An Early Overview of the Republican Presidential Field for 2012

This is part 2 of a three part series on the Republican contest for President.. See http://infinitefunction.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/a-look-back-at-past-republican-primary-contests/

Part 1: The Money Game

The early stages of a presidential race is about one thing. Money. The media in the past has aptly named this period the “money primary.” In 1992 Bill Clinton cleaned up during the “money primary” as did George W Bush for the Republicans in 2000. Of course the top fundraising candidates don’t always win. Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani had far better early fundraising operations than John McCain. But John McCain at least placed in the “money primary” in sharp contrast to Mike Huckabee who didn’t.

In the end if you look at the top fundraisers going into the nominating season you’ll more often than not find your nominee. Look at the top three and you’d be hard pressed to argue the nominee won’t be one of them. That is not to say an exception such as say Jimmy Carter in 1976 can’t occasionally break through. But fortune favors the rich.

The question this year is how much the fundraising game has changed. First you have the increasing prominence of internet fund raising that helped drive the Obama campaign four years ago and the Howard Dean campaign eight years ago. On the Republican side four years ago Ron Paul was adept at raising funds this way.

Second you have the Citizens United decision by the United States Supreme Court. The conventional wisdom is that the big boys who splashed a lot of water in the 2010 election such as Crossroads GPS, Americans for Prosperity, and the Tea Party Express will keep their powder dry and just be content with having all the candidates grovel before them in the primary. If this isn’t the case then all bets are off.

A theoretical battle between say a Tea Party Express backed Michele Bachmann, a Crossroads GPS backed Mitt Romney, a Chamber of Commerce backed Mitch Daniels, and a Focus on the Family backed Mike Huckabee would make personal candidate fundraising of far less importance as corporations, millionaires, and billionaires take the drivers seat. However such a scenario is highly unlikely as most of those groups do coordinate at some level and have their eyes on the ultimate prize especially with all the candidates when all is said and done mouthing the same language and taking similar positions. That is not to say the people behind these groups will sit out. But that it just makes more sense for them to make conventional donations for mere tens of thousands rather than pouring multiple millions into what is just the opening act of the ultimate contest.

Third you have the increased ability to fundraise perhaps undermining the restraint built into the current public financing system of matching funds. In order to receive generous matching funds from the government candidates agree to certain spending limits. Candidates then often spend heavily in the early states such as New Hampshire and Iowa and are broke and often facing spending limits as they enter the later states. This provides a boost to the frontrunner and an incentive to the major candidates who are not just in it for the attention (such as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich) to get out early. In 2008 Democrats Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton bypassed matching funds allowing Hillary Clinton to be competitive across the primary calendar long after the outcome was certain. That was not the case on the Republican side. Sure the winner take all system gave McCain a large delegate lead. But the other candidates really did not have the resources to compete even if they wanted to.

That said money versus momentum can sometimes be a chicken and egg argument. For example did Barack Obama raise money in 2008 because he excited the electorate or was he able to excite the electorate because he effectively spent the tremendous amount of money he raised? The goal of any candidate is of course to jump start this process. Howard Dean in 2004 generated some excitement with his opposition to the Gulf War and managed to raise the funds to become a contender before his campaign collapsed. More dramatically Jimmy Carter was unknown and underfunded in 1976 before winning the Iowa primary.

Past Republican nominations do present a cautionary note to the Herman Cains and Michele Bachmanns who hope to come out of nowhere and raise the necessary funds with a win in Iowa. Mike Huckabee in 2008 won Iowa and won considerable notice and momentum. Ultimately his inability to raise funds kneecapped him. Pat Robertson’s second place showing in Iowa gave him momentum that he couldn’t translate in part because he didn’t have the resources of the other candidates. Failure to compete in the pre-election “money primary” and the corresponding building of organizational strength can handicap you even if you do pull of a victory in one of the early states.

Traditionally the way Republicans (and even Democrats) “jump start” this process is in courting wealthy fundraisers who not only donate money to the campaign but can raise large amounts of money from wealthy friends and associated. You may be familiar with the term “Bush Pioneer.” Those were fundraisers who were able to solicit $100,000 in donations to the Bush Campaign with different titles for those gathering even more “bundled” campaign dollars.

These large fundraisers such as Bob Perry are currently falling heavily into three camps. Mitt Romney who did better at courting this group than any other candidate in 2008. But more surprisingly Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman. Which is why while in the end all three of them may end up losing, perhaps even outfundraised, these three will at this early stage be assumed to be three of the four top contenders.

Part 2: Candidate Roundup.

The Frontrunner

Mitt Romney – Mitt Romney is without a doubt a weak frontrunner. His position built on name recognition and a perception of electability rather than any sense of inevitability that Ronald Reagan had in 1980 or Richard Nixon had in 1968. But his fundraising remains strong and he has learned important lessons from running four years ago on how to conserve that money and make it last.

His main problem at least on the surface is currently health care reform. After months of haggling the Democratic plan became watered down enough to resemble a number of Republican plans that were floating around pre-2009 including the one Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts. And that changed the entire ballgame as Republicans vilified it. Romney wants to split the difference and say his plan is fine on the state level but makes no sense on the federal level. But conservatives want sharper battle lines against a proposal that they have branded “socialism” or worse.

But it extends further than that. In 2008 the main line of attack against him was over his authenticity as many both in and out of the Republican Party attacked his startling transformation from moderate Massachusetts Governor to a down the line conservative. 2012 was supposed to be better for him as his positioning would seem a little less suspect with four extra years between the present and his last run for Governor of the Bay State. It is too early to know whether health care will end up being a pivotal issue in the Republican primary. But it is becoming clear that questions over whether Mitt Romney as a political opportunist will not be going away. And if Romney completely disavows his own plan in Massachusetts that problem may become worse rather than better.

The Top Contenders

Sarah Palin – While the United States has had as good a cast of colorful figures ranging from Huey Long to Estes Kefauver to Douglas MacArthur as potential Presidential nominees as any other nation we have a tradition of nominating and electing candidates who can be best described as temperate and boring. While “red hot” excitable candidates may get early attention they often fade before the slick, the genial, and the comforting.

Sarah Palin does not fit this mold. She is a reality tv star with a daughter on Dancing with the Stars and an almost-son-in-law a regular on the tv interview circuit and prepping a “tell all” book about her and her family. Sarah Palin’s words are always calculated to be provocative and controversial rather than smooth, measured, and reassuring. She is in short the type of candidate you more often see in Latin America where it is more common for say a soap television star to run for office. And even there they almost always fall short.

While Mitt Romney can trumpet his perceived electability Sarah Palin’s numbers are truly ugly with weakness in even stalwart Republican states such as Texas. That will hurt her among many Republican voters. While her weaknesses in the general election are quite visible and obvious it is still too early to know anything for certain. She would certainly run a harsh hard hitting campaign and at the very least that should be enough to bring soft Republican voters home.

