If late-breaking polls of likely voters in South Carolina today are accurate, Newt Gingrich is on his way to a decisive comeback victory and Mitt Romney's road to the nomination will soon get a whole lot rockier. The frontrunner has weathered his worst week of the campaign, and will soon head to Florida desperate for safe harbors and smooth sailing in the relatively light month that precedes Super Tuesday in early March, when eleven states will hold primaries or caucuses.
From my vantage point in snowy Chicago, Romney remains the inevitable nominee, and Gingrich's appeal elusive. To me, his lobbying efforts on behalf of Freddie Mac are disqualifying in a polarized political environment of tea party rallies and an occupied Wall Street; the common denominator being anger towards a governing class who deemed their private sector counterparts "too big to fail."
As I've said previously, I am a fan of Gingrich's intellectual heft. I remain appreciative of his leadership of a "revolution" via the Contract with America that placed Congress in Republican hands for the first time in four decades. He reached across the aisle as Speaker to balance the budget and reform welfare. His hypocrisy (a point I'll address below on the marital front) in taking on former House Speaker Jim Wright for his corrupt financial dealings, and President Bill Clinton for his personal dalliances with an intern, resulted in mutiny within his ranks and a premature end to his congressional career. My shelves are stocked with the litany of books he wrote in the interim years, and he remains in my mind, one of the great sources of conservative policy solutions.
It is Gingrich's presidential candidacy that I contest. For a party that impeached Clinton for his extramarital excursions and claimed that his poor personal character tarnished the Oval Office, the hypocrisy of its members who have embraced the former Speaker as the candidate who will take on a man of high character (but flawed beliefs and limited experience) rests at high noon. The presidency requires high moral character of its occupants as its power rests on invoking the bully pulpit and persuading the masses of the integrity of the solutions he embraces.
Gingrich married his high school geometry teacher (their affair began when he was sixteen), and later delivered divorce papers to her hospital bed as she was treated for cancer. His affair with who would become his second wife had already begun, and he later turned the tables on her too after her diagnosis with MS, asking for an "open relationship" in order to carry on an affair with a Capitol Hill staffer who now poses as his Stepford-like wife. While his recent conversion to Catholicism may yield ultimate salvation, his political fate should be sealed, his obituary surfacing long ago.
His decision on Thursday to turn these latest allegations against CNN debate moderator John King was nothing short of pathetic. Killing a mainstream media messenger may be popular sport among conservatives, and this goes a long way in explaining Gingrich's sustenance in this campaign cycle, but voters across the spectrum deserve an answer he simply cannot provide. He lacks the integrity, humility, and moral compass required of the leader of the free world.
The Republican field is down to four finalists, and three of them possess sufficient character for the duties they desire. Gingrich is the odd man out, and it may be up to GOP voters outside of the Palmetto State, Illinois included, to make a market correction and send the former Speaker back where he belongs as a scribe on the sidelines.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
Predicting presidential greatness
David Brooks suggested last Friday that Mitt Romney's CEO credentials translate poorly into the prerequisites for presidential leadership. While I dispute this contention on its face, I do find his four alternative predictors convincing, and will attempt to apply them to the likely November matchup between Romney and the incumbent President, Barack Obama.
1. Emotional security: Romney meets this test more squarely given his aristocratic upbringing and the sense of obligation he inherited from his father who served as Governor of Michigan, and was a serious candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968, not to mention the dictates of his Mormon faith. Obama also rates highly here, too, although he pursued a more unconventional path short of his attendance of Hawaii's most prestigious prep school, Columbia, and Harvard Law. He clearly developed a sense of social obligation as evidenced by his work as a community organizer and shunning of lucrative law practice for an adjunct teaching position and a political apprenticeship in Springfield.
2. Superb political judgement: Obama's failed presidency is an invokes an immediate "thumbs down" on this predictor. His misread of the real divides between "red" and "blue" America, utter disdain for Congress, small, insular network of advisors, and limited national political experience have been a recipe for disaster. Romney's grade is incomplete, as we have only his four-year tenure as Massachusetts Governor to assess. His failed runs for national office, the U.S. Senate in 1994, and the presidency four years ago, are potential red flags. Working in his favor is a strong record of reaching across the aisle in deep blue Massachusetts with a legislature stacked in opposition to his policy platform.
3. Crushing personal setbacks: While Romney's life reads like a fairy tale, Obama overcame the perpetual absence and untimely death of his father, not to mention a mother whose love was unconditional, but personal presence in his life was sporadic at best. His grandparents filled the vacuum, but the experiences explain why he is often a loner and unrealistic sense of his own personal power to affect change.
