Since New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s sweeping victory last week — and before it — many pundits consider Christie the likely GOP nominee for president in 2016. As the nation becomes more and more disenchanted with the dysfunction in the Republican Party, a moderate like Christie seems like a sensible candidate. But even if Christie appeals to Americans across party lines, before he can win the Presidency he has to win over extremists in Republican primaries, which could very well be his downfall.
Until fairly recently, Christie has been persona non grata in the Republican Party, especially after his support of President Obama’s response to Hurricane Sandy. There is therefore every reason to believe that Tea Party Republicans and other extremists will oppose his nomination. We know these far right wing groups have the political skill to drive out moderate Republicans, based on their successes in congressional elections; in the 2010 midterm elections, 17 Tea Party candidates were elected to the House, and that number doesn’t include other current Congressmen who now identify with the Tea Party. But Tea Party wins in congressional primaries have also led to Democratic wins in general elections—Christine O’Donnell of Delaware and Richard Mourdock of Indiana received national attention for ousting moderate candidates in 2010 senate primaries, only to be defeated by the Democratic candidate.
We’ve seen a similar situation on the national scale: in 2012, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had too moderate a record to appease his base during primary season. He faced significant opposition from more conservative candidates like Rick Santorum, and as a result Romney himself moved further to the right. Then, after moving right enough to become the GOP nominee, Romney struggled to reconcile his platform with his record as governor of Massachusetts, since there were severe inconsistencies. As governor, Romney was pro-choice, but as a candidate in 2012 he was pro-life; as governor he instituted Massachusetts’ healthcare plan, as a candidate he opposed Obamacare. Though these inconsistencies and Romney’s more conservative platform might not be the reason Romney lost, they are certainly relevant. According to exit polls, 56 percent of voters who self-identified as moderate voted for Obama.
Since the Republican loss in the 2012 presidential election, extremist Republicans haven’t exactly become subdued. Christie would face the same criticism as Romney did for his lack of conservative credentials — among other, somewhat more moderate platforms, Christie now supports a New Jersey version of the DREAM Act, an act which is widely disliked by conservatives. It’s possible that Christie will be able to appease Tea Partiers and ultraconservatives, but if he does so he risks losing the same moderate votes Romney lost in the general election.
This paradox suggests a greater problem in our political system. The current primary system gives party extremists a considerable amount of sway—in the 2010 midterm elections, about half of the voters in Republican primaries supported the Tea Party—and this can misrepresent the interests of the majority of Americans. Earlier primaries also often have considerable influence over the later primaries, not only because of media coverage but also because the emergence of a front-runner early on can discourage turnout in subsequent primaries. The fact that the Iowa caucus occurs early in the primary season creates especial difficulty for more moderate candidates. Caucuses require a serious time commitment from voters, so voter turnout from extremists in a party is greater. An early win for an extremist candidate therefore further disadvantages moderate candidates.
If Christie can manage a victory in Iowa and then in subsequent primaries, it’s unlikely that we will take time to reevaluate this system, though in all likelihood Christie’s platform will have to be noticeably more conservative for this to happen. And it would be unrealistic to suggest that we eliminate the primary system altogether; simply in terms of organization, primaries are necessary to eliminate undesirable candidates and give voters clear choices between two distinct tickets. But reforms can be made to prevent the polarizing effect of primaries on Republican and Democratic candidates.
One such reform is the use of an open primary system. In an open primary anyone, regardless of party affiliation, can participate. There are obvious downsides to this, one being the attempt to sabotage another party by voting for a less electable candidate and therefore undermining the leading candidate. But in the presidential open primaries that already exist — 22 states have open Democratic primaries and 17 have Republican ones, including Virginia — there is little evidence of sabotage. Having a diverse set of voters participate means primaries are more likely to result in the nomination of a candidate who is more reflective of the views of the general population, and not just that candidate’s party.
The American populace is noticeably frustrated with the lack of bipartisanship among our elected officials; we are in need of a more moderate and balanced set of options, instead of the polarizing ones we have recently had. If we don’t have plans to modify our political system — and at this moment, it seems like we don’t — then moderate voters need to mobilize and increase their voter turnout during primary season, and conservative extremists need to look towards the viability of their candidates and their ability to work across party lines, not just how staunchly conservative they are.
Dani Bernstein is an Opinion Columnist for The Cavalier Daily. Her columns run on Tuesdays.
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
