election would give us at least four more years to try to really push the country rightward. With Obama at the helm, four more years might do more damage than can be undone, whoever we nominate in the future.

Let’s talk about history. First, a little of my history. I have a Ph.D in it, and teach at a large public university in the State of Texas. I also research and occasionally publish. My field is not American political history, but it is a passion for me. I didn’t choose that field because it is nigh on impossible to get a job these days with that sort of focus. Oh for the 1950s in the academy! Still, I believe I am qualified to at least offer a few observations on history and how it may or may not matter to this year’s Republican primary.

I will also be up front here about my candidate leanings. I am 100% behind Texas governor Rick Perry. If pressed to choose a second candidate, it would be former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, and bringing up the rear in the short list is former history professor and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. I have little time or use for Ron Paul (though I confess to having been a dues paying member of the Libertarian party for the better part of a decade), Rick Santorum, or Mitt Romney. With that disclosure out of the way (not that I think it matters to the larger point, but . . .) I’ll get to the heart of this (overly) lengthy missive.

It is fashionable to quote or paraphrase the Spanish philosopher George Santayana’s statement that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” While I will not claim to possess even a tenth of Santayana’s intellect, this sentiment is problematic on a number of levels. It is not my intention here to digress into a lengthy discussion of the philosophy of history, but rather to take Santayana’s dictum, apply it to our current GOP primary, see how well it holds up, and suggest why it may not matter after all.

First, I defy any GOP voter to tell me that the party doesn’t remember the past. The annals of Republican party history are filled with electoral disaster at the Presidential level after 1928. I point to Hoover’s second term bid, Alf Landon, Wendell Wilkie, Thomas Dewey (twice), Richard Nixon (1960), Barry Goldwater, George H.W. Bush’s second term bid, Bob Dole, and John McCain. Which  of these things is not the like the other (to paraphrase Sesame Street)?  That’s right, Goldwater and Nixon. With the exception of Nixon in 1960, all the others were wipeout losses. With the exception of Goldwater, all the losing candidates were not conservatives, (at least not on enough issues to count).  The GOP remembers its history well, but more often than not, chooses to repeat the mistake. While we often hear that the GOP is afraid to nominate another Goldwater (no memory problems there!) for fear of a landslide loss, they have seldom fared any better at the end of the voting day with their reasonable, moderate candidates. Ronald Reagan, a conservative in the mold of Goldwater won two landslide victories. That makes the truly conservative nominee for the GOP 2-1, while their moderates have compiled a far more modest 6-9 record (I count Nixon’s 2 victories in 68 and 72, Bush 41 in 84, and G.W. Bush in 00 and 04). If I were a betting man, I would take 2-1 odds over 6-9 odds any day of the week for the same payoff.

What does this tell us? Simply that history might matter a little bit, and taken on face value, why would the GOP ever nominate a moderate presidential candidate? After all, history seems to imply that conservatism is a winner more often than not. Yet the thoughtful observer will (rightly) point out that every single election mentioned above had special dynamics that made each different from the other. The variable at play are countless and include, but are not limited to, foreign events, domestic economics, gaffes, incumbent strength, campaign finances, and personal appearance. When all factors are taken into account, no past election can be a true model for future elections. There are simply too many differences from cycle to cycle. This would in part explain why the GOP can remember its past and yet persist in nominating the middle-of-the-road moderate. After all, just because it didn’t work out in 2008 doesn’t mean a a similar approach can’t work in 2012.  History can be an interesting guide to the past, and can certainly serve to highlight some general themes or trends, but cannot be reliably used as a predictive model for the future. Why? Because no two events are ever exactly the same. At best they can claim similarity, but beyond a surface resemblance, in-depth exploration of any event will reveal a myriad of differences.

