The Michigan Primary Results

Mitt Romney has won Michigan. Sort of, anyway. Since Michigan assigns its delegates to the Republican National Convention two per congressional district, Rick Santorum will win several delegates from the state. But beyond that, what can we make of yesterday's primaries?

We can't make much out of Arizona, as a Romney win was a foregone conclusion. It would be ill advised for either camp among the front runners to make too much of Michigan. Romney's win was not astounding and could be yet another signal of weak support. Santorum definitely looks better after his showing here, but it wasn't exactly a clarion call. What does it all mean?

Obviously, it means that Super Tuesday looms big. Either candidate could emerge next week the clear front runner, while a muddled result would indicate only more uncertainty among those claiming to be Republican voters. Gingrich really out to drop in favor of Santorum, to allow conservative voters a more clear option between Romney and Santorum. Still, why did the Michigan vote go as it did?

Several pundits say that it's because the economy is still the main issue in the minds of most voters, and they're probably right. Santorum has set himself as the man of traditional values, and it is interesting that, while he took the evangelical vote, his fellow Catholics went to Romney. We can argue about what exactly that means (we are skeptical that each and every voter who identifies himself as Catholic is an honest to God practicing, serious Catholic, while Evangelicals are pretty solid as a group) but it surely means something. That something is, quite frankly, vaguely sinister.

The economy is important; it would be stupid to argue otherwise. Still, we wonder if there's a point where the state of the economy becomes too important. When the complementary political issues become in fact secondary to the economy, we need to ask ourselves precisely what is gained and what is lost by that.

If a better economy were to automatically allow ourselves to become better persons then making it the primary bone of contention makes perfect sense. But if a better economy simply allows us to indulge ourselves in the various forms of gluttony, buying too much, eating and drinking too much, sex without regard to the sanctity of life, and all the other forms of selfishness and self indulgence which high times allow (without a proper self discipline, of course) then what do we actually have? Do we have a nation with a solid core of right and wrong, or one which will soon suffer an internal decay which will destroy us?

It is too much of the latter in the United States today, unfortunately. Why are so many voters, even and especially Republicans, so willing to ignore abortion or try to sweep the gay marriage questions under the carpet? Because they are issues which concern human well being in a way which does not address the economy. They get in the way of electoral victory, but, in a more telling way, the might just get in the way of the good times we can otherwise have in a strong economy. Putting economic questions completely separate from the moral ones speak to our baser and not our better instincts.

Such is not a recipe for a strong nation over the long term. Yet if that is the recipe of choice for modern Americans, so be it. Just don't be shocked at the taste it leaves.