I originally was going to place Sarah Palin as a co-frontrunner. By every right she should be. Few figures in the Republican Party have the fundraising potential, ability to draw free media, as well as the large public following that she has particularly among conservative activists who identified with the “Tea Party Movement.”. If she had mounted a discipline campaign gathering the top talent and courting the top fundraisers from the moment the 2008 campaign or at the very least the 2010 congressional campaigns ended she could have found herself in a position approaching that of Ronald Reagan in 1980.

But she didn’t and other candidates are quickly eating into her position. There is still a window of opportunity for her to build a campaign since she still has a tremendous opportunity to fundraise among small donors but that window is fast closing on her. The longer she waits the harder it will be for to put her campaign together.

The big question with her is whether she even wants to run. While she has certainly never been poor just being in the national spotlight has allowed her to earn more money than she has ever seen in her life. Running for President of the United States is grueling and unpleasant. There is some speculation that she is enjoying her current circumstances far too much to pull the trigger on a presidential run.

However if she does want to be President this is the year she has to run. Her position in the Republican field is linked to her position as a media star and there is no guarantee that her fifteen minutes won’t be over in the next media cycle. Former Minnesota Governor and wrestling star Jesse Ventura could have been a credible candidate for President in 2000 or even 2004. That certainly is not the case today.

Tim Pawlenty – Few other candidates have worked harder or longer to gain the Republican nomination than Tim Pawlenty. A former governor of Minnesota who while seen as being perhaps too conservative for his state (originally winning in a three way race with former Democratic Congressman Tim Penny running a strong third party bid and barely winning re-election with only 47% of the vote) he was seen as a moderate by Republican Party standards. Thus far he has been a well liked cypher acceptable to conservatives nervous about Romney and moderates concerned about the stridency and electability of Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. As he gains credibility there will be increased scrutiny over his record as governor and past positions. He already is taking heat over his past support for “cap & trade.”

The biggest surprise so far has been his ability to attract the support of many former Bush fundraisers. Though given Romney’s weakness and his status as Romney’s earliest and most mainstream challenger perhaps it should not be.

Jon Huntsman – With his appointment as ambassador to China few thought Governor Huntsman of Utah would run. In some ways Huntsman is a better Mitt Romney. A wealthy attractive Mormon businessman with an attractive family and a smooth presentation. A former governor who has shown an ability to work with Democrats. Like Romney he even passed his own health care reform bill in Utah which is bound to draw some fire from the right. But his most important similarity is he has been able to impressively put together an able fund raising team.

What most differentiates the two is that while Romney’s health care plan is now almost universally derided by top conservatives as being too close to “ObamaCare” Huntsman’s Utah plan is held up by many including the Heritage Foundation as being a viable conservative alternative. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/08/consumer-power-5-lessons-from-utah-s-heath-care-reform Not that he is immune from criticism from the right. Since appearing in a television commercial with fellow Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Brian Schweitzer in support of “cap & trade” ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E30ml3QvvJ0 ) Huntsman, like Tim Pawlenty, has backpedaled away from past support.

He also has faced criticism from social conservatives for supporting, like George W Bush in 2000, “civil unions” as an alternative to gay marriage.

Helping steer the Huntsman campaign is John Weaver who advised John McCain in both the 2000 and 2008 race. Both campaigns show the potential and the danger for Huntsman in the 2012 campaign. Assuming he continues to wear the mantle as the most “moderate” and “electable” Republican in the race will he be fatally tarred as too soft and liberal like John McCain was in 2000 or will he successfully navigate a divided and dispirited conservative electorate like John McCain did in 2008? On a side note did Weaver really do Huntsman any favors by telling Time magazine, “This is the weakest Republican field since Wendell Willkie won the nomination on the sixth ballot in 1940”?

The Major Candidates

Mitch Daniels – On paper Mitch Daniel seems perfectly suited for 2012. He has taken a position on all the hot button issues as Governor of Indiana such as defunding Planned Parenthood and removing collective bargaining rights from unions while continuing to appear moderate and like a serious adult. Some of that is the pure luck of being in Indiana as opposed to the bluer states of Michigan or Wisconsin. But you also have to credit Mitch Daniels for his demeanor which is far less inflammatory than that of Scott Walker.

As the former OMB director to George W Bush he is not the best advocate for Republican policies on the deficit and this will probably be an area of attack by other candidates.

Once (or perhaps better put if) Mitch Daniels announces he might merit an upgrade upwards. But we’ll need to see what type of team he puts together and how well he fundraises first.

Michele Bachmann – A Republican firebrand most notable for her ability to excite partisan conservatives and outrage liberals Bachmann is hoping to tap into some of the enthusiasm that powered Sarah Palin’s popularity on the right. She has the money to be heard even if it comes from expensive direct mail firms with high burn rates. While that is enough to move her to the “major candidate category” unless she can tighten up her fundraising operation she’ll have a hard time getting the funds she’ll need to get traction. She also in general needs to prove she can be something besides a gadfly.

Her only shot at the nomination is a surprise win in Iowa or convincing the Koch brothers to be her sugar daddy.

Newt Gingrich – In 1996 and 2000 Newt Gingrich was about as electable nationwide as Nancy Pelosi is now. It remains to be seen how much time has healed old wounds and how strong he would be as a general election candidate. Thus far the numbers are far from promising. As a primary candidate he has strengths. Good ability to generate free media, being well known and regarded by conservative activists, and a past proven ability to generate money for different foundations and causes.

The real question with Newt however is how much he really wants to be President and how much he just enjoys the attention that comes from running. His fundraising has been underwelming and he has done little to build his organization. He styles himself the next Ronald Reagan and enjoys the poetry of his own words. But unless he puts in more of an effort he’ll instead be the next Fred Thompson.

Ron Paul – Nobody questions Ron Paul’s ability to generate money. Just his ability to gain votes. Initially denied even a seat at the Republican debates Ron Paul through a loyal coterie of fans and a shoe string budget was able to mount a fairly respectable campaign operation. But only enough to earn him 35 delegates.

The Tea Party during the 2010 election has helped move the debate at least on economic issues within the Republican Party more in his direction. The Republican Party however is still far from libertarian and his positions on social policy and defense are markedly different from that of the majority of Republican primary voters.

Rick Santorum – The affable Rick Santorum despite being too conservative for his purplish state through both political skill and serendipity managed to get elected to two terms as a US Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Santorum has made opposition to homosexuality one of the focuses of his political career including blaming Massachusetts’ “support” for “alternative lifestyles” for the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests in the Boston area.

While Santorum has a large potential base within the religious right like any other group he’ll need to convince them of his viability before they’ll commit in large numbers. He may also have some problems connecting with some leaders in the movement due to his Catholicism. It also remains to be seen how well he can fundraise and organize with the big boys.

