New Hampshire Republicans and the independents who joined them have spoken, and they have made Arizona Senator John McCain their top choice for president with 37 percent of the vote.
But how strongly do they feel about their top pick? Did they vote for him because they believe that among all the Republican candidates his positions most closely match their own? How familiar are they with Senator McCain's positions, or the positions of the other candidates for that matter? How important were other factors in their decision, such as the candidates' character and experience?
Article Continues Below↓
And should McCain, as a plurality of New Hampshire Republicans presumably hope, go on to win the Republican nomination and later the presidency, will the Republicans who jump started his campaign in the Granite State be pleased with his performance? Or will they become disillusioned?
Similar questions could be asked regarding the victory New Hampshire Democrats gave Hillary Clinton, of course, but for the purposes of this article I'll confine my remarks to the Republicans.
If the exit polling data compiled by CNN [1] on its website can be trusted, a majority of the New Hampshire residents who voted in the Republican primary view personal qualities as being more important to their vote than the issues — 52 percent as compared to 44 percent. McCain got 48 percent of the vote from the group of Republicans who view personal qualities as being more important than issues. But he got only 25 percent of the vote from Republicans who view issues as being more important.
Contrast this finding with Ron Paul, who received 13 percent of the vote from Republican primary voters viewing issues as more important, as compared to only 3 percent from Republicans viewing personal qualities as being more important. In Ron Paul's case, issues mattered; in McCain's case, issues did not matter nearly as much.
Statistics can be misleading, particularly when samplings are extrapolated to represent the voters as a whole. But the statistics in this case do seem to reflect what both commonsense and experience tell us: that there is often a disconnect between public opinion and the opinions of the candidates the voters vote for.
There is no doubt in my mind that this disconnect applies to McCain's New Hampshire victory. Consider, for instance, McCain's strongly hawkish position on the war in Iraq and on maintaining our presence in the volatile Middle East. At a town hall meeting [2] in Derry, New Hampshire, on January 3, a voter remarked that "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years." McCain responded "Maybe 100." He then elaborated, "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me. I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaeda is training, recruiting, and equipping and motivating people every single day."
That statement is astounding for several reasons. Is the fact that we've kept troops in harm's way on the demilitarized zone in Korea for 50 years really a good argument for keeping troops in harm's way in Iraq for 100 years? Or is it instead an argument for not doing in Iraq what we've done in Korea? Also, even though the senator is correct in noting that al-Qaeda is in Iraq, he overlooks the fact that al-Qaeda was not there until after we arrived. He also does not explain how casualties can be avoided by maintaining our military presence in the Iraq quagmire. In all likelihood, the long-term military presence McCain is championing will make the terrorist threat worse instead of better — simply because it will anger Muslims who view our presence as an occupation, and make it easier for terrorists to recruit and whip up hostilities against us.
On Meet the Press [3] the Sunday before the New Hampshire primary, McCain was given an opportunity by interviewer Tim Russert to comment on his remarks at the Derry town hall meeting. During the ensuing questioning, McCain said that he would have supported going to war against Iraq even if he knew at the time that Hussein did not have WMDs. He also said that he was right about the "surge," which he strongly supported, and that "the war, 'the invasion,' was not a mistake. The handling of the war was a terrible mistake."
Is that really what Americans believe? Do they want to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years? Did they have even an inkling that that could be the case when we invaded Iraq in the first place? Would they have supported the invasion if they had known that Saddam did not threaten us with WMDs, and if they had clearly understood that Saddam was not connected to al-Qaeda and was not tied to 9/11? And don't they want to bring the troops home? The rejection of the Republicans in the 2006 congressional elections certainly sheds plenty of light on the answers to these questions.
But how about New Hampshire Republicans? I don't believe that they want our military to occupy Iraq for the next 100 years either, even though, according to the exit polling, they still support the Iraq War 63 percent to 35 percent. However, according to the same exit polling data, McCain got a much better percentage of the vote from Republicans who disapprove of the Iraq War than he did from Republicans who approve of the war. Among those who disapprove of the war, McCain got 44 percent; among those who approve, he got 33 percent. How can we even begin to attempt to explain why these New Hampshireites voted as they did, unless we recognize that many voters must not understand where McCain stands on the Iraq War, and/or they must have voted for him despite where he stands?
McCain's position on the war notwithstanding, 43 percent of those who voted in the Republican primary believe that McCain would make the best commander-in-chief, and a whopping 78 percent of that 43 percent voted for McCain, according to the exit polling. Undoubtedly, many of these McCain voters believe that McCain's military/POW background means that he would work hard to support the troops.
