The Republican establishment is stepping up its attacks against Gingrich. It was coordinated today from a variety of quarters: Bob Dole, Peter Wehner, Tom Delay, William Buckley Jr., and Anne Coulter.
The very reason why Gingrich appeals to primary voters is the reason why he will not do well with independents voters in the fall. (And that's an assessment coming from Anne Coulter.) Gingrich has fire, but placed alongside No Drama Obama, he's going to look like a very unlikeable candidate. There's hardly anyone who has worked closely with the former Speaker who has endorsed him -- which tells us a lot about the guy. In the era of televisual politics, a bitter old man is not going to beat a likeable (or even less competent, if that is what Obama is) younger man. The Establishment from either party talks the talk of the virtue of debates, grassroots activism and decision-making, but in the end they care more about winning and nominating the most electable candidate than a tip of the hat to primary voters and "democracy."
The fact that a coordinated strategy against Gingrich is happening within party ranks conveniently on the eve of the last debate before the Florida primary is particularly striking given that Gingrich doesn't really have a fall back plan beyond Florida. Romney took a landslide victory in Nevada, the next state up in the primary calendar, back in 2008, so it is difficult to imagine that Gingrich would be able to pull an upset there, or in Arizona or Michigan on February 28.
But everything changes if Gingrich wins in Florida. Then the momentum will keep him going until Super Tuesday on March 6 when the South speaks and Gingrich will rise; and civil war will erupt in the Republican party. The Establishment will do everything to thwart him there, and that is why they are taking no chances and are already making headway. Mitt Romney's superior debate performance tonight was also a reflection of a campaign in full knowledge that the Florida firewall must not fall.
Two days after the President's State of the Union address, hardly anyone is talking about it because Obama's fate in November will depend more on forces he cannot control than on anything he can do. Every single poll out there placing Gingrich and Obama in a head-to-head match gives the election to Obama -- by a 12 point spread on average. If the Republican primary electorate delivers Gingrich to Obama, even Bob Dole and William Buckley think it's going to be four more years.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Gingrich becomes the Anti-Romney Candidate
Newt Gingrich has won the biggest primary prize up for grabs so far. Romney's win in New Hampshire has been discounted because he's from neighboring Massachusetts, while poor Rick Santorum's newly recently declared victory in Iowa was quickly eclipsed by the news about Rick Perry dropping put of the race, ABC's interview with Gingrich's ex-wife, and the scuffle over Romney's tax returns. This is a huge victory for Gingrich because every winner in South Carolina since 1980 has gone on to win the nomination. So Gingrich is now the conservative alternative to Romney.
Volatility, though, has been the hallmark of the nomination race this year, and there is no reason to think this will change. The higher quantity of debates has helped Gingrich build a momentum in the last week, as has his superPAC -- both are new developments from the last cycle. For the first time in modern history, the Republicans have picked a different winner for each of the first three states. For the first time ever, the Republicans are going to nominate either a Mormon (Romney) or a Catholic (Gingrich). This denominational diversity reveals a conservative electorate much more concerned about the economy than about social values, which was the major issue just 8 years ago. Finally, the loyal supporters of Ron Paul are a wild card, because no one knows to whom they will turn when Paul finally bows out -- and he intends to to hang around. All told, there are 1150 delegates to get to earn the nomination, so this race pushes on at least until the Spring.
Gingrich did not win in South Carolina because of "electability" as the SC exit polls misleadingly say; he won because of the rage that South Carolinians believe is necessary to take on Obama. Gingrich received the first standing ovation in the debates so far when he observed that more people had been put on food stamps under Obama than under any other president - a line he has been repeating in the last week. Obama will not and cannot receive credit for whatever he has done because his very presence in the White House is perceived by some conservatives as a criminalization of the the state in the service of socialism. This newly rediscovered "southern strategy" worked in South Carolina and it may well work beyond.
Gingrich is in a good position but not a front-leading one, however. He will not enjoy native son of the South advantage in Florida as he did in South Carolina, so the next contest is going to be important for him to prove his viability. He would need a huge infusion of cash after tonight to be able to afford the television ads he or his superPAC will need to run in Florida. Gingrich will not be able to sustain his momentum with just the free media, though two debates next week will help. For now, Romney still enjoys a lead because Florida's electorate is older and less evangelical than in South Carolina. Early voting has already started in Florida, and will continued until the 28th, so Romney's initial lead there would help him.
It is also worth noting that Romney is the only candidate who has done well in all three states. He is still, therefore, the frontrunner. But he cannot afford any more mis-steps. The tax returns questions from the media was just poorly handled, and Romney has stuttered repeatedly on a question that he should have been more than prepared for (as Gingrich was about ABC's interview with his ex-wife). Romney's fundamental problem, paradoxically, is that he is a happy, privileged man. He has no axe to grind, no grievances -- not even with the liberals and the feds. Worse still, he doesn't even perform anger very well, and that is why he could not gain traction in South Carolina. Romney is going to have to go after Gingrich's ethics violations, Fannie and Freddie Mac associations, and his multiple marriages; while Gingrich is going to go after Romney's Bain history, his healthcare positions in Massachusetts, and his tax returns. Things will have to get much uglier before the results of the nomination contest become clearer. And so onward toward the Sunshine State we go.
Volatility, though, has been the hallmark of the nomination race this year, and there is no reason to think this will change. The higher quantity of debates has helped Gingrich build a momentum in the last week, as has his superPAC -- both are new developments from the last cycle. For the first time in modern history, the Republicans have picked a different winner for each of the first three states. For the first time ever, the Republicans are going to nominate either a Mormon (Romney) or a Catholic (Gingrich). This denominational diversity reveals a conservative electorate much more concerned about the economy than about social values, which was the major issue just 8 years ago. Finally, the loyal supporters of Ron Paul are a wild card, because no one knows to whom they will turn when Paul finally bows out -- and he intends to to hang around. All told, there are 1150 delegates to get to earn the nomination, so this race pushes on at least until the Spring.
Gingrich did not win in South Carolina because of "electability" as the SC exit polls misleadingly say; he won because of the rage that South Carolinians believe is necessary to take on Obama. Gingrich received the first standing ovation in the debates so far when he observed that more people had been put on food stamps under Obama than under any other president - a line he has been repeating in the last week. Obama will not and cannot receive credit for whatever he has done because his very presence in the White House is perceived by some conservatives as a criminalization of the the state in the service of socialism. This newly rediscovered "southern strategy" worked in South Carolina and it may well work beyond.
Gingrich is in a good position but not a front-leading one, however. He will not enjoy native son of the South advantage in Florida as he did in South Carolina, so the next contest is going to be important for him to prove his viability. He would need a huge infusion of cash after tonight to be able to afford the television ads he or his superPAC will need to run in Florida. Gingrich will not be able to sustain his momentum with just the free media, though two debates next week will help. For now, Romney still enjoys a lead because Florida's electorate is older and less evangelical than in South Carolina. Early voting has already started in Florida, and will continued until the 28th, so Romney's initial lead there would help him.
It is also worth noting that Romney is the only candidate who has done well in all three states. He is still, therefore, the frontrunner. But he cannot afford any more mis-steps. The tax returns questions from the media was just poorly handled, and Romney has stuttered repeatedly on a question that he should have been more than prepared for (as Gingrich was about ABC's interview with his ex-wife). Romney's fundamental problem, paradoxically, is that he is a happy, privileged man. He has no axe to grind, no grievances -- not even with the liberals and the feds. Worse still, he doesn't even perform anger very well, and that is why he could not gain traction in South Carolina. Romney is going to have to go after Gingrich's ethics violations, Fannie and Freddie Mac associations, and his multiple marriages; while Gingrich is going to go after Romney's Bain history, his healthcare positions in Massachusetts, and his tax returns. Things will have to get much uglier before the results of the nomination contest become clearer. And so onward toward the Sunshine State we go.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Romney's Still on Top
The first votes for the 2012 elections have been cast. Clearly the headline from last night is the Santorum surge in the last couple of days, better timed than any of the other candidates who had had their day in the sun. Oh and Mitt Romney eked out about an 8-votes win matching his own performance by percentage points in 2008.
