Republicans might be sticking a little too close to English political theorist Michael Oakeshotts definition of conservatism when it comes to choosing their next presidential candidate.
To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss, Oakeshott wrote.
Certainly in recent election cycles, Republicans have proven themselves to be conservative when it comes to choosing the familiar over the unknown. Its why Republicans have in recent decades embraced presidential candidates who have run for their nomination before: Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon. When he won the Republican nomination back in 2000, George W. Bush had never run for president before but his last name alone ensured he was more familiar than unknown.
The Democrats are more open to latching onto an unknown candidate. That can often lead to winning candidates who are disasters in the White House like Jimmy Carter but sometimes the risk pays off like it did in the case of Bill Clinton. Certainly the Democrats preference for the unknown over the familiar bodes ill for Hillary Clinton in 2016, just as it did in 2008.
But there are signs that the Republicans are starting to lose their preference for the overly familiar. Back in 2012, there was a string of conservatives who vaulted to the top of the pack before crashing back down to reality: Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum.
In the early stages of the 2016 race, Republicans certainly have more than their share of familiar faces. Romney has been active in recent weeks talking about a third presidential bid. Jeb Bush, the son and brother of former presidents, has already launched an exploratory bid. The likes of Mike Huckabee, Santorum, Perry, John Kasich and even Jim Gilmore, who didnt even make it to Iowa back in the early stages of the 2008 race, are also considering second presidential bids.
Even some of the candidates considering their first presidential bid arent exactly political newcomers. Rand Paul has been very busy on the national scene and his father ran for president three times. Chris Christie has been hitting the national media since winning his first term in 2009. Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Mike Pence have been the subject of past presidential and vice presidential buzz. George Pataki has been a major figure since he beat Mario Cuomo more than 20 years ago and explored running for president before. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson are fresh faces but that could hurt them in the long haul as Republican primary voters have shown a traditional preference for more established presidential nominees.
For the moment, Romney is moving to the top of the polls, leading the other potential Republican hopefuls. Some of that comes from Republicans being familiar with Romney who has run twice before. But Romneys fingerprints arent exactly on the GOP. There isnt a Romney wing of the Republican Party nor can there be. Romney was a liberal governor of Massachusetts, a conservative presidential candidate in 2008 and the GOP establishments darling in 2012.
If Romney wins the nomination, hell be one of a handful of candidates who won a presidential nomination after being defeated in a previous general election. Nobody has done that in two election cycles in a row since Tom Dewey in 1948. But after coming up short last time out, its tough to see Romney winning in 2016. The economy is getting better and, despite his business background, Romney was not able to take advantage of the sluggish economy last time out. Republicans might want to reject their usual preference for the familiar over the unknown and go with another candidate who, chances are, wont be that much of an unknown in the general scheme of things.
Reach Kevin Derby at kderby@sunshinestatenews.com or follow him on Twitter: @KevinDerbySSN
