Friday, February 10, 2012

Campaign and Its Discontents

At this point, no one really knows who will be the standard-bearer against Barack Obama in the fall. There's clearly a lot of discontent among conservatives who pay attention to politics. Writing at Powerline, John Hinderaker is getting close to disconsolate:

So, do I think the 2012 election is slipping away from conservatives, Republicans, and the American people? Yes, I do. This is a year in which it was incumbent on conservatives to pursue, soberly, the overriding goal of evicting Barack Obama from the White House. We didn’t do that; in fact, it wouldn’t be far off the mark to say that we made fools of ourselves by chasing one will o’ the wisp after another. I fear that in November, we will pay the price.

So do you believe that? I don't. A few thoughts:

I suspect much of what is bothering Hinderaker is that his horse, Mitt Romney, is not running well. I understand the disappointment, but frankly I'd rather learn he's a lame candidate now than in September. Why is Romney turning out to be such a disappointment? Let's turn to our old pal Peggy Noonan, whose 2008 swooning over The One seems to have worn off, for an explanation:


The Romney campaign is better at dismantling than mantling. They're better at taking opponents apart than building a compelling candidate of their own. They do not seem capable of deepening his meaning, making his stands and statements more textured and interesting. He comes across like a businessman who studied the data and came up with the formula that will make the deal.
A particular problem is that he betrays little indignation at any of our problems and their causes. He's always sunny, pleasant, untouched by anger. This leaves people thinking, "Excuse me, but we are in crisis. Financially and culturally we fear our country is going down the drain. This guy doesn't seem to be feeling it. So why's he running? Maybe he thinks it's his personal destiny to be president. But if the animating passion of his candidacy is about him, not us, who needs him?"
I think that's spot-on. Romney has a presidential skill set, but he's clearly too technocratic to understand the larger issues. And as we discussed earlier this week, it's long since past time for Romney to make an affirmative case for why he should lead, rather than having his campaign trash his opponents. The longer the campaign goes on, the more clear it becomes that the reason Romney won't make an affirmative case for his campaign is because he can't make one.

So where does that leave us? At this point the guy who ostensibly has the momentum is Rick Santorum. While I still don't see him being president, he's doing better than I would have imagined he could. One thing to watch in the coming days is how the Left starts to treat Santorum. In some ways, he's even more of an affront to the cultural sensitivities of our betters than Sarah Palin is. If you doubt that, consider this broadside from John Cassidy, providing a little cultural anthropology from his redoubt at the New Yorker:


To educated liberals of almost any description, Santorum is an abomination. It’s not just that he’s a pro-life, anti-gay, anti-contraception Roman Catholic of the most retrogressive and diehard Opus Dei variety. It’s his entire persona. With his seven kids, his Jaycee fashion code, his nineteen-seventies colonial MacMansion in northern Virginia, his irony bypass, he seems to delight in outraging self-styled urban sophisticates: the sort of folks who buy organic milk, watch The Daily Show, and read the New York Times (and The New Yorker, of course).

Cassidy is a Brit, so he takes a bit of an outsider's view here. It's helpful, because in explaining what makes Santorum so, ahem, distasteful, he also understands why Santorum is rising:


But it’s precisely his in-your-face, street-corner conservatism that makes Santorum potentially a strong candidate.
As he has displayed in Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri, he is attractive to Republican inhabitants of small towns and rural areas, many of them alienated Evangelical Christians who take it as an article of faith that President Obama is merely the public face of a secular conspiracy intent on altering their country beyond recognition. And Santorum isn’t just a religious candidate. With his hardscrabble roots and message of economic populism, he can also appeal to less devout but economically squeezed middle-income Republicans and Reagan Democrats, of whom there are many. Although his pledge to restore American manufacturing to past glories isn’t very believable, it does signal to voters that he cares about bread-and-butter issues.
I think there's a lot of truth to that observation, too. The next few weeks are going to be fascinating.



16 comments:

Brian said...