So let's get down to the real results before the morning spin begins. Santorum has the most room for growth among the top three finishers in Iowa. Most important, Gingrich is furious, and he will be taking Romney on in the days to come (even if he would be wiser to go after Santorum so he doesn't sound like a petulant child). That leaves Santorum free to try to get a decent showing in New Hampshire, which is why he has decided to put his chips in that state rather than divide it equally between there and South Carolina, where presumably, he expects to do well with the social conservatives there as he did in Iowa. Meanwhile, if Bachmann or Perry drop out, their votes are now up for grabs. They may go to Gingrich, but Santorum will be vying hard for then. All this points to Santorum as the potential anti-Romney candidate in the days to come, but things are very fluid because Santorum does not have an ground operation set up the way Romney does, it does not look to be a year for social (values) conservatism, and the media has done a darn good job of shining the spotlight on and taking down every anti-Romney candidate who has emerged in the last couple of months -- and they have already started.
Here are some non-stories that are worth exploring. That Ron Paul, who is at the fringe of the Republican Party and who has not ruled out a third-party run, came in third suggests that his message cannot be taken lightly. Add his support to Santorum's support and one can almost say that the shake-up of the Republican establishment is underway. But this is still anybody's game because number 2 and 3 are as far apart ideologically as any two contenders in the Republican primary could possibly be. This is unusual, and suggests a party in deep self-introspection. This is a chance for a serious recalibration, but clearly also a chance for a drawn out battle that will benefit the incumbent, Barack Obama. (Incidentally, turnout was about the same as it was in 2008, at 122,000 - good news for Democrats who are expecting an enthusiasm gap in the Republicans' failure this time.)
Romney's best chance forward is to say that he is the candidate with the best chance of defeating Obama. He should repeat that ad nauseum, and remind people that he visited Iowa only 9 times this round (Santorum had visited every county) after his embarrassing defeat in 2008. Romney is clearly a seasoned operative who knows how to play this game. Even more important, a win in New Hampshire, which the polls right now predict, could give him the earliest hint of an inevitable winner. Why? Because he would be the first non-incumbent Republican candidate to win both Iowa and New Hampshire. (Edmund Muskie in 1972 and Al Gore in 2000 managed that on the Democratic side.) For all the talk of a disunited Republican party, this would be a non-trivial milestone if Romney maintains his considerable lead in New Hampshire.
So let's get down to the real results before the morning spin begins. Santorum has the most room for growth among the top three finishers in Iowa. Most important, Gingrich is furious, and he will be taking Romney on in the days to come (even if he would be wiser to go after Santorum so he doesn't sound like a petulant child). That leaves Santorum free to try to get a decent showing in New Hampshire, which is why he has decided to put his chips in that state rather than divide it equally between there and South Carolina, where presumably, he expects to do well with the social conservatives there as he did in Iowa. Meanwhile, if Bachmann or Perry drop out, their votes are now up for grabs. They may go to Gingrich, but Santorum will be vying hard for then. All this points to Santorum as the potential anti-Romney candidate in the days to come, but things are very fluid because Santorum does not have an ground operation set up the way Romney does, it does not look to be a year for social (values) conservatism, and the media has done a darn good job of shining the spotlight on and taking down every anti-Romney candidate who has emerged in the last couple of months -- and they have already started.
Here are some non-stories that are worth exploring. That Ron Paul, who is at the fringe of the Republican Party and who has not ruled out a third-party run, came in third suggests that his message cannot be taken lightly. Add his support to Santorum's support and one can almost say that the shake-up of the Republican establishment is underway. But this is still anybody's game because number 2 and 3 are as far apart ideologically as any two contenders in the Republican primary could possibly be. This is unusual, and suggests a party in deep self-introspection. This is a chance for a serious recalibration, but clearly also a chance for a drawn out battle that will benefit the incumbent, Barack Obama. (Incidentally, turnout was about the same as it was in 2008, at 122,000 - good news for Democrats who are expecting an enthusiasm gap in the Republicans' failure this time.)
Romney's best chance forward is to say that he is the candidate with the best chance of defeating Obama. He should repeat that ad nauseum, and remind people that he visited Iowa only 9 times this round (Santorum had visited every county) after his embarrassing defeat in 2008. Romney is clearly a seasoned operative who knows how to play this game. Even more important, a win in New Hampshire, which the polls right now predict, could give him the earliest hint of an inevitable winner. Why? Because he would be the first non-incumbent Republican candidate to win both Iowa and New Hampshire. (Edmund Muskie in 1972 and Al Gore in 2000 managed that on the Democratic side.) For all the talk of a disunited Republican party, this would be a non-trivial milestone if Romney maintains his considerable lead in New Hampshire.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Romney Back on Top
The Republican game of musical chairs continues. One thing remains: Mitt Romney has held on to his seat as a leading contender for the nomination in the last four years.
Newt Gingrich's rise and fall in the past month has several lessons to tell. First, no self-serving candidate would ever dare commit himself to a positive campaign again. Gingrich tried, and by refusing to counter fire with fire until recently, his poll numbers have dipped under a relentless barrage of negative ads coming from the Perry campaign and the Romney superPAC. What was particularly foolhardy about Gingrich's pledge to remain positive is that the anti-Romney vote had shifted to him precisely because he had the fire in the belly that conservatives felt was missing in Romney. Second, this is only the most recent proof that negative ads work. Of course, what is bad for the candidate is even worse for the country. But in the heat of the campaign, no one cares. And the heat is on for 2012. Third, Gingrich's failure to get on the Virginia ballot tells a cautionary tale to any candidate who tries to play a national strategy when elections in this country are won by an organized war on the ground, state by state. Gingrich's failure to get his organizational act together only reinforced the narrative that he was erratic and not up to the grueling task of a long campaign.
As Gingrich supporters in Iowa return to the Romney camp, others have gone to Rick Santorum and especially to Ron Paul. This should not be surprising. Ron Paul is the original article. A Tea Partier before the (modern) Tea Party who has spent the better part of his life advocating his libertarian, small government philosophy. Between Paul and Santorum, Paul is likely to finish nearer to the top in the long haul because he has an organization on the ground in more states and because 2012 will be about the economy, not culture. What the Republicans want more than anything else (other than to defeat Obama) is to overturn Obamacare, not protect human life or restore DADT in the military. Cultural issues, in any case, are not going to be salient in a primary race where everyone already agrees on them. This is one reason why all the ads Rick Perry are putting out touting his Christian faith are gaining so little traction. (They will be enough, however, to split the socially conservative vote between him, Michele Bachmann and Santorum so a Huckabee-like surprise victory as in 2004 is not likely.)
As a sign of his newfound confidence, Mitt Romney's closing argument in Davenport, Iowa, as the campaigns wind down for the New Year just days before the Iowa caucuses was focussed entirely on Joe Biden and Obama, not any of his rivals who are struggling for political relevance. Having survived the Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich insurgencies, Romney has proven his mettle to many who had doubted him before that he can take on Barack Obama. And that -- a competent candidate -- is what Republican primary voters are ultimately looking for.
Newt Gingrich's rise and fall in the past month has several lessons to tell. First, no self-serving candidate would ever dare commit himself to a positive campaign again. Gingrich tried, and by refusing to counter fire with fire until recently, his poll numbers have dipped under a relentless barrage of negative ads coming from the Perry campaign and the Romney superPAC. What was particularly foolhardy about Gingrich's pledge to remain positive is that the anti-Romney vote had shifted to him precisely because he had the fire in the belly that conservatives felt was missing in Romney. Second, this is only the most recent proof that negative ads work. Of course, what is bad for the candidate is even worse for the country. But in the heat of the campaign, no one cares. And the heat is on for 2012. Third, Gingrich's failure to get on the Virginia ballot tells a cautionary tale to any candidate who tries to play a national strategy when elections in this country are won by an organized war on the ground, state by state. Gingrich's failure to get his organizational act together only reinforced the narrative that he was erratic and not up to the grueling task of a long campaign.
As Gingrich supporters in Iowa return to the Romney camp, others have gone to Rick Santorum and especially to Ron Paul. This should not be surprising. Ron Paul is the original article. A Tea Partier before the (modern) Tea Party who has spent the better part of his life advocating his libertarian, small government philosophy. Between Paul and Santorum, Paul is likely to finish nearer to the top in the long haul because he has an organization on the ground in more states and because 2012 will be about the economy, not culture. What the Republicans want more than anything else (other than to defeat Obama) is to overturn Obamacare, not protect human life or restore DADT in the military. Cultural issues, in any case, are not going to be salient in a primary race where everyone already agrees on them. This is one reason why all the ads Rick Perry are putting out touting his Christian faith are gaining so little traction. (They will be enough, however, to split the socially conservative vote between him, Michele Bachmann and Santorum so a Huckabee-like surprise victory as in 2004 is not likely.)
