Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
A few days ago in the Wall Street Journal, Fred Barnes wrote of Paul Ryan:
What particularly upsets opponents is Mr. Ryan's image. "The disarming thing is his sense of mission is greater than his sense of ambition," says Ryan adviser David Smick, a Washington economic consultant. "This is disconcerting to his critics."
I couldn't help but think of that when I read in Politico Playbook about a magazine article that will be released on Monday. Written by Jon Ward of the Huffington Post, a very good reporter, the article suggests the Romney campaign might be thinking of an interesting gambit:
ARTICLE OF THE DAY -- JON WARD in Huffington magazine (available today on iPad; article posts Monday), “The One-Termer? Thinking Bold Thoughts With Team Romney”: “Matt Rhoades is guarded and intense … [W]hen I met him in mid-July, in a bohemian coffee shop in Boston’s North End, the 37-year-old manager of Mitt Romney’s campaign was hesitant to speculate about what the Republican candidate would do as president, and how. … But when I asked Rhoades … what Romney might do with the budget and entitlement reform plans Ryan had already outlined, Rhoades’ eyes lit up. He gave me a name: James Polk. … Rhoades and the rest of the members of Romney’s inner circle think a Romney presidency could look much like the White House tenure of the 11th U.S. president.
“Polk, who served from 1845 to 1849, presided over the expansion of the U.S. into a coast-to-coast nation, annexing Texas and winning the Mexican-American war for territories that also included New Mexico and California. He reduced trade barriers and strengthened the Treasury system. And he was a one-term president. Polk is an allegory for Rhoades: He did great things, and then exited the scene, and few remember him. That, Rhoades suggested, could be Romney’s legacy as well. … Multiple senior Romney advisers assured me that they had had conversations with the candidate in which he conveyed a depth of conviction about the need to try to enact something like Ryan’s controversial budget and entitlement reforms. Romney, they said, was willing to count the cost politically in order to achieve it.”
I have no idea if this read on Romney is right, but I do like how it speaks to the depth of seriousness he has indicated in recent weeks.
I see no need to proclaim at the outset that this will be a one-term proposition (Didn't Ramesh Ponnuru advise Sen. John McCain to promise to leave after one-term?) but what do you think?
I'm so out of the mainstream of voters, of course, that I view the need for entitlement reforms as a function of math and logic rather than controversy.
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Sep '11
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
"I will be a one-term president" is always, always an indicator of a failing campaign.
It seems to me that the premise--that Ryan would fall on his sword after solving America's debt crisis--is based on the idea that Americans would think that solving the debt crisis, reforming the tax code, and lighting a fire under the economy would be a bad thing.
Oh, wait...this is being written by a Puffington Host reporter. That explains everything....
Edited on August 24, 2012 at 4:26pmDec '11
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
Mollie,
I agree. The problem we have is that we keep beating the privatization drum, which while I grant is probably better, it isnt broadly understood, nor is it broadly understandable, and alienates mandatory stakeholders who will have to buy in. It will work out as well as Obamacare did when we try to invoke a real power play.
We do need to make entitlements cheaper, and essentially telling the people we need to buy in to pound sand is a recipe for disaster.
We need to create the strategy, as in (these are real numbers):
Section 550 Health of the US budget needs to cost 226.819B less next year and every year after that
Section 570 Medicare -281.224B
Section 600 Income Security -257.678B
Section 650 Social Security -213.187B
Section 700 Veterans Beneftis -37.5B
Section 750 Justice -29.972B
Section 500 Education -6.031B
Section 400 Transportation -11.726B
Section 300 Natural Resources -2.293B
Section 050 Defense -33.452B
These are the cuts that have to happen regardless of what we do with taxation, and we need the left to write the plan to reach them.
Edited on August 24, 2012 at 4:30pmMay '12
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
I think given Gov. Romney's commitment to his faith he doesn't crave fame or the spotlight like Obama or Clinton. I could see him coming in with an ambitious agenda that he hasn't unveiled yet, working timely like he did at Bain to turn things around, and then exiting the stage and being a humble gentleman in his retirment similar to President Bush.
Nov '11
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
The best indicator we have available of future performance is past performance.
There's not much that I see in Mr. Romney's record to indicate a sense of mission that outweighs ambition. (If only!)
The incentive structure of politics benefits people of ambition who tell the voting public whatever they want to hear. So the notion of a politician sacrificing their political future to do what's right, well, consider me skeptical.
But the idea of any modern presidential candidate declaring they'd only serve one term is fantasy. The idea that they'd do it and stick to it is beyond fantasy.
I could be wrong (I'm usually not), but I doubt it. Maybe Mitt Romney is an idealist on a mission. He just wants to fix things and then move on. We can hope, I suppose. But I wouldn't bet on it.
May '10
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
There is a reason second terms are always less successful than first terms. And the last two years of a second term are usually abysmal.
Why squander political capital before you've earned it?
Mar '11
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
Guruforhire: The problem we have is that we keep beating the privatization drum, which while I grant is probably better, it isnt broadly understood, nor is it broadly understandable, and alienates mandatory stakeholders who will have to buy in.....These are the cuts that have to happen regardless of what we do with taxation, and we need the left to write the plan to reach them.
