Talking to the Unconverted
It occurs to me that there are reasonable numbers of people who will want to support Mitt in conversations today, but who are, by temperament and history, unaccustomed to doing so. This is a guide to the two conversational tacks that I find most effective in appealing to center left people, although it’s not as polished as I’d like. Like many of us, I’ve spent the last week a little stunned by the terrible political news (Nate Silver, for instance, has moved the race from being essentially a toss-up to a more than 2/3 likely Obama win). I'd love to hear criticisms, improvements, and corrections, as this is not an infrequent conversation for me.
Obviously, there are other important lines of conversation. The most obvious to me are rule of law and immigration, Fast and Furious, religious freedom, energy policy, foreign policy (both trade and defense), judicial picks, labor reform, Obamacare, Mexico City Policy, Planned Parenthood and SSM, school choice in DC and for kids on federal tuition, and the details of entitlement reform and taxes. Those all depend to a greater extent on knowing where your interlocutor stands, though, and this is my attempt at a generic approach to a presumably center-left person who has expressed curiosity about why you/ a woman/ a Hispanic/ they/ a good person would/ should vote for Romney.
The most elevator pitch says that you can give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day, and you can teach him to fish and see him become a productive part of the economy, and that there’s a time and place for each of these approaches. Borrowing money in his name to give him fish, though, is evil, as someone struggling to support himself already is probably not going to be able to cope with the future burden of buying his own fish and paying for his borrowed fish.
The longer version of that is; America is borrowing more than it can afford. Timothy Geitner, in Congressional testimony, has said that Obama has no plans to stop doing so. He does want to increase taxes on the rich, but not by nearly enough to cover the deficit. Even if he did have a plan, the budgets he puts forward are gimmicks; they get voted down unanimously, without a single supporting vote from either a Democrat or a Republican (those politically unacceptable budgets are the ones being defended in the linked Geitner video; the current reality involves far more deficits). Geitner does not dispute the Congressional Budget Office based claim that the Federal Government collapses in 2027, although the truth is that it’s difficult to tell when investors would lose confidence in the government’s intent to make good on their bonds.
When the collapse comes, it will not be like Greece or Spain, where the impact is cushioned by other states able and willing to bail out the failures. No one is rich enough to rescue America, and China, Japan, and Europe have their own problems. You might think that if the government ceases to be able to borrow and simply defaults on its loans, Argentina-style, that this would require a 40%-60% cut. 40% is pretty bad; for many people on a low fixed government income, a 40% cut would significantly shorten their lifespan. That’s using static rather than dynamic analysis, though; a sudden 40% cut in government spending would mean an unprecedented recession, even before considering the impact of defaulting on the government’s bonds. During the Great Depression the government was still able to tax and borrow enough to create a safety net. Not if we default.
Since raising enough money to balance the budget would require large middle class tax hikes as well as large hikes on the rich, and there is a strong bipartisan consensus against doing this, the election could sweep the Democrats into a strong House majority, a filibuster proof senate majority, and an Obama second term, without any more chance of the scale of tax hikes needed being passed than there was the last time this happened. In 2009, you may remember, he promised to halve the deficit in his first term, and appointed a bipartisan commission to achieve this, before ignoring all of their recommendations. Republican opposition is not the reason he failed, as he took no steps towards this aim at a time when there was no Republican barrier to his plans in the House, the Senate, or the White House.
The Ryan Plan, on the other hand, would achieve a balanced budget, and has already repeatedly passed the House. Since Ryan is interested in actually fixing the problem, he has worked with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, with Mitt’s support, and come up with a twist on his Medicare reform plan that seems likely to be able to pass the Senate. Romney, when he was Governor of Massachusetts, faced an analogous challenge; he inherited a budget with severe problems and persuaded his 85% big government Democratic legislature to accept some enormous cuts. His inherited deficit was replaced by a rainy day fund.
To put it another way, Obama has not tried to cut the deficit, and has shown little ability to get legislation passed even when his party had total control over Congress. Mitt is heavily focused on the deficit, and has shown the ability to pass legislation even in the face of a hostile legislature. Given that reform is needed, in the strong sense of the term “needed”, that might sound like it’s enough. Unfortunately, in the past some Presidents have wanted to cut spending and have failed to do so, despite getting legislation passed; Reagan’s grand compromise is perhaps the most famous of these. Good intent and popularity simply aren’t enough. You need to understand budgets and to be familiar with the ways that bureaucrats avoid implementing cuts. Obama, obviously, has no experience in managing downsizing. Whether he was a Community Organizer and not running anything, or a generally voting “present” state legislator, or a United States Senator making votes, such as his debt ceiling vote, that he would later say were for political reasons, he has lived a life without full responsibility for anything until he became President. As President, just as when he was a legislator, cutting has not been his focus.