As a sign of his newfound confidence, Mitt Romney's closing argument in Davenport, Iowa, as the campaigns wind down for the New Year just days before the Iowa caucuses was focussed entirely on Joe Biden and Obama, not any of his rivals who are struggling for political relevance. Having survived the Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich insurgencies, Romney has proven his mettle to many who had doubted him before that he can take on Barack Obama. And that -- a competent candidate -- is what Republican primary voters are ultimately looking for.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Eleventh Hour Reconfigurations in the Republican Primary Race
With so many candidates moving in and out of frontrunner status in the Republican nomination race in the past months, it would appear that the winner of the game of musical chairs could simply be determined by when the music stops. And it stops on January 3, when the Iowa caucuses meet.
Whether or not there has been a method to the madness, with less than a month to go, it would appear that Newt Gingrich has a shot to the seat at the top. New polls show Gingrich overtaking frontrunner Mitt Romney in the key states of Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida. Assuming Romney takes New Hampshire, Gingerich looks set to take three of the first four contests. He would then look like a formidable frontrunner by the end of January, if he doesn't slip.
Whether or not Gingrich will hold on to his lead will turn on whether and how much Democrats and the press decide to publicize his history of ethics violations and his prior experience as an alleged lobbyist. It will also depend on the effect of Gingrich's rather hasty acceptance of Donald Trump's invitation to host a debate for the Republican candidates, most of whom have wisely declined. Finally, Gingrich's fate rests on how soon the supporters of Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachmann join the Gingerich bandwagon. The longer the second-tier candidates stay on the campaign trail, the more likely Romney would be able to use his own considerable resources to fight on by a war of financial attrition.
It appears that the DNC ad on Mitt v. Mitt, timed to coincide with the implosion of the Herman Cain campaign, could be working. Meanwhile, a story just broke that electronic records of Romney's gubernatorial administrations were deleted when he left office. Coordinated by the White House or not, David Plouffe must be delirious with the possibility of a Gingrich nomination, but he's probably taking no chances. In Kansas this Tuesday, President Obama delivered his inaugural 2012 campaign speech, making clear that he anticipates that the central issue of the upcoming election to be the debate about the role and size of government. Why give this speech now? Perhaps because the White House hopes that Republicans who cannot forgive Mitt Romney for "Obamaneycare" will place their hopes on Gingrich.
And if that happens, Obama would be feeling a whole lot more secure about his seat at the Oval Office through 2016.
Whether or not there has been a method to the madness, with less than a month to go, it would appear that Newt Gingrich has a shot to the seat at the top. New polls show Gingrich overtaking frontrunner Mitt Romney in the key states of Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida. Assuming Romney takes New Hampshire, Gingerich looks set to take three of the first four contests. He would then look like a formidable frontrunner by the end of January, if he doesn't slip.
Whether or not Gingrich will hold on to his lead will turn on whether and how much Democrats and the press decide to publicize his history of ethics violations and his prior experience as an alleged lobbyist. It will also depend on the effect of Gingrich's rather hasty acceptance of Donald Trump's invitation to host a debate for the Republican candidates, most of whom have wisely declined. Finally, Gingrich's fate rests on how soon the supporters of Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachmann join the Gingerich bandwagon. The longer the second-tier candidates stay on the campaign trail, the more likely Romney would be able to use his own considerable resources to fight on by a war of financial attrition.
It appears that the DNC ad on Mitt v. Mitt, timed to coincide with the implosion of the Herman Cain campaign, could be working. Meanwhile, a story just broke that electronic records of Romney's gubernatorial administrations were deleted when he left office. Coordinated by the White House or not, David Plouffe must be delirious with the possibility of a Gingrich nomination, but he's probably taking no chances. In Kansas this Tuesday, President Obama delivered his inaugural 2012 campaign speech, making clear that he anticipates that the central issue of the upcoming election to be the debate about the role and size of government. Why give this speech now? Perhaps because the White House hopes that Republicans who cannot forgive Mitt Romney for "Obamaneycare" will place their hopes on Gingrich.
And if that happens, Obama would be feeling a whole lot more secure about his seat at the Oval Office through 2016.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Disconnect between Democracy and Republicanism
It should now be clear to all that the highly polarized environment that is Washington is dysfunctional, and the disillusionment it is causing portends yet more headlocks and cynicism to come.
Here is the all-too-familiar cycle of American electoral politics in the last few decades. Campaign gurus draw sharp distinctions to get out the vote. The impassioned vote wins the day. Impatient voters watch their newly elected president or representative fail to pass in undiluted form the the reforms promised during the campaign. Disillusion ensues. The gurus step in with a new round of fiesty charges, and the cycle begins anew.
At some point, citizens are going to get tired of being stoked, poked, and roped, and all for nought. The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements are reactions against a system gone awry. The low approval ratings for the Congress and the president are another indicator. The Republicans' perpetual search for an anti-establishment alternative is another.
And now we are facing a spectacular new failure. The "super committee" charged to reach a budget reduction deal has proved itself anything but super. If twelve people can no longer agree to make hard decisions, it is reflective of the larger malaise of which we dare not speak. It is that democracy has run amok in a republic founded on the idea that out elected representatives should be able to make decisions on our behalf, and sometimes in spite of ourselves because representation is a higher calling than mimicry. Maybe that is why Abraham Lincoln did not deliver a single campaign speech in 1860.
Each of the twelve men and women in the committee are thinking about their constituencies, their parties, and their base and so bluster and bravado must take precedence over compromise and conciliation. When the voice of the people, artificially stoked for shrillness, begins to infect the deliberative process even in between electoral cycles, there is no chance for serious inter-branch deliberation. We have reduced our representatives to sycophants whose mantra is do nothing but heap the blame on the other party.
The solution is not to exploit the disillusioned by way of new campaign slogans and negative ads to artificially jolt their temporary and baser passions, but for the noise and the trouble-makers fixated only on winning at the next ballot to be weeded out of the system. To do that, citizens must realize that the lion's share for what counts as democracy today is making it nearly impossible for the representatives of our republic to make decisions on behalf of We the People. Remember: ours is a republic, if we can keep it.
Here is the all-too-familiar cycle of American electoral politics in the last few decades. Campaign gurus draw sharp distinctions to get out the vote. The impassioned vote wins the day. Impatient voters watch their newly elected president or representative fail to pass in undiluted form the the reforms promised during the campaign. Disillusion ensues. The gurus step in with a new round of fiesty charges, and the cycle begins anew.
At some point, citizens are going to get tired of being stoked, poked, and roped, and all for nought. The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements are reactions against a system gone awry. The low approval ratings for the Congress and the president are another indicator. The Republicans' perpetual search for an anti-establishment alternative is another.
And now we are facing a spectacular new failure. The "super committee" charged to reach a budget reduction deal has proved itself anything but super. If twelve people can no longer agree to make hard decisions, it is reflective of the larger malaise of which we dare not speak. It is that democracy has run amok in a republic founded on the idea that out elected representatives should be able to make decisions on our behalf, and sometimes in spite of ourselves because representation is a higher calling than mimicry. Maybe that is why Abraham Lincoln did not deliver a single campaign speech in 1860.
Each of the twelve men and women in the committee are thinking about their constituencies, their parties, and their base and so bluster and bravado must take precedence over compromise and conciliation. When the voice of the people, artificially stoked for shrillness, begins to infect the deliberative process even in between electoral cycles, there is no chance for serious inter-branch deliberation. We have reduced our representatives to sycophants whose mantra is do nothing but heap the blame on the other party.
The solution is not to exploit the disillusioned by way of new campaign slogans and negative ads to artificially jolt their temporary and baser passions, but for the noise and the trouble-makers fixated only on winning at the next ballot to be weeded out of the system. To do that, citizens must realize that the lion's share for what counts as democracy today is making it nearly impossible for the representatives of our republic to make decisions on behalf of We the People. Remember: ours is a republic, if we can keep it.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Why Republicans Can't Find their Candidate
Mitt Romney must be the happiest Republican in the world. His political rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, Herman Cain and Rick Perry, seem to be trying to out-do the other in terms of whose campaign can implode faster.
Let's start with Rick Perry's campaign. Now we know why his campaign advisors were telling him to skip upcoming debates. Perry's oops moment in last night's debate will enter into the political hall of infamy, because that was the moment when his sponsors will realize that he is just a bad investment. If Perry cannot think just one sentence faster than he can talk, he will be demolished by a law professor when they debate next year.