4. Instrumental mentality: One need look no further than the line "we are the change we've been waiting for" to mark the President with a failing grade in this area. His dismissal of former Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel's counsel to repeatedly "put points on the board" with the ultimate objective of prevailing over the course of four or eight years is even more damning. For instance, national health care legislation superseded economic recovery, cost him control of Congress, and may lead to his own unemployment this fall. Romney's business career at Bain Capital, leadership of the 2002 Winter Olympics, and one term as Massachusetts Governor hold in common a singular belief in objectives greater than the man himself. He was merely a temporary steward helping to yield the ultimate objective, be it profit, a flawlessly executed Winter Games on the heels of 9/11, or the stewardship of a state deep in the red and recovering from a tech bubble that burst. Romney's moderation, while reviled by some of his conservative opponents and primary voters alike, is an asset in the general election and his potential ascension as the 45th President.
By these measures, Romney barely eclipses Obama. They serve as apt predictors of what promises to be a fiercely fought contest in November. Brooks is right that Romney is currently being tested on many of these parameters as his remaining opponents make their final stands in South Carolina. Obama benefited similarly from the war of attrition waged by Hillary Clinton four years ago. Indeed, he trumped his campaign itself as evidence of his qualifications for the presidency.
Voters have two threshold assessments to make this fall: One, is Obama's first term worthy of a second? Two, assuming a negative answer to the first question, is Romney a plausible alternative? Brooks' predictors of presidential greatness reveal "no" and "yes," answers, respectively.
1. Emotional security: Romney meets this test more squarely given his aristocratic upbringing and the sense of obligation he inherited from his father who served as Governor of Michigan, and was a serious candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968, not to mention the dictates of his Mormon faith. Obama also rates highly here, too, although he pursued a more unconventional path short of his attendance of Hawaii's most prestigious prep school, Columbia, and Harvard Law. He clearly developed a sense of social obligation as evidenced by his work as a community organizer and shunning of lucrative law practice for an adjunct teaching position and a political apprenticeship in Springfield.
2. Superb political judgement: Obama's failed presidency is an invokes an immediate "thumbs down" on this predictor. His misread of the real divides between "red" and "blue" America, utter disdain for Congress, small, insular network of advisors, and limited national political experience have been a recipe for disaster. Romney's grade is incomplete, as we have only his four-year tenure as Massachusetts Governor to assess. His failed runs for national office, the U.S. Senate in 1994, and the presidency four years ago, are potential red flags. Working in his favor is a strong record of reaching across the aisle in deep blue Massachusetts with a legislature stacked in opposition to his policy platform.
3. Crushing personal setbacks: While Romney's life reads like a fairy tale, Obama overcame the perpetual absence and untimely death of his father, not to mention a mother whose love was unconditional, but personal presence in his life was sporadic at best. His grandparents filled the vacuum, but the experiences explain why he is often a loner and unrealistic sense of his own personal power to affect change.
4. Instrumental mentality: One need look no further than the line "we are the change we've been waiting for" to mark the President with a failing grade in this area. His dismissal of former Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel's counsel to repeatedly "put points on the board" with the ultimate objective of prevailing over the course of four or eight years is even more damning. For instance, national health care legislation superseded economic recovery, cost him control of Congress, and may lead to his own unemployment this fall. Romney's business career at Bain Capital, leadership of the 2002 Winter Olympics, and one term as Massachusetts Governor hold in common a singular belief in objectives greater than the man himself. He was merely a temporary steward helping to yield the ultimate objective, be it profit, a flawlessly executed Winter Games on the heels of 9/11, or the stewardship of a state deep in the red and recovering from a tech bubble that burst. Romney's moderation, while reviled by some of his conservative opponents and primary voters alike, is an asset in the general election and his potential ascension as the 45th President.
By these measures, Romney barely eclipses Obama. They serve as apt predictors of what promises to be a fiercely fought contest in November. Brooks is right that Romney is currently being tested on many of these parameters as his remaining opponents make their final stands in South Carolina. Obama benefited similarly from the war of attrition waged by Hillary Clinton four years ago. Indeed, he trumped his campaign itself as evidence of his qualifications for the presidency.
