Palin vs. Romney: It's the Statism, Stupid

*
In a USA Today analysis of Mitt Romney's pre-2012 groundwork for a second presidential bid, Susan Page highlighted the contrasts between Romney, the choice of the Republican establishment, and Sarah Palin, who is favored by conservatives and anti-Washington activists such as those found in the Tea Party movement:

In a Gallup Poll this month, Romney led the field when Republicans and independents who lean to the GOP were asked to name "off the top of your head" which Republican they would like to see as the party's 2012 nominee. Fourteen percent mentioned Romney and 11% Palin, the only Republicans to draw double-digit support. Forty-two percent didn't name a preference.

The survey sample was small, and most Americans admittedly aren't focused on a hypothetical contest two years away. Still, the poll, taken Feb. 1-3, found clear contours to their support. The survey of 490 Republicans and GOP leaners has a margin of error of +/—5 percentage points.

Palin had a small edge among Republicans and Romney a big one among independents who tend to vote Republican. They drew similar support among conservatives, but he was much stronger among moderates.

Romney fared best among seniors but was not named by a single respondent under 30; among those younger voters, 2008 Republican nominee John McCain was first and Palin second.

Romney fared best in the East and West; Palin in the South. His strongest showing was among voters with a college degree or more; hers was among those with only some college education or less. He led among those with an annual income of $75,000 or more; she led among those with income of $30,000 or less. She had a slight edge among the most frequent churchgoers.

So a contest between the two might well be something of a class war. It could pit younger, more socially conservative voters for Palin against more traditional Republican voters — older, wealthier and economic conservatives — for Romney.

Page notes that Romney's book, heavy on policy prescription, includes his familiar "three pillars" reference. It has also become part of every major Romney speech, especially his address to CPAC this year:

Romney said there are three pillars upon which we should build: economy, security and family.

This is where Romney misses the mark and Sarah Palin shines, in our opinion. As we have frequently pointed out, for any structure to stand, it must be built with four pillars, not just three. Romney  gives short shrift to the need for a smaller, less intrusive federal government. This "Federalist" pillar is often cited by Gov. Palin in her speeches and written opinion pieces. It addresses one of the major concerns of small-government conservatives and libertarians alike. That Sarah Palin has made modern Federalism one of her major talking points reveals that she is the better student of Ronald Reagan, for whom the concept was also one of his favorite themes. 

But it also reveals Romney as the statist he is. While Gov. Palin is not a pure libertarian by any means, her philosophy of government resonates with the opinions of a growing majority of Americans. A January Washington Post/ABC News poll found:

By 58 percent to 38 percent, Americans said they prefer smaller government and fewer services to larger government with more services. Since [Obama] won the Democratic nomination in June 2008, the margin between those favoring smaller over larger government has moved in Post-ABC polls from five points to 20 points.

A survey conducted by by Rasmussen Reports in mid-December also showed that an overwhelming majority of voters reject the big government ways of both major political parties:

Sixty-six percent (66%) of U.S. voters prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes over a more active government with more services and higher taxes.

[...]

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans and 63% of voters not affiliated with either major party like a smaller government better. Democrats are more narrowly divided: 51% favor a smaller government, but 37% opt for a larger, more activist government.

Lower taxes, as the Bush Administration proved, are not enough. True fiscal restraint requires cutting spending while simultaneously cutting taxes. But the Constitution and our own common sense tell us that the federal government has grown beyond its prescribed limitations.

Gov. Palin's natural political instincts, aided by her experience as a governor of a red state, place her solidly on the side of the majority of Americans who recognize that the federal government is too big, tries to do too much, and has stolen powers that rightly belong to the people and the states. Romney, on the other hand, was the governor of a blue state, one in which the political winds have shifted since his time in office there. His natural inclination is to be a statist; Palin's is to to be much less so. This is the difference which, if she decides to run, could help Sarah Palin knock Mitt Romney out of the 2012 GOP presidential primaries.

- JP