New Hampshire reveals a deeper Republican divide

Anti-Mitt Romney documentary sets the tone.

The New Hampshire primary later today is only the second stop for the Republicans in a long campaign for presidency, yet for most of the candidates it will be make or break.

However, instead of concentrating on their policies and reaching out to the undecided populace -- only 44 per cent of voter's polled said they had made up their mind -- the GOP candidates have engaged in a week of smear campaigning, with front-runner Mitt Romney the main target.

The tone of the campaign was well and truly set by the pro-Newt Gingrich Political Action Committee (PAC), Winning Our Future, with the release of a stinging anti-Romney documentary. The 30 minute film -- "When Mitt Romney came to Town" -- has yet to be released in full, but the three minute trailer attacks the former governor of Massachusetts for his actions during his time at the investment firm Bain Capital.

 

The video has led Romney, who has spent the last day of campaigning in New Hampshire trying to undo his own gaffe, to be portrayed as a modern day Gordon Gekko, the corporate raider immortalised by Michael Douglass in the 1987 film "Wall Street".

Gingrich attempted to solidify this view during last weekend's debates during which he grilled Romney over his lack of dedication to his constituents whilst he was governor.

The release of the documentary's trailer has underscored the the campaign as a tit-for-tat game that has impressed few voters. According to a national CBS poll released yesterday, 58 per cent of registered Republican voters have said they want more presidential choices, with only 37 per cent stating that they were satisfied with the candidates.

According to John Dickerson, writing on Slate.com, the party is suffering from a "humor crisis", confusing insults for jokes. He writes:

Humor suggests that no matter how dark things are, you have the sensibility to laugh, to see a bit of sun around the corner... A joke well-told gives the audience something they can pass along later to their friends. It magnifies your message easily or at least makes voters feel good enough that they report back favorably about their experience at your rally.

The candidates have concentrated all their energies on attacking the front-runner despite all the indications that regardless of his gaffes and embarrassment, he will still come first in the vote later today. The polls have consistently placed Mitt Romney in first place ahead of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman who is currently tied in third place with Rick Santorum according to the WMUR/UNH poll.

Romney may take New Hampshire but the real challenge ahead is who the Republican party will choose to rally behind come January 21 in South Carolina. The votes have been too close for any candidate to emerge as a clear winner; with all their skirmishes, the candidates have failed to put themselves forward to their own party and are instead damaging their own bids for the Republican presidency nomination.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump's inauguration signals the start of a new and more unstable era

A century in which the world's hegemonic power was a rational actor is about to give way to a more terrifying reality. 

For close to a century, the United States of America has been the world’s paramount superpower, one motivated by, for good and for bad, a rational and predictable series of motivations around its interests and a commitment to a rules-based global order, albeit one caveated by an awareness of the limits of enforcing that against other world powers.

We are now entering a period in which the world’s paramount superpower is neither led by a rational or predictable actor, has no commitment to a rules-based order, and to an extent it has any guiding principle, they are those set forward in Donald Trump’s inaugural: “we will follow two simple rules: hire American and buy American”, “from this day forth, it’s going to be America first, only America first”.

That means that the jousting between Trump and China will only intensify now that he is in office.  The possibility not only of a trade war, but of a hot war, between the two should not be ruled out.

We also have another signal – if it were needed – that he intends to turn a blind eye to the actions of autocrats around the world.

What does that mean for Brexit? It confirms that those who greeted the news that an US-UK trade deal is a “priority” for the incoming administration, including Theresa May, who described Britain as “front of the queue” for a deal with Trump’s America, should prepare themselves for disappointment.

For Europe in general, it confirms what should already been apparent: the nations of Europe are going to have be much, much more self-reliant in terms of their own security. That increases Britain’s leverage as far as the Brexit talks are concerned, in that Britain’s outsized defence spending will allow it acquire goodwill and trade favours in exchange for its role protecting the European Union’s Eastern border.

That might allow May a better deal out of Brexit than she might have got under Hillary Clinton. But there’s a reason why Trump has increased Britain’s heft as far as security and defence are concerned: it’s because his presidency ushers in an era in which we are all much, much less secure. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.