Peas in a Pod
The Mitt Romney video that Ben Domenech has posted below deserves attention. It demonstrates – if the point needs demonstrating – that Romney is a managerial progressive. His initial response to Obamacare was to want “to repeal the bad and keep the good,” and among the things he thought good about the President’s healthcare reform were the incentive structure (i.e., the individual mandate enforced by fines) and the provision that insurance be provided to those with pre-existing conditions who had not seen fit to pay for insurance when they thought that they were healthy (i.e., making the responsible pay for the irresponsible).
In short, Governor Romney sees us as children who need to be policed in a thorough-going way for our own good. His objections to Obamacare are those of a social engineer. This is the real Romney. The fellow now calling for the wholesale repeal of Obamacare is, as I have argued at length in an earlier post, a chameleon. He will do what he needs to do to attract our votes, or, at least, in his awkward, inept way, he will try. And in this one particular he may feel bound to keep his promise. But once in office – like Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush One, and Bush Two – he will drift into extending the power and scope of the administrative entitlements state. In most regards, he will consolidate what Barack Obama has initiated.
I would like to think that Newt Gingrich represents a genuine alternative. His record in office as Speaker of the House of Representatives is much more conservative than Mitt Romney’s record as Governor of Massachusetts. But his record since then is even more disappointing than I thought it was when I described him as the wild card.
I was inclined to give Gingrich the benefit of the doubt with regard to the consulting work that he did for Freddie Mac. I was wrong. As The Wall Street Journal points out in an editorial in this morning’s newspaper, Gingrich publicly defended both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as late as April, 2007 when he remarked, “While we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself.” He defended Fannie and Fred on the ground there are times “when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development,” and he described himself as being “in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism.”
As the Journal points out, Gingrich was notably silent when Congressman Richard Baker, Senator Richard Shelby, and Bush White House aide Kevin Marsh went to “the barricades” in an attempt to force a reform of Fannie and Freddie:
As for the destructive duo's business model that Mr. Gingrich said he didn't want to change, this was precisely their problem. Far from a private-public partnership, they were private companies with a federal guarantee against failure. Their model was private profit but socialized risk. This produced riches on Wall Street and for company executives. But taxpayers bore the risk of loss—to the tune of $141 billion so far. Why does the historian think they were called "government-sponsored enterprises"?
The real history lesson here may be what the Freddie episode reveals about Mr. Gingrich's political philosophy. To wit, he has a soft spot for big government when he can use it for his own political ends. He also supported the individual mandate in health care in the 1990s, and we recall when he lobbied us to endorse the prescription drug benefit with only token Medicare reform in 2003.
As late as Thursday night's debate, Mr. Gingrich was still defending his Freddie ties as a way of "helping people buy houses." But that is the same excuse Barney Frank used to block reform, and the political pursuit of making housing affordable is what led Freddie to guarantee loans to so many borrowers who couldn't repay them. Yesterday's SEC lawsuit against former Fannie and Freddie executives for misleading investors about subprime-mortgage risks only reinforces the point.
In short, Gingrich is a lot like Romney. Neither man recognizes that the source of our problems is government meddling and the distortion that this produces in what would otherwise be a free and relatively efficient market. What they think of as a cure is, in fact, the disease. Fannie and Freddie, with the help of a Federal Reserve Board that kept interest rates artificially low for a very long time, produced the subprime mortgage bubble and the subsequent economic crash. If healthcare is outrageously expensive and health insurance can be hard to get, it is because of the manner in which the federal and state governments structure and regulate the market. What these managerial progressives in their desperation to manage the lives of the rest of us fail to understand is that the intellectual presumption underpinning the aspiration to “rational administration” that they embrace is the principal cause of our woes.
Romney can perhaps be forgiven for his folly. He is not an especially well-educated man. He is the son of a businessman, and he is himself a business-school product. He understands management; he believes in management; and he is ready, willing, and able to manage our lives for us. Like many Republicans of similar background, he has given next to no thought to first principles.
For Gingrich, there is no excuse. He poses as an historian, and he was trained as one. He is a lot more thoughtful than Romney, a lot more imaginative, and a lot better informed. But he also lacks perspective – for he has been inattentive to the American Founders. Or he has read them through the eyes of the Progressive historians of the early part of the twentieth century.
