Let's Make Sure We Don't "Go Soft"
A few weeks ago, President Obama was attacked by prominent Republicans when he told us that America had "gone a little soft." This was a perfect opportunity for Eric Cantor to tell us how patriotic he feels about his cushy leadership position, and we heard the usual encomiums to America and American exceptionalism that are easy to deliver and easier to defend.
Yes, America is exceptional. We wouldn't choose to live here and fight the war of ideas if it weren't the last best hope of mankind and, after all these years, America is still the only country in the world built on a lasting philosophy rather than through the whims of history. But no conservative should hesitate to admit that a country whose youngest adult generation whines about how "jobs are beneath them" and then chooses not to study towards a job that is presumably above them, a country where English majors do not learn to write but learn to bore us with their race-gender-culture theories, a country where college is essentially a four year vacation, a country where religion, unabashed patriotism, and wealth creation are painted negatively by self-appointed elites, a country where Republicans and Democrats alike do not defend our borders, and a country where even innovation is oriented primarily towards social networking and entertainment is fast turning into Europe. America has a long way before it hits a European level of terminal decline. The archetypal American is still pushing himself to work(or to find a job) every day, hoping to raise his family in a sane, stable culture. But we are definitely on the wrong road.
What is hilarious about President Obama's proclamation(don't you love the way he always makes these pronouncements as if they are as-yet-unheard revelations?) is that the ultimate expression of America "growing soft" is his election as president. A country where a sizeable majority mistakes pretentious boilerplate for eloquence, glamorous ambivalence for intellect, and inexperience for authenticity--and where this mistake is most pronounced in the generation of the future(66-31 % for Obama)--has undoubtedly "gone soft." We went gaga for a snake-oil salesman.
I have assumed that every new "front-runner" is good for Romney because he keeps Romney on his toes, fighting-ready, instead of lazy and complacent through the primaries. But why are we playing this endless game with "soft," mediocre, soundbite-driven, flashy candidates? "9-9-9?" Newt Gingrich, disgraced former House Speaker, the leader of an army of fake Twitter followers and self-proclaimed (bad) idea machine? Let us not forget that Gingrich makes waves only through insults("single dumbest idea," "border fence utterly stupid") and publicity stunts masquerading as new ideas. Are we falling for the snake oil salesmen too?
It worries me that some conservatives seem disinterested in Romney not because of Romneycare, but because he is boring and unglamorous. He isn't as catchy, or as entertaining as Gingrich, Cain, Perry, Bachmann...he's sort of the anti-Obama. If we're worried about "going soft" and preferring style over substance in all aspects of life, isn't Romney a great antidote?.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: Let's Make Sure We Don't "Go Soft"
Why the dismissal of Newt? Did I miss something?
Apr '11
Re: Let's Make Sure We Don't "Go Soft"
I'm not anti-Romney because he's boring, or too slick, or insufficiently conservative. My problem with Romney is that I can't shake the feeling that he has no firm political convictions whatsoever. And that impression becomes firmer the more I see of him.
Feb '11
Re: Let's Make Sure We Don't "Go Soft"
Is it going soft to dismiss Romney, or would it be going soft to elect a Republican who will govern similar to the current president and yet be seen as the counterpoint to the left? It seems to me that going soft would be to doom the country to at least 4 years of Romney with our only hope of going further left when the next democratic presidential candidate runs to Romney's left.
Mar '11
Re: Let's Make Sure We Don't "Go Soft"
If you believe this then you are laboring under a gross error.
Re: Let's Make Sure We Don't "Go Soft"
How will Romney govern similarly to the current president? The man seems like a mainstream conservative as far as economic policy is concerned. Unlike "9-9-9," he seems to have an economic plan that has been thoroughly thought-out. On social policy, just looking at his personal life and the way he seems to view the world, his foray into a pro-choice position years ago looks like an attempt to stay viable in Massachusetts because he seems the furthest thing from a social libertine. And as far as the "no-conviction" charge, it is pretty hard to govern Massachusetts as a Republican. And yet Romney did it, without completely kowtowing to the Massachusetts legislature, even managing to effect significant cuts in state spending. To stick with conservatism in the toughest neighborhood in the country appears to be good preparation for sticking with conservatism as President of a centre-right country. In order to govern the full hippie version of California in the 1960's, Ronald Reagan did make many compromises, including one on legalized abortion. He went on to be a great president.
Nov '10
Re: Let's Make Sure We Don't "Go Soft"
OK, I don't like Romneycare and some of the positions he's taken in the past either, but it can't be denied that the guy is a very effective executive. This is the primary difference between him and nearly everyone else in the field. His program might not be as ambitious as some of the others, but odds are he'll implement most of it because of his executive skill. Gingrich is a wonderful intellect with lots of ideas (some better than others), but is he an effective executive? Can he build a majority consensus around his program and get others to implement it without alienating everyone? Maybe. He did hold one of the few legislative positions that has some executive responsibility, but nothing like the Presidency.
While we can agree with Professor Rahe that Romney is likely a managerial progressive, he will also likely have disciplining majorities in both houses of Congress and (if he's smart) VP Rubio to contend with. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves what a very effective executive can do under those conditions?
Mr. Ramachandran, another excellent post... enjoying the anticipation of excellent argumentation each time I see you've posted. Thanks!
Apr '11
Re: Let's Make Sure We Don't "Go Soft"
Vasant Ramachandran:
What is hilarious about President Obama's proclamation(don't you love the way he always makes these pronouncements as if they are as-yet-unheard revelations?) is that the ultimate expression of America "growing soft" is his election as president.