Voters have two threshold assessments to make this fall: One, is Obama's first term worthy of a second? Two, assuming a negative answer to the first question, is Romney a plausible alternative? Brooks' predictors of presidential greatness reveal "no" and "yes," answers, respectively.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
One and done
Jodi Kantor's (The Obama's, 2011, Little, Brown and Company) inside look at the Obama White House and his marriage and family reinforces Republican concerns about his leadership capacity, but paints the First Family in a mostly positive light, humanizing a president who is too often aloof and professorial. It represents a tale of a power couple desperately tending to their family during a meteoric rise to the presidency and settling in to a White House where they made history by simply walking through the door. As a backdrop, its details the policy landscape the President navigated during the past three years, and it is this stewardship that seems most relevant for an election year where his record will be placed before the electorate.
Obama's early days as President can perhaps mostly aptly be described by the liquid courage that carried over from a euphoric campaign. The President and Michelle truly believed that he was above politics and need not be bothered by the nuances of the process or even extending an olive branch to his partner in political marriage at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. From the very beginning, he retreated to the advice and counsel of an insular group which was fractured by its own internal divisions. For instance, Rahm Emmanuel, ever the practical politician, preferred to continually "put points on the board," setting the stage for victory when the final whistle blew. The Obamas, on the other hand, opted for a Hail Mary on the first play from scrimmage.
Dysfunction was the end result, as the Administration lacked a coherent economic vision at a time of severe upheaval. Valerie Jarrett, a close friend with deep knowledge of the Chicago political scene, attempted to weave the often contradictory interests of the East and West Wings, but her loyalty to the Obama's and steep national learning curve proved a recipe for failure. Interesting enough, although much of the first and even second generation of the White House leadership team has since bid adieu, Jarrett remains in her pivotal position, continued evidence of a First Couple isolated from the country they lead.
Perhaps the most interesting foil centers on Barack and Michelle. Barack was the overachieving politico who rose from a backbencher in Springfield to the Oval Office in four years time. Michelle was the reluctant mother of two children, protective of her family, their marriage, and her husband in that order. She detested politics, seeking all-of-the-above solutions to persistent problems like childhood obesity. Barack, on the other hand, saw opportunities for transformational leadership through the embodiment of his own persona. His relentless push for health care reform, political capital costs aside, is arguably affirmation of this hubris.
Michelle struggled with even moving to Washington at the outset, but later embraced the bully pulpit provided by her position. Barack struggled to recreate the magic of his campaign, realizing that the experience on the trail failed to close the leadership deficit he possessed as a candidate. While the fate of Obamacare, his greatest policy achievement, remains unknown, Michelle's two pet causes (veterans and their families is the second) have gained traction and may in the end demonstrate greater impact.
The epitaph of this barrier-breaking administration will soon be written, and the First Couple should be commended for their remarkable relationship, attuned parenting, and the morally-sound ways they go about their lives. However, Kantor's inside view of a rudderless White House at a time of traumatic economic displacement, not to mention global security threats, is further evidence that a single term is more than sufficient.
Since Inauguration Day three years ago we experienced hope, at least at the outset, followed by disillusionment. Change has certainly surfaced, too, but mostly in the wrong direction. The verdict is in, and it the time has come to clean house and prepare for the next occupants.
Obama's early days as President can perhaps mostly aptly be described by the liquid courage that carried over from a euphoric campaign. The President and Michelle truly believed that he was above politics and need not be bothered by the nuances of the process or even extending an olive branch to his partner in political marriage at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. From the very beginning, he retreated to the advice and counsel of an insular group which was fractured by its own internal divisions. For instance, Rahm Emmanuel, ever the practical politician, preferred to continually "put points on the board," setting the stage for victory when the final whistle blew. The Obamas, on the other hand, opted for a Hail Mary on the first play from scrimmage.
Dysfunction was the end result, as the Administration lacked a coherent economic vision at a time of severe upheaval. Valerie Jarrett, a close friend with deep knowledge of the Chicago political scene, attempted to weave the often contradictory interests of the East and West Wings, but her loyalty to the Obama's and steep national learning curve proved a recipe for failure. Interesting enough, although much of the first and even second generation of the White House leadership team has since bid adieu, Jarrett remains in her pivotal position, continued evidence of a First Couple isolated from the country they lead.
Perhaps the most interesting foil centers on Barack and Michelle. Barack was the overachieving politico who rose from a backbencher in Springfield to the Oval Office in four years time. Michelle was the reluctant mother of two children, protective of her family, their marriage, and her husband in that order. She detested politics, seeking all-of-the-above solutions to persistent problems like childhood obesity. Barack, on the other hand, saw opportunities for transformational leadership through the embodiment of his own persona. His relentless push for health care reform, political capital costs aside, is arguably affirmation of this hubris.
