Fed Up! – The Discussion
[Note: This post is a follow-up to a previous one I wrote after reading a hysterical column by Ruth Marcus on Rick Perry's "frightening manifesto", Fed Up! I floated the idea that we here on Ricochet have a discussion of the book so we could become more familiar with the candidate himself as well as to be in a better position to evaluate what is sure to be a torrent of negative advertising based on quotes taken from it.]
Since I began to follow politics closely (around the ’76 campaign … I was a Udall supporter) I have never wanted to support a candidate as much as I find myself wanting to support Rick Perry now. I guess it’s the combined effects of the urgent need to replace Obama and the unsettling feeling that Perry may be the only Republican with a reasonable chance to do so who’s not a squish. So it was with more than a little trepidation that I began reading Fed Up! – what surprises would I find? Reassuring command of the issues? Insightful analyses of our current condition? Or political bromides and pablum of the type that so frequently inhabit election year tracts?
Rick Perry claims he wrote this book to “help sustain a national dialogue about the proper structure and balance of government “ (p 178). I take him at his word – he seems to have written it with little regard to its effect on his presidential aspirations, as his intemperate remarks about social security (e.g., “By any measure, Social Security is a failure”, p. 62, and his assertions of its questionable constitutionality) have already given opponents plenty of ammunition to bash him with – these are clearly not the words of a cautious pol with his eyes on the presidency.
Frustratingly, for someone who was reading the book to get an idea for what a President Perry might do and how he would do it, the book left many unanswered questions. To be sure, his speech declaring his candidacy shared many of the themes he includes in his book (it doesn’t get much better than, “I will try to make Washington as irrelevant to your life as possible”). For example, after laying out some clear and persuasive arguments concerning the overreach of the federal government (most of the chapters in the book are devoted to this end), one is left wondering how he would address all of the problems he so ably delineates. But, since Perry does not discuss any solutions to the country’s problems before the last chapter, the reader is bound to be thinking, upon reaching that point in the book, “Surely they'll be coming up next”. So it was disconcerting that instead of getting right to it, he launches into his vision of America in 2026, the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. It’s a libertarian’s dream essentially, but an utterly unrealistic one for a mere fifteen years out. Then, with about ten pages left to go, we get down to brass tacks – his 5-point plan for “Taking America Back”. They are: 1) repeal Obamacare; 2) resistance by states against federal intrusion into their affairs; 3) a national dialogue about limited, constitutional government; 4) the election of leaders who respect the Constitution; and, 5) adoption of structural reforms, especially with respect to limiting funding the federal government and curbing the power of the judiciary.
Now, those are five great ideas, necessary ones too, but they are far too vague and diffuse to provide much information about what a President Perry would do. What would he prioritize? How would he propose reforming entitlements? Etc. etc. etc. In the book, Perry never confronts the very real dilemma that “politics is the art of the possible”. As much as we here at Ricochet would like to see genuine discussion concerning the constitutionality of programs like Social Security, the rest of the country has moved on. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are part of the social fabric and will not be easily abandoned even with the most eloquent and logical of arguments. The knock on Sarah Palin is that her skills as a politician are not backed up by thoughtfulness or depth in her approach to governance. Regardless of the validity of that argument in Palin’s case, after reading Perry’s book, it seems that he can be described the same way. He does a great job critiquing the policies that got us to where we are, but does that mean he has the requisite skills to lead us forward? Finally, his focus on federalism per se is not as reassuring as would be arguments concerning the proper role of government at any level. He seems content to let individual states force their citizens into all sorts of things, provided that the federal government stays out of it. I’d prefer hearing that certain aspects of our lives are off limits to any government interference. I understand that such an approach could undercut his argument for federalism, but framed appropriately it need not do so and it would certainly give a more complete picture of how he views the relationship between the individual and the state.
So what to make of the book? Getting to know Rick Perry through his own words reminds me of the danger of designing a strategy according to the dictum, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. I love the man for his enemies, but that doesn’t mean I want him to be the general in the next fight.
Well, that's my two cents. Yours?
- Comment (37)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
I can't disagree with most of what you wrote. It seemed that Perry was much better at outlining problems than solutions. The book was written from the perspective of a governor, so it gives little understanding of what a President Perry would be like. He seemed to focus quite a bit on obamacare, so I think the entire undertaking was set in motion by its passage. It was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
The one area of disagreement I have with your analysis is that of entitlement reform. You wrote, "Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are part of the social fabric and will not be easily abandoned even with the most eloquent and logical of arguments." Well, monarchy and slavery were both parts of the social fabric at one time in our history and both fell (though not easily) in part due to eloquent and logical arguments. Of course, both also required wars to end. At our current trajectory and velocity I cannot rule war out entirely as a necessary part of the solution.
I will have more specifics about the book when I go back through my notes.
