Daily Archives: January 4, 2012

Is there anyone not frustrated by Mitt Romney’s narrow win in the Iowa caucuses? Conservatives are disappointed because they recognise that Mr Romney, who used to favour legal abortion and was for Obamacare before it was called that, is only pretending to be one of them. Seventy-five per cent of Iowa’s Republican voters wanted someone farther to the right. But because their votes were divided among a large field of weak candidates, the only moderate running in their state came out on top.

The A-List

The A-list

Our exclusive online section featuring agenda-setting commentary from leading contributors on global finance, economics and politics

Liberals are disappointed because Mr Romney has moved closer to inevitability and is the strongest potential challenger to President Barack Obama. This shows up clearly in head-to-head polls, which put Mr Romney tied with or slightly ahead of Mr Obama, while other Republican contenders trail by 10 points or more. It was hard for Obama campaign officials to suppress their glee last month when Newt Gingrich, the only even remotely plausible alternative to Mr Romney, briefly ran ahead of the pack. But even they knew this was a momentary aberration. Short of Republicans committing collective suicide by picking someone else, Democrats would like to see Mr Romney win the nomination after a protracted struggle that would deplete his financial resources, sully his image and drag him farther to the right. That now looks less likely.

Journalists are most disappointed of all because Mr Romney gliding to victory is a weak story. Were the press any other industry, cynicism about its self-interest in promoting marginal challengers would prevail. Local television stations, many of them owned by giant media companies such as Fox, count on election-year revenue bumps from political advertising in important primary states. If the nomination contest is effectively over by, say, the Michigan primary on February 28, money will remain on the table. But for reporters, rooting for the underdog, any underdog, it is really a matter of wanting a more dramatic story. The strait-laced frontrunner winning Iowa and New Hampshire before securing the nomination early on does not count as a compelling narrative. Hence the media’s pretence of taking seriously a succession of non-viable candidates with outlandish views.

Thanks to all this, there is tremendous reluctance on all sides to call the outcome before “the voters have spoken”. So expect to hear more and more about less and less likely alternatives to a Romney victory. Jon Huntsman, the only candidate yet to enjoy a moment of popular enthusiasm, could do better than expected in New Hampshire. Once Rick Perry joins Michele Bachmann in dropping out, conservative sentiment could coalesce around the unlikely survivor Rick Santorum. Given how unloved Mr Romney is, someone new could still enter the race. Anything is possible, of course. But in the end, the GOP is overwhelmingly likely to nominate Mr Romney because it is his turn and because he is the most electable candidate available.

More

On this story

On this topic

FROM The A-List

The party Mr Romney is likely to lead into battle has, however, revealed itself in a diminished state – dominated by its activist extreme and deaf to reason about the country’s fiscal choices. To survive a Republican debate you are required to hold the incoherent view that the budget should be balanced immediately, taxes cut dramatically and the major categories of spending (the military, pensions and healthcare for the elderly) left largely intact. There is no way to make these numbers add up and the candidates mostly do not try, relying on focus-group tested denunciations of Mr Obama and abstract hostility to the ways of Washington.

Above every other issue, the candidates pandered about how thoroughly they would ban abortion. Mr Paul, an obstetrician by training, blanketed the state with ads making the dubious claim that he once saw doctors dispose of a live baby in a rubbish bin. (If so, why did he not intervene?) Mr Gingrich proposed throwing out the constitution to defy judges who invalidate anti-abortion legislation. In the closing days of the campaign, Mr Perry augmented his opposition to abortion to include cases of rape or incest. Mr Santorum toured with members of the Duggar family, who are featured in the reality-TV programme “19 Kids and Counting”. Like the Duggars, Mr Santorum believes contraception is “not OK”.

The Tea Party has clearly nudged the centre of politics to the right but the notion that it stood for something new on the right has all but dissolved in favour of a familiar range of radical, not really conservative tendencies. Iowa clarifies this factionalism by presenting it in exaggerated form. There is radical libertarianism, represented by Ron Paul. There is theocratic moralism, offered in evangelical Protestant flavours by Ms Bachmann and Mr Perry and in a Catholic version by Mr Santorum. There is the idea of ideas-based politics, represented by Mr Gingrich.

When these alternatives fall by the wayside, what will remain is the attempt to actually win a national election, represented by Mr Romney.

The writer is editor of Slate.com

Iran has been relentlessly provoking America for the last 10 days. Its military recently threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, and Tehran warned on Tuesday that US aircraft carriers should not return to the Gulf. But Iran is bluffing, and war with the US or Israel is very unlikely in the foreseeable future.

The A-List

The A-list

Our exclusive online section featuring agenda-setting commentary from leading contributors on global finance, economics and politics

Tehran is indeed angry, and its rage has been steadily building in recent months. The latest and strongest trigger was a sanctions bill, signed by President Barack Obama on December 31, which will make it more difficult and less profitable for Iran to sell oil. The legislation goes after its economic lifeline: oil revenues. The move doubtlessly chafed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his inner circle, and led them to respond predictably – by rattling western markets and diplomats.

But Iran doesn’t want war. Military conflict in the Strait would block its own ability to export oil. An attempt to close the Strait would be fruitless because the US Navy could open it within weeks. War could easily spread and lead to an attack on Iran’s crown jewel – its nuclear program. Ayatollah Khamenei has his hands full at home with a plummeting currency and infighting among his elite. Tehran’s main goal is to scare the US and its allies away from implementing sanctions against Iran’s oil exports. And despite the bellicose rhetoric, there are signs that the regime seeks to return to talks – suggesting a two-track policy.

More

On this story

On this topic

FROM The A-List

For a war, Iran needs an opponent; but neither the US nor Israel are interested in an imminent fight. Israel is pleased with the new oil sanctions. An attack on Iran would have serious challenges – Israel could only inflict limited damage on the nuclear program and would face severe retribution from Tehran. Meanwhile, leading members of the US military have spoken out against attacking Iran, the American public has no appetite for another war, and conflict in the Gulf would lead to a spike in oil prices, potentially plunging the global economy into full-blown recession.

Undoubtedly, however, miscalculation by Iran or the US could lead to conflict, as the sides’ naval and other military hardware are in proximity. In the more distant future, as yet unseen progress by Iran on its nuclear programme, especially in building faster centrifuges, could cause conflict – particularly if the new equipment is used to build a bomb.

But many observers are misreading the current joust in the Gulf. Iran is bluffing and baiting, but neither the US nor Israel will bite.

This article is co-authored by Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group, and Cliff Kupchan, a director at the political risk consultancy

The A-List

About this blog Blog guide
Welcome. This blog is available to subscribers only.

The A-List from the Financial Times provides timely, insightful comment on the topics that matter, from globally renowned leaders, policymakers and commentators.

Read the A-List author biographies

Subscribe to the RSS feed



To comment, please register for free with FT.com and read our policy on submitting comments.

All posts are published in UK time.

See the full list of FT blogs.

What we’re writing about

Afghanistan Asia maritime tensions carbon central banks China climate change Crimea emerging markets energy EU European Central Bank George Osborne global economy inflation Japan Pakistan quantitative easing Russia Rwanda security surveillance Syria technology terrorism UK Budget UK economy Ukraine unemployment US US Federal Reserve US jobs Vladimir Putin

Categories

Africa America Asia Britain Business China Davos Europe Finance Foreign Policy Global Economy Latin America Markets Middle East Syria World

Archive

« Dec Feb »January 2012
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031