The Republicans too should look to the centre ground. There are some signs that social conservatism has peaked: a bid to ban abortion failed in South Dakota; a ban on gay marriage failed for the first time in Arizona; and in Ohio the Bible-bashing Ken Blackwell, who aspired to be governor, went down in flames. The main message from the mid-terms for the presidential race in 2008 is that America is weary of polarisation. The prospects of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, neither of them conventional conservatives, have improved. ~The Economist

There has been a fair amount of this buncombe in the last week.  I have been away for about half of the last week, so I have only just started catching up on the silly things some people are saying.  The Economist, unfortunately, does not disappoint with its predictably daft interpretation of American politics.  Let me take these “setbacks” seriatim. 

The abortion ban in South Dakota was so extensive that it did not even include the boilerplate exceptions of rape and incest, which are such rare reasons for abortion that they are essentially concessions without substance, and thus sent down a good measure to defeat because of needless overreaching.  As it was, the measure failed 56-44 with these exceptions taken out.  It might still have failed, but 44% for an absolute ban of abortion (in this country where people allegedly support legalised abortion by an overwhelming majority) is a pretty sizeable show of support for social conservatism, at least in South Dakota.  Hard-liners can argue that even these rare occasions do not justify killing the unborn, and I think they have some arguments on their side, but if the goal is to limit the destruction of innocent life this kind of absolutism is almost inexcusable. 

Arizona was the one state out of eight voting on such things that opposed a ban on gay marriage, and Arizona is, well, Arizona.  Meanwhile, in Virginia, a remarkable amendment was put to the vote that could plausibly be read to also deny cohabiting heterosexual couples any legal protections in addition to denying all such protections to homosexual couples–and it passed 57 to 43%.  The amendment would prohibit the Commonwealth or any of its subdivisions from recognising “another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.” (Hat tip: Dan McCarthy)  This Virginia marriage amendment is perhaps one of the most powerful social conservative victories in referendum votes in the last 10 years.

The stuff about Ken Blackwell is misleading in the extreme.  Blackwell’s social conservatism might have been a problem for him in Ohio, but that is not the main reason why he lost.  He lost because he was a Republican in Ohio who made the foolish decision of getting the endorsement of the deeply tainted state party instead of running as an independent, reform-minded conservative; he also suffered from the relatively poor economy in Ohio, which voters blamed on the GOP administration in Columbus.  Voters also resented the Taft administration’s tax hikes.  In addition, the national mood was sharply anti-GOP, as we all know.  Misrule, corruption, taxes and jobs were the key factors in the Ohio GOP’s drubbing last week; Blackwell’s social conservatism comes a distant fifth as a cause of his electoral troubles, if that.  Also, for the benefit of our friends at The Economist, the phrase is “Bible-thumping,” not “Bible-bashing.”  Bible-bashing is what Sam Harris does.  Nobody is weary of polarisation–2006 was a vote for more polarisation in government, more division and more conflict.  It was a vote against the flaccid uniformity and mindlessness of Congress and a vote for some more vigorous resistance the administration.  People may have rejected Mr. Bush and his lackeys, but they have not therefore rejected all politics of conflict and divisiveness.  Some of us very much want more conflict than we have had inside government.  We want fewer yes-men and more questions, fewer examples of deferring to executive authority and more examples of the legislative branch giving the President what for.  We will undoubtedly be grievously disappointed, but all of this drivel about how Americans want to abide in the gooey nugat centre of political squishiness could not be more wrong.

Speaking of McCain and Giuliani, here are my reckless predictions for the 2008 primaries: McCain will implode relatively early, perhaps pre-March, thanks to some episode of his famously explosive temperament mixed with a lack of primary voter support; Giuliani will go nowhere, but not for lack of money to keep trying (he might last past Super Tuesday but not get enough delegates to win the nomination); the Mormon thing will matter enough to see Romney go down to defeat in South Carolina (it seems to me to be a given that he will fare poorly in New Hampshire and Iowa), which will kill his candidacy; Duncan Hunter will do better than people expect, but still go nowhere in the end.  The less said about Bill Frist, the better.  Pataki as the nominee is next to inconceivable.  Don’t even mention Condi.  Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is a political disaster.  Tim Pawlenty was lucky just to be re-elected, and does not seem to have his eye on the big prize. 

Someone else, I don’t know who just yet, will be the nominee on the GOP side, and he will not fit the model of goopy Republican moderate now being praised as the path to victory.  For precisely this reason, Chuck Hagel also has no chance.  I hesitate to say it, because it sounds absurd even to me, but might this be the golden opportunity for a virtually nationally unknown former Arkansas governor named Huckabee?  Might 2008 on the GOP side replicate the Dems’ primaries in 1992?  But that is almost too easy.  But who else do they have?  Wayne Allard?  Excuse me while I fall on the floor in fits of laughter. 

Everyone assumes that McCain runs away with it, but what I have never been able to understand is why (except perhaps for the dreadful state of his competition).  He allegedly appeals to almost everyone, but actually appeals to almost no one.  In this he is like Barack Obama–everyone claims to like him and supposedly wants to see him succeed, but they always give the most damned odd reasons for doing so that never hold up when it comes time to pull the old lever.  No doubt pro-torture Chechen-Americans who favour campaign finance reform are solidly in McCain’s camp; otherwise, nobody has any reason to support him.  I don’t know much, but I will say with 90% certainty that McCain will not be the nominee of the GOP.