Perry's gaffe's was probably a godsend to Herman Cain, but it would be little relief in the worst week of his campaign yet. It doesn't matter if the accusations of sexual harassment are true, but they are now distractions to Cain's message that he was already struggling to explain. And then he had to go call former Speaker Pelosi "Princess Nancy."
Sarah Palin wasn't an aberration in a line of competent Republican candidates from Eisenhower to Nixon. She is the new rule. The thing about modern conservatism is that it has become so anti-establishment that it now happily accepts any political outsider as a potential candidate for the highest office in the land. Political outsiders aren't tainted by politics, by Washington, so we are told. But, by the same token, they can therefore also make terrible candidates!
The irony, of course, is that the slew of debates being held this year was meant to give voters greater choice and knowledge of the candidates' positions. But all this is doing is reinforce the front-runner status of the establishment candidate. There is a reason why Mitt Romney and his perfect haircut has coasted through the debate without any oops moments. He's a professional politician! Tea Partiers are going to have to come to the uncomfortable realization that it takes one professional politician to beat another.
One relatively unmentioned reason why Mitt Romney is still hovering at 25 percent is because the Republican party changed the nomination rules in 2010 away from winner-take-all, so that states (except the first four) would allocate their delegates proportionately to the candidates at the national convention. This has the effect of giving less known candidates more of a chance of lasting longer in the race than they normally would, but the unintended consequence is that republican voters will have to watch their candidates battle it out, and even suffer the potentially demoralizing conclusion that in choosing their candidate, they must follow their mind, not their hearts.
It is far from clear, then, that 2012 will be a Republican year. Conservatives have yet to explain away a fundamental puzzle: if government is so unnecessary, so inefficient, and so corrupt, why seek an office in it? This is possibly why the very brightest and savviest would-be candidates are in Wall Street, and can't be bothered with an address change to Pennsylvania Avenue. Except Rick Perry and Herman Cain, of course.
Let's start with Rick Perry's campaign. Now we know why his campaign advisors were telling him to skip upcoming debates. Perry's oops moment in last night's debate will enter into the political hall of infamy, because that was the moment when his sponsors will realize that he is just a bad investment. If Perry cannot think just one sentence faster than he can talk, he will be demolished by a law professor when they debate next year.
Perry's gaffe's was probably a godsend to Herman Cain, but it would be little relief in the worst week of his campaign yet. It doesn't matter if the accusations of sexual harassment are true, but they are now distractions to Cain's message that he was already struggling to explain. And then he had to go call former Speaker Pelosi "Princess Nancy."
Sarah Palin wasn't an aberration in a line of competent Republican candidates from Eisenhower to Nixon. She is the new rule. The thing about modern conservatism is that it has become so anti-establishment that it now happily accepts any political outsider as a potential candidate for the highest office in the land. Political outsiders aren't tainted by politics, by Washington, so we are told. But, by the same token, they can therefore also make terrible candidates!
The irony, of course, is that the slew of debates being held this year was meant to give voters greater choice and knowledge of the candidates' positions. But all this is doing is reinforce the front-runner status of the establishment candidate. There is a reason why Mitt Romney and his perfect haircut has coasted through the debate without any oops moments. He's a professional politician! Tea Partiers are going to have to come to the uncomfortable realization that it takes one professional politician to beat another.
One relatively unmentioned reason why Mitt Romney is still hovering at 25 percent is because the Republican party changed the nomination rules in 2010 away from winner-take-all, so that states (except the first four) would allocate their delegates proportionately to the candidates at the national convention. This has the effect of giving less known candidates more of a chance of lasting longer in the race than they normally would, but the unintended consequence is that republican voters will have to watch their candidates battle it out, and even suffer the potentially demoralizing conclusion that in choosing their candidate, they must follow their mind, not their hearts.
It is far from clear, then, that 2012 will be a Republican year. Conservatives have yet to explain away a fundamental puzzle: if government is so unnecessary, so inefficient, and so corrupt, why seek an office in it? This is possibly why the very brightest and savviest would-be candidates are in Wall Street, and can't be bothered with an address change to Pennsylvania Avenue. Except Rick Perry and Herman Cain, of course.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Does Obama Lead when he does not Speak?
When the dust settles on the history of the Obama presidency, a major theme historians will have to consider and explain, is the startling contrast in his record in domestic policy versus his successes in foreign policy, which now include the assassination of Bin Laden and the toppling of Qaddafi. To put the matter in another way: if 2012 were 2004, and Obama would be judged purely on his foreign policy alone, he wouldn't have to be doing any bus tours in the battleground states now.
I'm going to hazard a few hypotheses here to highlight the paradoxes of contemporary American politics. Only four years ago, Democrats were afraid that candidate Obama lacked the knowledge and the experience to take on the complex issues of the world -- a reason why Hillary Clinton was the presumed frontrunner. At the time, Obama drew sharp contrasts between himself and the Bush administration, essentially portraying himself as a kindler and gentler ambassador to the world rather than the abrasive tough-talking cowboy that his predecessor was. Also, at the time, it was thought that Obama's strong suit was what he would bring to the domestic policy-making table in substance (health-care reform) and style (bi- or post-partisanship). None of these expectations turned out to be accurate.
As it turns out, you don't really need all that much experience to have a successful foreign policy. Ronald Reagan didn't, and neither did Barack Obama. What mattered was that they were able to appoint personnel to get the job done. Delegation works when the President operates as Commander-in-Chief, when he does not need to negotiate with Congress or convince errant blue-dog Democrats yapping at his side. Call it what you will: "Leading from behind," engaging with the world, reasoning based on evidence, or hiring Hillary Clinton -- it has clearly worked. But another reason for why Obama's record on foreign policy isn't the topic of most Republican candidates' talking points is that it really isn't all that different from Bush's. He hasn't had to draw a line in the sand between a Democratic or a Republican approach. The tone and the execution may have been better, but in its essentials, such as the unilateral use of force (and especially predator drones), a preemptive presumption in favor of democracy, and a realist approach to "enemy combatants" (and Guantanamo Bay), the two administrations have not been all that different.
A gentler style and tone directed at the rest of the world may well be productive for the Commander-in-Chief, but it appears to have done nothing for the President at home. We may soon have to consider the grand irony that a person brought in to reconcile differences and to put red and blue states together has actually been spectacularly bad at doing so. It is almost as if it is precisely in those areas where Obama does not need to open his mouth to convince either side that he has met with the most success. That is to say, Obama has been most successful when he has been unilateral, picking and choosing what works and what does not and not really having to sell his selection to either party. And he has been the least successful when he has attempted to be persuasive, pragmatic and deliberative, trying so hard in town hall meeting after meeting to sell his domestic program -- the putative virtues he brought to the political table in 2008, no less.
Talk works in campaigns, but it appears perfunctory for the successful conduct of foreign policy and practically counter-productive when it comes to selling the president's domestic agenda. To be sure, the president is back on the road. But it is very likely, given the uncompromising Republican stance on raising taxes, that the speeches will be more effective in drumming political support for the president that it will be for his jobs plan. But this shouldn't be so surprising. We hire our presidents on the basis of their ability to talk, not their ability to govern. There is no real test for the latter until it actually happens. However counter-intuitive this may sound, the very stark contrast in Obama's leadership on foreign versus domestic policy strongly suggests that talking has much less to do with governing than our infotainment culture insists it does.
I'm going to hazard a few hypotheses here to highlight the paradoxes of contemporary American politics. Only four years ago, Democrats were afraid that candidate Obama lacked the knowledge and the experience to take on the complex issues of the world -- a reason why Hillary Clinton was the presumed frontrunner. At the time, Obama drew sharp contrasts between himself and the Bush administration, essentially portraying himself as a kindler and gentler ambassador to the world rather than the abrasive tough-talking cowboy that his predecessor was. Also, at the time, it was thought that Obama's strong suit was what he would bring to the domestic policy-making table in substance (health-care reform) and style (bi- or post-partisanship). None of these expectations turned out to be accurate.
As it turns out, you don't really need all that much experience to have a successful foreign policy. Ronald Reagan didn't, and neither did Barack Obama. What mattered was that they were able to appoint personnel to get the job done. Delegation works when the President operates as Commander-in-Chief, when he does not need to negotiate with Congress or convince errant blue-dog Democrats yapping at his side. Call it what you will: "Leading from behind," engaging with the world, reasoning based on evidence, or hiring Hillary Clinton -- it has clearly worked. But another reason for why Obama's record on foreign policy isn't the topic of most Republican candidates' talking points is that it really isn't all that different from Bush's. He hasn't had to draw a line in the sand between a Democratic or a Republican approach. The tone and the execution may have been better, but in its essentials, such as the unilateral use of force (and especially predator drones), a preemptive presumption in favor of democracy, and a realist approach to "enemy combatants" (and Guantanamo Bay), the two administrations have not been all that different.