The Minor Candidates

Herman Cain – Herman Cain is the only one in this category who could conceivably be upgraded to major candidate status given the warm reception he has been getting in Republican circles. He was also probably the most solid performer at the first Fox presidential debate. His entire strategy revolves around one thing. Pulling an upset in Iowa and hoping the momentum brings in the money and support he needs. But even for that he’ll need funding. Iowa is all about organization and organization is not necessarily all that cheap.

John Bolton – If Newt Gingrich is the Fred Thompson of 2012 than John Bolton is the Al Haig. He’ll appear at the debates and make a few quips that prove to be memorable. He may even open a campaign office in New Hampshire. One or two volunteers may even man it.. But that will be it.

Gary Johnson – Gary Johnson’s performance at the Republican debate was reminiscent of James Stockdale during the vice-presidential debate in 1992. Johnson was inept, amateurish, and out of place. Given his inability to raise money or gain any traction whatsoever it would be of no surprise if this is the last debate he is even invited to. Which comes as a surprise since you’d expect a better showing by a former governor.

Buddy Roemer – Another former governor and far more in the Republican mainstream than Gary Johnson. But his best years were twenty years ago and he isn’t even getting an invite to debates. There is no indication that much money is being raised or much groundwork being put into his presidential run. A good bet to drop out before the start of the year.

Roy Moore – A former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and cult hero to the far right Moore has failed in his two most recent runs for office in Alabama is now forming a Presidential exploratory committee. Without an invitation to any presidential debates his ability to make noise is limited. His Presidential ambitions however may well continue into a symbolic run on the Constitution Party.

Jimmy McMillan – If only they’d invite him to the Republican debates. Ratings would skyrocket!

The Supercilious

Donald Trump – Donald Trump has toyed with running for President since he threatened to challenge Ronald Reagan back in 1984. Every time whether it was as a Democrat, Republican, or Independent it has been greeted with bemusement and viewed as nothing more than yet another attempt at self promotion by a man who has built his entire career on self-promotion. This time around however Trump has been greeted by far more media attention and rather than just making statements in the media has actually reached out to Republican and conservative figures in private. While the best bet is that it is yet another attempt at self-promotion his money and willingness to dive happily into the mud makes him a factor if he chooses to get in.

The big question surrounding him is money. The billion dollar real estate development business he inherited from his father has been up and mostly down. His enterprises have filed for bankruptcy multiple times and his holdings in the gambling industry have declined since Merv Griffin took him to the cleaners. After the latest bankruptcy filing in 2009 Donald Trump’s stake in troubled Trump Entertainment Resorts was reduced to a mere 10%.

His business is not real estate anymore. At least in the traditional sense. Notice how nobody has asked him how much he lost in the recent real estate crash. He instead sells his name to other developers who are savvier than himself in making money in real estate. He also of course is a reality tv star and is paid extravagantly by NBC.

But it is an open question how large his debts are and how much his monetary holdings actually are. The prospect of definitively answering those questions may in fact be enough to keep him out of the presidential race. Particularly if he has been exaggerating his true wealth since he’ll have to self fund given his constant boasting about his finances has made it all but impossible for him to ever get any campaign contributions.

Assuming he does have the billions he claims he will be a contender. But one probably far too flawed to ever get the nomination. The most important flaw being the simple fact that he is not conservative enough. Donald Trump as a social conservative does not pass the smell test no matter how you sell it. Even Donald Trump as a fiscal conservative is a hard sell. He talks about how crummy United States airports are compared to those in China and promises that as President he’ll be a builder who will make sure our infrastructure will be as good as theirs. In past years that could be a Republican message. In the here and now the Glenn Becks mock such proposals as building “choo-choo trains.”

While Donald Trump supports tax cuts and deregulation he is not necessarily in favor of the draconian austerity conservatives such as Paul Ryan are now pushing. And Trump’s awful polling numbers and over the top attacks on Obama over his birth certificate and acceptance into law school make Trump a tough sell to moderates.

Potential candidates

Rudy Guiliani – In 2008 conservative evangelical ministers lined up to support Rudy Guiliani. So did top Republican operatives and fundraisers. After spending fifty million dollars for one single delegate few are lining up to back Rudy a second time. But Guiliani is seriously considering yet another race.

Rudy Guiliani, like Mitt Romney, has shifted his positions to become more in line with Republican orthodoxy not just on economics but also on social issues. Unlike Romney’s his transformation is not complete. And unlike Romney few Republicans are all that keen to give him a second chance.

That said name identification alone could make him a serious, even if not first tier, candidate.

Chris Christie – Chris Christie has said repeatedly he has no interest in running. In fact so repeatedly that it recalls Michael Bloomberg’s infamous tactic in 2008 of getting friendly reporters to constantly ask him whether he is running for President so he could deny it and get his name out there as a potential candidate. Chris Christie’s public policy speeches and his recent push for allowing the teaching of “creationism” in New Jersey shows he is focused more on a national rather than a statewide audience. But given the time for entering the presidential field is drawing short it seems more like positioning for the vice presidential nomination. That said few would be shocked if he did run.

Bobby Jindal – The release of his birth certificate was aimed at a national rather than statewide audience. But given a complete lack of any moves at anything approaching a Presidential run it is probably safe to assume it was aimed at making his position more secure to be considered for Vice President.

Marco Rubio – Barack Obama and more importantly Tommy Thompson showed in 2008 why it is always better to run when your star is rising rather than waiting your turn. But Rubio has made no moves whatsoever to get in.

Part 3: Brief Overview

The Democratic Party wants 2012 to be a repeat of 1996 where Bill Clinton came back to a roaring victory after being humiliated in the off year congressional elections two years earlier. Republicans want the 2012 election to be 1980 where an unpopular president and his party get tossed from office: building on previous gains from two years earlier. The most likely scenario lies somewhere in between: the1972 Presidential race. You may ask why an election featuring a 49 state landslide lies somewhere in between. The answer is that Nixon’s overwhelming victory was no guarantee.

Like Obama Richard Nixon faced high unemployment, high oil prices, and uncertainty over the economy. Richard Nixon was not necessarily a popular president and many particularly on the center were willing to look at alternatives. The Democratic Party like today’s Republican Party after disappointment in the primary contest four years earlier went through a period where activists demanded ideological purity from candidates. In 1972 the left wing of the Democratic Party got their candidate in George McGovern and he passed every demand they made of him with flying colors.

The question for conservatives within the Republican Party of today with few candidates making any pretenses of appealing to the center with at the very least calls for “compassionate” conservationism is whether they will have the same Pyrrhic victory liberals in the Democratic party had in 1972. Like in 1972 and unlike in 1996 they have a real chance to beat the president even if Obama has at the very least a nominal advantage going in. The question remains to be seen whether they are willing to take advantage of it.

The next post will focus on the most likely scenarios for the Republican nominating contest.

