The 2011-12 Republican debates were more of a series of excommunications than a genuine exchange of opposing ideas. Since everyone was aware of the orthodox position on each issue, the objective was to find your opponent’s heresies and beat him into submission with it. Will that be true again in this campaign? I would like to think not, particularly since there appears to be a greater diversity of opinion among the candidates on several issues than last time, but the intellectual enforcers within the party (Fox News, WSJ, etc.) are very strong, and I suspect they will prevail.
Given the large number of candidates, it is inevitable that all of them will try desperately to get attention by employing the sharpest and most memorable zingers they can muster against President Obama and Hillary Clinton. It is also very likely that the group as a whole will feel comfortable taking shots at Rand Paul’s views on foreign policy. Will any of them go further than that? And, if so, will they have the nerve to pursue their attacks to their logical conclusion? Tim Pawlenty’s failure to press his attack on Romney over Obamacare in 2011 is proof that half-hearted (i.e., wimpish) challenges to the leading contenders can be disastrous.
Fans of the Tour de France will note the similarities between the cluster of debaters on the stage and the peleton, which has its own enforcement mechanisms to maintain discipline within the group. Nevertheless, someone with low poll ratings is bound to launch a significant attack on one or more of the principal contenders early in the race, because he has little to lose and much to gain. My prediction is that it will be Ted Cruz, who has burned so many bridges with the Republican establishment, he views it as a badge of honor, and will use it to market himself to the electorate.