There have always been unresolved and arguably unresolvable contradictions between free market capitalism (Romney), social conservatism (Santorum), libertarianism (Paul), and reactive opposition (Gingrich). Free market capitalism, whose perfect representative is the voided man – the shapeshifting inhuman salesman robot, the mere model of a human being, his actual humanizing belief system such as it may be thoroughly unmentionable – annihilates social conservative ideals that are held to transcend systems of exchange, that place a value beyond valuation on tradition, belief, doctrine, character, sacrifice, soul – on precisely everything the free market capitalist struggles even to mimic. (Leftists may not generally wish to recognize these values-beyond-values as validly represented by the likes of Rick Santorum, but that is a separate political-philosophical question.) Nor can free market capitalism be sustained – nor in fact has it ever been instituted – without intervention, armed and otherwise, by the state in contradiction of right libertarian precepts. Conversely, and for the same reason, from the point of view of real existing free market capitalism, libertarian purism presents as utopian lunacy, while to social conservatives, it presents as spiritually impoverished where not antithetical. The reactive politician (not really the same as “reactionary”), finally, enjoys the greatest tactical freedom. Like the free market capitalist, he seems to change shape at will, but he enjoys an even greater flexibility. At any moment he can choose to stand for or against any aspect of each of the ideologues, and even against himself. This makes him, however, unpredictable and untrustworthy, even if he happens to manage for the length of a campaign, and from his highest highs to his vanishing lows, to stand by a single spouse and a single paymaster. The purpose of the partisan political sub-system is to arrange such discord into harmony or some serviceable approximation, and it is still likely to succeed in some fashion, as all participants turn to re-converting the portrait of an incumbent president into a unifying image of alien menace. David Frum calls the alternative – an open (or empowered, or deliberative, or contested, or deadlocked, or brokered) convention – the “GOP’s worst nightmare,” but he concentrates as much on historical precedents that cannot be repeated as on the two main scenarios he envisions: Romney just short of a delegate majority; Romney well short. We should be clear, however, that a convention forced to do what conventions used to do is not the nightmare. It would merely be a redundant proof – the sleeper shrieking and gasping loudly enough to awaken the neighbors, too. The real nightmare is already ongoing, and everyone in the family knows it: of a party splintering, each main ideological element of the Reagan Era coalition exposed both as insufficient on its own terms and as unable to discover within itself a compelling rationale for uniting with customary allies.
Oh, it’s even better. He’s a Gemini–the real shapeshifter.
I think the reason I instinctively recognized what was going on with Gingrich well enough to suggest the perfect campaign song (Mr. Right) for him is that I understand “reactionary.” It’s what I am in a different way. Now, I going to react to this knowledge and change but I get it and agree that “the reactionary, finally, enjoys the greatest tactical freedom. Like the free market capitalist, he seems to change shape at will, but he enjoys an even greater flexibility. At any moment he can choose to stand for or against any aspect of each of the other ideologies, and even against himself. This makes him, however, unpredictable and untrustworthy, even if he happens to manage for the length of a campaign, and from his highest highs to his vanishing lows, to stand by a single spouse and a single paymaster.” Right. There’s also some Scorpio stuff involved. I’m going to check on Gingrich’s b-day.