A look back at past Republican primary contests.

Before doing a review of the current Republican field for President I thought it might be useful to look at races in the past and how different prisms applied to the major candidates running.

Part 1: Republican Royalism: Myth or Fact?

It has been a longtime understanding that the Republican Party is more “royalist” than the Democratic Party. The last three Democratic Presidents was a one-term Senator and two Governors from small Southern states. The last three Republican Presidents was a long time party stalwart who was the runner-up in the previous Presidential contest, a sitting Vice-President as well as his son. But looking down the years other factors were at play. Sitting and former Presidents and Vice-Presidents were more likely to run on the Republican side just from the sheer fact that the Republican Party has been more successful on the Presidential level for most of the 20th (as well as the second half of the 19th ) century. You can also note the increasing relevance and power of Vice-Presidents. The only two sitting Vice-Presidents (both Democrats) to be denied their party nomination were Alben Barkley and Thomas Marshall. Both within the first half of the 20th century (1920 and 1952) when the position was much diminished compared to what it is now.

Republican royalism is also hard to pin down with multiple candidates fitting within it’s various potential parameters. It’s meaning has also shifted. In 1980 the “royalist pick” was debatably Ronald Reagan; the man who tried to overthrow the establishment and the sitting Republican president four years earlier. In 1952 running against the establishment in 1948 didn’t convince anyone that Robert Taft was “next in line.” You also had a completely different system of selecting Presidents in 1948 than you will have in 2012. The Nucky Thompsons you see on Boardwalk Empire mattered far more in 1948. While the support of say a sitting Governor in South Carolina or New Hampshire is certainly helpful nowadays their power lies almost solely in their organizational ability in helping get the vote on primary day.. The whole notion of who the establishment is differs and who gets to decide whose “turn” it is shifts with popular sentiment and name recognition taking a stronger role. What one also has to remember is that often times the supposed “royalist” candidate won due to happenstance. If Guiliani and Romney don’t go negative against each other in the closing weeks of the New Hampshire primary chances are McCain does not win the Republican nomination. If Robert Dole does not put his foot in his mouth during a TV interview demanding that George HW Bush “stop lying about my record” he might have very well have won both the nomination and the presidency. A few razor thin contests separated President Gerald Ford from winning and losing the Republican nomination for President in 1976.

Part 2: Post War Republican contests

There are five categories I tried to assign:

• Who is the “royalist” pick. This is defined as who was considered next in line, is in leadership, or the natural pick of the “establishment.”
• Who is the Eastern Establishment / Wall Street pick. In right-wing mythology they are the liberal wing who the conservatives battled for the soul of the party with. I’m however classifying this as the pick of the mainstream “business wing” of the Party who may or may not necessarily be moderates. Of course “Brahman” sensibilities are also taken into account and play more of a role in 1948 than in 1996. Hence the shift from Thomas Dewey to Steve Forbes.
• Who is the pick of the moderate wing of the Party?
• Who is a the pick of the conservative / “movement conservative” wing of the party?
• Who is the pick of the religious conservative wing of the party?

1948. Republican nominee: Thomas Dewey.

• royalist pick – Thomas Dewey was the 1944 nominee who unexpectedly gave Franklin Roosevelt a scare and came within 3 million votes of the unbeatable President.
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Thomas Dewey
• Moderate pick – Thomas Dewey or Harold Stassen
• Conservative pick – Robert Taft.
• Religious – n/a

Analysis: After some turbulence the liberal New York Governor was renominated to try for the Presidency again. Though not on a first ballot.

1952. Republican nominee: Dwight Eisenhower

• Royalist pick – Dwight Eisenhower. As a five star general and the former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe he was as close to royalty as you could get in America. Beloved and courted by all parties. That said the choice of his chief rival, Robert Taft, known as “Mr Republican” and the runner up in the last Presidential contests would also be a royalist choice.
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Dwight Eisenhower
• Moderate pick – Dwight Eisenhower
• Conservative pick – Robert Taft
• Religious – n/a

Analysis: Taft actually did better in 1952 than in 1948 but had a good portion of his delegates removed at the convention by Eisenhower forces in the name of “fair play.” But given these delegates were removed via a floor vote chances are Taft never had the necessary delegates to win to begin with. But Eisenhower did have to fight harder for the nomination than people realize. Part of the process of healing the schism between Eisenhower and Taft forces was the nomination of a young conservative firebrand, Richard Nixon, as Vice-President.

1956 Republican nominee: Dwight Eisenhower

• Royalist pick – Eisenhower. The sitting President is always the royalist pick.
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Eisenhower
• Moderate pick – Eisenhower
• Conservative pick – Eisenhower
• Religious – n/a

Analysis: Even conservative critics of Eisenhower knew the Republicans had a good thing going and were content to wait for the more conservative Richard Nixon to step up to the plate..

1960 Republican nominee: Richard Nixon

• Royalist pick – Richard Nixon. Nixon was perhaps the highest profile sitting Vice President up until that point since John Calhoun thanks to the “Checkers” speech and his yeomen work supporting local Republicans around the country. Whether or not the establishment or Eisenhower himself trusted him he was seen as the natural successor to Dwight Eisenhower in the Republican Party.
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment Pick – Richard Nixon.
• Moderate pick – Richard Nixon
• Conservative pick – Richard Nixon. Though some would rather have had Goldwater.
• Religious – n/a

Analysis: There were plenty of Republicans in all sections of the party who mistrusted Richard Nixon. But his association with Eisenhower moved him towards the center of the Republican Party. And rather than being squeezed he was a perfectly acceptable to conservatives who were afraid of the moderates and moderates who were afraid of the conservatives.

1964 Republican nominee: Barry Goldwater

• Royalist pick – no one.
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Nelson Rockefeller
• Moderate pick – Nelson Rockefeller
• Conservative pick – Barry Goldwater
• Religious – Barry Goldwater. Goldwater’s “southern strategy” began to bring more Southern evangelicals into the Republican Party. I’ll also note that while the Goldwater of 1990 could be termed a “libertarian” to describe 1964 Goldwater as one is just revisionism. With the exception of abortion (his wife was involved with Planned Parenthood) you’d be hard pressed to find an issue he wasn’t lockstep with “cultural warriors” such as Strom Thurmond. Nelson Rockefeller also offended Religious voters of all stripes by divorcing his wife and marrying another divorcee sparking much unwanted debate.

Analysis: Henry Cabot Lodge won the New Hampshire primary in a write-in. The serious Republicans such as Nixon, Lodge, etc decided to skip the race because they saw post-Kennedy assassination Lyndon Johnson as being unbeatable. So instead the right-wing of the Republican Party had their Armageddon against the left that they had been itching for.