Alexander Hamilton and Teddy Roosevelt do not belong together. The former was an exponent of natural rights and an advocate of limited government; and, despite their differences, he had far more in common with James Madison and Thomas Jefferson than with the Progressives of a later day. In office, Jefferson and Madison embraced much of what they had once found objectionable in Hamilton’s program.
Teddy Roosevelt was in no way a conservative. He was a sharp critic of the American Founding and of the Constitution it produced. He was prepared to jettison natural rights and limited government, and he did so in a dramatic fashion ninety-nine years ago when he ran for the Presidency as the nominee of the Progressive Party on a radical platform advocating the creation of what is now known as the administrative entitlements state.
A few weeks ago, Robert K. Landers reviewed in The Wall Street Journal a book by Scott Farris, entitled Almost President: The Men Who Lost the Race and Changed the Nation. Among the influential losers discussed in the book was Thomas E. Dewey, who ran unsuccessfully against Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1944 and Harry Truman in 1948:
"Dewey, along with his protégés Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon," Mr. Farris writes, "moved the Republican Party away from an agenda of repealing the New Deal to a grudging acceptance of the permanent welfare state." Dewey—who had been a nationally renowned prosecutor and then a three-term governor of New York—called himself a "New Deal Republican." He favored the pursuit of liberal ends by conservative means. "It was fine for the federal government to initiate social reforms, Dewey believed, but those reforms should be implemented at the state or local level, and they should be funded in a fiscally responsible manner that did not increase the national debt."
Dewey was the heir of Teddy Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover, as was every Republican Presidential nominee since his time – apart from Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are cut from the same cloth. As New Deal Republicans, they are peas in a pod, and they have a lot more in common with Barack Obama than with Alexander Hamilton.
It is a scandal that the Republican Party cannot do better than these two at a time of opportunity like the one in which we live.
- Comment (170)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Peas in a Pod
May '10
Re: Peas in a Pod
Larry Koler
katievs: For Larry and Michael Tee: I like this line from Mark Steyn over at NRO, which I hadn't seen til just now:
"Anyone who thinks that sentient beings require an ulterior motive to be wary of a Newt nomination should have an herbal tea and lie down in a darkened room for half an hour." · Dec 17 at 8:57pm
So ad hominem statements are considered deep thinking now? Boy, I'm glad you took the time to show us this. It's really deep. Just a half hour and we'll all come out of our dementia? Deep Deep stuff. · Dec 17 at 11:45pm
Not deep, light-hearted.
Since there are good solid reasons for doubting that Newt is the right man for the job we're facing, it is strange to the point of being almost comical to find him being defended so vehemently--as if anyone who opposes him is part of the establishment selling out true patriots.
For heaven's sake.
Nov '11
Re: Peas in a Pod
"Alexander Hamilton and Teddy Roosevelt do not belong together. ... Teddy Roosevelt was in no way a conservative."
That's just one of a million Gingrich throwaway lines. I think Hamilton had some interesting views too.
Next someone will say that Lincoln was no conservative, and Bill Bennett have to replace him as nominee for the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
What defines a conservative as a conservative before the Cold War? Ron Paul-type monetary views?
I thought Teddy Roosevelt like Reagan, Nixon, and many other politicians had different political views throughout their lifetimes, depending if they were in power or out of power.
As I've previously posted twice, "The conservative establishment (and lobbyists) desperately want(s) a (less smart) candidate without baggage. ...this sort of thinking started (after) Robert Bork..., but there’s a lot of danger in this David Souter-type philosophy."
(I don't think even Gingrich has written as many books as TR.)
I think TR had some rather conservative views regarding immigration.
Everybody knows that Ronald Reagan would've had a hard time getting elected without opposing the Panama Canal treaty, but there would be no zany Panama Canal without TR.
Edited on December 18, 2011 at 2:59pmRe: Peas in a Pod
James Of England
Paul A. Rahe
And Romney? There is no substantive difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. One does not have to be a purist to notice and be appalled.