I don't think it is completely fair to ascribe the left's (or left-leaning libertarians', like your s truly) strong aversion to Santorum as being a matter of an affront to cultural sensibilities. Or rather, entirely to that.

I'll put it this way: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, John McCain, hell even Sarah Palin--these are all people with whom I have some pretty stark philosophical differences about what America's place in the world is, what our priorities ought to be, and how best to achieve those ends. I don't, however, think that there is a fundamentally different vision there about broad, ultimate goals. I don't think that our ideal worlds are all that different...we just disagree about how best to get there.

I have to put Rick Santorum in a difference category. He wants to wind the cultural clock back to 1955. If he could, he would happily see his particular take on Catholicism codified into law. And to top that all off, his national greatness-neoconservatism makes GW Bush look like Robert Taft.

His ideal world looks nothing like mine. That's a huge difference.

Mr. D said...

I don't think it is completely fair to ascribe the left's (or left-leaning libertarians', like your s truly) strong aversion to Santorum as being a matter of an affront to cultural sensibilities. Or rather, entirely to that.

I agree. It is a factor, though.

I have to put Rick Santorum in a difference category. He wants to wind the cultural clock back to 1955. If he could, he would happily see his particular take on Catholicism codified into law. And to top that all off, his national greatness-neoconservatism makes GW Bush look like Robert Taft.

And I don't disagree with that. As I've mentioned here, I did not vote for Santorum in the caucus. I do understand why so many others did, though.

My personal opinion is that this election really needs to be about fiscal issues. The culture war may intervene, though. Hell, it always does.

Gino said...

"My personal opinion is that this election really needs to be about fiscal issues."

not just fiscal, but the productive sector needs to be expanded. Romney is the only one i can see who understands how this can happen.at least he should, anyway.
the answer wont come from somebody who's been surrounded by harvardish faculty, career politicians, and legal 'scholars' most of his life.

Anonymous said...

Apparently, Santorum has a sense of humor. He opened at CPAC with this joke: A conservative, a moderate, & a liberal walks into a bar, and the bartender says, "Hi, Mitt."

Regards,
Rich

Anonymous said...

Gino,
was this a joke? "who's been surrounded by harvardish faculty, career politicians, and legal 'scholars' most of his life."?

You do realize Willard has 2 grad degrees from Harvard...one a JD, that hios Fathetr was the Governor of Michtigan and ran for Pnresident, that Romney has been running for various elecetive offices for 2 dwecades, and that, as a consultan at Bain, he was surrounded by and interacted constantly with other high profile lawyers, aka "legal scholars", many of whom almost certainly went to the dreaded Harvard.

Seriously...what is your point. Romney is the poster boy for your characterization.

Regards,
Rich

Gino said...

Rich: i'm not saying he hasnt spent his life surrounded by these things

i'm saying he should know more than that based on his business experience.
a practical application of how to make things happen, as opposed to just theories about it. (all the other guys are just theories and wind.)

Anonymous said...

Gino,
I know where you are coming from. A lot of people seem to think that being successful in business is going to translate into being a good President. I have my doubts. Being a successful businessman isn’t necessarily the same thing. The goals of government are not as simple and straight forward as those of running a business. Especially the kind of business (venture capital) that Romney ran. His goal were to maximize profits at any expense. He bought promising companies and helped to streamline them, and failing companies to help them fail faster...and made money either way. That isn't exactly a business model for the Federal government.

But my point may be moot concerning Romney the businessman. He was also governor of a state, and by most accounts, a fairly successful one. I would think the experience he gained there will be much more valuable than his time at Bain. And that experience as a governor is the closest thing anyone can get to being President.

No one can be in truth can be said to have a background to fully qualify them to be President, except for someone who was or is President. If this is your important criteria for President you are pretty much stuck with voting for Obama this time, since there are no ex-presidents running. But in spite of all of the BS talk about voting for the most qualified candidate, most people vote for the man whose policy positions they agree with.

In general we are not counting on the President’s executive abilities to manage the government in a way that a CEO manages a company. His appointees are people who are concerned with forming policy, not with how to implement the laws that result from the policies.

