New Factors in US Primaries
By Dr Syed Amir
US
From the current tempo and intensity of the media focus, it would be difficult to surmise that the American presidential elections are still 10 months away. The battle currently being waged is to win the nomination for the Republican Party candidate.
The winner will face President Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, in the November elections. So far, the president has no creditable challenge within his own party.
Florida was one of the early states to hold Republican primary elections. Initially, former speaker Newt Gingrich, winner in South Carolina two weeks ago, and former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, were neck-and-neck in opinion polls, but the latter achieved a decisive victory. In South Carolina, with a large number of Evangelical Christians, Romney’s Mormon faith was a significant liability; but Florida has a much more diverse population, an important segment (29 per cent) of which is drawn from Latin American countries, especially Cuba.
Romney’s superior organization and overwhelming resources proved decisive. Although there are two additional contestants in the race, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, neither is given a realistic chance of winning the nomination. Ron Paul, 76, is a maverick who sees little use of the federal government, and opposes American involvement in all foreign countries. He has a small, very loyal following that consistently supports him.
The modern US political campaigns are conducted much like a military operation, orchestrated by a coterie of professional strategists and volunteers. They tightly control and regulate all aspects of it, including candidates’ public appearances, discourage them from making impromptu, unscripted comments, measures designed to build a most flattering public image.
They also collect damaging information about opponents that can be employed against them in campaign advertisements.
While the crucial role of campaign organizations has long been recognized, a factor that is playing a powerful role in election outcomes has emerged for the first time —the availability of unlimited amount of funds to be used on behalf of the candidates through the so-called super Action Committees (PACs).
Under a Supreme Court ruling made in 2010, unions, corporations and non-profit organizations can raise and spend limitless amounts of money to support their chosen candidates. These PACs are not even required to disclose the names of their donors until the elections are over. Many people believe that super PACs have sullied the electoral process as never before by magnifying the influence of relatively few super-rich individuals, giving them disproportionate power to promote their narrow ideological agenda. Nominally, super PACs operate independently of the candidates they support, enabling the candidates to strategically dissociate themselves from their actions whenever expedient.
The influence of big money was most in evidence in the Florida election, and it may have helped to swing the state in favor of Romney. Negative campaigning is often derided as distasteful. However, the fact is that it does work in influencing public opinion. Romney supporters spent over $15m on advertisements, almost entirely concentrated on Gingrich, on TV and radio.
Gingrich proved to be an easy target. Married three times, he had to resign from the speakership of the House of Representatives, charged with and fined for ethical violations in 1997.
While the Florida campaign, in particular, was distinguished by an avalanche of mean and spiteful advertisements, political campaigns in general have become increasingly uncivil. The contest between Romney and Gingrich became so contentious that the latter did not even congratulate the winner, as is customary. The New York Times in a recent editorial, ‘The Darkening Tone of the Primaries’, chastised the winner: “Mitt Romney says his campaign is about saving the soul of America. If this is the direction he plans to take, he will first need to save the soul of his own campaign.”
Many Republicans, intensely unhappy with Obama, are coalescing around Romney, primarily because they believe he is most likely to defeat the president. In addition to New Hampshire and Florida, Romney easily won the western state of Nevada, which has a sizeable Mormon population, suggesting that public opinion, which seemed so volatile earlier, may finally be crystallizing and a momentum building in his favor. Although primary elections are scheduled in seven states in February, they are unlikely to generate a great deal of excitement. Mitt Romney, with an estimated fortune of $250m and a winning streak, is in an advantageous position.
There is now an air of inevitability that, barring unforeseen circumstances, Romney will be the Republican candidate who President Obama will face on Nov 6, 2012. The operation mounted by him against Gingrich in Florida may offer a preview of the brutal, hard-nosed strategy his organization will employ against Obama in the national elections. Romney has a record of impressive performances in pre-election debates, which have now become a ritual in all political races in this country. They test the stamina and the ability of the candidates to think fast and under pressure, and their performance is scrutinized live by millions of viewers.
The president has assembled a formidable campaign machine and has amassed huge funds. And, incumbency offers its own unique advantages. Whether he wins the elections will depend largely on the state of the US economy and rate of unemployment at the time. The economy has been a major drawback through his first term. Of late, however, he had some remarkably good news, indicating that the US economy was growing at an impressive pace, leading to a major decline in the rate of unemployment. If this trend continues through November, the Republicans will lose a very powerful argument against his re-election.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
