More on Our Man Mitch
With the missus out of town I've been playing Mr. Mom, with the result that I only just now got a chance to sit down at the computer. Skimming my favorite sites, I came across this item by Pete Wehner, one of our friends over at Commentary, on the appearance at CPAC this past weekend by Indiana governor, and friend of Ricochet, Mitch Daniels. In my judgment, Pete's got it right:
If you haven’t read the CPAC speech by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, you should....Some on the right have criticized the speech, arguing (a) it struck only one note and (b) “it makes no sense to sound disrespectful to political warriors like Rush Limbaugh who kept conservatism inspired during the last two years in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi wilderness.”
The speech itself was focused on the economy. But, of course, some speeches are devoted to a single topic, while others cover the landscape. Daniels used this speech to address our fiscal imbalance in depth rather than with banal talking points. That is, I think, a strength rather than a weakness.
As for the second charge, here is what Daniels said: “We must be the vanguard of recovery, but we cannot do it alone. We have learned in Indiana, big change requires big majorities. We will need people who never tune in to Rush or Glenn or Laura or Sean. Who surf past C-SPAN to get to SportsCenter. Who, if they’d ever heard of CPAC, would assume it was a cruise ship accessory.”
This hardly qualifies as disrespectful toward conservative talk radio, C-SPAN, or CPAC. Daniels’s point is that Republicans need to appeal to their base and reach beyond it, which has been the formula for political victory pretty much since the beginning of time.
Appeal to the base and reach beyond it. That's what Mitch was saying, and it's right there in black and white.
One last thought:
Obama has pretty clearly decided to attempt to trap Republicans, calculating that their efforts to cut spending will prove politically untenable. Chris Christie may well succeed at reining in spending in New Jersey, but, in Indiana, Mitch Daniels has already done it--and his approval ratings remain in the sixties. I can think of no politician of any standing in the GOP whose experience is of more direct relevance to the fix the nation is in--or that provides a more hopeful example for Republicans to follow.
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
Never tune in - well, that may be a bit of overkill (pardon the rhetoric) In any case - it's like Mr Daniels has been teleported from the 1950s - he represents the ideals that seem to have been lost in US politics. Very refreshing
Nov '10
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
Would the Secret Service let him ride his bike around DC?
May '10
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
I was very impressed by the Mitch Daniels CPAC speech. It caused me to take a much closer look at him, and I've liked what I've seen. I very much hope that he seeks the GOP nomination. Your early support is proving prescient, Peter.
May '10
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
He has long been my favorite candidate for 2012. Both his experience as Budget Director in the Bush administration and his success in running Indiana, convince me that he is the most qualified to face the fiscal crisis we must overcome. After electing the most unqualified President ever, the country may be ready for a return to competence. I know I am.
Nov '10
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
Reaching beyond conservatives has never worked but what the heck, lets keep trying.
Conservatism already reaches beyond. All you have to do to reach beyond is just be conservative. It’s got a record of success, by the few who have tried it without watering it down into liberal light.
Jul '10
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
TeeJaw : Reaching beyond conservatives has never worked but what the heck, lets keep trying.
Conservatism already reaches beyond. All you have to do to reach beyond is just be conservative. It’s got a record of success, by the few who have tried it without watering it down into liberal light. · Feb 16 at 10:15pm
Reaching beyond conservatives worked in the 2010 mid-terms. Why? Because the message was entirely about fiscal responsibility, without all the culture noise.
Governor Daniels is right: we need big majorities. And he's right that this is a time when the culture war needs to take a silent back seat.
May '10
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
Agree with Ken. Besides, the culture war should be fought outside of politics. Cultural conservatives need to convince, not legislate.
Oct '10
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
Apologies to Gov Daniels. I forgot that he's a Ricochet contributor.
May '10
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
Thanks, Peter. Such a nice post. Mitch is clearly the man, in my mind. I believe though that he needs to address the issue of "backing off social issues" before the next step.
Jun '10
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
The federal government has become like a patient suffering from morbid obesity. Too many politicians seem to be prescribing a change of diet. Mitch understands the only solution is to restrict the caloric intake. Period. It really is that simple. The message needs to be narrow and repetitive. Either Americans will accept the truth or reap the dire consequences. If the citizenry is too self-absorbed to listen, then the battle is already lost.
At present the Congress is squabbling with the president over budget cuts of a mere 100 billion dollars. I understand that the media controls the message, but the numbers are so large as to be an abstraction. How about talking in terms of percentages rather than net dollars? The budget needs to be slashed by 10%. Or 20%? Or 30%? Small numbers are less abstract and the cuts will be meaningful.