So, what does this mean for the 2012 GOP primary? It means that we can throw out, if not with complete confidence, then at least without much fear, past primaries as a model. (Sorry political science guys, but this is where our disciplines part ways). Conventional wisdom, meaning thought that places faith in the past as a predictor of the future, tells us that Iowa and NH mean a great deal in selecting a presidential nominee. This has often been true, but is it true simply on the basis of history (this is what has always happened therefore . . .), or true because circumstances surrounding each primary contest have led to future events that ended up making these primaries important? It is plausible that a candidate can lose both NH and Iowa and yet win a major party nomination? Based on a superficial application of history, probably not. Based on an understanding that each event is unique in its time and circumstances, then absolutely. The states with the four largest delegate counts come later in the process (NY, FLA, CA, TX) when most primary contests are all but over. Logically this is absurd. It’s only because history (that is, what passes for history in this case) makes it so. To use an illustrative example, what is the usual problem for candidates that don’t do well in the Iowa and NH primaries? It’s money. The general reality is that if a candidate fails to show significant momentum coming out of the early states, the funding begins to dry up, and meaningful, effective campaigning is impossible. This leads to knock-on effects: when the money goes away, so does the needed media exposure to sustain a viable campaign, and so on.  Thus, Iowa and NH play a disproportionally large role in the nominating process.

But what if a candidate is not immediately shackled by funding problems? What if there are number of candidates continuing to pursue the same block of voters? These are but two of the many variables that are unknown at the start of a primary season yet make each one different from the others. This is where history becomes less of a reliable guide and more of a starting point from which to develop meaningful analysis. In this 2012 primary, history doesn’t matter, at least not in the predictive sense, because of variables.

Let me explain. This primary season has been odd in the polling dynamics, and the rise and fall of various candidates. I do not recall, in my lifetime, at least (the first election I voted in was 1988), anything close to this many drastic ups and downs spread out among so many candidates. That alone is different. Many things might be read or inferred from this, but it is still different. Secondly, we have one candidate in Mitt Romney, with a stable core of support that has not changed much in 6+ years. He has failed, in two election cycles now, to convince a majority of primary voters that he is the one to choose. This is not a knock on Romney, simply a statement of fact. 25-30% seems to be Mitt’s primary ceiling while there are more than two competitors in the running. This leaves 70-75% of GOP primary voters split among several candidates, with no one of them emerging as a solid (at least for long) alternative to Romney. The media calls these various people “Anti-Romneys.” Crude, and simplistic, but okay.

The conventional wisdom would then run like the following. Four of these “anti-Romneys” were damaged in Iowa to the point that one (Bachmann) dropped out. Two of the remaining three (Perry, and Gingrich) are not expected to do well in NH, with only Huntsman poised for a credible showing. History, or conventional wisdom would suggest to us Perry and Gingrich should be done. Poor showings in both Iowa and NH historically have done that. We are then left with Paul, Santorum, and Romney. History would further tell us that Santorum, having won (essentially) Iowa by courting the social conservative/evangelical vote that Iowa is famous for, will not play well at all in NH, and thus lose the all-important momentum, which for him is critical given his lack of funding. This will then leave Mitt Romney in the driver’s seat. note: I discount Paul’s insurgent campaign  for now, believing it will not be sustainable for long and has probably peaked, and his voters are probably not likely to add much to other candidates if he drops out.

If Santayana’s view, and all of the permutations it takes, is correct, Mitt Romney will be our default nominee. But we must now take into account the variables. Romney is not an exciting candidate for the majority of GOP voters. However, we have remaining four candidates (Perry, Santorum, Huntsman, Gingrich) with the potential to excite the majority, particularly if the support of all four eventually coalesces behind a single one of them. If it is true that Romney generates 25% support, then 75% are willing to look elsewhere as long as there is an elsewhere to look. Which brings us to another variable that makes this primary season different. Perry still has funding. He amassed a sizable war chest that has not been exhausted by Iowa, and given his commitment to remaining in the race for the long haul, has apparently been assured of funds to continue on for a time. Gingrich has shown that massive campaign funds are not always critical to a good showing. Newt, as a personality, generates enough interest on his own to receive important media exposure, debates well, and manages to secure just enough funding to hang around. It seems apparent that his methods and advantages will keep him going for a while yet. Santorum should enjoy a boost coming out of Iowa, even with a poor NH showing. His problem, however, is that nowhere else in this primary season will he be able to do what he did in Iowa. That is, he will not have several weeks in each state to visit all the counties and shake all the hands and do the retail politicking that made Iowa a winner for him. Money will not completely make up for this constraint on his campaign success, because money cannot buy time. Huntsman threw all his eggs into a NH basket, and only time (a short time) will tell us whether that will make or break him. If he does well, it might make him.