Romney, on the other hand, has cut, and cut a lot; America has literally never elected a President with so much experience in bureaucratic and budgetary reform, a man with detailed knowledge of so many sectors of the American economy. This isn’t just important for his ability to make bureaucracies actually comply with the demand to reduce costs, although he has worked with numerous government agencies, recalcitrant management and labor unions, and entrenched interests at the Olympics to make sure that they did. It’s also important because the important thing in cutting is to avoid causing excessive damage to the organization you’re reforming. Romney’s opponents sometimes describe him as a corporate raider, someone who engaged in hostile takeovers, or try to remind people of Richard Gere in Pretty Woman, who purchased companies and broke them up, selling them for parts. That wasn’t really Bain Capital’s business plan, though. Instead, Bain was the outgrowth of a consulting firm that was frustrated by its clients' failures to implement reforms. The idea was that they would buy companies in order to get complete control, then make sure that the recommended reforms actually took place. Sometimes the companies failed, and Bain ended up looking kind of like Gere’s company, but those tended to be the deals where Bain lost money. Bain’s big successes took place where they purchased (or helped start) a company that became an enormous success, like Staples or Sports Authority. If you want to turn a struggling company into a successful one, the will and ability to fire people simply isn’t enough; you need to know how to cut without destroying value.
An example Mitt likes to give is his reform of Massachusetts homeless shelters. The system when he took over was that the state would provide a certain number of beds in a variety of shelters, but that if you got to a shelter and it was full, you’d be put up in a hotel at the state’s expense. Since the hotels were nicer than the shelters, people would ask around, find out which shelter was fullest, and go to that one in the hope of getting the hotel bed. Mitt changed the system so that the person who got to the shelter first got the hotel bed, not the guy who got there last. With the incentive to find full shelters gone, people would go to the most convenient shelter for them and hotel bed purchases (and empty homeless shelters) went down dramatically. The wrong way of going about cutting shelters would have been to eliminate beds and/ or staff, which would not have cut costs much, but which would have led to a reduction in the care provided to the needy. The right way saw both the needy and the taxpayer protected.
If you care about the wellbeing of those on benefits, it’s important that those benefits are cut by someone who knows what they’re doing; they’ll be cut anyway, and it’s better to have it done gradually in a way that avoids as much harm as possible, rather than cut in an emergency in a way that cannot avoid wrecking lives. Even if you don’t care much about the welfare of those on benefits, you should recall the impact of Reagan’s disability benefit reform. On taking power, he responded to the considerable fraud in the system by dramatically increasing eligibility requirements. There were many victims of his policy and Congress, led by Jim Shannon, responded to the feelings of outrage by reversing the reform and reducing the ability to detect fraud even below the levels it had been under Carter. Today, disability fraud is one of the hardest problems in entitlements; even if you could detect it (which is not cheap, easy, or 100% accurate), anyone spending a decade out of the workforce will have a tough time returning, no matter how unreasonable the basis for leaving it.
Changing the programs that people rely on is often extremely painful to the losers in the change and we owe a duty to them to do all that we can to avoid unnecessary changes and failed reforms. Change is also enormously costly. The most frequent problem in this regard is defense spending, where "cuts" often end up costing us more when we end up purchasing in a hurry to respond to a crisis; Mitt would increase defense spending because there are a number of obvious crises that may force us into that position, and it is better to be prepared. Measuring twice and cutting once is the classic advice, but it’s even more important to know how and what to measure and cut. When a President finds out long after passing the largest stimulus in history that his "shovel ready jobs" plan could never have worked, despite having supported new projects all his political life, how likely do you think it is that he'll understand the fundamentals of cutting, which he has not done? How likely do you think it is that that ignorance would be harmless?
- Comment (54)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
Incidentally, although it's not really the topic of the post, this isn't as bad as it sounds; Nate says there's a 3.5% chance that we win Ohio and lose the election, and a Portman Vice Presidency gives us, according to most polls, 2% in Ohio, which would almost equalize the race there. It's still less good than where we were before, when Portman was enough to put us ahead.
Feb '11
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
James,
I recall that we discussed Portman a while ago. Unfortunately I wasn't able to respond to your last comment in that thread in a timely manner. So I'd like to seize the opportunity now to note that I actually think well of Portman and I believe he would make a fine VP and possibly a fine president.