1968 Republican nominee: Richard Nixon

• Royalist pick – Richard Nixon
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Richard Nixon
• Moderate pick – Nelson Rockefeller
• Conservative pick – Ronald Reagan
• Religious pick – Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan. I’ll comment here on why I have been keeping the “religious pick” mostly blank. Until the rise of the counter-culture in the 1960s and the corresponding rise of the moral majority it is unclear especially on the primary level where to assign these voters especially with their connection to the right not necessarily being established. For example the very moderate (though evangelical) Mark Hatfield was held up by Gerry Wills in his book about the 1968 United States presidential election, Nixon Agonistes, as being the quintessential representative of Christian politics. An assertion that would’ve been laughable twenty or even ten years later. There has always been a strong religious and socially conservative core within the Republican Party. And Nelson Rockefeller certainly offended them. But this category will take on more meaning after Jimmy Carter loses the evangelicals after the 1976 election and the explosive growth in these Evangelical churches at the expense of more moderate mainline Protestant churches who in the past were the rock bed of Republican support.

Analysis: Richard Nixon successfully repels both the liberal Rockefeller and the conservative Reagan. Both actually considered working with each other to stop Nixon. But what they really wanted to do was to squeeze Nixon and re-fight the battle of 1964. Of note and a sign of things to come evangelical voters are starting to show their strength enough that the reticent Quaker Nixon felt compelled to talk about God and religion. Though this was aimed more at the national electorate than the Republican electorate. What was aimed at the conservative wing of the party was the odd pick of Spiro Agnew for Vice-President. Though an erstwhile supporter of Nelson Rockefeller he gained a lot of conservative adulation for his hard nosed handling of rioters after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. That he felt the need to shore up his right flank shows how much things had changed since Nixon himself was just such a conservative pleasing pick in 1952.

1972 Republican nominee: Richard Nixon

• Royalist pick – Richard Nixon
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Richard Nixon
• Moderate pick – Richard Nixon
• Conservative pick – Richard Nixon
• Religious pick – n/a

Analysis: Nixon easily fended off attacks from both the left and right. Of course it was his general election rather than his primary campaign that did him in despite a historic 49 state landslade.

1976 Republican nominee: Gerald Ford

• Royalist pick – Gerald Ford
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Gerald Ford
• Moderate pick – Gerald Ford
• Conservative pick – Ronald Reagan
• Religious pick – Ronald Reagan. Religious interest in politics became more intense with the backlash over Roe v. Wade. While Gerald Ford condemned the court decision he faced criticism due to his wifes very public praise of the court decision.

Analysis: Gerald Ford came within a whisker of losing the Republican nomination for President. Reagan followed in the footsteps of other conservative Republicans such as Taft and Goldwater in appealing specifically to southern Republicans. With the Republican re-alignment of the south already starting and the Republican party taking in former southern Democrats defecting for cultural as well as racial reasons it was especially fertile territory for someone like Reagan. And Reagan certainly was not hurt by his frequent allusion to a “welfare queens” in the South Side of Chicago. ( http://www.threatofrace.org/threatmap/single_element/234/ ) as being representative rather than aberrational. I will however point out that Reagan himself was no racist and showed no support for institutionalized racism (though he did support Bob Jones University’s fight to regain it’s tax exempt status).

Ford won barely at the convention in part due to a conservative backlash against Reagan due to him choosing a more moderate potential running mate. Jesse Helms for example who was instrumental in Reagan winning the key state of North Carolina toyed with trying to nominate New York Senator James Buckley instead. Reagan however acquitted himself with dignity and gave a stirring speech at the convention that laid the groundwork for his 1980 campaign.

In terms of the Republican Party being “royalist” and them accepting whoever is in charge or is next in line, it is perhaps more fallacious than the track record suggests. Ford would probably have lost if the primaries were set up then like they are today (with a prominent position for South Carolina right after New Hampshire and just before a southern oriented “Super Tuesday”) . There were petty personalities involved and close votes in States that could have gone either way. The same way the Eisenhower win at the Republican convention in 1952 was not necessarily a given. But 1952 was a year when primaries were virtually irrelevant and the party bosses still held sway. Like with the Democratic Party that had mostly changed by 1976. While there was always a risk of a deadlocked convention (as there was in 1976) the voters rather than the old bosses were in the drivers seat. Then again you could argue given the deadlock among the elected delegates that it was in fact the unelected Establishment delegates who ultimately gave the Establishment candidate, Gerald Ford, the votes he needed for the nomination. But nonetheless the system had changed dramatically.

1980 Republican nominee: Ronald Reagan

• Royalist pick – Ronald Reagan. In the sense that there was an air of inevitability to his nomination given how close he came to beating a sitting President and how he basically never stopped running from the moment he lost in 1976. Of course you can make a good case for the Republican leader in the Senate (Howard Baker) and the former chairman of the Republican Party (George HW Bush). Or even the former Republican nominee for Vice President four years earlier (Robert Dole).
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – George HW Bush.
• Moderate pick – George HW Bush
• Conservative pick – Ronald Reagan
• Religious pick – Ronald Reagan. The Moral Majority is in full force and issues such as abortion have changed traditional views among Evangelicals that politics is a dirty business and can only taint religion when religion becomes involves. Many were also ironically tuned in politically by the campaign of Jimmy Carter who was a Southern Baptist. Pat Robertson for instance backed Jimmy Carter in 1976. Of course Pat Robertson came from a Democratic political family having a US Senator for a father and still talks with fondness and pride about his volunteer work for Adlai Stevenson. But like many evangelicals the 1980 Presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan realigned his political affiliation.

Analysis: A classic story we’ve heard many times in politics. A candidate far ahead of their opponents coasts and stays above the fray. Meanwhile one candidate picks up steam and unexpectedly gives them a race. This was the story of the 1980 Republican nomination. George HW Bush worked the state of Iowa hard and came out of nowhere to suddenly create a two man race where it was once Ronald Reagan and “the rest.” Ronald Reagan however got in the trenches and after a solid win in New Hampshire was in the drivers seat for the rest of the campaign.

Many Democrats were pleased with the nomination of Ronald Reagan seeing him as the weakest possible nominee. What many however missed is what a transformative figure he actually was. His social conservatism stole religious votes that had previously gone to Jimmy Carter and even other Democrats. But at the same time due the disarray in the country blamed on the Democratic president there was yet to be a corresponding realignment towards the Democrats among more moderate suburban voters. While it seems obvious now that the Republican Party would become the receptacle of social conservatism it was not at all obvious then. It also proved a wedge for socially conservative Catholics who may have backed Edward Kennedy for various reasons in his primary fight against Jimmy Carter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAn-SlPQpn8

In many ways it reflects the long running difference in strategy between the Republican and the Democratic Party. The Democrats like to move to the center to avoid being accused of being extreme or out of touch. Whereas the Republicans can often thrive on creating differences even in taking radical stands if they can draw the line in just the right way. Of course it can backfire. But so can being a milquetoast as John Kerry proved when trying to waffle about his position on the Iraq War in 2004.

