The Last Man Standing
I learned something the other day. I learned it while reading a post on Ricochet and the attendant comments, and I was appalled. Apparently, back in 2010, when I was not adequately paying attention, the Republican National Committee quietly changed the delegate-selection rules in imitation of Barack Obama’s Democrats. In the past, at least in the primaries, the arrangement was winner-take-all. Now, if I have this right, the delegates will be allocated in proportion to the percentage of votes received in the primaries and caucuses. What this means is that the distribution will be fragmented and that the final decision will be delayed (perhaps until the national convention) – which gives Barack Obama, who has the Democratic nomination sewed up, a tremendous advantage. He is already raising money; he will not have to spend it on the caucuses and primaries of his party; and he can go after the Republicans late next Spring and in the early summer with everything that he has got, softening them up for the kill while they pummel one another.
That is one problem. There is another, and it may be worse. The Republican Party has a history of nominating the fellow whose turn it is, and the reforms instituted in 2010 are apt to reinforce this propensity. They reward the candidate who finds it easiest to raise money and who is the best organized. Generally, that means the fellow who lost last time. He has the name recognition, and he has in place something of the organization he put together last time. To this, we can add another difficulty – campaign finance reform.
The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” But, thanks to Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives, it has been a long time since we have been governed under the Constitution. We are governed, instead, by the Supreme Court – which, pretending to a wisdom putatively not possessed by the benighted Framers of the Bill of Rights, has decided to let Congress abridge freedom of speech and of the press and to limit our ability to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances insofar as our exercise of these rights might influence the outcome of elections. Their excuse is that they fear that the process by which such money is raised and spent in support of or against candidates may corrupt those who win office with its help, and many are now prepared to argue that it is unacceptable that those who earn more than others may by dint of this have a more powerful voice in public affairs. The only individual who can spend more than the limits established by Congress is the candidate himself (who is presumably not likely to corrupt himself). The consequence of this cockamamie system is that the filthy rich have an overwhelming advantage.
Enter Mitt Romney. Last time, he was the initial front-runner – until Mike Huckabee beat him in Iowa and exploited the tensions between evangelical Christians and Mormons in such a way as to damage his candidacy. Governor Romney knows how to run a national campaign, he has the remnants of his old organization, and he can easily raise money. Moreover, he has an advantage not unlike the one possessed by Michael Dukakis in 1988. By dint of being a member of a tight-knit religious denomination, he commands the loyalty of a considerable number of Americans in every corner of the country, which gives him a further organizational advantage. Of course, this means that he also suffers from the bigotry directed against the Mormon church. But the advantages he possesses outweigh the disadvantages that he faces – especially because he has his own money. In a year in which, thanks to the new delegate-selection rules, money and organization will matter more than ever, Governor Romney has what it takes to get the Republican nomination: the desire to win, and staying power. He can be crushed in Iowa and even New Hampshire and still see the race through. Like John McCain in 2008, if no one else emerges who fires up the electorate, he will be the last man standing.
Of the others currently in the race, only Tim Pawlenty stands a chance. Newt Gingrich is living proof that one can be exceedingly bright and be clueless at the same time; and, in case everyone has forgotten his last term of service in public office, he made a fool out of himself last week. Herman Cain is bright. His instincts are good. And he knows a thing or two about running a business. But he has never served in public office, and he has already demonstrated considerable ignorance in foreign affairs – the only sphere in which the President has virtually full responsibility and a great deal of discretion. He – and for that matter Gingrich – might be well suited to serving in a cabinet post, but he is not presidential timber, not yet anyway. Ron Paul’s presence in the race may serve a real purpose. We need to think about the damage done this country by the Federal Reserve Board, and Paul can be relied on to bring the subject up. But he is not a serious candidate. In a great many respects, he is nothing but a crank. No one in his right mind would put him in charge of anything. The remaining candidates are not even worth mentioning.
Pawlenty has many virtues. He has flirted with some bad ideas (Gingrich is inclined to wallow in them), but he has had second thoughts about Cap and Trade. He has ample executive experience, and he was, I am told, a good Governor in Minnesota. To date, however, he has not demonstrated fire, zest, and command. As I mentioned in an earlier post, when I was in Minneapolis a few weeks ago, speaking to the Minnesota Association of Scholars, I asked everyone I met what they thought of Pawlenty. All praised his record as Governor; all indicated that they would be happy to vote for him again; and none of them was confident that he was presidential timber. Does he have the moxie to overcome the advantages possessed by Romney? I hope so, but they expressed doubts, and so, at least for the time being, I harbor them as well. I hope that Pawlenty has the personal resources to defeat Mitt Romney, because, frankly, I shudder at the prospect that Mitt Romney will gain the Republican nomination.