Michelle struggled with even moving to Washington at the outset, but later embraced the bully pulpit provided by her position. Barack struggled to recreate the magic of his campaign, realizing that the experience on the trail failed to close the leadership deficit he possessed as a candidate. While the fate of Obamacare, his greatest policy achievement, remains unknown, Michelle's two pet causes (veterans and their families is the second) have gained traction and may in the end demonstrate greater impact.
The epitaph of this barrier-breaking administration will soon be written, and the First Couple should be commended for their remarkable relationship, attuned parenting, and the morally-sound ways they go about their lives. However, Kantor's inside view of a rudderless White House at a time of traumatic economic displacement, not to mention global security threats, is further evidence that a single term is more than sufficient.
Since Inauguration Day three years ago we experienced hope, at least at the outset, followed by disillusionment. Change has certainly surfaced, too, but mostly in the wrong direction. The verdict is in, and it the time has come to clean house and prepare for the next occupants.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Plenty of Bain to go around
While this blog represents an effort to chart a new course for the Republican Party, it certainly embraces the free market philosophy that unites conservatives of all stripes. It is therefore particularly disturbing to see a field of Republican presidential contenders blast the frontrunner, Mitt Romney, for his role as a facilitator of creative destruction at Bain Capital. Sacrificed in their quest for higher office are core conservative principles, Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment ("Thou shall not criticize other Republicans"), and potentially their party's control of the White House, not to mention the future of this great country.
True, Romney's career as a venture capitalist is both an asset and a vulnerability. His knowledge of how the "real economy" works is a powerful strength against an opponent with no appreciation of free market principles or willingness to surround himself with advisers and cabinet officials who do. However, at a time of persistent unemployment, some of it a product of natural capitalistic phenomena like downsizing and outsourcing, Romney risks being portrayed as the very embodiment of the vilified "one percent" targeted by Occupy Wall Street. His statement this summer in defense of corporations and yesterday in favor of health care choice, while accurate and admirable, speak to the risk/ reward nature of his experiences and political positioning in this presidential cycle.
It goes without saying that Romney anticipated these attacks from President Obama,
but their presence in the early contests of the Republican nominating cycle are
deplorable, and Newt Gingrich et al should be shunned and quickly cast aside by
primary voters as road kill on the path to recapturing the White House. Gingrich is
proving George Will's contention that he would have been a good Marxist correct, and
Rick Perry is sacrificing his credibility as a job creator is the capitalist utopia of Texas as they embrace populist rhetoric to score cheap political points. Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman deserve their own shares of blame for their rhetoric on this front the past couple of days, though it is tame by comparison. Ron Paul deserves kudos for remaining true to his deep commitment to free markets.
Romney's earlier than anticipated test on his past tendency to issue pink slips speaks to his need to massage his messaging immediately. His net job creation retort needs to grow into a broader narrative about the beauty of creative destruction, a hallmark of advanced economies, and in the case of the contemporary United States, economic recovery. Moreover, Washington itself is ripe for a downsize, with the net result of lower taxes and less burdensome regulation yielding high-end private sector job creation.
Romney's almost singular focus on Obama's failed presidency since he launched his
campaign is on target. He would be wise to fine-tune his rhetoric and framing of his
private sector career in the "real economy." Reagan faced a similar predicament in 1980 when he challenged a personally popular Democratic incumbent with an anemic economic record. Substituting Obama for Carter in his famous quote, Romney can borrow the Gipper's opening salvo for the general election: "When your neighbor loses his job, it's a recession. When you lose yours, it's a depression. The recovery begins when Barack Obama loses his."
True, Romney's career as a venture capitalist is both an asset and a vulnerability. His knowledge of how the "real economy" works is a powerful strength against an opponent with no appreciation of free market principles or willingness to surround himself with advisers and cabinet officials who do. However, at a time of persistent unemployment, some of it a product of natural capitalistic phenomena like downsizing and outsourcing, Romney risks being portrayed as the very embodiment of the vilified "one percent" targeted by Occupy Wall Street. His statement this summer in defense of corporations and yesterday in favor of health care choice, while accurate and admirable, speak to the risk/ reward nature of his experiences and political positioning in this presidential cycle.
It goes without saying that Romney anticipated these attacks from President Obama,
but their presence in the early contests of the Republican nominating cycle are
deplorable, and Newt Gingrich et al should be shunned and quickly cast aside by
primary voters as road kill on the path to recapturing the White House. Gingrich is
proving George Will's contention that he would have been a good Marxist correct, and
Rick Perry is sacrificing his credibility as a job creator is the capitalist utopia of Texas as they embrace populist rhetoric to score cheap political points. Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman deserve their own shares of blame for their rhetoric on this front the past couple of days, though it is tame by comparison. Ron Paul deserves kudos for remaining true to his deep commitment to free markets.