1984 Republican nominee – Ronald Reagan

• Royalist pick – Ronald Reagan
• Eastern Establishment / Wall Street pick – Ronald Reagan
• Moderate pick – Ronald Reagan
• Conservative pick – Ronald Reagan
• Religious pick – Ronald Reagan

Analysis: Defeating the formidable forces of the Minnesotan duo of Harold Stassen and Walter Mondale Ronald Reagan easily wins re-election in one of the largest landslides in United States history. Of course this was not something many people would’ve expected little more than a year before. The United States economy suffered a new recession in 1982 and many blamed his radical economic policies. Though a recovery was well under way many Americans had yet to feel it at the start of 1983. The United States also had suffered a humiliation in it’s international reputation after it withdrew it’s forces from Reagan’s ill advised peace keeping mission in Beirut. Polls showed Ronald Reagan very vulnerable. But then the invasion of Grenada sent his poll ratings, particularly on foreign policy, sky high. Edward Kennedy unexpectedly dropped out of the Presidential contest leaving Walter Mondale who upon winning the Democratic nomination decided to eschew a traditional campaign for a “truth telling” campaign where he’d surely lose but gain a “moral” victory. The economy continued to pick up steam. And perhaps unnoticed by many political observers there was a shift in government policy and rhetoric as the most belligerent ideologues such as Al Haig and James Watt were removed or squelched as the Reagan administration took a more moderate course across the map prompting conservatives to bemoan that Reagan’s handlers were not allowing “Reagan to be Reagan.”

In this backdrop Reagan changed the Republican Party. The Wall Street Eastern Establishment for instance really stopped being seen as the “liberal wing” of the Republican Party. They turned into the most adamant champions of Reagan’s tax cuts. And the “big money” business wing had long been moving beyond New York and the East Coast making the “eastern” part suspect.

The moderate wing turned more libertarian as the last of the economic liberals such as Javitz and Weicker fell. Many sought to identify with Reagan’s economic policies to provide cover for their other heterodox beliefs.

The conservative wing became the dominant wing. To the point where the fault lines that had always been there began to show more and more. Pat Robertson, Phil Graham, Pat Buchanan, Paul Laxalt, and William F Buckley had quite fundamental differences with each other. And especially once you add Republicans who formally identified themselves as “liberal” or “moderate” re-branding themselves “conservative” it became an open question what a “conservative” was. There was a bit of a running consensus that still stands among many that “conservative” was whatever Reagan defined it as. But Reagan himself showed a lot more pragmatism and a tendency to equivocate that many of his admirers would like to believe opening his beliefs to wide interpretation.

The religious wing felt like they had the ear of the President but wanted more control. While Reagan championed their causes and was a hero to them there was an impatiences and some suspicion under the surface. For example why would Reagan only address pro-life crowds by loud speaker and why did he appoint the pro-choice Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court? Michael Deaver, James Baker, and even Nancy Reagan were often blamed for steering Reagan towards a more moderate course and again not letting “Reagan be Reagan.”

1988 Republican nominee: George HW Bush

• Royalist pick – George HW Bush. Bush went from calling Reagan’s economic plans “voodoo economics” in 1980 to running virtually as Ronald Reagan’s son. Bush stayed fiercely loyal to Reagan throughout his Presidency and while Reagan stayed neutral in the Presidential contest did nothing that would hurt Bush.
• Eastern Establishment / Wall Street – George HW Bush. The Eastern Establishment was for the most part dead but to the degree it still existed there was no better representative than George HW Bush. This category will just be “Wall Street” for now on.
• Moderate pick – Robert Dole. Was once the conservative firebrand blamed for Gerald Ford’s loss due to his over the top stridency. He also infamously used the abortion issue viciously against a Senate opponent. But with George HW Bush’s pivot to the right and Dole’s reputation as an operator able to cut compromises to get legislation passed he ended up being the moderate candidate in the race. However many leading moderates in the Party endorsed George HW Bush seeing him as one of their own. For instance Newton Mayor Teddy Mann and United States Representative Silvio Conte two of the most liberal Republicans in Massachusetts supported George HW Bush.
• Conservative pick – George HW Bush or Jack Kemp. Jack Kemp had a lot of support among the conservative intelligentsia but thanks to some excellent work by his campaign team George HW Bush ended up becoming the conservative pick. First they were able to blur almost any difference between George HW Bush and his boss, Ronald Reagan. Second they had excellent outreach hiring or co-opting many leading voices on the Right. Conservative firebrand Representative Robert Dornan famously wrote an article in the National Review promoting George HW Bush titled, “My Conservative Pitbull.” While perhaps belonging in the religious category Bush picked up key support from Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell. But George HW Bush’s most impressive task was in framing the race between himself and Robert Dole. Despite Bush having called Reagan’s tax cut proposals “voodoo economics” he attacked Robert Dole for being “soft” on taxes. He was able to portray himself as a the principled conservative outsider(!) against Robert Dole the insider compromising creature of Washington. While many conservatives distrusted Bush by the time his campaign was done they overwhelmingly supported him against the more “liberal” Bob Dole.
• Religious pick – Pat Robertson or George HW Bush. George HW Bush did everything he could to reach out to religious conservatives and succeeded for the most part despite once being a pro-choice socially liberal Republican who once stood against most of what they believed in. He famously sent his son George W Bush to be his liaison to their community. And quite conveniently the future President soon had a religious epiphany declaring himself a “born again Christian” who was one of them. George HW Bush also picked up the support of Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell as well as a number of other leading preachers within the Christian right. However there was considerable mistrust of him as well as considerable popular support for Pat Robertson who came managed to beat George HW Bush for second place in Iowa. While Pat Robertson’s run was unsuccessful it laid the foundation for the Christian Coalition he would soon found afterward. The man Pat Robertson would choose to run the Coalition would be a supporter of one of his rivals (Jack Kemp) by the name of Ralph Reed.

Analysis: This race showed just how much Ronald Reagan had changed the Republican Party with every candidate declaring their fidelity to the policies of Reagan and the “conservative cause” with even the moderate former Governor of Delaware moving radically to the right. It also set up the template for future Republican contests. Conservatives finding “problems” with all the candidates but willing to grudgingly accept a candidate they find too “moderate” out of fear of someone else they feel is even more “liberal” might win. At the same time the establishment is in terror that if not this time then next time the far right “barbarians at the gate” will take over the party dooming it’s chances.