That said, my gut tells me that if Romney ends up choosing a VP with an eye to gaining a few points in Ohio he will lose. If he is in danger of losing Ohio then he will also be in danger of losing other states he should be winning- and bluntly, Romney will have failed to make the case for removing the present occupant of the Whitehouse.
He may still win, as Obama is a comprehensive disaster.
But if Romney barely squeaks over the finish line I doubt he will be able to muster the support to actually enact reforms that will put the country on a path to prosperity.
As usual, I hope I'm wrong.
Apr '11
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
Xennady: James,
......So I'd like to seize the opportunity now to note that I actually think well of Portman and I believe he would make a fine VP and possibly a fine president.
That said, my gut tells me that if Romney ends up choosing a VP with an eye to gaining a few points in Ohio he will lose.....
I agree that going all out for Ohio and ignoring other states would be a mistake. The Florida polling, in particular, has been a problem lately.
Also, I was a fan of Portman's before he became a Senator (when I was looking for a name for my WoW paladin, I picked BobPortman), and think his record, experience, talent, reasonableness, unflappability, and ideology would make him a great President. As VP, he'd add tremendous oomph to America's trade negotiations and as President of the Senate he'd be effective at getting things passed. Electorally, he'd be perfect to make the Fast and Furious arguments and is an unparalleled debater.
His being worth 2% in Ohio is like his being a woman, or ethnic; not decisive, but worth what it's worth, i.e. not nothing.
Mar '11
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
James, the case you make is very cogent, as usual.
However, what depresses me is the notion (which I am sure you have throroughly group-tested) that we first need to convince center-left types that a problem exists, then convince them what the problem is, before we can begin to make a case for who will best solve that problem. If most potential swing voters do not see the rise in debt spending as a major immediate concern, making the case for Romney becomes an afterthought.
Dec '11
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
James Of England
The Florida polling, in particular, has been a problem lately.
Huh? Please explain; I am terribly unhappy to read this.
Apr '11
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
Xennady: ....he will also be in danger of losing other states he should be winning- and bluntly, Romney will have failed to make the case for removing the present occupant of the Whitehouse.
......
But if Romney barely squeaks over the finish line I doubt he will be able to muster the support to actually enact reforms that will put the country on a path to prosperity.
There are two big bills that I think are critical for Romney to pass. The first is the Ryan Plan/ Romney equivalent and the second is the Obamacare Repeal. This election will clearly be about both of them; both sides agree loudly about this. The House has already passed both, easily and repeatedly, and is not a problem. The Senate needs more work, but the work is on Senators Brown (who owes his political career to Romney's work in 2004), Murkowski (who I am told is persuadable), and Collins, who may have to be paid off, but can be paid off.
Oh, and we need to have 50 Republicans.
Other economic stuff (Davis-Bacon/ immigration/ agency rationalization/ entrenching regulatory reform) is bipartisan or can wait for 2014's senate elections.
Apr '11
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
Mendel:
However, what depresses me is..... If most potential swing voters do not see the rise in debt spending as a major immediate concern......
Thank you. I think that a lot of the problem is that many people are used to the problem of debt being used disingenuously. Obama's 2009 promise to halve the Bush deficit and senatorial vote against raising the debt ceiling are great examples, but it's easy to see the failure to rein in spending as a bipartisan thing. When everyone lies about an issue, it's easy to get the impression that the truth of the issue isn't that important; arguments are fought on a tu quoque basis.
Also, when Republicans say that they want to e.g. get rid of Social Security, it makes it seem as if all reductions in the program are steps in that direction (which they are, but not meaningfully as elimination is obviously impossible); debt as an excuse for inhumanity. "Starve the beast" talk naturally and rationally decreases trust. Few people make the argument that cost cutting entitlement reform is necessary to be humane to the needy. I find referencing encountering serious hardship abroad helps with credibility.
Apr '11
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
EThompson
James Of England
TheFloridapolling, in particular, has been a problem lately.
Huh? Please explain; I am terribly unhappy to read this. · 35 minutes ago
The polling lately has been depressing across the board, but Florida is more important than other places; without Florida, we need Pennsylvania, which has also been less cheering than it ought to be.
The polls in Florida aren't cataclysmically awful, but we were clearly ahead there for a bit and now we're not. Briefly, Nate had y'all at exactly 50/50, which was quite funny. This may be a combination of 2000's win (Florida matters) and 2004's (Ohio swings it). There are other states that matter, too, but none of them in the same sort of way.
