Each candidate’s a different GOP

• Reprints

Updated: February 18, 2012 8:05AM

Though Mitt Romney looks like a prohibitive favorite for the Republican presidential nomination, four other contenders are pinning their hopes to emerge as the not-Romney candidate on South Carolina’s primary Saturday.

The conventional wisdom is that the race remains unresolved because the field is weak. Perhaps just as important, or more so, is that each candidate espouses a particular brand of Republicanism that resonates with particular constituencies within the GOP.

Romney of course fits the mold of “next in line” — the one who has run before, has amassed the experience and resources, is seen as due his turn, and appears the most electable. The businessman and former governor also is the favorite of a large part of the GOP-elected hierarchy and is seen as the candidate with the best resume by fiscal conservatives.

Ron Paul has outperformed expectations because he taps into the fears of Americans who think the country has long been straying from its core principles as written in the Constitution, and this trend only soared on steroids under President Barack Obama. Paul’s advocacy of liberty, laissez-faire economics and a far less interventionist foreign policy has attracted enthusiastic young voters.

One interesting thing about Paul is that he gets more campaign contributions from the military and Pentagon than any other candidate. It’s true the number is relatively small — $95,600. But soldiers don’t get big pay, and they have been too busy with Iraq and Afghanistan to have time to write checks. We can only guess what motivates these contributions, but it’s not unreasonable to assume that Paul’s criticism of long, difficult, counter-insurgency, nation-building wars with no clear victory strikes a chord with some troops. That possibility should give pause to national security hawks, like me, who supported the war of choice in Iraq. Still, Paul’s foreign policy ideas remain unpopular with most Republicans.

Rick Santorum, the surprise near-winner from Iowa, appeals especially to social conservatives. He makes a telling point in connecting America’s persistence poverty with the breakdown of the family. According to the University of Michigan’s National Poverty Center, poverty rates are highest for families headed by single women — 31.6 percent, compared with only 6.2 percent of married couples living in poverty.

The problem, though probably not with most GOP voters, is that Santorum fails to recognize society’s widening definition of the family. Surely accepting adoption, as well as surrogate offspring, in same-sex marriages could reduce the number of children in poverty.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich pleases GOP crowds with his fertile intellect and penetrating criticism of Obama and the media. A Republican president, if there is to be one in 2013, would be smart to find a role for Gingrich in his administration. But Gingrich’s descent into vengeful, bitter politics probably has burned all bridges with Romney.

Gov. Rick Perry boasts an admirable, limited-government, job-creation record in Texas. But his debate performances revealed he just wasn’t ready for prime time.

It’s fair to say these four candidates appeal to the more stridently conservative voters in the GOP than Romney. Yet general elections are won in the center with independent voters. South Carolina’s Republicans might want to remember that as they consider the field and then vote with their heads, not their hearts.