Republicans are the Party of Ideas, but They All Have the Same Ideas

The dust has cleared from the first Republican debate, and the candidates' polling positions have settled out. Vox echoed many of my thoughts from last Monday, after the insurgent candidates' bumps turned out to be real. We'll see how long the outsider vote remains strong, but in the meantime, let's talk about whether it matters.

From Many, One Opinion

The story so far this season has centered on the triumph of Outsider candidates over the Establishment, but the distinction between Outsider and Establishment seems to be a matter of branding rather than substance. We've all laughed at Donald Trump's shallow incoherence, but his positions aren't very different from those of his rivals. Paul Krugran wrote an excellent column in the New York Times about this recently:

For while it’s true that Mr. Trump is, fundamentally, an absurd figure, so are his rivals. If you pay attention to what any one of them is actually saying, as opposed to how he says it, you discover incoherence and extremism every bit as bad as anything Mr. Trump has to offer. And that’s not an accident: Talking nonsense is what you have to do to get anywhere in today’s Republican Party.

It's very early in this primary race, but we've already seen the candidates stake out their ideological territory. Each candidate has a position or two on which he differs from Republican orthodoxy, but the rest of their platforms are the strict party-line. Again, from Krugman:

Mr. Trump, famously, is a “birther” — someone who has questioned whether President Obama was born in the United States. But is that any worse than Scott Walker’s declaration that he isn’t sure whether the president is a Christian?

Mr. Trump’s declared intention to deport all illegal immigrants is definitely extreme, and would require deep violations of civil liberties. But are there any defenders of civil liberties in the modern G.O.P.? Notice how eagerly Rand Paul, self-described libertarian, has joined in the witch hunt against Planned Parenthood.

And while Mr. Trump is definitely appealing to know-nothingism, Marco Rubio, climate change denier, has made “I’m not a scientist” his signature line. (Memo to Mr. Rubio: Presidents don’t have to be experts on everything, but they do need to listen to experts, and decide which ones to believe.)

It's hard to see where this race is going, as long as the 16 candidates struggle to differentiate themselves. I once had high hopes for Rand Paul, for instance, but he's abandoned his different-thinking mindset and become a Libertarian In Name Only. He's done this in a crass attempt to court votes from Republicans who oppose abortion rights, same-sex marriage, and who support huge defense spending. "Libertarian who supports government regulation of women's health choices and bedroom activities" may be the definition of cognitive dissonance. 

Priorities and Facts

In another great New York Times column, Timothy Egan summarizes the lowlights of policy positions released by the candidates so far:

Other Republicans think we should be living in a theocracy. “It’s time we recognize the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being,” said Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, testing the latest version of his church-lady demagogy. He wants to ignore the high court on both gay marriage and abortion — breaking the law while waving his Bible.

Huckabee would also use the force of government to intervene with any woman seeking an abortion, claiming a constitutional right, the 14th and 5th Amendments, to protect a zygote. When he mentioned this Brave New World idea in the debate, no one challenged him. Instead, other candidates were equally extreme, refusing to make abortion exceptions even when the life of a woman is at stake. This is junk women’s health care, driven by religious fanaticism.

More empty calories: Scott Walker, the governor whose foreign policy experience is limited to breakfast at the old International House of Pancakes, threatens to start at least two wars upon taking office. He promises to use military action if necessary to coax Iran into doing what he wants it to do. He also wants to pick a fight with Russia, sending weapons to Ukraine and erecting a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Many of these pronouncements earn huge cheers during debates and stump speeches, but they're all based on either magical thinking, deception, or both. Any candidate who calls for an amendment to the Constitution is just spouting unactionable talking points, while most of the illegal immigration blustering is happening on false pretenses.

This summary of common arguments about illegal immigration and border protection is worth reading in full. The context here is that Donald Trump released a position paper on this subject this week, though these arguments have been made by most of the Republican candidates recently. My favorite bit is about the number of illegal immigrants in the US declining in recent years, but please do read the whole thing.

The old formula was for a center-right candidate to throw red meat to the fringe, and ride their support to the nomination. Recently, this approach has pulled the nominee too far, to a point that was ultimately unrecoverable. When misconceptions and magic are the starting point in an ideology, can anything rational result?