Romney's earlier than anticipated test on his past tendency to issue pink slips speaks to his need to massage his messaging immediately. His net job creation retort needs to grow into a broader narrative about the beauty of creative destruction, a hallmark of advanced economies, and in the case of the contemporary United States, economic recovery. Moreover, Washington itself is ripe for a downsize, with the net result of lower taxes and less burdensome regulation yielding high-end private sector job creation.
Romney's almost singular focus on Obama's failed presidency since he launched his
campaign is on target. He would be wise to fine-tune his rhetoric and framing of his
private sector career in the "real economy." Reagan faced a similar predicament in 1980 when he challenged a personally popular Democratic incumbent with an anemic economic record. Substituting Obama for Carter in his famous quote, Romney can borrow the Gipper's opening salvo for the general election: "When your neighbor loses his job, it's a recession. When you lose yours, it's a depression. The recovery begins when Barack Obama loses his."
Monday, January 9, 2012
In search of the perfect candidate
The search for the perfect opponent to make President Obama a one-termer is futile. Republicans are notably lukewarm at best about their choices this winter and spring as the party attempts once more to capture lightning in a bottle and find the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan.
The truth is, primary voters in 1980 had problems of their own with Reagan. Iowa caucus-goers awarded him a silver to his eventual running mate, George H.W. Bush, and conservatives were weary about several of his actions as California, including signing on to tax increases, liberalizing the state's abortion laws, and speaking out in favor of gay rights. He trounced his opposition in New Hampshire by 27 points, and the rest is of course history.
While we don't anticipate Mitt Romney to win by quite as wide of a margin in the Granite State, it should be comfortable nonetheless, allowing political junkies everywhere to get a good night's sleep in comparison to last Tuesday's late evening and early morning. I expect him to use this momentum to build on his lead in South Carolina, and essentially clear the field after prevailing in Florida at the end of the month.
Romney's coronation inevitable, and conservative's caveats about him well-documented, I'd like to use last weekend's debates and my independent examinations of each of the individual candidates to build a party platform and policy prescriptions for the former Massachusetts governor's first 100 days as president. Flawed as the prohibitive frontrunner and his rivals may be, I would retain elements of each of their respective issue positions as we pivot toward the general election battle.
Romney: Economic technocrat with 52 point plan to get America working again.
Santorum: Populist who work strengthen the social capital of our communities (see Saturday's post) and would use the tax code to incentivize manufacturing, with its significant value-added and potential to rebuild the middle class, over retail and other sectors of the service economy.
Gingrich: The professor is never short on innovative, mostly conservative, policy ideas, and his humane approach towards undocumented immigrants who are in this country, working hard, and raising families needs a home in the Party of Lincoln.
Huntsman: The ambassador's call for a more humble foreign policy, which includes reduced defense spending, is a nod to fiscal realities and the "new red menace" staring us in the face. Huntsman is also right to court gay voters by embracing civil unions.
Paul: Eccentric Ob-Gyn goes to far when he claims that "we're all Austrians" and calls for the abolition of the Fed, but a tighter monetary policy is an essential prescription as inflation rears its ugly head once more. Paul also has the most serious plan to cut spending and balance the budget in a city that celebrates cuts to projected increases.
Perry: George W. Bush on steroids has waged one of the most disappointing campaigns in recent history, but his call for the devolution of social programs to the state via bloc grants bears consideration, as does the business-friendly environment he helped create in Texas which has fueled a large percentage of job creation since the Great Recession. Perry also deserves credit for extending in-state tuition rates for undocumented students who graduate from high school.
The truth is, primary voters in 1980 had problems of their own with Reagan. Iowa caucus-goers awarded him a silver to his eventual running mate, George H.W. Bush, and conservatives were weary about several of his actions as California, including signing on to tax increases, liberalizing the state's abortion laws, and speaking out in favor of gay rights. He trounced his opposition in New Hampshire by 27 points, and the rest is of course history.
While we don't anticipate Mitt Romney to win by quite as wide of a margin in the Granite State, it should be comfortable nonetheless, allowing political junkies everywhere to get a good night's sleep in comparison to last Tuesday's late evening and early morning. I expect him to use this momentum to build on his lead in South Carolina, and essentially clear the field after prevailing in Florida at the end of the month.