No one who is even half-way conservative could enthusiastically embrace either of these candidates. · Dec 17 at 6:02pm
I know I keep returning to this, but I'm really struggling to understand. If supporting the Constitution is an important instrumental good, Romneycare is constitutional, and Obamacare is not, all of which I understand to be your positions (if I misrepresent you here, it is through my foolishness rather than an attempt at cunning) is the important instrumental good not a substantial difference?
Also, just for the record, I consider myself more than half-way conservative. I'm willing to accept that this is a subjective judgment, however. · Dec 17 at 7:45pm
Romneycare may be constitutional in Massachusetts (I do not know the provisions of that constitution); Obamacare is arguably unconstitutional.
Both are, however, tyrannical.
May '10
Re: Peas in a Pod
LowcountryJoe
They all are!
They're all politicians. They're all "impure". But they're not all the same. Some are great, some are catastrophically bad, some are corrupt, some are well meaning but incompetent, some are mediocre....
Good conservative politicians will use political skill to devolve power from the state to the people, so that the people can live more freely. Progressives will use power to come up with top-down solutions to society-wide problems.
Those of us who had been hoping hard for a true conservative to run this cycle are disappointed to find that the race seems to have come down to two Republicans with progressive instincts.
That doesn't mean we won't fight to see to it that whoever gets the nomination beats Obama.
And like Aaron said above, now's a good time for the Tea Party wing of the party to bring pressure to bear on both contenders. We should lay down our demands. Start pressing them to make promises about what they'll do in office if they get our vote....
Re: Peas in a Pod
Tenther
Instugator
· Dec 17 at 6:36pm
What I've read is that a few hundred million dollars of transformer-hardening (I don't know what the really means exactly) would prevent the backbone of our power system being destroyed in a Carrington-like event. We could recover in such a circumstance. I suspect that the reason EMP is ignored so broadly is precisely because its resolution does not require a massive invasion of the government into the few freeish remnants of our once free society. It could even be considered constitutional (upgrading national power grids sounds related to interstate commerce to me, unlike banning farmers from growing grain to feed their own livestock.)
But I don't want to live in fear of EMP. If you can provide some links to resources that show either that EMP isn't a problem, or that its resolution is onerous beyond AGW's, then by all mean do so. In the mean time, I'd suggest buying food and ammo. · Dec 17 at 7:54pm
You are right on all counts.
May '10
Re: Peas in a Pod
katievs
And like Aaron said above, now's a good time for the Tea Party wing of the party to bring pressure to bear on both contenders. We should lay down our demands. Start pressing them to make promises about what they'll do in office if they get our vote.... · Dec 18 at 5:59am
which is not to say I've totally given up on the others. It's been a crazy season and it's not over yet.
Re: Peas in a Pod
Larry Koler
Paul A. Rahe
Joseph Eagar
T · Dec 17 at 6:16pm
Edited on Dec 17 at 06:18 pm
She has remarkable political instincts. One zinger after another I hope that we have not heard the last from her. · Dec 17 at 7:08pm
Let her run and then you will brand her a left-wing progressive? Is that how it works? After all, she actually has a track record. Better look into it and see if she has a single issue that might brand her a closet left-winger.
Paul A. Rahe
...
Gingrich forced Clinton to balance the US budget. However critical we may be of these men, we should not think them irresponsible in this particular.
How does a left-wing progressive force another left winger to do anything? It seems since they are on the same team that force should not be necessary. · Dec 17 at 11:4
Clinton -- witness Hillarycare -- came from the utopian wing; Newt had the votes.
Re: Peas in a Pod
The word progressive has been in continuous use from the 1880s on, and it has always implied a commitment to the administrative entitlements state. In recent times, it has been especially fashionable in left-liberal circles from the late 1960s on. From her time in college on, Hillary has used the term for herself. Romney called himself a progressive in 2002. Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama both hearken back to Teddy Roosevelt -- as did Herbert Hoover, FDR, and Thomas E. Dewey.