I believe that Romney would be able to handle the job. But this is based more on his experience as governor than his time as a CEO of Bain.

What I do doubt is his ability to get elected. This guy is a walking gaffe, and I have to think that his years as a consultant and CEO might have something to do with that. He is too used to having his ass kissed as a CEO, and that has given him feet of clay. And his flexibility and skills as a management consultant aren't serving him well either. Your main job, as a consultant is to agree with your client. Romeny has been doing that for so long, his phoniness is transparent. His campaign rails against Obama's alleged bad policy while proposing only to tinker with them. This is what management consultants do: Point out the weaknesses and internal contradictions of the client they are pitching, then present the customer with a slicker, better packaged, but fundamentally unchanged version of itself. Problem is, the Republican base is seeing right through it. The guy doesn't have a single, substantive proposal on the table. That is another management consultant trick...provide plausible deniability (they actually use the term "blame dispersion." I love that one).

I openly admit that I don't support Romney because I don’t like the policies that he "may" try to implement. His economic policies are the same ones that got us into the mess that we are in now. I don't expect many on here to agree with me, but as much as you want to fault Obama for his attempts at recovery from the recession (many of which seem to be working), he didn’t cause the recession. And jsut as we appear to be recovering from what was a very deep economic retrenchment, Romney and the Republicans are promising a return to the policies that caused the recession. It would be crazy to vote for that.

I have nothing personal against Romney. I kinda like the guy. He has many admirable traits. And he may make a good President. But I don't think that will have much to do with his business acumen.

Regards,
Rich

Mr. D said...

I don't expect many on here to agree with me, but as much as you want to fault Obama for his attempts at recovery from the recession (many of which seem to be working), he didn’t cause the recession. And jsut as we appear to be recovering from what was a very deep economic retrenchment, Romney and the Republicans are promising a return to the policies that caused the recession. It would be crazy to vote for that.

This is silly on multiple levels, of course. George W. Bush may not have handled many things in his presidency that well, but he didn't cause the recession. And the reason we want Obama out is that he's managed to add over a trillion dollars of debt every single year of his presidency, and has grown the size and scope of government from about 20-21% of the overall economy to over 25% of the overall economy. And once Obamcare is in place, the government may end up controlling 30% of the economy or more. That is not sustainable.

We're headed for a version of what is going on in Greece and you're applauding that, Rich. We're handing our children and grandchildren bills that they can never repay and you're applauding that, too. It. Has. To. Stop.

Frankly, the reason most Republicans oppose Romney is because we don't think he comprehends the magnitude of what is happening and won't be aggressive enough to stop it.

Gino said...

how can we be passing bills on to the next generation when govt 'health care' policies seem intent on assuring there wont be one?

ya cant spend like this, and offer entitelments like this, and continue to promote lack of procreation as health care.

we will spend so much on contraceptive purposes that there wont be enough conceptioneering to pay for all the heart by-passes we'll need later.

that is destined to be lack of health for everybody down the line.

also Rich: that was a good explanation above.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

"We're handing our children and grandchildren bills that they can never repay.... It. Has. To. Stop."

And that is why anybody but Obama is the only option. To vote otherwise is to ingest more poison. The man either does not understand or does not care. Either way, he is clearly the least qualified to be president because he has had the job and proven beyond doubt that he is a failure.

Of course, the other options don't seem that great. Does anyone running understand the magnitude of the problem? Many would probably say Ron Paul, but he lets loose with crap like cutting waste and saving money on foreign wars. Money could be saved, no doubt, but not enough. Not nearly enough. The time for the scalpel is past and the Big Spenders are the one who have brought us to this by refusing to pick and choose what government should be involved with.

Anonymous said...

"This is silly on multiple levels, of course. George W. Bush may not have handled many things in his presidency that well, but he didn't cause the recession."

Mark,
wanna know what is really silly? Attributing something someone didn't say to them, and then addressing that alleged attribution. I think you might be having one of those arguments arguments in your head. I know all about those. I have a commitee that convenes up there. ;)

Regards,
Rich

Mr. D said...