Nailed it, Bro.
Apr '11
Re: Let's Make Sure We Don't "Go Soft"
Copperfield:
While we can agree with Professor Rahe that Romney is likely a managerial progressive, he will also likely have disciplining majorities in both houses of Congress and (if he's smart) VP Rubio to contend with. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves what a very effective executive can do under those conditions?
Nov 22 at 12:28pm
I just don't see this happening. I remember during one of the '08 debates (can't recall which) the candidates were being surveyed on the merits of the Iraq surge. McCain was adamant that it was working and that we should continue with Petreaus' strategy. Romney vacillated. McCain pushed him on it and you could just see the wheels turning in Romney's head.He never gave an answer because one response would hurt him with base primary voters and the other would hurt him with independents later on.
He won't take a tough stand.
He's not campaigning to be a national leader in difficult times so much as he's rolling out th Romney inc. IPO.
Jan '11
Re: Let's Make Sure We Don't "Go Soft"
Dang, and you had begun your post so well.
Romney? Really? No matter, they're all severely flawed candidates. It just so happens that the ones at the top are populists who will tell the majority of the American electorate [heck, even primary GOP voters] anything that they want to hear concerning what their policies will be. And that's the big problem. It's this clamoring for policy -- any policy -- which is causing the softness. All Americans want their lives cushy and soft, which is understandable, but not many of them truly want to do what's necessary to be able to get their lives there...because it's hard, initially.
Jun '10
Re: Let's Make Sure We Don't "Go Soft"
Vasant Ramachandran: ...
Newt Gingrich, disgraced former House Speaker, ...
I guess I missed this -- when did he become disgraced? I mean I know the MSM thinks of him that way and they try to float that meme whenever they can -- but I haven't read about this in the responsible media. Where did you get this new info?
Sep '10
Re: Let's Make Sure We Don't "Go Soft"
Newt is nothing more than a (bad) idea machine? Last I checked, Newt was most responsible for our last balanced budget as the chief salesman of the Contract with America that finally broke the Democrats' hold on Congress. Meanwhile, Mitt enacted a huge entitlement program that was doomed from the start. All Herman Cain wants to do is neuter the goverment's ability to force us to do things through tax laws written to favor one act over another.
To me, Newt and Herman are champions of individual freedom and responsiblity. I like that.
Re: Let's Make Sure We Don't "Go Soft"
Larry Koler
Vasant Ramachandran: ...
Newt Gingrich, disgraced former House Speaker, ...
I guess I missed this -- when did he become disgraced? I mean I know the MSM thinks of him that way and they try to float that meme whenever they can -- but I haven't read about this in the responsible media. Where did you get this new info? · Nov 22 at 2:15pm
The media doesn't like him, but a Republican-controlled House did this to him in 1997:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/012297.htm
The man also resigned as Speaker barely four years after his "Republican Revolution" began because his own party saw him as an embarrassment. He basically undermined his party in the budget fight of 1995 when he claimed that he was trying to avenge being made to sit in the back of the plane, as Henry Hyde put it, "the revolution was never the same again." Classic narcissist, goes around comparing himself to Reagan and Thatcher.Ann Coulter makes this point better than I do with a long list of Gingrich's crimes against conservatism and conservatives: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47570.
Oct '10
Re: Let's Make Sure We Don't "Go Soft"
Vasant Ramachandran:
It worries me that some conservatives seem disinterested in Romney not because of Romneycare, but because he is boring and unglamorous. He isn't as catchy, or as entertaining as Gingrich, Cain, Perry, Bachmann...he's sort of the anti-Obama. If we're worried about "going soft" and preferring style over substance in all aspects of life, isn't Romney a great antidote?. ·
3 reasons why the base is not interested in Romney:
1) Romneycare
2) Conservatives don't trust him because he's a flipflopper
3) His Religion.
Dec '10
Re: Let's Make Sure We Don't "Go Soft"
Vasant, you had me until the anti-Newt part which felt almost non sequitur. I am with Copperfield in that perhaps Romney is the best we can get elected and Tea Party candidates in the House and Senate may be able to steer him to the right. But, I think Newt would be a fine president as would Cain or Santorum and a few others. I am dubious about the inevitability of Mitt Romney and the so far relative passivity of the MSM toward him. Interestingly I remember wishing he had won the nomination over McCain in '08.
As to "going soft", I am in agreement with Pres. Obama on this but for reasons other than his. Our Founding Fathers chose to put their lives and wealth at stake over tyranny which I perceive is being approached in our current political climate. We are certainly softer than they(so far).
Aug '11
Re: Let's Make Sure We Don't "Go Soft"
Market-issues Mr. Ramachandran? You describe, “…a country where college is essentially a four year vacation.” That happened how? From voucher-fueled consumer tastes? Why do you think rigor disappeared along with the classical core if not for how they annoyed consumers? Grade inflation is a defensive tactic any income-maximizing professional will initiate. Ditto collegiate marketing strategies creating an educational hospitality/educational industry in place of whatever nostalgic memories you have.
What are student loans, scholarships, and price discrimination (read student aid), other than vouchers? Since higher education has become an unalienable right of people who are created equal, as opposed to an accrediting service developing and certifying ability, the market’s responded. A classroom-desk surplus is chasing demand… merely conforming to it. It’s the market at work so why not applaud for “our side”? Hmmmmm?
The first time in a student’s entire life when s/he is NOT treated as a consumer is when s/he descends from the commencement stage to become a seller. BOOM! Cultural dissonance. One outlet is of course Sixties-Envy, or as they choose to shout it – “Occupy Wall Street!”