Re: Peas in a Pod
James Of England
Tenther
What I've read is that a few hundred million dollars of transformer-hardening (I don't know what the really means exactly) would prevent the backbone of our power system being destroyed in a Carrington-like event. We could recover in such a circumstance. I suspect that the reason EMP is ignored so broadly is precisely because its resolution does not require a massive invasion of the government into the few freeish remnants of our once free society. It could even be considered constitutional (upgrading national power grids sounds related to interstate commerce to me, unlike banning farmers from growing grain to feed their own livestock.)
It's my sense that a lot of good can be done at a state level, and is probably best done there for all but the smallest states. The Constitution may permit federal action, but why prefer it? · Dec 17 at 9:13pm
This is a national-security issue.
Re: Peas in a Pod
Duane Oyen
Paul A. Rahe
...........Here is the irony: Levin and Limbaugh backed Romney in 2008. I agree with you about Ryan. Since he has been in the public eye, he has not put a foot wrong. Also, too many of Gingrich's former colleagues really loath the man. Some of this is no doubt sour grapes, but some of those who dislike and distrust him are people worthy of our admiration. It gives one pause. · Dec 17 at 6:09pm
No, Ryan backed away from his Medicare plan and joined forces with a Democrat (Wyden). Ben Domenech threw a fit.
Sorry- Paul Ryan is now impure liberal too, not committed to Real Reform. I suspect he's also a Managerial Progressive, because he is looking for gradual fixes that are politically feasible instead of blowing the house down. · Dec 17 at 9:29pm
Actually, Wyden signed on to a very modestly revised version of Ryan's plan. This is a great victory. It means that Ryan is beginning to have the Dems on the run. Gradual fixes that are politically feasible are the only way to go.
Re: Peas in a Pod
Larry Koler:
This whole subject is important because I maintain that you are confusing people by using 19th Century and early 20th Century terms for present days disputes and applying them to people who are conservatives as a way of denigrating them. How can a person tell the difference between Newt Gingrich and Hilary Clinton using your terminology?
Here's question 1: do you think Newt and Hilary are basically the same ideologically?
and 2: Are they maybe not exactly the same but close enough to not care much which one is in power? · Dec 18 at 12:01am
My point is that Newt and Hillary are a lot closer ideologically than conservatives are inclined to think. She proposed single-payer; he pushed for the individual mandate. The latter is preferable, but only as an alternative to the former. Hillary is a utopian, like Obama; Newt is a pragmatist. Both are inclined to extend the reach and scope of the administrative entitlements state. We need someone, like Reagan, who is inclined to roll it gradually and prudently back.
Edited on December 18, 2011 at 4:10pmRe: Peas in a Pod
EThompson
LowcountryJoe
There's somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 trillion reasons why I'm no so optimistic of things working out with really squishy, flip-flopping contenders vying for the job of being liked rather than saying and threatening to do what is necessary even if it is unpopular with the voters who so desperately need to hear it.
There are two "squishes" running for the GOP nomination. One has earned $250 million; the other has spent that in taxpayer revenues. · Dec 17 at 10:56pm
And what did Massachusetts spend in Romney's day?
Re: Peas in a Pod
The Cloaked Gaijin: "Alexander Hamilton and Teddy Roosevelt do not belong together. ... Teddy Roosevelt was in no way a conservative."
That's just one of a million Gingrich throwaway lines. I think Hamilton had some interesting views too.
Next someone will say that Lincoln was no conservative, and Bill Bennett have to replace him as nominee for the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
What defines a conservative as a conservative before the Cold War? Ron Paul-type monetary views? · Dec 18 at 5:51am
Edited on Dec 18 at 05:59 am
You should read through the 1912 platform of the Progressive Party, for which TR bore full responsibility. I link it in my post above. It is a blueprint for the New Deal. What defined a conservative before the Cold War was a commitment to federalism, the separation of powers, and limited government. That is what defines conservatives today as well. All of the most fundamental issues being debated today were on the table in the election of 1912.
Re: Peas in a Pod
From katievs: "Since there are good solid reasons for doubting that Newt is the right man for the job we're facing, it is strange to the point of being almost comical to find him being defended so vehemently--as if anyone who opposes him is part of the establishment selling out true patriots. For heaven's sake." My thoughts excacty. But I'd like to thank everyone who contributed to this post -- especially Professor Rahe, whose students are lucky to have him in the classroom -- for clarifying the choice. Neither guy is The Guy. Wish it weren't so, but it is.