As I argued in my book Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift, there is built into liberal democracy a natural tendency to drift in the direction of the administrative state with its concentration of power in the executive branch of the central government and its entitlement programs. This propensity can only be successfully resisted if we understand its origins and if we take cognizance of the manner in which the American regime, as envisaged by the Founding generation, was designed to stand in its way. This propensity has been systematically and quite effectively exploited by the Progressives and their heirs now for something like a century. What they understand that we need to understand is that a reversal of the trend is well nigh impossible – well nigh, let me add, but not quite. Well nigh because those in possession of entitlements will scream bloody murder if they are threatened. And not quite because, thanks in part to our unwitting benefactor Barack Obama, we no longer have the resources to support the entitlements state. We can certainly raise taxes, as President Obama and the Democrats intend to do, but that does not mean that in the long run we will take in more revenue – and it is massively increased revenue that the entitlement state needs. The Progressives are banking on the unwillingness of a considerable part of the electorate to give up the subsidies on which they live, and on this they have always to date successfully banked. Right now, however, the fiscal crisis of the welfare state offers us an opening, and I am confident that Mitt Romney will miss it. He is the sort of man who never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Since 1928, when Calvin Coolidge relinquished the Presidency, the office has been held by a number of Republicans – Herbert Hoover, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Only one of these has displayed an understanding of the problem we face, and he was, for understandable reasons, too preoccupied with wining the Cold War, to confront that problem with all of his energy. Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush père, and Bush fils were all what I call managerial progressives. Their claim over against the liberals was that they could manage the administrative state more efficiently and effectively than their counterparts. Rarely if ever did any of them mention the Founders. Rarely if ever did they appeal to the first principles of our form of government as they are expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Rarely if ever did they appeal to the Constitution in opposition to the jurisprudential drift of the Supreme Court. Limited government was not part of their vocabulary. They were without clue.
The reasons are simple enough. Not one of these men was properly educated in the principles of American government. They had their virtues. They were practical men, can-do sorts with a pretty good understanding of how to get from here to there. In terms of moral understanding, as it is applied to political matters, however, they were bankrupt or pretty nearly so. The ordinary senior at Hillsdale College these days has a better grasp of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the conditions of freedom than did any of these men.
The same is true of nearly all Republicans. They come into Congress, the Senate, and state government from the Chambers of Commerce. Few of them have any sort of political education. Most are businessmen. If they have something more than an undergraduate education, it is reflected by their possessing a law degree or an MBA – which is to say, they have been trained to be managerial progressives. Our law schools and our business schools owe their origins to the Progressives. They were created for the purpose of encouraging what Franklin Delano Roosevelt called “rational administration.”
The reason why I oppose Mitt Romney is simple, He was born to destroy everything that we have accomplished since the Tea-Party Movement emerged in the Spring of 2009. Romney is the very model of a managerial progressive. He has one great virtue. He knows how to run things; he knows how to organize things. He would make a good Secretary of Commerce. He has no understanding of the principles that underpin our government. And, in fact, like most businessmen, he is a man almost devoid of political principles. Give him a problem, and he will make a highly intelligent attempt to solve it. Ask him to identify which problems should be left to ordinary people and what are the proper limits to government’s reach, and he would not understand the question. He is what you might call a social engineer; and, in his estimation, we are little more than the cogs and wheels that need to be engineered.
Not surprisingly, Romney is a political chameleon. When he ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994, he rejected the legacy of Ronald Reagan and embraced abortion. When he ran for the Republican presidential nomination, he altered his profile in both regards. It seems never to have crossed his mind when, as Governor, he confronted a Democratic legislature in Massachusetts intent on introducing socialized medicine that the individual mandate is tyrannical. Flexibility is what substitute for virtue in his case.
Romney’s political instincts are disastrous. He will betray the friends of liberty and limited government at the first opportunity. If he is nominated, the people who joined the Tea Party and turned out in 2010 to give the Republicans an historic victory are likely to stay home. If, by some miracle, the progenitor of Romneycare actually defeats the progenitor of Obamacare, he will quickly embrace the entitlement state and present himself as the man who can make it hum, as he did in Massachusetts. He is not better than Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush père, and Bush fils. He is cut from the same cloth, and in practice he is apt to be far, far worse. The consequence will be the death in American life or at least the decay of the impulse embodied within the Tea-Party Movement.
If, in my last post, I was unsparing in my criticism of Governor Mitch Daniels, if I took him to task for leading us on for months and then leaving us in the lurch, it was because I fear that he has left us to the mercy of a managerial progressive. If Tim Pawlenty is not up to the task of stopping Romney and of articulating the political principles that inspired the Tea Party, then we will have to find someone else – and very soon – or watch all the work that has been done since April, 2009 come to naught.
| > |
- Comment (103)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
May '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
Professor Rahe, in a previous post I posed a general question about the candidates and foreign policy, however no one answered. Since you brought the topic up again, I'll ask it again: Who amongst the current crop of candidates does have a clear, proven understanding and experience with foreign affairs?
