George Will on Mitch Daniels
Peter Robinson ·
Feb 18, 2011 at 11:14am
George Will has a column today on Mitch Daniels's speech last weekend at CPAC. The entire column is worth reading--heck, everything Will writes is worth reading--but I wanted to put up this post purely to draw your attention to one little phrase. Will's closing sentence:
Big changes, Daniels knows, will require a broad majority, perhaps one assembled after 2012 by someone with his blend of accomplishments, aversion to pandering and low-key charisma of competence.
"The low-key charisma of competence."
Wow. Just gorgeous, ain't it?
I hope folks in Indianapolis take note. You could build a whole campaign on that.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
Re: George Will on Mitch Daniels
I like that phrase, too. And I like Daniels. My only other hope for our future is Chris Christie, but maybe not for 2012.
Christie might be considered to have a "robust charisma of competence."
I guess the point is that I'll take any kind of charisma but it's really the "competence" part that seems to be in short supply in our leaders.
Sep '10
Re: George Will on Mitch Daniels
I actually feel myself getting enthusiastic about a Republican again and I promised myself I would not.
“The low-key charisma of competence” is certainly a phrase to admire but I like “ fewest state employees since 1978” He may prove too conservative for the Republican party.
Jan '11
Re: George Will on Mitch Daniels
"Big changes will require a broad majority." Let me provoke:
I say yes. Conservatism implies that the country belongs to the people, for better or worse. If they're not ready to pay the price for recovery, they may be stupid, but it's their call nevertheless.
Before we impose discipline and austerity, there's much work to be done. We need to prepare and persuade the citizenry first. Leadership is not mere decision-making (cf Obama); it's also persuasion.
Will the public buy it? The tantrums of public employees will be immediate and loud, but they won't last. It'll take a few months before we can gauge whether the public actually wants austerity. Will the public buy it? We'll see. It isn't a slam dunk. As Chris Berman says, "that's why they play the game."
Edited on Feb 18, 2011 at 1:35pmJun '10
Re: George Will on Mitch Daniels
I finally got around to listening to the full speech on YouTube, and I'm deeply impressed. His new "Red Menace" analogy is so much more apt and compelling than Obama's "Sputnik moment."
May '10
Re: George Will on Mitch Daniels
The one criticism I'll make of the column (and I share Peter's respect and admiration for George Will) is that I'm tired of being called strident, and having it implied that I'm not a grownup, because I'm angry about things it's pretty darn reasonable to be angry about. Like Obamacare.
Does Will (and David Brooks, etc.) have to say that kind of stuff to maintain his reputation as a "reasonable" conservative among readers of the Washington Post? And if so, is it worth it? Do we gain more by having those sympathetic folks maintain their reputations (and therefore their ability to persuade the persuadable liberals) than we lose by giving liberals the ability to say, "See, even conservative George Will thinks the Tea Partiers are not grownups."? That's an honest question.
Sep '10
Re: George Will on Mitch Daniels
PJ-I went back and read Will’s column again and unless I miss-understood his point he was not implying that the audience was less than adult, but that most of the speakers treated the audience as less than adult by pandering to them. Daniels call for “less strident rhetoric” was a practical one. If you are addressing the person who seldom watches anything but ESPN reasonableness might prove more effective than shilness.
Jul '10
Re: George Will on Mitch Daniels
Does Mitch Daniels have presidential hair? I'm serious. In a celebrity-driven culture like ours where shallow things like appearance can be determinative, would his looks stand up to scrutiny. Conservatives sitting on their hands is not the only reason John McCain and his comb-over finished out of the money.
Oct '10
Re: George Will on Mitch Daniels
There's a pill for that!
Edited on Feb 18, 2011 at 4:19pmSep '10
Re: George Will on Mitch Daniels
I would be curious to hear his reaction to the fracas in Wisconsin. Hopefully he would be more supportive than Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan... Unfortunately Mitch is out, recovering from rotator cuff surgery... Pawlenty is supporting Walker, as is Christie I believe...
Dec '10
Re: George Will on Mitch Daniels
Perhaps Romney can snap his off and lend it to Daniels if he wins the primary.
May '10
Re: George Will on Mitch Daniels
That's a charitable reading of the column, but not an unreasonable one, and I'm happy to be charitable toward George Will, so I'll accept it. Whether or not this particular column is a good example, though, there are certainly times when Will (and Brooks and others) do accuse us Tea Party types of being less than grown up, or worse. I'm far more willing to accept such positioning from Daniels, who clearly does need to run to the center to some degree to be a viable candidate. My question remains, though, do conservative pundits at liberal newspapers need to pander to their liberal audiences to maintain credibility, or does it do more harm than good?
Re: George Will on Mitch Daniels
I'm laughing very hard at this. Thanks, KP.
Sep '10
Re: George Will on Mitch Daniels
Rob Long
I'm laughing very hard at this. Thanks, KP. · Feb 18 at 6:36pm
Rob, would that be the start of Romney's big breakthrough in combover country?
May '10
Re: George Will on Mitch Daniels
Okay, but that is the whole point of "low-key charisma of competence". The values of the country have reformed since the nauseating, teletubby atmosphere of the 2008 election. Good hair, elevated chins and filigreed rhetoric are so 2008. America wants Coolidge 2.0 (If you'll forgive the phrase) and Mitch appears to be the man to deliver it.