Romney's coronation inevitable, and conservative's caveats about him well-documented, I'd like to use last weekend's debates and my independent examinations of each of the individual candidates to build a party platform and policy prescriptions for the former Massachusetts governor's first 100 days as president. Flawed as the prohibitive frontrunner and his rivals may be, I would retain elements of each of their respective issue positions as we pivot toward the general election battle.
Romney: Economic technocrat with 52 point plan to get America working again.
Santorum: Populist who work strengthen the social capital of our communities (see Saturday's post) and would use the tax code to incentivize manufacturing, with its significant value-added and potential to rebuild the middle class, over retail and other sectors of the service economy.
Gingrich: The professor is never short on innovative, mostly conservative, policy ideas, and his humane approach towards undocumented immigrants who are in this country, working hard, and raising families needs a home in the Party of Lincoln.
Huntsman: The ambassador's call for a more humble foreign policy, which includes reduced defense spending, is a nod to fiscal realities and the "new red menace" staring us in the face. Huntsman is also right to court gay voters by embracing civil unions.
Paul: Eccentric Ob-Gyn goes to far when he claims that "we're all Austrians" and calls for the abolition of the Fed, but a tighter monetary policy is an essential prescription as inflation rears its ugly head once more. Paul also has the most serious plan to cut spending and balance the budget in a city that celebrates cuts to projected increases.
Perry: George W. Bush on steroids has waged one of the most disappointing campaigns in recent history, but his call for the devolution of social programs to the state via bloc grants bears consideration, as does the business-friendly environment he helped create in Texas which has fueled a large percentage of job creation since the Great Recession. Perry also deserves credit for extending in-state tuition rates for undocumented students who graduate from high school.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
There's something to be learned from the sweater vest
Rick Santorum's surprise second place finish (virtual tie for first) in the Iowa Caucuses took the political world by storm, and a surge of campaign donations and an uptick in the polls have invited inevitable scrutiny of his record. His heavy appetite for pork, comfort with K Street, and extreme positions on abortion, contraceptives, and gay rights are disqualifying in my mind and speak to the weakness of a candidate who lost his last bid for reelection by 18 points in a swing state. These qualifications aside, as I said in my post on Wednesday, Mitt Romney would be smart to analyze and partially co-opt Santorum's themes centering on rebuilding societal bonds and fully embracing the Reagan Democrats ripe for picking come fall.
The modern Republican Party represents an uncomfortable marriage between libertarians, social conservatives, and military hawks (neocons). Romney spoke often in his 2008 campaign about uniting the three legs of the Republican stool, but the second group has been elusive thus far in the 2.0 version of his candidacy. The base is skeptical of his commitment to their values on a range of issues, from reducing the size of government to his commitment to appointing originalists to the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade and otherwise walk the party line. Since the 2012 campaign kicked off last spring, no less than five contenders for Romney's foil have risen and fallen (Santorum's collapse is pending).
In all honesty, like John McCain in 2008, Romney will not likely earn the trust of true believers before they cast their ballots next November. This bond will be sealed through his running mate selection, a subject of a post soon-to-come. He can, however, begin pivoting towards the general election contest and testing his message for the summer and fall, and he would be wise to revisit Santorum's widely acclaimed victory speech last Tuesday.
As David Brooks so ably captured in his New York Times column yesterday, something is amiss in America, as our citizens have become deeply disenchanted with both public and private institutions and our social fabric is unraveling. President Obama tapped into this four years ago, but unfortunately, the cause of "hope" and "change" begins and ends at the White House door. In short, despite his lofty rhetoric, he was the change he had been waiting for.
If Romney seeks to live up to his campaign slogan and help voters "believe in America" once more, he must transcend economic stewardship and emphasize the fact that lower taxes, reduced spending, and balanced budgets are one important leg of the stool, but culture matters, and ours is badly frayed.
The late great Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself." I think this captures the spirit of Rick Santorum's message and appeal to at least a quarter of caucus-goers last Tuesday evening.
The libertarian wing of the party is right that the "new red menace" (to quote Mitch Daniels), our national debt, is spiraling out of control and imperils the economic security of our posterity. They are wrong, however, to downplay the importance of our mutual obligations to one another in a society. Their hatred of all things government is not only impractical, but truly selfish. Good citizenship certainly means working hard, paying one's bills on time, and obeying the law, but it is empty without acknowledgment of our mutual destiny as a society.
The problems our country currently faces, beginning with a debt that has surpassed our annual GDP, but also encompassing underfunded and ill-structured entitlement programs, a crumbling infrastructure, exponential growth in health care costs (the true driver of unequal access and not resolved by Obamacare), and a broken immigration system, will not be resolved if we continue to train our eyes only on Number One. If Mitt Romney and his eventual running mate can help restore this mutuality between us as individuals and our 300 million compatriots, the America he envisions will slowly, but surely, be reawakened.