1992 Republican nominee: George HW Bush

• Royalist pick – George HW Bush – In fact one of Buchanan’s most famous attack lines was to call the President “King George.”
• Wall street pick – George HW Bush
• Moderate pick – George HW Bush
• Conservative pick – Patrick Buchanan
• Religious pick – Patrick Buchanan

Analysis: Patrick Buchanan ran an unorthodox against the at first popular incumbent president straying from the Reaganite conservative orthodoxy into what can be termed paleo-conservatism with it’s more isolationist notes once sounded on by Robert Taft. He also focused on immigration picking up the nativist themes the more moderate Pete Wilson of California used to help himself get re-elected Governor of California in 1990. He was also a conservative “culture warrior” who took Dan Quayle’s 1988 “family values” message and turning the volume up fifty fold famously at the Republican convention. Buchanan’s strength probably had more to do with discontent over the economy and Bush breaking his “no new taxes” pledge than anything to do with Patrick Buchanan. But again it raised fears among the conservative Republican establishment of them being swept away in conservative populist furor.

1996 Republican nominee: Robert Dole

• Royalist pick – Robert Dole – the runner up in the last election
• Wall Street pick – Steve Forbes. Miles apart from Thomas Dewey showing just how much this category has changed.
• Moderate pick – Arlen Specter
• Conservative pick – Pat Buchanan or Phil Graham
• Religious pick – Patrick Buchanan

Analysis: Like in 1988 this open primary saw former real or perceived moderates moving to the right. Steve Forbes moving to the right on social issues and Lamar Alexander moving to the right in just about everything. Arlen Specter notably stuck to his moderate guns and went absolutely nowhere. Though of course his presidential campaign was far from serious and just a vanity run to get himself attention. This race also shows the dangers of trying to look at any Presidential race too far in advance. Phil Graham with his strong conservative support and large fund raising prowess from being the Senate Finance Committee Chairman was seen as a formidable top tiered candidate. Perhaps even a favorite. He fizzled hard and fast. Buchanan on the other hand came a close second in Iowa and actually manage to win New Hampshire in a crowded field. The heterodox Patrick Buchanan helped second place performer Robert Dole by polarizing the race. While Patrick Buchanan was arguably the “conservative” candidate his views on trade, wall street, and foreign policy concerned far too many conservatives who would otherwise have been suspicious of Dole. Steve Forbes flat tax proposal found resonance among some economic conservatives but questions about his degree of opposition to abortion drove many social conservatives away.

2000 Republican nominee: George W Bush

• Royalist pick – George W Bush or Dan Quayle
• Wall Street pick – Steve Forbes
• Moderate pick – John McCain
• Conservative pick – George HW Bush
• Religious pick – George W Bush or Dan Quayle

Analysis: Going into the 2000 race many saw the nomination as being Dan Quayle’s to lose. Better than anyone he was able to rally the conservative base. His unexpected withdrawal left a void that was ultimately filled by George W Bush. Following the template of his father George W Bush was able to cast himself as the “conservative” candidate against the more “liberal” John McCain. He also banked heavily on the financial and political base his father had built during years of public service. While conservatives looked down on George HW Bush for not taking out Saddam Hussein and breaking his “no new taxes” promise he was even in defeat on a personal level a well regarded figure both among Republicans and the public at large. George W Bush also used his contacts within the evangelical community he nurtured during his father’s campaign for President as well as his own for Governor to his advantage.

2004 Republican nominee – George W Bush

• Royalist pick – George W Bush
• Wall Street pick – George W Bush
• Moderate pick – George W Bush
• Conservative pick – George W Bush
• Religious pick – George W Bush

Analysis: With the sad passing of Harold Stassen in early 2001 no one could stand in the way of George W Bush being renominated.

2008 Republican nominee – John McCain

• Royalist pick – John McCain was the runner up to President Bush in 2008.
• Wall Street pick – Unclear.
• Moderate pick – Rudy Giuliani
• Conservative pick – Unclear.
• Religious pick – Mike Huckabee

Analysis: This race is a classic motif common to most Presidential contests. After a long grueling campaign voters become wary of the entire face and yearn for someone from the outside. There were many Republicans who thought Howard Baker should run in 1988 or Colin Powell in 2000. The entrance of Fred Thompson just showed how much this phenomenon was simply the classic “the grass is always greener on the other side” syndrome. Once he got in his numbers sank like a rock. Guiliani was the early favorite with strong fund raising and a surprising ability to appeal to social conservatives based solely on his supposed terrorist fighting skills as Mayor of New York during September 11th. Mitt Romney was able to place himself on the national radar with his own strong fund raising tapping wealthy Mormons in much the same way Michael Dukakis did within the Greek community twenty years earlier. He was also the “lesser evil” of many Conservative pundits such as Ann Coulter. Mike Huckabee took advantage of the former or current social liberalism of the top of the field as well as his own background as a preacher to build a strong even if not formidable challenge of his own. But ultimately Guiliani and Romney doomed each other after going negative on each other giving John McCain a surprising win in New Hampshire and the momentum he needed to ultimately triumph.

Part 3: Problems Applying Labels to 2012

I was tempted to write something about how the current crop of potential Republicans fit into these categories and the problem is just how much these definitions have changed without anyone even noticing. Let’s take the term conservative. In 1964 one’s position on race was a key indicator of where someone such as Barry Goldwater stood on the political spectrum. While perhaps the language of racism moved into the realm of code words in many parts of the country within four and certainly within eight years hardly anyone anywhere was a formal segregationist anymore. In 1968 Ronald Reagan was the darling of conservatives even after signing one of the most permissive abortion laws in the nation as California Governor. By 1976 abortion was a key issue Ronald Reagan used to attack the more moderate Gerald Ford. Robert Taft in 1948 and 1952 was seen as the leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party while at the same time supporting the expansion of public housing for the poor. Something now that even the most liberal Democrats wouldn’t touch.

In 2008 Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina endorsed Mitt Romney citing his Massachusetts health care plan as an example of conservative public policy that should be expanded to the rest of the nation. In 2012 the same Jim DeMint won’t support the same Mitt Romney unless he repudiates this now “liberal” policy initiative that is too similar to that passed by Barack Obama. The Mitt Romney who was seen as perhaps the best “conservatives” could do in 2008 is now seen by many of those same folks as the “liberal” in the current field despite moving as far to the right as he can.

But who knows where Romney or anyone for that matter will be seen and defined in another year. The fact is history can only be written after and not before the fact. The candidates and even the issues have yet to define them. At this point we can only guess and give a rather uneducated one at that. Even if it’s safe to say that no one is going to be calling Michelle Bachman a lefty.

Theater Review: American Sexy.

After walking into the lobby of The Flea Theater to pickup my tickets a young woman ran up. “I just talked with someone on the phone who asked if it is okay for a nudist to attend the show.”

“So what did you say?”

 “I said I wasn’t sure but I didn’t think some of the audience members would feel comfortable. She then asked if I could ask someone to make to make sure.”

 “Well. If they have friends perhaps we could offer a group showing?”

 “Good idea. If not at the Flea, where?”

 Good question. When you think of theater in New York you think of the big Broadway events like Spiderman: Turn off the Dark. Expensive. Stylized. Disneyesque. Often studded with Hollywood actors and actresses who are “slumming it” in New York City. Surrounded by the neon lights of Times Square with meals in gaudy overpriced restaurants nearby.