Jul '11
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
Thanks for the feedback, KP. I'm looking forward to hearing more about what you thought of the book, especially since you're approaching his candidacy differently than I am. I address your social security comments below, but wanted to let you know that if you want to write a longer response to the book (more than 200 words), I'd be willing to apend it to the main post so we could begin a sort of symposium (like the Regular Contributors do now and then). Perhaps others would want to join in? Let me know and I'll post an email address.
Edited on September 19, 2011 at 1:14amJul '11
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
With respect to the entitlements, I'm not unsympathetic to your argument. But after 70 years, I'm very pessimistic that the body politic is going to want to completely do away with the main components of our "safety net" (a hideous term). That's why Paul Ryan's approach was so ideal - he addressed the longer term fiscal problems in a politically feasible way - it begins to address serious problems in a way that won't be summarily rejected by most voters. Along those lines, I liked how Perry addressed the corrosive nature of seemingly benign programs when he bemoaned "how much the New Deal tossed away" (p. 62). I guess my concern is that Perry is a bit of a romantic, wanting people to embrace their independence after so many years of losing sight of what it even is.
May '10
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
As Steyn mentions in his new book, both adolescence and retirement are modern social inventions. They simply didn't exist for most human beings little more than a century ago.
Every Western society has succumbed so completely to fantasy that even conservatives discuss these privileges as if they are rights and assume that we need only to modify our means of indulging them.
We cannot escape this level of debt without recognizing privileges as privileges.
If it makes you feel any better, I had a conversation with a fellow youngster the other day who agreed that our generation should be willing to pay into Social Security without expecting a dime back. At least some of us are willing to be taxed without any return whatsoever — provided the program will be terminated.
But our problems stretch far beyond debts. Is it any wonder that sex has become divorced from marriage in a culture that separates marriage ever further from puberty? How many conservative parents these days favor the idea of seeing their children married before the age of twenty?
The economy has adapted and made young marriages, big families and one-income families increasingly difficult.
Salvation isn't on the table.
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
I am glad that you started this conversation. My posture with regard to Perry is similar to yours. I want to like him -- but he has not yet shown me that he is ready for a national stage. The talk about Texas and the folksiness have to give way to a serious discussion of national problems. The lead in the polls is his to lose and so far he is losing it. If he is nothing more than a hot dog from Texas, all hat and no cattle, it is best that we learn as much now. But I do hope that he is a genuinely serious man.
The one good sign is tort reform in Texas. That is a real achievement -- and not easy. Most of the criticism directed at Perry -- about increased state expenditures, Gardasil, and the like -- does not bear close examination. But he did run a favor factory (if I may borrow a phrase from liberal jim) down there, and that is not attractive. We need to know more, and he needs to make his case.
Dec '10
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
So, Cobalt, do you think Perry's brand of federalism will a) have any possibility of being implemented to any degree if Perry is elected, and b) if implemented have any real effect on the nation going forward?
I'm a firm believer that most (if not all) of the problems we face would never have come to pass had the nation remained faithful to its constitutional construction. Perry seems to be of the same mind, at least his book gives such an impression.
Jul '11
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
Absolutely no argument there, KP. All sorts of mischief resulted from the jettisoning of federalist principles, and it continues at an even faster pace now. So I'm in agreement with Perry about much of the root causes of our problems. But as for your two other questions, I'm afraid I'm pessimistic that returning to the Founder's view of federalism is not possible in the near future. There are too many "blue states" that are complicit with the ever-expanding federal government to make the dramatic turnaround that Perry envisions possible. Add to that the fear-mongering about starving old people and children with no roofs over their heads if the size of the federal government was to be reduced by 0.001%, and magnitude of the problem sinks in. As RINO-ish as it sounds, the first step is to arrest the growth of the government, then when the world doesn't come to an end, making real cuts becomes possible.
Dec '10
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
I share the concerns raised here. Recognizing problems and describing them is the easy part. Ross Perot did so with startling plainspoken eloquence and to disastrous consequence. Twice. But it is early in the campaign and Perry has sufficient time to tackle the hard part if he is up to it.
Perry has already blasted the Social Security issue in to the 800-pound gorilla ring. Medicare and Immigration are in there too. These and others are too big to ignore. Resolution requires more than description. Nibbling around the edges of a jobs bill gets us nowhere.
Perry will have to come up with some convincing solutions and a plan to get them to work. He will have to do this soon or that lead will disappear as quickly as you can say “Tim Who?”.
Dec '10
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
Sorry if someone already pointed this out, but as soon as I saw the cover of Perry's book I said out loud "I can't believed he called it F-ed Up!"
It does look like that, no?
Jul '11
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
Agreed, that's one of his most notable accomplishments as governor, one which should have widespread appeal too. I was surprised by how little he mentioned it in his book. I haven't followed his campaign closely, but I don't think he emphasizes it on the stump either, at least I haven't him talk about it since he announced his candidacy.
Sep '10
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
Thank you for saying "--- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are part of the social fabric and will not be easily abandoned even with the most eloquent and logical of arguments." Only the bond vigilantes will cause us to significantly change those programs, and conservatives need to get over their notion that significant change can otherwise occur.