A gentler style and tone directed at the rest of the world may well be productive for the Commander-in-Chief, but it appears to have done nothing for the President at home. We may soon have to consider the grand irony that a person brought in to reconcile differences and to put red and blue states together has actually been spectacularly bad at doing so. It is almost as if it is precisely in those areas where Obama does not need to open his mouth to convince either side that he has met with the most success. That is to say, Obama has been most successful when he has been unilateral, picking and choosing what works and what does not and not really having to sell his selection to either party. And he has been the least successful when he has attempted to be persuasive, pragmatic and deliberative, trying so hard in town hall meeting after meeting to sell his domestic program -- the putative virtues he brought to the political table in 2008, no less.
Talk works in campaigns, but it appears perfunctory for the successful conduct of foreign policy and practically counter-productive when it comes to selling the president's domestic agenda. To be sure, the president is back on the road. But it is very likely, given the uncompromising Republican stance on raising taxes, that the speeches will be more effective in drumming political support for the president that it will be for his jobs plan. But this shouldn't be so surprising. We hire our presidents on the basis of their ability to talk, not their ability to govern. There is no real test for the latter until it actually happens. However counter-intuitive this may sound, the very stark contrast in Obama's leadership on foreign versus domestic policy strongly suggests that talking has much less to do with governing than our infotainment culture insists it does.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
What Occupy Wall Street Stands For
To understand the Occupy Wall Street movement, it is helpful to understand that it is the antithesis of the Tea Party movement, though for now, much smaller in scale. Occupy Wall Street protesters are, like the Tea Party protesters, disenchanted at the state of the economy, and impatient for solutions. But unlike their compatriots on the Right, their animus is directed at corporate America (Wall Street), not at government (Washington, DC).
Why is Occupy Wall Street more disorganized and rowdy, lacking a message as coherent as the Tea Party's? Because the American Left has always been a messy, rowdy bunch. Pluralism is inclusive, but it suffers also from having too many voices under the same tent. Yet one thing is clear, while Occupy Wall Street protesters are calling for government reform, they still believe in government. Indeed, they want a government that will stand up to the corporations. And this is why leaders on the Right, such as Newt Gingrich and Eric Cantor, are calling the protests a form of "class warfare" and are wary of the "mob." (Incidentally, this frame of chaos and disorder, if it spreads, is only going to push independents in Iowa and Florida toward Mitt Romney, assuming NH is in the bag.)
President Barack Obama may be able to catch some wind from this leftist anger, but he has been prudently tentative. Protests - whether on the Left of the Right - are evidence of disenchantment with existing governing institutions. Even though the Tea Party movement helped sweep many Republicans into the House last year, it ought to be remembered that they kicked about as many out. For all the talk of their influence, Mitt Romney remains the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, without the Tea Party's blessings. On the Left, the Occupy Wall Street movement would be even more difficult to harness. The protesters are, after all, protesting in spite of the fact that their representatives control two of the three elected branches of the government. While it will certainly give Obama some bargaining room to argue for taxing millionaires to pay for his jobs bill, the movement is also evidence of frustrations boiling over -- a condition that is not conducive for governance.
People go to the streets when institutions fail. There is a sense that American governmental institutions are no longer up to the task of delivering on the American Dream. The separation of powers, the Senate filibuster, government by committee (and super-committee), the permanent campaign, and bickering political parties may be democracy in action, but it no longer appears to be governance in action. What the Tea Party Movement, and Occupy War Street, jointly, call for, is an overall appraisal and re-synthesis of all these moving parts, so that faith in our institutions may be restored. The politicians can begin by starting to agree on something, for there is a lot more anger from where either movement came from.
Why is Occupy Wall Street more disorganized and rowdy, lacking a message as coherent as the Tea Party's? Because the American Left has always been a messy, rowdy bunch. Pluralism is inclusive, but it suffers also from having too many voices under the same tent. Yet one thing is clear, while Occupy Wall Street protesters are calling for government reform, they still believe in government. Indeed, they want a government that will stand up to the corporations. And this is why leaders on the Right, such as Newt Gingrich and Eric Cantor, are calling the protests a form of "class warfare" and are wary of the "mob." (Incidentally, this frame of chaos and disorder, if it spreads, is only going to push independents in Iowa and Florida toward Mitt Romney, assuming NH is in the bag.)
President Barack Obama may be able to catch some wind from this leftist anger, but he has been prudently tentative. Protests - whether on the Left of the Right - are evidence of disenchantment with existing governing institutions. Even though the Tea Party movement helped sweep many Republicans into the House last year, it ought to be remembered that they kicked about as many out. For all the talk of their influence, Mitt Romney remains the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, without the Tea Party's blessings. On the Left, the Occupy Wall Street movement would be even more difficult to harness. The protesters are, after all, protesting in spite of the fact that their representatives control two of the three elected branches of the government. While it will certainly give Obama some bargaining room to argue for taxing millionaires to pay for his jobs bill, the movement is also evidence of frustrations boiling over -- a condition that is not conducive for governance.
People go to the streets when institutions fail. There is a sense that American governmental institutions are no longer up to the task of delivering on the American Dream. The separation of powers, the Senate filibuster, government by committee (and super-committee), the permanent campaign, and bickering political parties may be democracy in action, but it no longer appears to be governance in action. What the Tea Party Movement, and Occupy War Street, jointly, call for, is an overall appraisal and re-synthesis of all these moving parts, so that faith in our institutions may be restored. The politicians can begin by starting to agree on something, for there is a lot more anger from where either movement came from.
Friday, September 30, 2011
No Longer Loveable, the White House Presents a Fiesty Candidate
Republicans waited and they waited for Sarah Palin, but all she is is a tease. They tried Michelle Bachmann, and she had the day in the sun (or on Newsweek's cover). They tried Rick Perry, and he had his day in the polls until his debate performances revealed certain holes (he would say "heart") in his conservative armor. And now people are asking if Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey might be the last ("portly") standing man between Romney and the Republican presidential nomination.
All of this is good news for Romney, but mixed news for the Republican party. He is the Prince of Wales now -- the runner-up to the nomination in the last contest, and presumptive front-runner for the next. But like Prince Charles, he is barely likeable, and the Republican has gone around the country desperately looking for a candidate with the X-factor that would enthuse them the way Obama enthused Democrats in 2008.
The difference between 2008 and 2012 is that people were crazy about Obama. Democrats couldn't wait to get Bush of the White House, to be sure. But they loved Obama. He even gave Chris Matthew a tingle up his legs.
The one thing that unites the Republican and the Tea party is their intense hatred of Obama and Obamacare - some would say, the same thing, under the banner of "socialism." This is certainly a potent political force, and it will get the voters out next November. But what is curious is that this negative affect does not translate to any equivalent positive affect on any of the candidates in the field now. Ron Paul has won a few straw polls here and there, but his anti-war position disqualifies from the get-go. Perry's position on immigration is now earning him heckles on the stump. And if Chris Christie jumps in the race, it is unlikely that he will get a pass on his moderate positions on immigration and gun control.
Enter Barack Obama's campaign, jump-started very recently with a new sense of purpose and fury, ready to rumble. Obama will never be loved as he had been loved before -- the campaign gurus must know that by now. But, if there is one thing that will resuscitate the Progressive vote, it is that they want someone who would stand up to the Tea Party ranting, to deal a fist to their fury. The White House hopes that this might just be enough to overcome the forbidding reality that a bad economy always works against an incumbent president up for re-election. With no love on either side for their respective candidates, the next election is shaping up to be a slugfest between the Obama-haters and the Tea-party haters. We are en route to a very negative campaign in 2012.
All of this is good news for Romney, but mixed news for the Republican party. He is the Prince of Wales now -- the runner-up to the nomination in the last contest, and presumptive front-runner for the next. But like Prince Charles, he is barely likeable, and the Republican has gone around the country desperately looking for a candidate with the X-factor that would enthuse them the way Obama enthused Democrats in 2008.
The difference between 2008 and 2012 is that people were crazy about Obama. Democrats couldn't wait to get Bush of the White House, to be sure. But they loved Obama. He even gave Chris Matthew a tingle up his legs.