 Then there is off-Broadway which is a bit less expensive a bit more creative and a bit more reasonable. And then you enter the realm of Off-Off Broadway like The Flea Theatre. True independent theater focused narrowly on storytelling and acting. Far less expensive. Often non-profit (rather than financed by mega corporations or hedge funds like the big Broadway shows). And this is theater well worth supporting. Especially when the price of admission for a show like American Sexy is just $20. For the mere price of a movie ticket why not take a chance? Particularly with it’s 41 White Street location a stone’s throw from Chinatown and Little Italy.

 The Flea Theater was started in 1996 by a director, a designer, and a playwright aiming to create a special non-commercial space for fellow artists. At it’s heart is “The Bats” a troupe of young actors and actresses in residence who participate in the Flea’s productions and where the four leads in American Sexy come from.

 The theater itself is small and intimate even by small and intimate standards with two rows of folding chairs that probably seat forty people tops. There is literally no stage with everything in your face. Just a medium sized space with some alcoves on the side and back where the action can be segregated.

 The pre-show music is punkish (think the Yeah Yeah Yeahs) with the varied audience being mostly young and dressed uniformly casual. A good number being students who normally would be priced out of most productions in the city.

 The introduction to the show and theater was presented by two cast members, Ron Washington and Nicky Schmidlein . I soon realize that the folks out front who were selling drinks, etc were the very members of the cast who are performing. You also know you entered a differed type of place when instead of telling people to turn off their cell phones they said you should answer any calls and tell all your friends about the Flea Theater. Obviously this was tongue and cheek but shows the close symbiotic relationship here between the actors, the theater, and the patrons.

 The show itself does not have an auspicious beginning. Lexi (played by Satomi Blair) and Jessica (played by Nicky Schmidlein who looks remarkably like Erika Christensen) have a rambling and not always coherent conversation as the actresses play two stoned college girls perhaps too well. They are soon joined by their two male companions. Darren (played by Ron Washington) who is Jessica’s boyfriend and Andy (played by Scott Morse). The four decide to camp out the night and get “high” at the Grand Canyon location they stopped to visit on the way to Las Vegas and in the process learn about each other and themselves. But the light and at times silly beginning sets the stage for the more serious issues that develop.

 To give a brief synopsis of the characters. Jessica is proud of her virginity (whether technical or not) who has romantic dreams of what her first night with Darren will be like. Lexi, Jessica’s best friend, likes to act slutty with her suggestive clothing and language. She’s also fond of nature and friends with Andy. Andy is a geeky and awkward outdoorsman who carries a torch for Lexi and believes the way she acts is not her “true” self. Darren is a confident African-American male who takes a decidedly less romantic approach than Andy and cautions against putting girls on pedestals and the need to make “short term” rather than “long term” plans so you can “evaluate.” And by evaluate he  means he desperately wants to have sex with Jessica who despite his own admonishments he himself puts on a pedestal.

 Joe Meyers in his Connecticut Post review  wrote:

 “American Sexy” shows us how the young men are both turned on and repulsed by porn imagery — they are addicted to the roughest Internet and cell phone sex pics and video, but semi-disgusted by the idea of any real woman they know doing the things they see in porn.

 The young women are just as influenced by the porn culture as the men, acting out over-the-top sex scenes that were designed by pornographers to be viewed by men in isolation, rather than as ways smart and independent women would behave in “real” life.

 He captured exactly the problem faced by the characters and many today with his observation that porn is created for the single male to be viewed alone rather than a guide post for what they’d want to see or how girls should act in real life social setting. Both Jessica and Lexi try to tease by acting as stereotypical sex kittens which while it in part excites their targets also ends up confusing them and making them uncomfortable. This is captured in the very geography of the theater where the cast is literally in your face. When Lexi is doing her over the top tease literally inches from your face you’re almost in the same boat as the male characters in the play. Do you stare at the actress in front of you or politely avert your eyes. Can you really look at her eyes without seeming creepy? Or are you being rude by seeming disinterested?

 Both guys also have the classic “madonna”/”whore” complex where while what they secretly watch may be wild their actual expectations of how the girls they’d actually want are far more demure. Or put another way you may dream of sleeping with a porn star but few dream of marrying one. At it’s extreme is the guy that I’m sure all of us have known. The one who sleeps with anything that moves but insists that he’ll only marry a virgin.

 The other theme represented by the camera phone every character carries around and which contains something lurid or another is how much of our lives now are captured and never go away. In the past if we made a mistake or had an embarrassment it would fade with time as memories faded and people moved on to the next tempest in a teapot. But what if that moment you wet your pants in second grade was captured forever on youtube? Or the time you lost your swim trunks or bikini top? Or something you did while drunk at a fraternity party?

 The characters confront how one judges those you have a picture or video of (whether a stranger or someone more intimate) that shows someone at their worst. Do you excuse them for being drunk or is it a scarlet letter that one wears for a lifetime because literally nothing in the internet ever truly gets deleted.

 The characters in American Sexy are surprisingly rich and I’ll give a special mention to Satomi Blair’s performance as Lexi.  At the start of the show she seems to be the least developed.  A stoned ditz prone to acting in an overly sexualized manner. But as she is forced out of her shell towards the end you see the lonely isolated girl who is acting out. Her performance can be described as naked. And I don’t mean it just in the sense of being in a state of undress. I was not at all shocked to already see a listing for her on IMDB and she is someone I expect to see more of in the future. You can check out her personal website at http://www.satomiblair.com/ .

 In summation American Sexy is an excellent character study of four college age students trying to grapple with the hyper-sexuality of the digital age. And perhaps is one of the first to notice it is often the males (who in theory profess to enjoy it) who are the most disturbed by it.

American Sexy is playing at the http://www.theflea.org/ at 41 White Street until March 8^th. After the show I recommend taking the short walk up Broadway to Canal Street. After crossing the street take a right and walk a few blocks until you reach Mulberry. Take a left and one short block down on the corner of Mulberry and Hester you’ll have an assortment of really good Little Italy restaurants to choose from.

A new beginning. Blog 2.0

The old political blog I wrote for is dead and buried.  So time to make something new so I can get back in the habit of writing again.

For now it’s just me and I’ll be focusing more on the non-political realm.  With politics I tended to be paranoid about getting something wrong or really murdering my grammar perhaps because I had a bad habit of doing just that.  So I’d write things and never publish them.  Letting them grow stale until I just end up throwing what I wrote away.   Hopefully starting anew with an expanded focus can free up my creative juices.

For now this blog is rather bland and generic.  I know if I focus first on trying to decorate I’ll just spend months trying to get it just right and that will get me nowhere.  I’ll get to it.  Eventually.

So if you are a visitor who has somehow stumbled here.  Welcome.