The modern Republican Party represents an uncomfortable marriage between libertarians, social conservatives, and military hawks (neocons). Romney spoke often in his 2008 campaign about uniting the three legs of the Republican stool, but the second group has been elusive thus far in the 2.0 version of his candidacy. The base is skeptical of his commitment to their values on a range of issues, from reducing the size of government to his commitment to appointing originalists to the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade and otherwise walk the party line. Since the 2012 campaign kicked off last spring, no less than five contenders for Romney's foil have risen and fallen (Santorum's collapse is pending).
In all honesty, like John McCain in 2008, Romney will not likely earn the trust of true believers before they cast their ballots next November. This bond will be sealed through his running mate selection, a subject of a post soon-to-come. He can, however, begin pivoting towards the general election contest and testing his message for the summer and fall, and he would be wise to revisit Santorum's widely acclaimed victory speech last Tuesday.
As David Brooks so ably captured in his New York Times column yesterday, something is amiss in America, as our citizens have become deeply disenchanted with both public and private institutions and our social fabric is unraveling. President Obama tapped into this four years ago, but unfortunately, the cause of "hope" and "change" begins and ends at the White House door. In short, despite his lofty rhetoric, he was the change he had been waiting for.
If Romney seeks to live up to his campaign slogan and help voters "believe in America" once more, he must transcend economic stewardship and emphasize the fact that lower taxes, reduced spending, and balanced budgets are one important leg of the stool, but culture matters, and ours is badly frayed.
The late great Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself." I think this captures the spirit of Rick Santorum's message and appeal to at least a quarter of caucus-goers last Tuesday evening.
The libertarian wing of the party is right that the "new red menace" (to quote Mitch Daniels), our national debt, is spiraling out of control and imperils the economic security of our posterity. They are wrong, however, to downplay the importance of our mutual obligations to one another in a society. Their hatred of all things government is not only impractical, but truly selfish. Good citizenship certainly means working hard, paying one's bills on time, and obeying the law, but it is empty without acknowledgment of our mutual destiny as a society.
The problems our country currently faces, beginning with a debt that has surpassed our annual GDP, but also encompassing underfunded and ill-structured entitlement programs, a crumbling infrastructure, exponential growth in health care costs (the true driver of unequal access and not resolved by Obamacare), and a broken immigration system, will not be resolved if we continue to train our eyes only on Number One. If Mitt Romney and his eventual running mate can help restore this mutuality between us as individuals and our 300 million compatriots, the America he envisions will slowly, but surely, be reawakened.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Hawkeye down
Mitt Romney's 8-vote victory over Rick Santorum last evening, coupled with Ron Paul's solid third place showing, represent the proverbial three tickets out of Iowa. The Hawkeye State lived up to its reputation for winnowing the field as Michelle Bachmann bowed out today after a disappointing sixth place finish, and Rick Perry refused to take a similar cue despite early indications that he got the message that his campaign is DOA--oops.
That leaves Newt Gingrich, who cratered into a fourth place finish after a meteoric rebound a few weeks ago, and Jon Huntsman, who took a pass on Iowa and camped out instead in the Granite State circa John McCain in 2008. Newt arrived in New Hampshire on fumes, bloodied by a series of negative ads financed by Perry, Paul, and Romney-affiliated Super PACs. Last night's angry concession speech by the former House Speaker promised a new strategy, shedding the Mr. Nice Guy disguise for "Nuclear Newt." He ran a full page ad in this morning's Manchester (NH) Union-Leader contrasting himself from Romney, who remains a HUGE favorite in his adopted home state. Mitt is the "moderate Massachusetts Republican" (where have you gone, Nelson Rockefeller?), and Gingrich the "Reagan conservative."
Against this backdrop, I'd like to share my strategy memo for Mitt Romney assessing the current dynamics of the Republican race:
1. Romney's victory in Iowa last evening was not hollow. He devoted limited resources there and still prevailed in a state unfriendly to establishment Republicans. Santorum is in the mold of the candidate Hawkeye social conservatives prefer. His photo finish with the prohibitive national frontrunner is worthy of acclaim, but an anti-Romney challenger on the right was inevitable, and Santorum wore this sweater vest well.
