The central narrative of the Republican nomination contest is easy to summarize: Any candidate who is perceived as the main opponent to Mitt Romney immediately ties or leads Mitt Romney.
Rick Santorum's surge tracks with recent precedent. His support
is about the same as Rick Perry's at his peak. A little higher than
Herman Cain's crest. A little lower than Newt Gingrich's pinnacle.
But Santorum is not only Romney's latest challenger, he is the
most serious. Perry did not possess presidential-level skills. Cain
lacked any apparent qualification for high office. Gingrich managed
to systematically confirm every doubt about his style and stability.
Santorum, in contrast, has shown the ability to learn. While his
initial debate performances were peevish and unappealing, he has
grown more confident and likable over time. He has effectively
prosecuted Romney's public record while avoiding anger or overreach.
The former Pennsylvania senator possesses strengths that neatly
fit some of Romney's weaknesses. Santorum combines a deeply held
social conservatism with an authentic blue-collar appeal. Romney has
trouble competing in either category. While Santorum is very
conservative, he avoids being a conservative caricature. He was one
of the Senate's main advocates of global health programs and a
champion of faith-based anti-poverty efforts.
And Santorum has an additional advantage over Gingrich as the
anti-Romney. The GOP establishment viewed the prospect of Gingrich's
nomination with undisguised horror. Having worked with him, they did
everything they could to defeat him.
Santorum is a blank canvas on which the Romney campaign will
write. It has already made large ad purchases, which are not likely
to feature positive Romney bio spots. But when it comes to negative
attacks, the Romney campaign does not yet have Santorum's number.
Santorum did vote for earmarks and a congressional pay raise. But
these crimes against conservatism pale in comparison to Romney's
own. Santorum supported debt-ceiling increases. But this distasteful
legislative responsibility has also been performed by most of
Romney's congressional allies. On the size and role of government,
Romney has a serious log-in-his-own-eye problem.
And Romney is unable to directly exploit Santorum's main
electoral weakness -- his relish for the culture wars. Santorum has
gone out of his way to question the role of women in the workplace
and in the military, and emphasize his opposition to contraception.
"One of the things I will talk about," he said in October, "that no
president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of
contraception in this country." There is a reason no president has
ever done this: because some of the staunchest moral conservatives
in America -- people who are strongly pro-life and committed to the
protection of religious liberty -- consider contraception to be
morally permissible.
Santorum's conservatism has some jagged edges. But it is
difficult for Romney himself to press this case without sounding
like a Massachusetts social liberal. He can only employ proxies and
raise the general issue of electability.
Barack Obama would be under no such constraints.
Romney has entered a high-stakes expectations game. A narrow loss
in Michigan, combined with a convincing win in Arizona, would
probably be survivable. A number of good showings on Super Tuesday,
along with clear victories in delegate-rich primaries down the road
such as New York and California, would likely be enough to make him
the nominee. But a humiliating loss in Michigan would shatter
Romney's fragile front-runner status.
Which highlights Romney's deeper problem. His campaign is very
good at tactics. It has taken each challenger, found his weakness
and pounded it home. But Romney's candidacy remains short on
aspiration. His public appeal, at this point, is a combination of
emphasizing his business experience, criticizing Obama's record and
reassuring conservatives. This is a campaign -- but not a cause.