Feb '11
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
James,
I don't disagree much with the substance of your assessment in #6, unless we get a financial event before 2014.
But as a matter of politics Romney should make repealing Obamacare his first and immediate priority.
He should emphasize that priority, loudly and repeatedly, every chance he gets. I'll admit that maybe he does, and I just don't hear about it.
I'll also admit that the substance of my complaint is thin, as Congress is quite capable of working on two bills at once and it matters little if they pass the Ryan budget a day prior to an Obamacare repeal.
But Romney still has to convince people to vote for him- so he needs that sort of marketing shtick, IMO.
Romney seems utterly incapable of this. He's the exact opposite of Bill Clinton- which is a problem.
Clinton was able to convince people to doubt the meaning of the word "is", yet Romney can't convince people that he will take obvious and rational actions that he has been promising to do for his entire campaign.
I know that firsthand, because he still hasn't managed to convince me.
Edited on July 4, 2012 at 6:49amMay '12
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
James, I am a Romney voter and frustrated supporter that wishes he would be more forceful in deploying his intelligence, record, and credibility. You and Frozen Chosen are my go to guys for all things Romney. Good post.
One of the problems I see is his embrace of the Ryan budget plan. Unless something has drastically changed in how it was originally released it doesn't balance for almost a decade, adds Trillions of dollars to the debt, and if/when we elect President Romney he could be a two term president that never signs a balanced budget.
Your analysis the debt problem is very good and your articulating the democrat criminal neglect and cowardice is the best I've read, but I do not believe the Ryan plan is a timely or credible solution. We can't claim on one hand the debt problem is burning down our house and then try to put it out with a glass of milk.
Where I think Mr. Ryan gets much credit is his Medicare reform, very brave and the kind of thinking and required to fix this.
Apr '11
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
Xennady: James,
I don't disagree much with the substance of your assessment in #6, unless we get a financial event before 2014.
But as a matter of politics Romney should make repealing Obamacare his first and immediate priority.
He should emphasize that priority, loudly and repeatedly, every chance he gets.
We're not disagreeing over that; I meant to say that he needs to be clear about two things, and did not intend to put them in order. I guess I might have subconsciously put debt first since that's what the post is about, but I absolutely agree that he should focus more on his more popular opinions.
Obviously, if I direct you to his blog, or to MittRomneyCentral (the best site for collating his appearances, speeches, op-eds, etc.), both of them will show that he's doing that right now, but this is unpersuasive as the SCOTUS decision just came down. The Ryan Plan, or, more accurately, Mitt's Jobs Document, cover a lot of issues; combined they probably get more time than Obamacare, but Obamacare gets a plurality.
His current splash page line is, fwiw
Edited on July 4, 2012 at 4:30pmApr '11
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
This is actually one of my other favored conversational lines; splitting issues into "bigger than 9/11" and "smaller than 9/11" issues. Most abortion reforms, for instance, are smaller. If Global Warming really is planet destroying, it's bigger (but Obama's reforms wouldn't make a difference, and good intent doesn't matter much to the outcome); etc.
Total budgetary collapse is much bigger than 9/11, with many more people dying in the streets and vastly more financial harm. The Ryan Plan debt? Smaller than 9/11. It'd be nice to have a balanced budget in year one, but the cost to not doing so is... what? Slightly higher interest payments?
Apr '11
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
Cont:
One of the central reasons I support Mitt is that he has a record of doing as he says. Shooting for the moon all too often results in a humiliating failure (see, for example, the Contract With America's plans to eliminate agencies).
What is important is that the reforms that are made, stick. That's why I referenced Reagan's doomed attempts to reduce the disability rolls. Ryan's reforms, in contrast, are durable; they produce few telegenic victims. This makes them likely to succeed. Another advantage is that it makes them likely to pass; we need 4 more Senators and a bribe for Collins, which we are more likely to get than not.
There's a significant cost to making the reforms sudden, even assuming they pass. You make them more inefficient, you produce more resistance, and you cause a lot more harm to people's lives. Even Ron Paul had 4 years and added a trillion to the debt; his first term wouldn't see a balanced budget. Johnson says he'd do it in one, but promises no more significant severe cuts than Ryan except to the military and DEA. *rolls eyes*
Apr '11
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
cont (2) (sorry):
Bush 41 really did transform the budget; he inherited some substantial deficits, but made steep cuts along with his tax hikes, which cuts/ hikes were primarily responsible for Clinton's balanced budgets (secondarily responsible were Clinton's unfortunate '93 cuts; Welfare reform was a big deal for the long term, but the Contract's impact on the 90s budget was pretty small).
