The Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the New GOP

For Republicans in large, predominantly Democratic urban centers such as New York City, going to the polls can feel like an unsatisfying stop on the way home from work. Those of you who have grown accustomed to this line of thought however, think again. This Tuesday, your vote DOES matter.

The gravity of this year’s Republican primary is rooted in the party’s political history—specifically, in the evolution of distinct principles that make the complexity of voters’ choices this Tuesday as tangible as their ballots. Many political commentators have been quick to declare that the Republican coalition built by President Reagan in the 1980s is unraveling. Oft referred to as the “Reagan Coalition,” this unified vision of the party found success by pulling together three main constituencies: foreign policy conservatives, economic conservatives, and social conservatives.

Over time, a variety of circumstances have lent themselves to a splintering of this unified group, as best exemplified by the stark ideological contrast among the remaining Republican candidates. Thus, after almost a quarter century of toeing the party line, Republicans voting in the primary will influence more than just the party’s presidential nominee. Rather, as a Republican primary voter, your vote will decide whether this election marks the final transition away from the Republican era of decades past. As the future of the organizational paradigm championed by Reagan becomes more uncertain, Republicans have the opportunity to determine whether one set of interests should prevail or if the coalition should be loosely preserved by rallying behind whichever candidate they deem best suited to strike a balance between the party’s distinct constituencies.

For Republicans, the task of determining which candidate best represents the aforementioned choices has been obfuscated by the egregiously long campaign season. To further confuse matters, each candidate has touched upon the values represented by the Reagan coalition at one point or another. Yet none have managed to tame the precariously unified trifecta with the success of the pragmatist for whom it was named. Moreover, when stripped to their bare bones, the policy choices, legislative histories, and support base of each make the appropriation of candidate to coalition interest group seem fitting. As such, McCain can find natural support from foreign policy conservatives, Romney from economic conservatives, and Huckabee from moral conservatives.

Despite the fact that each candidate appears to have an organic support base within the party, a vote for McCain seems symbolic of the unification of party interests. Because McCain leads the race at present, many believe it wise to rally around his candidacy earlier rather than later so that the unification of coalition interests will make the party more cohesive come November. Others believe that his nomination could risk frustrating party loyalists, potentially leading to a protracted primary race—and that at this point, movements to support him are premature. Ultimately, however, both McCain’s electability against a Democratic candidate and the potential for him to strike a balance between diffusing party interests make it likely that in the following days we will see constituents rally to his side despite their initial concerns, as we have seen in the supportive statements from Tony Perkins and Grover
Norquist on McCain’s behalf.

Republicans who believe that the “Reagan Coalition” is a thing of the past and that this election could serve to realign the party may be more inclined to vote in line with their personal interests. In this scenario, voters would choose the candidate who best embodies the issue most important to them. For instance, while on one hand Romney stands by his wish to maintain the “Reagan Coalition,” on the other hand his religious affiliation and former pro-choice and pro-same-sex marriage record inherently place him at odds with moral conservatives. Moreover, as moral conservatives have closely aligned with Huckabee and voters concerned with foreign policy have been attracted to McCain, Romney’s strengths are concentrated in the pro-business and anti-tax interests of economic conservatives. Thus, a vote for Huckabee or Romney lends itself to the belief that party interests should be realigned behind religious or economic interests, respectively. A vote for Ron Paul is even more symbolic of this belief—his support from younger voters, ndependents, and libertarians is evidence of that.

In the end, whether you choose to support the party as it presently exists or believe that the party must realign behind a new set of principles, either choice is valid and essentially important to the party’s future. While the candidate you select may not win, your vote will be sending a strong message to party leaders that in the dawn of a new Republican era, some interests are more important to constituents than others. After this Tuesday, we will have a better grasp on what these issues are and in order to actively participate in this discussion, you MUST vote.

So even though meteorologists predict that there will be showers this Tuesday, do not be deterred by the rain. Predictions about the weather are oftentimes just as unreliable as predictions about the outcome of elections—just remember the results of this year’s New Hampshire Democratic primary, or for the more historically inclined, the presidential election of 1948. Even if the meteorologists are right after all, your party’s future is worth getting wet for.

The author is a Columbia College senior majoring in political science. She is the director of public relations for Columbia University College Republicans.