Dec '10
Re: Peas in a Pod
Ditto.
Jun '10
Re: Peas in a Pod
Paul A. Rahe
Larry Koler:
To have to reach back to 1970 to find Hilary's use of the term seems to be dodging the issue. · Dec 18 at 12:01am
The word progressive has been in continuous use from the 1880s on, and it has always implied a commitment to the administrative entitlements state. In recent times, it has been especially fashionable in left-liberal circles from the late 1960s on. From her time in college on, Hillary has used the term for herself. Romney called himself a progressive in 2002. Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama both hearken back to Teddy Roosevelt -- as did Herbert Hoover, FDR, and Thomas E. Dewey. · Dec 18 at 6:11am
The word "gay" has also been in continuous use since that time. But, we all know that its meaning has changed. So, too, the word "progressive" has changed and morphed now into being identified with anti-American hard leftists. TR would simply not be a progressive nowadays. Alger Hiss would, Henry Wallace would, Barack Obama is.
You are simply misusing it here and elsewhere to sow dissension. You are using it as a form of litmus test for purity -- plain and simple
Jun '10
Re: Peas in a Pod
katievs
Larry Koler
...
So ad hominem statements are considered deep thinking now? Boy, I'm glad you took the time to show us this. It's really deep. Just a half hour and we'll all come out of our dementia? Deep Deep stuff.
Not deep, light-hearted.
Since there are good solid reasons for doubting that Newt is the right man for the job we're facing, it is strange to the point of being almost comical to find him being defended so vehemently--as if anyone who opposes him is part of the establishment selling out true patriots.
For heaven's sake.
I don't take character assassination lightly, for heaven's sake.
As a Republican, you should also be against it. It is used too often against good people.
This is a class thing, really. George Will is more in the class of Barack Obama -- he would more likely have him over for dinner than he would Newt Gingrich, for example. It is this class that is selling us out. And Prof. Rahe is playing into their hands, unwittingly, by confusing people on what the issues are. He is doing the work for ruling class.
Re: Peas in a Pod
Larry Koler
Paul A. Rahe
Larry Koler:
. · Dec 18 at 12:01am
The word progressive has been in continuous use from the 1880s on, and it has always implied a commitment to the administrative entitlements state. In recent times, it has been especially fashionable in left-liberal circles from the late 1960s on. From her time in college on, Hillary has used the term for herself. Romney called himself a progressive in 2002. Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama both hearken back to Teddy Roosevelt -- as did Herbert Hoover, FDR, and Thomas E. Dewey. · Dec 18 at 6:11am
The word "gay" has also been in continuous use since that time. But, we all know that its meaning has changed. So, too, the word "progressive" has changed and morphed now into being identified with anti-American hard leftists. TR would simply not be a progressive nowadays. Alger Hiss would, Henry Wallace would, Barack Obama is.
You are simply misusing it here and elsewhere to sow dissension. You are using it as a form of litmus test for purity -- plain and simple · Dec 18 at 7:05am
Utter nonsense. Read the 1912 platform of the Progressive Party. The meaning has not changed.
Apr '11
Re: Peas in a Pod
Paul A. Rahe
Larry Koler
The word "gay" has also been in continuous use since that time. But, we all know that its meaning has changed. So, too, the word "progressive" has changed and morphed now into being identified with anti-American hard leftists. TR would simply not be a progressive nowadays. Alger Hiss would, Henry Wallace would, Barack Obama is.
You are simply misusing it here and elsewhere to sow dissension. You are using it as a form of litmus test for purity -- plain and simple · Dec 18 at 7:05am
Utter nonsense. Read the 1912 platform of the Progressive Party. The meaning has not changed. · Dec 18 at 7:16am
But it fell out of use. It returned more recently. Nonetheless, if Romney had called himself "a progressive", you'd be spot on. Much like if someone called himself "a gay" when that meaning was not in common use. Using the term as an adjective, however, is not the same. Jonah Goldberg wrote a lot about this circa 2006-2008.