Bush's cuts didn't survive his son, and Obama, though, as they were in discretionary spending and aimed primarily at roughly a ten year period. Romney/ Ryan (Romney is somewhat more aggressive on Social Security, but is basically similar) makes changes that have more impact in the long term, mostly in ways that there would be little incentive to reverse. Increasing the short term benefit at the cost of the stability of the long term costs (by spending political capital on more sudden reforms) would be to misread the problems in the budget window.
Remembering that the big changes are to the long term future helps keep in mind that what is being asked for is by far the biggest entitlement reform in history. We should not endanger it by demanding too much more.
May '12
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
James - good and fair points.
The '94 Contract with Amercia didn't propose to enact its 10 elements, merely to vote on them. The Contract was drawn solely by Newt Gingrich and members of the House. They did bring each item up for vote and fulfilled the contract. Speaker Gingrich didn't claim the cooperation of the Senate or President. The Contract was marginally effective on fiscal policy, but a political win.
Regarding the budget issue I think ours is a difference of opinion. I believe the budget issue is more pressing and must be addressed with bold strokes in less than four years.
Your analysis of Bush 41 and the impact is very good. The difference now is scale. Our debt:GDP ratio is 102% and the Federal Reserve has begun monetizing our debt. We are already over the fiscal cliff and bouncing off the first couple of outcroppings, we will pick up speed on the way down.
There will be dislocation and 'victims' in the process of reforming medicare/social security. There will be many more 'victims' reducing/eliminating transfer payments. I would prefer we do it on our terms sooner rather than others later.
Dec '11
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
Matt Welch has sound advice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfj9G6GZXII
Jun '10
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
James Of England: Cont:
Shooting for the moon all too often results in a humiliating failure (see, for example, the Contract With America's plans to eliminate agencies).
...
What "plans" were they?
What a silly thing to say, James. As usual, your polemical backstabs do more harm than good. Politics is the art of addition not subtraction -- especially at this point in the election cycle. Why alienate people? What possible good can come from it?
Apr '11
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
Larry Koler
James Of England: Cont:
Shooting for the moon all too often results in a humiliating failure (see, for example, the Contract With America's plans to eliminate agencies).
...
What "plans" were they?
What a silly thing to say, James. As usual, your polemical backstabs do more harm than good. Politics is the art of addition not subtraction -- especially at this point in the election cycle. Why alienate people? What possible good can come from it? · 23 minutes ago
The Contract With America technically promised to vote on eliminating agencies. The campaign, though, featured many promises to actually eliminate them. And two whole departments. Instead the targeted agencies grew. The two Congresses before the Contract made steep cuts to government, which stopped with the Republican Revolution (other than, as I said, Welfare Reform). The party achieved its aims in a Clintonian sense, but not with the positive meaning of "Clintonian".
I agree that it's important to bring people on board; one of the votes against the Ryan plan was from Paul, and that has to be fixed. The answer, though, is to bring Paul home to reality, not to inclusively pretend that we'll achieve utopia and fail.
Apr '11
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
I think that this puts it perfectly. We are in serious trouble. If faced with a choice between being effective on fiscal policy and a political win, it is vital that we choose the substantive impact.
I also think we need to address it swiftly, but I think that it's more important where we are in 15 years than in 4. The important reforms are the long term ones (entitlement reform and, to a much lesser extent, agency rationalization). America can survive a little more debt (so long as the markets retain confidence in us). America cannot survive without fundamental reform. We have a solvency crisis, not a cashflow crisis.
Fortunately, Mitt is a more experienced cutter and will have a much more helpful Congress. The task is more ambitious (a longer term fix, and achieving the reduction without increasing taxes), but achievable.
May '10
Re: Talking to the Unconverted
Just want to add two thoughts. First, it's a bit early for complaints regarding Romney's supposed timidity. It just turned July. My guess is that Team Romney is purposely doing things at a low level of intensity right now to see how Team Obama, etc reacts to various things, even reacts to seeming flubs. For example, did Eric Fehrnstrom, and Ms. Saul(sp?) really go out and say that the mandate isn't a tax without authorization? That's hard to believe. Romney can't be that competent and incompetent at the same time. (OK, hope I'm not delusional)
Second, re Portman, if Romney needs Portman to win Ohio, I think all is lost. If Portman is chosen, it's going to have to be because he adds EVs in other states as well as Ohio.
(I actually think Portman is not an ideal VP. He is not media-tested, and he is too low key to catch the attention of the..."non-converted").
Edited on July 4, 2012 at 9:14pm