The one thing that unites the Republican and the Tea party is their intense hatred of Obama and Obamacare - some would say, the same thing, under the banner of "socialism." This is certainly a potent political force, and it will get the voters out next November. But what is curious is that this negative affect does not translate to any equivalent positive affect on any of the candidates in the field now. Ron Paul has won a few straw polls here and there, but his anti-war position disqualifies from the get-go. Perry's position on immigration is now earning him heckles on the stump. And if Chris Christie jumps in the race, it is unlikely that he will get a pass on his moderate positions on immigration and gun control.
Enter Barack Obama's campaign, jump-started very recently with a new sense of purpose and fury, ready to rumble. Obama will never be loved as he had been loved before -- the campaign gurus must know that by now. But, if there is one thing that will resuscitate the Progressive vote, it is that they want someone who would stand up to the Tea Party ranting, to deal a fist to their fury. The White House hopes that this might just be enough to overcome the forbidding reality that a bad economy always works against an incumbent president up for re-election. With no love on either side for their respective candidates, the next election is shaping up to be a slugfest between the Obama-haters and the Tea-party haters. We are en route to a very negative campaign in 2012.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Perry v. Romney
The two front-runners in the Republican nomination contest, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, narrowed the distance between them in the last debate in Florida sponsored by Fox and Google. This is a debate that showcased both their Achilles’ heels.
Perry's problem is not the "ponzi scheme" comment about Social Security. Most conservatives agree with him, and the consistent conservative would actually agree with him that Social Security is a matter that should be sent back to the states to handle. Perry's problem is his record and position on immigration -- this is the weak spot in his armor that the other candidates will jump on in the days to come. What Perry should have said during the debate is that it is a state's prerogative to decide on what counts as legal residency in a state and the benefits, such as an in-state tuition subsidy, that accrue to it; and then follow up to say that as a national policy, he would respect the country's majority's opinion against any "magnet" policy that could encourage illegal immigration. What Perry should not have done, was wax poetic about children of illegal immigrants who did nothing wrong because this runs consistent with the charge that if his heart is soft for the children of illegals in Texas, it would be equally soft when it comes to national immigration policy. Oops.
All this then is also to say that Perry isn't as quick on his feet as he needs to be. When Chris Wallace asked Michelle Bachmann if she stood by her comments that the HPV vaccine causing "mental retardation," she made a politician's pivot and attacked Perry for his executive order which would have mandated the use of the vaccine on Texas children. What Perry should have done was not to accept the redirected premise of Bachmann's charge, but to direct Chris Wallace's fire back at her. Perry certainly knows how to attack -- he did some of that when he accused Romney of flip-flopping -- but he does not (yet) know how to direct his fire when under fire.
Romney's problem is that he isn't sure of himself. People say he is slick and he is opportunistic -- and that is correct. But the reason why is that he lacks a solid sense of his core identity, a certain confidence that allows the best politicians to be able to change their public personas at will and according to circumstance -- most ignominiously like Bill Clinton -- and still know what they truly believe in their heart of hearts. Romney, unlike Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, does not have a heart of hearts. And that is why when he pretends, as all politicians sometimes must, it is painfully obvious. That is why he appears like a shell of a person to the Tea Partiers who want are looking for a live, throbbing, indignant champion who can take on Obama without flinching. This would be his Achilles’ heel.
Looking ahead, it is unlikely that Romney will find himself in the next couple of months, but it is unlikely that Perry would learn to be become a much better candidate in time for the start of the primary season early next year. In the end, Republican primary voters will have to choose between a better but inauthentic candidate as Romney is and a clumsier but more authentic Perry.
Perry's problem is not the "ponzi scheme" comment about Social Security. Most conservatives agree with him, and the consistent conservative would actually agree with him that Social Security is a matter that should be sent back to the states to handle. Perry's problem is his record and position on immigration -- this is the weak spot in his armor that the other candidates will jump on in the days to come. What Perry should have said during the debate is that it is a state's prerogative to decide on what counts as legal residency in a state and the benefits, such as an in-state tuition subsidy, that accrue to it; and then follow up to say that as a national policy, he would respect the country's majority's opinion against any "magnet" policy that could encourage illegal immigration. What Perry should not have done, was wax poetic about children of illegal immigrants who did nothing wrong because this runs consistent with the charge that if his heart is soft for the children of illegals in Texas, it would be equally soft when it comes to national immigration policy. Oops.
All this then is also to say that Perry isn't as quick on his feet as he needs to be. When Chris Wallace asked Michelle Bachmann if she stood by her comments that the HPV vaccine causing "mental retardation," she made a politician's pivot and attacked Perry for his executive order which would have mandated the use of the vaccine on Texas children. What Perry should have done was not to accept the redirected premise of Bachmann's charge, but to direct Chris Wallace's fire back at her. Perry certainly knows how to attack -- he did some of that when he accused Romney of flip-flopping -- but he does not (yet) know how to direct his fire when under fire.
Romney's problem is that he isn't sure of himself. People say he is slick and he is opportunistic -- and that is correct. But the reason why is that he lacks a solid sense of his core identity, a certain confidence that allows the best politicians to be able to change their public personas at will and according to circumstance -- most ignominiously like Bill Clinton -- and still know what they truly believe in their heart of hearts. Romney, unlike Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, does not have a heart of hearts. And that is why when he pretends, as all politicians sometimes must, it is painfully obvious. That is why he appears like a shell of a person to the Tea Partiers who want are looking for a live, throbbing, indignant champion who can take on Obama without flinching. This would be his Achilles’ heel.
Looking ahead, it is unlikely that Romney will find himself in the next couple of months, but it is unlikely that Perry would learn to be become a much better candidate in time for the start of the primary season early next year. In the end, Republican primary voters will have to choose between a better but inauthentic candidate as Romney is and a clumsier but more authentic Perry.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
A Nation Divided, A President Chastened
On 9/11 each year, the media reenacts the trauma the American people experienced in 2001. Images already burnished in our minds are replayed. Memorials services are held, moments of silence are observed, and the national anthem is sung. National myth-making occurs at the very site where national disaster occurs, so that a new birth of freedom rises phoenix-like from the ashes of ruin.
Or so it seems. What is poignant about the memorial services this year is that they are occurring against a backdrop of a nation so divided that the unity and fellow-feeling that the media is drumming up on 9/11 appears almost to be a parody of reality. The moment of silence we observe on 9/11 would not last a day, especially on cable television. Just a week before, we heard a presidential candidate repeat his characterization of Social Security as a "ponzi scheme" in a nationally televised debate, followed by a didactic presidential speech to a joint session of congress where some members did not deign to attend.
Osama Bin Laden is dead, and the Arab Spring has arrived; but America is still reeling from three summers of discontent. The juxtaposition of a relative national consensus on foreign policy and a national dissensus on domestic policy reveal that Americans love their nation, but they also hate their state. This is the paradox that Barack Obama's message of hope and change in 2008 tried to defuse; yet it has been the cold reality doused on his domestic agenda from this first day in office. If Barack Obama electrified a nation and rose to prominence when he declared that we are neither the red states of America nor the blue states of America; he has come full circle to the reality that we are still, if not even more so than before, both. Worse still, he must take some responsibility for the outcome.
In no other area has Obama done more harm to his credibility with the political Right than in the perception that he has broken the first commandment of fiscal conservatism: that government should do no harm; but the national debt is the surest proof that it has. Where there was once hope, many now look back and see hubris in the bank bailouts, the stimulus spending, and "clash for clunkers."
The day has come when even the USPS is no longer spared the vilification due to another perceived beneficiary of federal largesse. In such a day, Rick Perry has burst into the national scene, ready to take on the paradox that Americans are patriotic and anti-statist. Obama has lost the credibility needed to reconcile the tension in that paradox, so his best bet is to lie low, and hope for a Republican nominee to propose something crazier than Obamacare.
Or so it seems. What is poignant about the memorial services this year is that they are occurring against a backdrop of a nation so divided that the unity and fellow-feeling that the media is drumming up on 9/11 appears almost to be a parody of reality. The moment of silence we observe on 9/11 would not last a day, especially on cable television. Just a week before, we heard a presidential candidate repeat his characterization of Social Security as a "ponzi scheme" in a nationally televised debate, followed by a didactic presidential speech to a joint session of congress where some members did not deign to attend.
