There can be no disputing that Rick Santorum is the big winner in Iowa, even though he came up eight votes short of Mitt Romney. Only time will tell if Santorum is a real challenger to Romney, or just the latest in a long line of conservative pretenders that now includes Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. Each has risen and fallen in the polls while Romney has held steady at about 25%. Unless Jon Huntsman catches fire in New Hampshire, there is really no one to follow Santorum as the anti-Romney. And Huntsman, who is more moderate than Romney, does not qualify as a conservative alternative.
As the last conservative standing, Santorum might just see his Iowa performance repeated in other states. Conservatives, and particularly evangelical conservatives, have no place else to turn. If Santorum is a flash in the pan like the others, it will be because the anti-Romney wing of the Republican Party has finally accepted Romney as their only viable choice in the fight to unseat Barack Obama — unless, of course, one of the other conservatives is somehow resurrected. Gingrich is probably the best prospect for such a rebirth, but as his implosion in Iowa demonstrates, 30 years of baggage has made him an easy target for the 30-second spinmeisters.
But wait. What about Ron Paul? That was my question as I watched the returns on television, and commentator after commentator said this is looking like a two-man race going forward.
Romney 25%, Santorum 25%, Paul 21%. Isn’t 21% almost as much as 25%? What is it about Paul that makes the media ignore him? Sure, he says goofy things now and then. And he’s older than all the other folks in the race. But his libertarian views have a demonstrated appeal to a wide array of voters, and not just voters who would identify themselves as libertarians. Indeed, it appears that Paul drew much of his support in Iowa from moderates and independents.
But Paul falls short with social conservatives because he believes that government should stay out of people’s lives, no matter what the government objective. Many liberals are staunch defenders of liberty, except when it comes to economic freedoms like property and contract rights. Many conservatives also claim to be staunch defenders of liberty, except when it comes to pursuing their socially conservative agenda. Paul is a defender of liberty above all else. In Paul’s view, neither social liberals nor social conservatives are exempt from the limits on government power.
In his unwavering and consistent defense of liberty, Paul is closer to the founders of our nation than any other candidate in the race. But he doesn’t fit the conservative/liberal divide of our modern politics, so rather than try to figure him out, the media just ignores him.
The risk for Republicans is that Paul will despair of being taken seriously and run on a third-party ticket. There is no way he can garner 21% of the vote on a nationwide basis, but getting even 5% would probably assure an Obama victory. So while the commentators are marveling at Santorum’s sudden rise and puzzling over Romney’s 25% ceiling, Republicans better be thinking about how to keep Paul and his many supporters inside the tent.
In his post-election speech, Paul said, and repeated, that what brings his supporters together is a commitment to the ideal of liberty. It is a powerful commitment, as evidenced by the millions of Americans who, over two-plus centuries, have died for it.
To a person, the Paul supporters share the short-term objective of defeating Barack Obama. But theirs is a long-term view, a belief in the essential truth of Paul’s unwavering commitment to liberty. Even if the media continues to ignore Ron Paul, Republicans would do well to start paying attention.
Jim Huffman is the dean emeritus of Lewis & Clark Law School, the co-founder of Northwest Free Press and a member of the Hoover Institution’s De Nault Task Force on Property Rights, Freedom and Prosperity. He was the 2010 Republican U.S. Senate nominee from Oregon.