May '10
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
Calling a truce on the social issues is not appealing to the base. It's demoralizing the base--at least a big portion of the base.
To my way of seeing--and I know I'm not alone--a free society and the moral values that underlie it are inextricably linked. You can't have all those great Indiana values--like living within your means--in a society where family life has broken down and religion is marginalized. In that kind of society there are only two options: big, huge, intrusive government, or chaos.
Much as I like his budget sense that "truce" comment was a giant red-flag indicating "establishment guy".
I'm all for reaching out, but not like that.
He could just as easily and much less worryingly have said something like: "I am pro-life; I am pro-marriage; I believe those things are part of the bedrock of our prosperity as a nation. But the focus of my administration will be addressing the fiscal emergency we are facing."
That's what Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell did. Daniels did something else altogether.
May '10
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
I also think he ought to have said at least something about foreign affairs. The public has a right to know what he will do about the threat of Islamic terrorism.
The next president will not be able to avoid facing all these issues:
- the fiscal crisis
- the moral crisis
- security threats
Sep '10
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
Katievs,
I am a big Mitch fan, but I can appreciate your very good points. I doubt that fiscal conservatives will ever match the electoral vigor of the cultural conservatives. It looks like Mitch may have to reach out in more than one directions before it is over.
May '10
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
From Daniels' speech:
One of those "secondary" issues is the slaughter of millions of innocent children (abortion). It is never -- I repeat, never -- acceptable to turn our backs to institutionalized murder.
Now, I agree that the budget should be our focus. And state laws might be the more prudent path to outlawing abortions. But what President has ever been able to, or had to, focus on a single issue (besides Lincoln)?
What of this?
Or this?
Daniels has some explaining to do.
Also, when did "reaching out" work before?
May '10
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
One more point, made by Rush:
Only part of a President's role is proactive. Much, if not most, of that role is reactive. Presidents don't decide what issues they will deal with, only what issues they will focus on.
Whether Republicans want them to or not, "social" issues will come up... both in the 2012 campaign and during the next President's term.
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
I agree with katievs and Aaron Miller. In my judgment -- and I wrote in depth about this on BigGovernment.com some time ago -- Mitch Daniels has been a very fine governor of Indiana. On the fiscal question, he is excellent.
But the President of the United States is also Commander-in-Chief, and the President bears responsibility for our foreign policy. To win my admiration as governor is one thing; to win my support as a presidential candidate, he will have to show me that he understands the foreign threats we face. Moreover, his statement on abortion earns my distrust. He is right to want big majorities; we are likely to have them. But it will not help us one whit if we abandon our principles in the process.
Daniels has some explaining to do.
Jun '10
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
I was glad to hear Mark Steyn make some points similar to this on this week's podcast.
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
Peter, I wish to associate myself with your remarks.
The significance of the 'social-issues truce' seems to me to be overblown, because even presidents who make 'social issues' a part of their platform can't do very much to effect the changes they would like. A trucer, then, might actually have no different effect on the end result of our social-issues policy, but by declaring a truce keep everyone calm and gain credibility with broader swaths of the public.
But one of Daniels' greatest advantages is his ability as a speaker. I think public sentiment will be different in 2012 than in 2012. Republican can't rely on anti-incumbent fervor. We shouldn't forget what a talented and able speaker and debater the president is. There are many GOP hopefuls who would likely have difficulty competing with Obama in debate -- Mitch Daniels is not among them.
May '10
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
Paul A. Rahe: Moreover, his statement on abortion earns my distrust. He is right to want big majorities; we are likely to have them. But it will not help us one whit if we abandon our principles in the process.
Daniels has some explaining to do. · Feb 17 at 7:48am
Because this is a litmus test issue for you professor? If it is, then I think you are precisely making the governor's point. The 2012 election should be about something far larger and more germane to the proper role of the federal government than an unanswerable (except as to conscience) and impossibly divisive question of when life begins.
May '10
Re: More on Our Man Mitch
Matthew Shaffer:
But one of Daniels' greatest advantages is his ability as a speaker.
I don't like it that he's using his gifts as a speaker to spread the false and dangerous impression that "the social issues" are a distraction.
Sorry. The way conservatives like me see it, social, fiscal, and defense issue are inextricably linked. Diminishing one undermines the rest.
We can't stand aside while aggressive statists are bent on dismantling what remains of the judeo/Christian patrimony to which we owe everything good in this society.
A society that abandons marriage--the primary social institution that instills the values and virtues necessary to sustain a civil and humane society--cannot hope to become and remain sound and secure.
A society that tolerates the dehumanization and legal slaughter of its most vulnerable members, will have to heel to the will of its most ruthless.