Osama Bin Laden is dead, and the Arab Spring has arrived; but America is still reeling from three summers of discontent. The juxtaposition of a relative national consensus on foreign policy and a national dissensus on domestic policy reveal that Americans love their nation, but they also hate their state. This is the paradox that Barack Obama's message of hope and change in 2008 tried to defuse; yet it has been the cold reality doused on his domestic agenda from this first day in office. If Barack Obama electrified a nation and rose to prominence when he declared that we are neither the red states of America nor the blue states of America; he has come full circle to the reality that we are still, if not even more so than before, both. Worse still, he must take some responsibility for the outcome.
In no other area has Obama done more harm to his credibility with the political Right than in the perception that he has broken the first commandment of fiscal conservatism: that government should do no harm; but the national debt is the surest proof that it has. Where there was once hope, many now look back and see hubris in the bank bailouts, the stimulus spending, and "clash for clunkers."
Fourteen months from the next election, it has dawned on his team that even Obama, Camelot incarnate, cannot reconcile Americans' patriotism and our deep distrust of the federal government. If it is now a foregone conclusion that there is going to be a huge enthusiasm gap between supporters of the Republican nominee and Obama groupies in 2012, then the president's best bet is to do no more harm. If the economy is not likely to rebound anytime soon, there is little point picking yet another fight with small chances of victory, and even fewer guarantees of economic consequence. Obama's jobs speech to Congress last week, then, was a fiery opening volley intended to disguise the new campaign logic for 2012: slow and steady wins the race. No more big ideas, just tried and tested formulas.
The day has come when even the USPS is no longer spared the vilification due to another perceived beneficiary of federal largesse. In such a day, Rick Perry has burst into the national scene, ready to take on the paradox that Americans are patriotic and anti-statist. Obama has lost the credibility needed to reconcile the tension in that paradox, so his best bet is to lie low, and hope for a Republican nominee to propose something crazier than Obamacare.
Monday, August 22, 2011
The Rise of Rick Perry
Rick Perry's star is on the rise. And the reason is that he is as authentically conservative as President Barack Obama is apologetically liberal.
Already some polls are showing him edging ahead of previous frontrunner, Mitt Romney. This is not a post-announcement bounce, but a game-changer in the Republican race. This is a man who has won every one of the 10 elections he has ever ran in, because he picks his battles and possesses an impeccable sense of timing. Unlike Donald Trump or Sarah Palin, who flirt with the media because they like the attention, Perry is in it to win -- and he may well.
A simple compare and contrast with Mitt Romney suggests why. Whereas Romney has to manufacture a personality, Perry breezes through with his authenticity. Romney's gaffes embarrass him; Perry's asides endear him to his base even more. Whereas Romney represents the country-club Republicans ascendant in the last century, Perry represents a modern conservative grass-roots movement recharged by its reconnection to its Confederate past. Romney can't say very much about his Mormonism, but Perry is pretty aggressive about his Evangelism. Perry's anger at Washington is real and full-blooded; Mitt Romney appears to want to just get there.
A Republican field that now reveals more shades of Perry than it does of Romney confirms this tale. If 2012 were a year for a Romney candidacy, Ron Paul would be out, andTim Pawlenty would be in. Jon Huntsman would be on the cover of Newsweek magazine, not Michelle Backmann. Karl Rove's opinion of Perry would be damning, not flattering. In nomination races, one rule stands out: whoever wears the Teflon wins the prize.
Put yet another way, Perry is practically everything Obama is not. Talk about a contrast. Perry went to Texas A&M, Obama to Columbia and Harvard. Perry earned a commission from the Air Force; Obama was a community organizer. Perry wants to make Washington irrelevant, Obama lives there. And you can bet that Perry's going to be telling us that he helped create jobs in Texas, and Obama hasn't created many for the country. The only major thing that seems to connect them is a mutual disdain for George Bush -- but even there Perry appears, yet again, to be the right person, with the right attitude, at the right time.
So this leaves us with the question of whether it would be Romney or Perry who clinches the nomination. That depends on whether Romney can enact the part of political outsider better than Perry who authentically already is. Ours is unmistakably the era of outsiders. An expanded electorate since the 1970s with no patience for establishment candidates has picked Reagan and Clinton over George H. W. Bush, Bush over Gore, Obama over Hillary Clinton.
Now the only thing Perry has to do is to prove that he can raise money at least as well as Romney can, and nearly as much as Obama will. Finally, the race is on.
Already some polls are showing him edging ahead of previous frontrunner, Mitt Romney. This is not a post-announcement bounce, but a game-changer in the Republican race. This is a man who has won every one of the 10 elections he has ever ran in, because he picks his battles and possesses an impeccable sense of timing. Unlike Donald Trump or Sarah Palin, who flirt with the media because they like the attention, Perry is in it to win -- and he may well.
A simple compare and contrast with Mitt Romney suggests why. Whereas Romney has to manufacture a personality, Perry breezes through with his authenticity. Romney's gaffes embarrass him; Perry's asides endear him to his base even more. Whereas Romney represents the country-club Republicans ascendant in the last century, Perry represents a modern conservative grass-roots movement recharged by its reconnection to its Confederate past. Romney can't say very much about his Mormonism, but Perry is pretty aggressive about his Evangelism. Perry's anger at Washington is real and full-blooded; Mitt Romney appears to want to just get there.
A Republican field that now reveals more shades of Perry than it does of Romney confirms this tale. If 2012 were a year for a Romney candidacy, Ron Paul would be out, andTim Pawlenty would be in. Jon Huntsman would be on the cover of Newsweek magazine, not Michelle Backmann. Karl Rove's opinion of Perry would be damning, not flattering. In nomination races, one rule stands out: whoever wears the Teflon wins the prize.
Put yet another way, Perry is practically everything Obama is not. Talk about a contrast. Perry went to Texas A&M, Obama to Columbia and Harvard. Perry earned a commission from the Air Force; Obama was a community organizer. Perry wants to make Washington irrelevant, Obama lives there. And you can bet that Perry's going to be telling us that he helped create jobs in Texas, and Obama hasn't created many for the country. The only major thing that seems to connect them is a mutual disdain for George Bush -- but even there Perry appears, yet again, to be the right person, with the right attitude, at the right time.
So this leaves us with the question of whether it would be Romney or Perry who clinches the nomination. That depends on whether Romney can enact the part of political outsider better than Perry who authentically already is. Ours is unmistakably the era of outsiders. An expanded electorate since the 1970s with no patience for establishment candidates has picked Reagan and Clinton over George H. W. Bush, Bush over Gore, Obama over Hillary Clinton.
Now the only thing Perry has to do is to prove that he can raise money at least as well as Romney can, and nearly as much as Obama will. Finally, the race is on.
Monday, August 8, 2011
A Call to Reason
America's economy is not in crisis, but its political system is, or so thinks the S&P. The real problem, however, is not the political system per se, but its infection with populism.
Even though the S&P has downgraded the US's credit rating, it did so from an exaggerated understanding of American politics based on its shrillness, and not its constitutional fundamentals. This is why on the first trading day after the downgrade, American bonds are still the place to go. The fact is there aren't enough AAA bonds out there for investors to substitute American bonds for, however "dysfunctional" American politics looks. AAA bonds in Europe aren't safer given the uncertainty in the euro zone, and stocks are certainly not going to be safer in these turbulent days. As potent as the Tea Party has become, there is still zero threat of default by the US, as Warren Buffet has noted, because the US Treasury pays its bills in US dollars, which the Fed can print at will.
S&P's downgrade, then, was driven in part by a misunderstanding of the way a separated system of checks and balances works. For all the charges of the Tea Party's "hostage taking," it is still their constitutional right to do so. But they also lack the constitutional power to have their way, which is exactly what happened. In the end, cooler minds in the House and Senate prevailed, and Congress actually passed a very, very bi-partisan bill that raised the debt ceiling.
But only in part. Unfortunately, because the S&P was duped, the populist infection has spread. The Tea Party anthem of doom and gloom had already been raging for two years, but the S&P added to its chorus by believing it. Saying so has finally begun to make it so, and the toxic language of the Tea Party Movement has helped bring consumer and business confidence to its knees.
Thanks also to the Movement, the unsophisticated debate about the public debt as a single monolithic figure has meant that we have not been able to sift out the real long-term problem of entitlement spending, and the possibility that government spending may well be required in the short term to stimulate demand, invest in education for the future, and address the infrastructural deficits in this country since businesses are reluctant to invest. Instead, the government's hands are clipped, even though it is precisely in this moment of distress that government needs to step up to offer some hope. Instead of a balanced menu of solutions, too much of what we hear from Washington is indiscriminate talk of austerity as if it were the silver bullet to all our economic problems.