There is no simple solution for Medicare. Somehow we have to find the means to bend the cost curve; regrettably, many possibilities are not acceptable to the populace. Death panels anyone?
May '10
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
Cobalt Blue
Agreed, that's one of his most notable accomplishments as governor, one which should have widespread appeal too. I was surprised by how little he mentioned it in his book. I haven't followed his campaign closely, but I don't think he emphasizes it on the stump either, at least I haven't him talk about it since he announced his candidacy. · Sep 18 at 6:39pm
I've heard him mention it quite a bit, Cobalt, at least the "Loser Pays" aspect of it. And if I'm not mistaken, that just passed this last legislative session, so maybe it's too recent to have made it in the book.
Jul '11
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
Thanks, that makes sense - I appreciate the correction.
May '10
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
My thoughts exactly, Prof. Rahe. We need to get you (and/or Ann Coulter) on the podcast to offer a counterpoint to the starry-eyed evaluations of Perry's debate performances.
The "box" from which Perry will have to spring if he's the nominee is the following: After Perry goes on his "low tax, low reg, inconsequential fed gov't" riff in the first debate with Obama, the President will counter, "That's exactly what got us in this mess, Gov. Perry" -- at which point Perry must be able to make his case beyond the level of platitudes; otherwise the American people may very well believe Obama on that point, as many do now.
So far he's demonstrated no ability to do such a thing.
Feb '11
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
I too really want to like Perry. Unfortunately it seems to me that he has all of the right conservative instincts, but is unable to defend them with facts. I first noticed this during the first debate when couldn't name a single scientist who questioned AGW.
Dec '10
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
Cobalt Blue
Agreed, that's one of his most notable accomplishments as governor, one which should have widespread appeal too. I was surprised by how little he mentioned it in his book. I haven't followed his campaign closely, but I don't think he emphasizes it on the stump either, at least I haven't him talk about it since he announced his candidacy. · Sep 18 at 6:39pm
Isn't tort a state issue? Do we really want the national government to interject itself into the legal systems of each state? If other states want to adopt reforms modeled on Texas that's fine, but not every good idea should become a national standard. Thinking like that got us where we're at. If I have one overarching problem with Perry it's that he is probably tempted to make the whole nation into Texas, and that is the opposite of what we need. Make each state and each citizenry responsible for its own outcome. Failure must remain an option.
Jun '11
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
Thanks for this interesting topic. I share many conservatives' doubts about Governor Perry. I don't know what it is exactly, his onetime advocacy for the always-questionable Al Gore; or the blank looks he has given lately in the debates when he's been asked tough questions. As others have said, I want to like him...but I have my doubts. I like, to paraphrase Cobalt Blue, his lack of squishiness. But I know as sure as anything that lefties will hate him with all of their vigor because of his Texas-ness...his similarity (at least to them) to George W. Bush. That will send them, and their media pals, into a frenzy; I am sure. So the opponents of his candidacy will be in full attack mode. Which may well make the winning of the Presidency all that more difficult. But then again, they will do that even if Romney is the nominee. So I'm conflicted...yes, I wish Rep. Ryan would run...oh well...
Apr '11
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
At this point, I don't care if he runs a favor factory down in Texas. Whatever he did, it has worked. Where the mob-like Chicago-way has gotten us where we are today. Does anyone really want more of that? He is a strong state's right person. His state has gone to war with the EPA, FEMA, and the trial lawyers hate him. To me, that is a great resume and a good start.
I've read both Perry's book and Romney's. I found Romney's full of tired and rehashed ideas. Romney is like Obama on Vicodin. So yes, I'll take Perry, warts and all.
Nov '10
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
Aaron Miller:
... I had a conversation with a fellow youngster the other day who agreed that our generation should be willing to pay into Social Security without expecting a dime back. At least some of us are willing to be taxed without any return whatsoever-
So... you are advocating income redistribution?
May '10
Re: Fed Up! – The Discussion
One of the more astute comments I've heard from Perry lately was in response to a question directed about what should be done to help the economy: "Repeal Obamacare," he said. And he's dead right. Obamacare has paralyzed business growth, leaving business owners with a lot of unknowns going forward. It is one of the biggest inhibitors to economic recovery. But Obamacare is also a meager attempt to address the inefficient, wasteful and costly impact of Medicare and Medicaid. Its passage was an admittance by the Dems that current gov't subsidized healthcare is a failure. However, their solution is to inject more gov't by fazing out current programs and forcing people to eventually join new, more costly, more subsidized and more poorly run government healthcare programs. Obamacare is only a stepping stone.
Perry won't get elected if he starts talking about cutting benefits to Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Old people are very reliable voters. Perry must convince voters that the biggest legislative accomplishment by Obama is the most corrosive to our economy and our well being. Perry's playing defense, the only way he's got a shot.