US Presidential elections: Narrowing the field

It is the home stretch for Republicans hoping to win their partys nomination for the 2012 US presidential election. The race for the nomination of the GOP began nearly a year ago; the landscape was quite different back then.
The group of presidential hopefuls at the starting line was eclectic to say the least. There was the drugs-legalising libertarianism of Gary Johnson and Ron Paul; the self-proclaimed Tea Party candidates Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann; staunch pro-life social conservatives Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty; Obamas former ambassador to China Jon Hunstman; even real-estate mogul Donald Trump joined in for good measure.
It almost seemed as if the Republican Party was the uniting force for anyone and everyone who had a bone to pick with the Obama regime, irrespective of other.
The race has come a long way from then. The Tea Party fervor, key in securing GOP wins in the 2010 congressional elections, died down significantly. Libertarianism and anti-interventionism proved to be unelectable material, unless of course you were Ron Paul and could afford to stay in the race.
But money too could only be relied on to a certain point in the absence of any concrete policies, as Donald Trump learned the hard way. The myriad debates over the past year also proved to help the party sieve through candidates who could not hold their own when confronted head-on.
All those remaining in the race appear to be the most mainstream, cautiously conservative elements of the Presidential hopefuls, with mostly linear policies and significant experience in politics under their belt...and Ron Paul.
Competing against each other for the home stretch are Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, Ron Paul, a congressman of the State of Texas, Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania and Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of House.
To secure a nomination from the Republican Party, a candidate needs to secure 1,144 delegates across the primaries. Leading the pack currently is Romney, with 568 delegates and a comfortable margin over the Rick Santorum, who is second with 273 delegates.
Gingrich trails behind with 135 delegates and a ballooning campaign debt. Lastly, Ron Paul leads the end with a mere 50 delegates so far; speculation has increased in recent weeks regarding Gingrich and Paul dropping out of the race.
Realistically speaking, the race has narrowed down to a contest between Romney and Santorum. Narrowed to such a point that the social, political, military and economic policies of these two candidates have more in common than not.
On taxation, both favour cutting corporate taxes and differ primarily on their treatment of capital gains, dividend and interest, and the bailout. Though Santorums stance on homosexuality has earned him notoriety, both candidates support a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.
On abortion rights, both are staunchly pro-life- though Romney has seen his views "evolve" over time.
On foreign policy, they both agree on bringing back troops from Afghanistan without a timeline and contingent upon the ground realities. Waterboarding? Both agree it isn torture and important in acquiring information. Iran? Military action should be kept on the table, they say.
Universal healthcare? Though Romney has come under attack for his own healthcare initiative in Massachusetts, both he and Santorum have stated they would suspend Obamacare if elected. In fact, their stances have so much in common that Santorum actually campaigned for Romney in the latters 2008 presidential bid.
But that was then and this is now. With so much overlap between policies, the "debate" has devolved to a mixture of negative publicity and personal attacks. Romney called Santorum a "fake conservative" in Idaho; Santorum called Romney a liar on NBC. Romney was lambasted for being "uniquely unqualified"; Santorum for not being conservative enough.
It seems as if rhetoric is being substituted for actual arguments, which is not uncommon in politics.
At the end of the day, this narrowing of the field bears testimony to the linearity of the Republican base. It signifies that the GOP is willing to compromise on charisma for common ground.
Regardless of whoever wins the GOP nomination, conservative voters will most probably not be swayed to vote Democrat, a risk run by an unconventional (read: Tea Party) nomination.
And most importantly, it embodies an effort to put aside differences in order to unite against the common enemy: the incumbent.