The problem, then, is unregulated populism. Popular movements have always swept politicians into Washington; divided party control of government has always existed. But the framers never intended for the movements which swept their leaders into government to continue to hold a leash on them so that the whole point of representative government has now been turned on its head. Demagogues from both parties have become slaves to some of the irrational voices among their constituents, but the worst are those whose hatred of government is so intense that they actually wish for the full faith and credit of the US to be downgraded so that they can satisfy some atavistic yearning for a pre-modern economy based on corn and cotton. (Is this really what the spirit of '76 was about?)
To begin to get ourselves out of the immediate pickle, the super-committee of the Senate designated to discuss further spending cuts ought to be sequestered as much as is possible with little media contact, so that unelected feudal lords like Grover Norquist cannot stick their noses into the process and turn the cooling saucer of the Senate into another playpen for demagogues. Leaders should be allowed to be leaders -- John Boehner came so close to being one -- and should be permitted to think about the big picture and the long term without recourse to petty interests and ideologues. Thank goodness most senators aren't up for election next year.
This is already a time of panic, of disillusion, and of market irrationality; so there is no need for more. The framers created a representative democracy so that the noise would be filtered out, not invited to the deliberative halls of the greatest democracy the world has seen. Let leaders be leaders; if not, a system that has morphed out of control may well be seeing the beginning of its end.
Even though the S&P has downgraded the US's credit rating, it did so from an exaggerated understanding of American politics based on its shrillness, and not its constitutional fundamentals. This is why on the first trading day after the downgrade, American bonds are still the place to go. The fact is there aren't enough AAA bonds out there for investors to substitute American bonds for, however "dysfunctional" American politics looks. AAA bonds in Europe aren't safer given the uncertainty in the euro zone, and stocks are certainly not going to be safer in these turbulent days. As potent as the Tea Party has become, there is still zero threat of default by the US, as Warren Buffet has noted, because the US Treasury pays its bills in US dollars, which the Fed can print at will.
S&P's downgrade, then, was driven in part by a misunderstanding of the way a separated system of checks and balances works. For all the charges of the Tea Party's "hostage taking," it is still their constitutional right to do so. But they also lack the constitutional power to have their way, which is exactly what happened. In the end, cooler minds in the House and Senate prevailed, and Congress actually passed a very, very bi-partisan bill that raised the debt ceiling.
But only in part. Unfortunately, because the S&P was duped, the populist infection has spread. The Tea Party anthem of doom and gloom had already been raging for two years, but the S&P added to its chorus by believing it. Saying so has finally begun to make it so, and the toxic language of the Tea Party Movement has helped bring consumer and business confidence to its knees.
Thanks also to the Movement, the unsophisticated debate about the public debt as a single monolithic figure has meant that we have not been able to sift out the real long-term problem of entitlement spending, and the possibility that government spending may well be required in the short term to stimulate demand, invest in education for the future, and address the infrastructural deficits in this country since businesses are reluctant to invest. Instead, the government's hands are clipped, even though it is precisely in this moment of distress that government needs to step up to offer some hope. Instead of a balanced menu of solutions, too much of what we hear from Washington is indiscriminate talk of austerity as if it were the silver bullet to all our economic problems.
The problem, then, is unregulated populism. Popular movements have always swept politicians into Washington; divided party control of government has always existed. But the framers never intended for the movements which swept their leaders into government to continue to hold a leash on them so that the whole point of representative government has now been turned on its head. Demagogues from both parties have become slaves to some of the irrational voices among their constituents, but the worst are those whose hatred of government is so intense that they actually wish for the full faith and credit of the US to be downgraded so that they can satisfy some atavistic yearning for a pre-modern economy based on corn and cotton. (Is this really what the spirit of '76 was about?)
To begin to get ourselves out of the immediate pickle, the super-committee of the Senate designated to discuss further spending cuts ought to be sequestered as much as is possible with little media contact, so that unelected feudal lords like Grover Norquist cannot stick their noses into the process and turn the cooling saucer of the Senate into another playpen for demagogues. Leaders should be allowed to be leaders -- John Boehner came so close to being one -- and should be permitted to think about the big picture and the long term without recourse to petty interests and ideologues. Thank goodness most senators aren't up for election next year.
This is already a time of panic, of disillusion, and of market irrationality; so there is no need for more. The framers created a representative democracy so that the noise would be filtered out, not invited to the deliberative halls of the greatest democracy the world has seen. Let leaders be leaders; if not, a system that has morphed out of control may well be seeing the beginning of its end.
Monday, July 25, 2011
The Triumph of Politics
America is the only country in the world that has the luxury of creating an economic crisis when there isn't one. Ours is the only democracy with a debt ceiling, with the exception of Denmark, which raises its ceiling well in advance of when it would be reached. Economists say that our "debt crisis" is an unforced error, because people are more than willing to lend us money, at pretty good rates. This is the benefit of having a really good credit score.
And yet there are some who wish to call the credit card company to voluntarily reduce our credit limit after they just max-ed it out. This tells us that politics triumphs economics in this country. That we ended up with so much debt is a result of politics, anyway. For all the talk of budgetary restraint coming from Congress, the fact is it was Congress that authorized all the spending that has brought us to where we are. Yes, every single dime. The only way to explain a Congress which wants to spend, and indeed already has, and also wants now to cap spending, is to understand the pathologies of the budgetary process. Members of Congress have an incentive to bring the pork home, and they have done this for two centuries. They must also defer all redistributive policies to the federal government, because citizens of states are mobile and can escape the reach of state redistributive policies. The collective outcome of this is a federal government that is milked for everything it can give to the states, and on top of that, left to do the dirty redistributive (and regulatory) work that no state can do. The grand paradox is that a Constitution written to exploit jealousy and suspicion in the pursuit of liberty also ended up consolidating a bureaucracy that not even Hamilton could have imagined.
And still we continue apace. Rather than fight politics by taking it away, the libertarian ideology of Grover Norquist is an effort to fight politics with ideology. In the hope that ambition can counteract ambition, this has always been the American way. The Tea Party is deliberately trying to inflict a wound on our financial credibility, by signally to the market that we may choose to default in a roundabout way of forcing us to spend less. And yet for all the talk of "getting our house in order," presumably the whole point of doing so was to restore our financial credibility, which would be better off without a forced financial crisis in the first place.
If we are talking in circles, it is because politics is circular. It is rooted in human nature, messy, dedicated to the short term, and oblivious to the historical accumulation of short-term utility-maximization. But fissiparous politics has also been the guarantee of liberty in America. And the greatest freedom is surely the freedom to make our own mistakes.
And yet there are some who wish to call the credit card company to voluntarily reduce our credit limit after they just max-ed it out. This tells us that politics triumphs economics in this country. That we ended up with so much debt is a result of politics, anyway. For all the talk of budgetary restraint coming from Congress, the fact is it was Congress that authorized all the spending that has brought us to where we are. Yes, every single dime. The only way to explain a Congress which wants to spend, and indeed already has, and also wants now to cap spending, is to understand the pathologies of the budgetary process. Members of Congress have an incentive to bring the pork home, and they have done this for two centuries. They must also defer all redistributive policies to the federal government, because citizens of states are mobile and can escape the reach of state redistributive policies. The collective outcome of this is a federal government that is milked for everything it can give to the states, and on top of that, left to do the dirty redistributive (and regulatory) work that no state can do. The grand paradox is that a Constitution written to exploit jealousy and suspicion in the pursuit of liberty also ended up consolidating a bureaucracy that not even Hamilton could have imagined.
And still we continue apace. Rather than fight politics by taking it away, the libertarian ideology of Grover Norquist is an effort to fight politics with ideology. In the hope that ambition can counteract ambition, this has always been the American way. The Tea Party is deliberately trying to inflict a wound on our financial credibility, by signally to the market that we may choose to default in a roundabout way of forcing us to spend less. And yet for all the talk of "getting our house in order," presumably the whole point of doing so was to restore our financial credibility, which would be better off without a forced financial crisis in the first place.
If we are talking in circles, it is because politics is circular. It is rooted in human nature, messy, dedicated to the short term, and oblivious to the historical accumulation of short-term utility-maximization. But fissiparous politics has also been the guarantee of liberty in America. And the greatest freedom is surely the freedom to make our own mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)