Where on the Left do you see the appetite to do anything like this?
If by 'the left', you mean a lot of centrist Democrats--then I agree that if Romney wins the election he should probably, a la Bowles-Simpson, work to get these centrist Democrats on board so that we're not accused of shoving a partisan agenda down the country's throat.
But there is no way that the Left is going to write the plan. It is going to take a decisive victory from Romney/Ryan to convince those centrist Democrats that the country is serious enough that their seats will be in jeopardy if they refuse to work across the aisle.
Mar '11
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
As for the Romney/Polk comparison: I do think there is some merit to the notion of a change presidency that remains focused on doing what is necessary and not just nibbling around the edges or being sycophantic toward public opinion. It may require some unpopular shifts from both sides of the aisle which means alienating, well, everyone in some way.
Nevertheless, I don't think it is a good political strategy to announce it during the election season. "America, we're going to do so many things that are important but so incredibly unpopular that you'll be kicking us out in 4 years! Vote for us now, though!"....Um hrm....
For this strategy to be an effective governing strategy, Romney can't destroy the possibility for a Republican to be elected after him. The Welfare State is going to take successive administrations to tame, so legacy is an important consideration.
Jun '12
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
Fred Cole:
I could be wrong (I'm usually not), but I doubt it. Maybe Mitt Romney is an idealist on a mission. He just wants to fix things and then move on. We can hope, I suppose. But I wouldn't bet on it. · 0 minutes ago
Modern Presidents who served more than one "term" (Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, GWB) have been especially trashed in their second "term." It's conceivable that Mitt might just serve one term and let Ryan be "the next President of the United States" to keep up Mitt's image. For a man like Mitt, eight years in one job seems like an eternity.
Oct '10
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
Yes, and persuasion and education are the key to this strategy. Whether the electorate is amenable to being persuaded is the $64000 question. And whether Romney and Ryan are the men to do it is another.
I can't imagine another politician more suited for this than Ryan and I really mean I couldn't create a fictional character better than Ryan. I don't approve of all his past votes and I wish his policy positions went further in many cases, but for articulating conservative principles and tying them to necessary policy, all with good humor and an air of reasonableness, he is the man of the hour.
Edited on August 24, 2012 at 5:39pmApr '11
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
Maybe Romney envisions a one term presidency or maybe he doesn't. But, if he blurts out that he does it would be like proclaiming he doesn't want to win this thing. No. I think Romney may only have one term or maybe just 2 years to pass sweeping changes to the tax code and entitlements and then he has to spend 6 years doggedly defending his gains and entrenching them.
There is no point to passing a major law if it just gets undone in 2 or 4 years by the opposition. Just look at Obamacare. If We win this election that whole law will come apart. You can bet your bottom dollars that the Dems will try to employ a similar strategy with any Romney reforms.
Jan '11
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
Even if it were true (that Romney is willing to be a one-term president so that he can enact certain programs), I would oppose the strategy.
I don't like treating political office as a two-year license to act exclusively. I don't want Romney to tell Democrats, "I won."
Governing should be an ongoing conversation with your constituents. Even in the early days, Congress went into recess precisely for the sake of sending the politicians home so they could listen to their constituents. Representation ought to remain a conversation, because the representative is supposed to be a servant of the people. If the people don't want a policy enacted (think ObamaCare), then I believe that the politician has a duty to follow their wishes - even if the people are craven idiots who don't "know what's good for them." Whether the people are right or wrong doesn't matter. The power of government belongs to the people, first and always.
So, the notion that a politician can impose his agenda, simply because he's absolutely convinced he's right, really doesn't sit well with me.
Jul '10
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
Strikes me that any serious attempt to restore sanity to our nation must include the repeal of the 17th amendment, a consideration I see no clamor for out there. Strange, as putting states back in some kind of control of their destiny seems needed to contain the genie of the federal government. Democracy as a ruling process everywhere in history loses, just at socialism does. The FF's weren't uneducated when they put forth the structure of our government; it's just us that have walked away from it, to our peril.
Apr '11
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
Fred Cole: The best indicator we have available of future performance is past performance.
There's not much that I see in Mr. Romney's record to indicate a sense of mission that outweighs ambition. (If only!)
The incentive structure of politics benefits people of ambition who tell the voting public whatever they want to hear. So the notion of a politician sacrificing their political future to do what's right, well, consider me skeptical.
......
I could be wrong (I'm usually not), but I doubt it. Maybe Mitt Romney is an idealist on a mission. He just wants to fix things and then move on. We can hope, I suppose. But I wouldn't bet on it. ·
Just to clarify, is this a single data point Romneycare claim, or do you have a reasonable basis for this? To put it another way, is there any point in Romney's life when he wasn't driven both to fix the finances of an organization and to do good socially?
I'd note that unlike the Libertarian candidate, he has a history of being successful in these attempts, because of his talent and because his interest in cutting government was genuine.
Dec '11
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
Crow's Nest:
Where on the Left do you see the appetite to do anything like this?