The end of this speculative essay is simply this: history is no real guide here. It ‘s possible that the GOP primary will go as others have gone, with Mitt Romney winning the battle of attrition and becoming the nominee. However, Santorum may have more surprises up his sleeve; how many pundits and analysts even two weeks ago had him winning or even competing well in Iowa? Perry has money, and goes to Perry country (the South) where his style, accent, and record will play well and where a resurgence is entirely possible. Gingrich has the methods and savvy to sustain a weakly-funded operation over a long period and could really damage Romney in the masterfully cutting way that only Newt can. Huntsman may well pummel Romney in NH, and finally position himself to credibly go after other states with more than a wing and a prayer.

As a historian, I am not much good at prognosticating, and especially not in an area that is as complex and variable as politics, but I will venture a scenario that should give hope to Perry supporters, or indeed, all who subscribe to the “anyone but Romney” philosophy. One, perhaps two, of the four remaining “anti-Romneys” will be left standing after Super Tuesday. I can’t and won’t predict who. Drop Paul’s 10% hardcore followers, and you have 90% of the electorate up for grabs. Drop Romney’s 25% and you will have one taking the 65% remainder or two men fighting for it. Romney will no doubt pick up some supporters from those that continue to drop out, but he still has a real fight ahead to become the nominee, and is infinitely beatable when the remaining candidate or candidates take their 60% (or 30% if there are two) support to the winner-take-all states. I hope Perry is the last man standing, but I could live with Huntsman , or Newt being that man.

At the end of the day, history is not our guide, nor are we doomed to repeat anything, memory or not. We have the facts at hand, and the variables that make this year different from any past or future election year, and anything can happen. Just because it hasn’t before doesn’t mean it ever will, or isn’t possible.

This primary season has been, from my point of view, about two stories. It has been interesting, to be sure, to watch the rise and fall and rise of the various candidates and to watch much of the media either attempt to manipulate the process or catch on to the latest trend. In fact, one of the side stories of this primary season that I find most fascinating is the dearth of creative and original thinking among political journalists. To some degree I have come to expect this from the leftist-dominating side; as Limbaugh pointed out fairly recently on his show, to read the New York Times is to read the Washington Post is to read the Boston Globe and so on. Among the right leaning media, this trend has showed itself as well. Look at the pile-on that has happened, in turn, to Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich. Many of the so-called stories are just retread lines that seem to proceed from some sort of “master narrative.” I am not suggesting a grand conspiracy here, but am merely noting it. But I digress.

The first story is the more important one, and that is finding the candidate to beat President Obama in 2012. That is, after all, the point of the primary process, and an object that seems to engender little disagreement among those on the right. The second story, however, is the battle between conservatism and party. We have on one side the conservative movement, and on the other, the Republican Party. It is important to understand that the two are not the same, and have quite often been uneasy partners in the decades since the administration of Calvin Coolidge. On rare and happy occasions at the national level, such as the 1980 Presidential election, and more commonly in House, Senate, not to mention state and local elections, the GOP and conservatism become indistinguishable from one another. Yet the synchronicity is illusory. While the GOP remains the only real home for conservatives in our two party system (for the time being), the GOP is not about conservatism. It is about party, which leads me to the point of this essay and why I believe this distinction is crucial to understand for 2012 and beyond.