Rich, you wrote:

And jsut as we appear to be recovering from what was a very deep economic retrenchment, Romney and the Republicans are promising a return to the policies that caused the recession. It would be crazy to vote for that.

If you weren't talking about George Bush, who were you talking about? I know it wasn't Lowell Weicker. And since Mitt Romney isn't promising a return to the policies promulgated by, say, Barney Frank or Christopher Dodd, perhaps you can explain who specifically promulgated the policies you decry, especially if you aren't talking about George W. Bush.

Anonymous said...

Mark,
the answer is right in your quote of my quote of your quote of my quote: Romney and the Republicans.

This would certainly include George W. Bush, unless you all have completely disowned him. But last time I checked, he wasns't exactly the GOP go to guy on political philosophy, policy or practice. You really do seem fixated on defending Dubya. Even when he isn't being attacked. Why is that?

I was honestly thinking more along the lines of Reagan, Goldwater, Laffer, Norquist, etc. George H. W. Bush was right... trickle down is laughable and the idea that every tax cut pays for itself is a freakin' hoot. Even Reagan figured that out when he raised taxes abfout 10 times after his initial big cut. The reason he had to do that is that Supply Side Economics doesn't work. Reagan cut a good deal when they reduced the crazy loopholes in the income tax system and reduced the highest marginal rates. That was correlated with economic growth but it is also important to remember that was the era when computing was beginning to vastly increase the efficiency of virtually every kind of business.

The U.S. deficits are manageable, but not by just cutting costs or just raising taxes. Especially when the Right wants to expand the imperial impulse and continue to grow defense spending.

Also, I think deficits have reached their high water mark as an issue with voters. The real issue that people are beginning to recognize is income inequality and the perception that the Republican party is a shill for those people who have immense fortunes and seem hell bent on reinstating gilded age style politics and tax abolition to maintain those fortunes. Americans are starting to recognize that going back to an American aristocracy where class mobility declines is not where we want to go. Class mobility is what has made America great and when we take that away, we start to go backwards.

Regards,
Rich

W.B. Picklesworth said...

"The real issue that people are beginning to recognize is income inequality..."

And the American center was found at Zucotti Park.

Mr. D said...

You really do seem fixated on defending Dubya. Even when he isn't being attacked. Why is that?

I'm not, actually. But inasmuch as he was Obama's predecessor, one might reasonably surmise that you were criticizing his policies. Especially given the context. Must be that nuance we conservatives lack, again.

The U.S. deficits are manageable, but not by just cutting costs or just raising taxes. Especially when the Right wants to expand the imperial impulse and continue to grow defense spending.

Who is this Right you speak of, kemo sabe? If you hadn't noticed, there's a growing trend on the Right against the "imperial impulse." I'm not ready to walk away from the empire, because we can't do that, but we will need to wind things down. And that necessarily will be part of shrinking government. But in the main, it's only a portion of the problem. And not the largest part, by any means.

And no, a trillion dollars a year is not manageable. And if we continue on the current path, you'll understand why.

Also, I think deficits have reached their high water mark as an issue with voters. The real issue that people are beginning to recognize is income inequality and the perception that the Republican party is a shill for those people who have immense fortunes and seem hell bent on reinstating gilded age style politics and tax abolition to maintain those fortunes. Americans are starting to recognize that going back to an American aristocracy where class mobility declines is not where we want to go. Class mobility is what has made America great and when we take that away, we start to go backwards.

You trust the government to be the guarantor of class mobility? Really? The crew that gave us Solyndra and the Chevy Volt? Good luck with that.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

Or another way of putting is: the issue of income inequality is an attempt by Democrats to distract from the fact that their policies have everything to do with the prolonged downturn. "Don't look at us. Look at that rich dude over there!" I'm not saying it won't work to a certain extent, because human beings are sinful and envy and covetousness are sins after all. But it's kind of sad.

After 3 years in control of the executive and the Senate and 2 years in control of the House, you should have better electoral ammunition than that.