Of course, there are other important issues besides the war. Immigration too is a hot topic, but McCain's position in support of amnesty for illegal aliens — yes, I know, he does not call his amnesty position amnesty — did not prevent him from winning the New Hampshire primary.
How About the Others?
There were other candidates on the Republican ballot besides McCain. Why did the voters make McCain their top pick? Didn't one or more of the other candidates offer a platform refreshingly different from the neoconservatism offered by McCain? Even if the voters liked McCain and thought highly of his personal qualities, why wouldn't they have selected another candidate whose positions on the issues might have more closely resembled theirs?
Consider what one Republican candidate had to say about the economy, an issue that New Hampshire Republicans see as being even more important than the Iraq War, immigration, or terrorism, according to the exit polling. Referring to the politicians who were sent to Washington to do one thing and ended up doing something else instead, this candidate's message obviously resonated with New Hampshire voters when he told a packed gymnasium in Windham, New Hampshire: "We sent them there to cut spending, and they didn't do it. They've spent more money than has ever been spent. Guess where that money is coming from. Your pocket."
The candidate continued: "Just remember this, when government says we're giving you things, remember before the government can give you something, the government has to take it from you first. And the handling charge is extraordinary."
He also warned that the nation is headed for economic disaster unless the spending is cut: "Today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don't cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours. In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less."
So said Ron Paul who, despite making a major effort in New Hampshire to get his message out to the voters, came in fifth with 8 percent — right? Well, no. Ron Paul did come in fifth with 8 percent. But the candidate quoted above was not Ron Paul. As reported by CBS News [4], those statements were made by Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee even calls for abolishing the income tax, as does Ron Paul. But even though Huckabee may sound like Paul, there is a huge chasm between Huckabee's positions and Paul's. Huckabee wants to replace the income tax with a national sales tax. Paul wants to cut spending to such an extent that the revenues lost by getting rid of the income tax would not need to be replaced. Huckabee supports an interventionist foreign policy including the Iraq War. Paul would bring the troops home not only from Iraq but from all other countries and in the process provide better national security here at home and save many hundreds of billions of dollars. Though Huckabee says we need to reduce spending, his platform in no way shows how this would be accomplished. On the other hand, Paul proposes getting rid of major federal Departments such as the Department of Education and the Department of Energy in addition to ending our foreign military entanglements and ending foreign aid. Unlike Huckabee, whose record as Arkansas governor shows that he really is not for smaller government, Paul has consistently voted against unconstitutional spending during 10 terms in Congress.
Yet Huckabee did better in New Hampshire than Paul, garnering 11 percent as opposed to Paul's 8 percent.
Why? The fact that Huckabee is a media darling and Paul is not has much to do with it. So does the fact that when Paul is mentioned (and he has been mentioned more frequently in recent weeks) he is often portrayed as a dark-horse, fringe candidate who has no chance whatsoever of winning and might play the role of "spoiler" at best. It is natural to want to get behind a winner, and undoubtedly many New Hampshireites who might have voted for Paul if they thought he had a chance decided instead to vote for another candidate, including Huckabee. The fact that 8 percent voted for Paul does not mean that the remaining 92 percent do not like him. According to the exit polling, 40 percent of those who voted in the Republican primary have a favorable impression of Paul.
The exit polling also shows that many of the voters in the Republican primary waited until almost literally the last minute before deciding who they'd vote for — 19 percent did not decide until election day, and another 20 percent did not decide until the last three days. To what extent, one might ask, were these last-minute deciders influenced by the media spin? How familiar are they with the candidates' records or even with the issues themselves?
The fact that most of the Republican primary voters reportedly view personal qualities as being more important to their vote than the issues strongly suggests that they really are not all that familiar with the issues or the candidates' records. And that in turn suggests that they are probably very susceptible to media spin.
If we are going to restore our republic and send good (by which I mean constitutionalist) candidates to Washington — not just for the presidency, but far more importantly, for Congress — then the typical voter must become much better informed. Some of that understanding can be imparted during a political campaign. But because of the nature of political campaigns, not nearly enough of the needed understanding can be imparted this way, no matter how good the candidates or how much they focus on issues.
Ultimately, the future direction of our country for better or for worse will be determined by the work that is done day in and day out, both during and outside of election seasons, to better inform our fellow citizens and to get them involved in the effort to preserve freedom. This is the work of The John Birch Society [4], the parent organization of the magazine I edit, and the more we do through the JBS to build this understanding and to activate our fellow citizens the more successful constitutionalists will be when they run for public office.
delicious [5] | 
digg [6] | 
newsvine [7] | 
technorati [8]