There can be no doubt that Republicans and conservatives alike are horrified at the Presidency of Barack Obama. Anyone who professes even the least bit of fidelity to individual liberty and economic well-being has to admit that the current administration is a disaster. The thought of another four years of this wrecking ball tearing down the fabric of the United States and attempting to remake it in the best image of Progressivism and Fabian Socialism ought to frighten anyone who loves this country and what is has stood for over the last 235 years. On that Republicans and conservatives agree, and that is precisely why it will not do to elevate party over ideology. Not this time. We are past the point where merely having “our” party in charge is enough. It is not the point here  to do here what others have done far more eloquently and exhaustively and detail the many ways in which the GOP has, and continues to, let conservatives down. It is the point, however, to suggest that the stakes are now too high to do “business as usual.”

We have a choice this primary season as conservatives, and as Republicans, and it is increasingly clear that it will be between a Republican and a conservative. By which I mean that we can choose party or ideology, regardless of the letter after the candidate’s name. We have our Republican in this race, a well-funded party man in the shape of Mitt Romney. Given Mitt’s connections, organization, and money, it is evident he will be fighting hard for the nomination until the end. To the extent that conservatives can agree with Mitt on many issues, he might have been an acceptable choice. In another election year.  Most of us agree that he would certainly have been a better nominee than John McCain in 2008, and we can all agree, I hope, that he would have been far better than Barack Obama as president. I would even stipulate that had Mitt become President in 2008, we would not be in the shape nationally, than we are now. The time for the party approach, however, is over. Too much has happened in the past 3 years for a party solution to work. What is the party solution? It is the Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell way. It is compromising, fearful, and too little for the demands of the day. It favors party health and fortune over what is best for the country. It values election day wins over bold and meaningful change. It seeks control of congressional committees, even if those committees will not accomplish much. The party solution certainly aims at goals that conservatives can agree with, but the approach is half-hearted, timid in the face of media fire, and ends up nibbling around the edges and failing to address the critical problems facing America. And far too often for comfort, it promotes what conservatives cannot agree with: the expansion of the role of the federal government beyond its constitutional boundaries and fiscal malfeasance. This is to be expected, of course, when the overriding concern is party. After all, they believe, bold, uncompromising conservatism cannot win so why play a losing hand? Even if in their hearts they would like to take a forceful stand for conservatism, the better approach, the one that wins elections, the one that serves the party is the path to follow. At the end of the day, party, they believe, provides the best means to create the American we all want. Unfortunately, what we have seen is that party largely fails at this task because it is loyal to itself, and not to its country.

Yet we as conservatives have the opportunity to elect a conservative candidate. While we can certainly elect the Republican Mitt Romney, and feel somewhat assured that he at least won’t drive us further into the Fabian wilderness, we cannot reasonably expect him to challenge the fundamental premises of Washington, D.C. and party. He is a Republican, first and foremost. What our times call for is an individual more committed to principles than party when those principles come into conflict with party. We need conservative leadership, a candidate that will stand up to the RNC and the House and Senate party men and pull them rightward. We need a leader to boldly promote conservative ideas and insist that his party follow him. We need a leader who cares more for his country and his principles than party loyalty, re-election, or the tender feelings of the national media. Mitt Romney, for all of his good qualities as a person, and a politician, is not that man. There is however, a candidate, who has done those things in his home state, and has given every indication that nothing will change should he get to Washington. That man is Rick Perry. He is not perfect, not by a longshot. Who is? Yet Perry’s conservative instincts are strong and uncompromising. While we might hope that Mitt Romney will lead well in that regard, I know Perry will. He’s done it for a decade as my governor. If you doubt his willingness to buck party, then simply investigate why the Bushes, Rove, Kay Bailey, and the rest of the Texas Republican elites don’t like him. Also take a look at those conservative (not merely Republican) Texas House and Senate members who almost unwaveringly support him.

I believe Perry best represents what conservatives want, and what America needs in this election cycle. There are, of course, other candidates, and there are reasons you might not like Rick Perry. We can respectfully disagree on our choice of candidate, but by all means, choose conservatism over party in 2012. If that is Jon Huntsman, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, or even Newt, then vote for that person. Just keep in mind what you are voting, and what we need: principle over party where they conflict, and leadership that will take a stand when they do.