2. Romney will be tested by the battle of expectations in New Hampshire and Gingrich's renewed commitment to knock him off his pedestal. Anything less than a 20-point victory will be pitched as further signs of Romney's vulnerabilities, with the first Southern test on the horizon in South Carolina. Romney is smart to pivot back to the general election contest he has run from the outset, remaining above the fray and focusing on Obama's failed presidency. Trotting out the McCain endorsement today lends credibility to the inevitability of his nomination. Beware of being blindsided during Saturday's debate.
3. A bleeding Romney opens a small window for Huntsman, the only candidate who has yet to surge in the field of current and former contenders. He's polling in the low teens, but paralleled Santorum's commitment to Iowa in New Hampshire, and may surge if rank-and-file Republicans seek an electable alternative to Romney. Odds are that Huntsman is one and done, for like Santorum, he doesn't have the resources or organization to go the distance against Romney's well-oiled delegate gathering machine.
4. Romney would be wise to co-opt Santorum's appeal to Reagan Democrats. His speech last evening was the best of the six delivered as he placed his finger on what perennially plagues Republicans: the party's inability to offer anything to blue collar workers other than tax cuts and reduced government spending. Romneycare is an asset here, as he needs to avoid the natural association with OWS' 1% and expand the tent of the country club wing of the GOP.
5. A play to Paulites will be more difficult, as Romney's hawkish defense positions endanger their drift to Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party in the general election. Huntsman has played this policy angle well in line with George W. Bush's humbler foreign policy pledge of 2000 devoid of nation-building. Isolation is not the answer, but there is something to Paul's argument that military and defense are not one in the same.
Romney's strategy memo detailed, I'll return later this week with additional ruminations on the political version of Mardi Gras playing out across New Hampshire, including an analysis of Saturday's debate.
That leaves Newt Gingrich, who cratered into a fourth place finish after a meteoric rebound a few weeks ago, and Jon Huntsman, who took a pass on Iowa and camped out instead in the Granite State circa John McCain in 2008. Newt arrived in New Hampshire on fumes, bloodied by a series of negative ads financed by Perry, Paul, and Romney-affiliated Super PACs. Last night's angry concession speech by the former House Speaker promised a new strategy, shedding the Mr. Nice Guy disguise for "Nuclear Newt." He ran a full page ad in this morning's Manchester (NH) Union-Leader contrasting himself from Romney, who remains a HUGE favorite in his adopted home state. Mitt is the "moderate Massachusetts Republican" (where have you gone, Nelson Rockefeller?), and Gingrich the "Reagan conservative."
Against this backdrop, I'd like to share my strategy memo for Mitt Romney assessing the current dynamics of the Republican race:
1. Romney's victory in Iowa last evening was not hollow. He devoted limited resources there and still prevailed in a state unfriendly to establishment Republicans. Santorum is in the mold of the candidate Hawkeye social conservatives prefer. His photo finish with the prohibitive national frontrunner is worthy of acclaim, but an anti-Romney challenger on the right was inevitable, and Santorum wore this sweater vest well.
2. Romney will be tested by the battle of expectations in New Hampshire and Gingrich's renewed commitment to knock him off his pedestal. Anything less than a 20-point victory will be pitched as further signs of Romney's vulnerabilities, with the first Southern test on the horizon in South Carolina. Romney is smart to pivot back to the general election contest he has run from the outset, remaining above the fray and focusing on Obama's failed presidency. Trotting out the McCain endorsement today lends credibility to the inevitability of his nomination. Beware of being blindsided during Saturday's debate.
3. A bleeding Romney opens a small window for Huntsman, the only candidate who has yet to surge in the field of current and former contenders. He's polling in the low teens, but paralleled Santorum's commitment to Iowa in New Hampshire, and may surge if rank-and-file Republicans seek an electable alternative to Romney. Odds are that Huntsman is one and done, for like Santorum, he doesn't have the resources or organization to go the distance against Romney's well-oiled delegate gathering machine.
4. Romney would be wise to co-opt Santorum's appeal to Reagan Democrats. His speech last evening was the best of the six delivered as he placed his finger on what perennially plagues Republicans: the party's inability to offer anything to blue collar workers other than tax cuts and reduced government spending. Romneycare is an asset here, as he needs to avoid the natural association with OWS' 1% and expand the tent of the country club wing of the GOP.
5. A play to Paulites will be more difficult, as Romney's hawkish defense positions endanger their drift to Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party in the general election. Huntsman has played this policy angle well in line with George W. Bush's humbler foreign policy pledge of 2000 devoid of nation-building. Isolation is not the answer, but there is something to Paul's argument that military and defense are not one in the same.
Romney's strategy memo detailed, I'll return later this week with additional ruminations on the political version of Mardi Gras playing out across New Hampshire, including an analysis of Saturday's debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)