If by 'the left', you mean a lot of centrist Democrats--then I agree that if Romney wins the election he should probably, a la Bowles-Simpson, work to get these centrist Democrats on board so that we're not accused of shoving a partisan agenda down the country's throat.
But there is no way that the Left is going to write the plan. It is going to take a decisive victory from Romney/Ryan to convince those centrist Democrats that the country is serious enough that their seats will be in jeopardy if they refuse to work across the aisle.
There isnt going to be a decisive win, and privitization plans will go nowhere. They are the rights version of Obamacare, and beating that drum makes forward progress essentially impossible. These will never happen absent a philibuster proof majority and decades of bad blood.
Apr '11
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
KC Mulville: Even if it were true (that Romney is willing to be a one-term president so that he can enact certain programs), I would oppose the strategy.
I don't like treating political office as a two-year license to act exclusively. I don't want Romney to tell Democrats, "I won."
.....
So, the notion that a politician can impose his agenda, simply because he's absolutely convinced he's right, really doesn't sit well with me. · 29 minutes ago
I think that if you mean that he could pass reforms in an Obamacare-like way and then leave, I'd agree that that would be terrible. The specter of Reagan's catastrophically failed SSDI reforms is a good example of the cost of overreach. With a bit of luck, Obama will be another.
That's not what Rhodes said, though. He referenced Polk, whose reforms stuck. If people could accept that Romneycare was only part of Romney's gubernatorial term, he might have mentioned that, too. Romney's cuts mostly stuck, along with his pro-gun reforms and school choice. His Massachusetts citizens only SSM restriction expanded to other states.
Apr '11
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
Valiuth: Maybe Romney envisions a one term presidency or maybe he doesn't. But, if he blurts out that he does it would be like proclaiming he doesn't want to win this thing. No. I think Romney may only have one term or maybe just 2 years to pass sweeping changes to the tax code and entitlements and then he has to spend 6 years doggedly defending his gains and entrenching them.
There is no point to passing a major law if it just gets undone in 2 or 4 years by the opposition. Just look at Obamacare. If We win this election that whole law will come apart. You can bet your bottom dollars that the Dems will try to employ a similar strategy with any Romney reforms. ·
Yeah, it's a hardy perennial. All campaigns have supporters who fantasize about their guy not seeking re-election, but rather doing the right thing. Romney has a record for this. He was willing to burn a lot of bridges to keep Republicans, including Scott Brown, in the state legislature in 2004, against Kerry's coattails. I don't think he plans on a single term either, though.
Jan '11
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
James Of England
That's not what Rhodes said, though. He referenced Polk, whose reforms stuck.
There's a distinction, and it matters. Polk didn't act in spite of what the people wanted; they were generally supportive of the things he campaigned for. He was doing the will of the people. He promised to do a few things, and when the people elected him, he did what he promised to do.
Ward is saying that Romney might enact necessary reforms which will cost him political support, enough to endanger a second term.
That logically implies that the people don't support what Romney wants to do, but he intends to do them anyway. Romney would be going against the people's will in that case. Polk didn't.
Mar '11
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
Guruforhire:
There isnt going to be a decisive win, and privitization plans will go nowhere. They are the rights version of Obamacare, and beating that drum makes forward progress essentially impossible. These will never happen absent a philibuster proof majority and decades of bad blood.
As to your first point, we will see. Though I think this will be a tight election, it is possible it breaks open (as much as electoral politics do these days) into something akin to Reagan's '80 victory. Republicans took the House, Senate, and White House in 2004--that would be sufficient this year for serious reform packages to pass.
But which candidate is ardently making the case for privatizing all welfare state functions? Certainly not Romney/Ryan. They are on the stump defending Medicare and Obama's cuts to it (not attacking it in principle). Ryan's plan, while it gives more flexibility to seniors starting a decade in the future, ensures that seniors who wish to remain in traditional Medicare can choose to do so.
If not the Ryan plan, what plan do you think that the ticket should be putting forward for Medicare reform?
Mar '11
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
Sorry, that was meant to be "defending Medicare and attacking Obama's cuts to it"
Apr '11
Re: Does Romney/Ryan's Sense of Mission Outweigh Ambition?
KC Mulville
James Of England
That's not what Rhodes said, though. He referenced Polk, whose reforms stuck.
There's a distinction, and it matters. Polk didn't act in spite of what the people wanted; they were generally supportive of the things he campaigned for. He was doing the will of the people. He promised to do a few things, and when the people elected him, he did what he promised to do.
The things Polk was elected to do were pretty contentious (if he'd have won a fraction less of the New York immigrant vote, he'd have lost), and I don't think anyone is suggesting that Romney do things he hasn't campaigned on; radical labor reform, saving the country from ruin, appointing sound justices, freeing trade and restoring American power seems like enough.
Sometimes winning the argument on the issues requires accepting personal unpopularity. A good example would be Bush's Surge. A Democratic Congress elected to end the war was pushed to expand it, and the case was made and accepted by the American people, but Bush was not able to achieve that while retaining popularity.