Frankly, I'm hoping John Bolton ultimately chooses to run, if only to play a similar role for foreign diplomacy as the one you see for Ron Paul regarding economics. I suspect the primary is going to be a broken record of talking points on the general issue of foreign policy--the libertarians excepted, of course.
Mar '11
Re: The Last Man Standing
raycon
Perhaps you would care to mention which comments, in particular, you disagree with. Romney is, in fact, all of the above. He is, indeed, a political cameleon. · May 23 at 6:35am
Sure. A man with his accomplishments is certainly not someone who "never misses an opportunity." As an example he completely turned around the 2002 winter Olympics from a failed to a profitable venture. In responding to my post Mr. Rahe explains what opportunities he missed. Fine, but to use the word "never" is unserious. My point is about the hyperbole. Romney never "embraced" abortion. He opposed it personally always and forever but took the position that government was not the one to decide. Though it may not coincide with the hard-line stance others favor (including me) it is hardly an "embrace."
Jan '11
Re: The Last Man Standing
I'm intrigued by the criticism about "managerial progressives." The glaring difference between Christie, Daniels, Walker, etc., versus Romney is that the first set confronted the existing establishment, but Romney glided along with it.
Because Obama is such a poor manager, in addition to being a radical, we focus on managerial skill and experience to defeat him. But the galling part of Obama is really his radicalism. The expansion of the federal government's power is frightening enough, but the Left's desire to use it impose their elitism is more scary. Let's face it, Obama's ineptness as a manager is probably a good thing right now. It has prevented him from causing far more damage than he's done already.
The Tea Party's message to any candidate is blunt: we don't want you to "deal" and compromise with the liberal establishment. We want you to break their stranglehold on the machinery of power.
I don't hate Romney, and I appreciate his managerial skill. But he's shown no sign of wanting to confront the liberal establishment. We want skill and confrontation.
Jun '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
Note, if Romney becomes the GOP nominee, the anti-Mormon attacks will ALL be coming from the Left--not the Right. What Huckabee did will look like a mosquito bite in comparison to the Left's attempts to turn the whole LDS Church into some kind of auxiliary KKK. That's if Romney becomes the nominee. I don't think they'll sway many votes that way, but the attempt will be made.
Oct '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
WELL DONE, MR. RAHE! That is, if your purpose was beat down an already disheartened bunch.
I can only hope this column was a psychological ploy to prepare us for a gleaming new plan you'll be unveiling in your next post. You've figured out how to blackmail Paul Ryan into running? Bring it on!
I know, you're only the messenger. But now that we're sufficiently quivering, what do you see as the sensible course to take.
Nov '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
Paul A. Rahe: One comment -- lest my opposition to Mitt Romney be taken as hostility to Mormons. I deplore the anti-Mormon bigotry played on by Mike Huckabee in 2008. Our Mormon brethren are among the finest citizens in the country and deserve more respect than they get.
Nor do I think that there is anything dishonorable in Mormons favoring Governor Romney. I do mean to say that such loyalties are understandable and not dishonorable.
Firstly, Mormons are not my brethren. To be "brethren" we would have to have a common parentage. Apparently, the father of the Mormons is a god who was once a mere man like Adam -- not at all like my Father Who is the eternal God. Their savior is a mere exalted man who is brother to Lucifer. My Savior is the 2nd Person of the Godhead coequal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, to the Mormon, is a kind of divine electrical charge. My Bible tells me that the Holy Spirit is a Person Who is a comforter like unto Christ.
A question: if the Mormons are a monolithic reliable voting block, how do we explain the likes of Harry Reid?
Oct '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
I made the comment back in 2009 that if Mitt Romney is the nominee in 2012, that it would be the end of the Republican party. I still think that it might be true. He is the anti-tea party candidate.
Apr '11
Re: The Last Man Standing
Mr. Rahe, are you someone who will listen to reasonable arguments that much of what you wrote, including the paragraph above, does NOT describe Romney at all?
Edited on May 23, 2011 at 5:04pmMay '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
But he's shown no sign of wanting to confront the liberal establishment.
Actually he did a very good job at doing just that; it's just that in a blue state, confrontation takes place by moving the ball from the 10 to 40 yard line of your own side of the field, e.g., Romney prevented single-payer in MA.
Everyone, together: a Republican who governs a blue state is per se disqualified from seeking the Presidency, and such negates and supersedes even the most formidable of private sector careers.
Edited on May 23, 2011 at 4:37pmApr '11
Re: The Last Man Standing
Robert Promm
Paul A. Rahe: One comment -- lest my opposition to Mitt Romney be taken as hostility to Mormons. I deplore the anti-Mormon bigotry played on by Mike Huckabee in 2008. Our Mormon brethren are among the finest citizens in the country and deserve more respect than they get.
Nor do I think that there is anything dishonorable in Mormons favoring Governor Romney. I do mean to say that such loyalties are understandable and not dishonorable.
A question: if the Mormons are a monolithic reliable voting block, how do we explain the likes of Harry Reid? · May 23 at 7:28am
Even if Mormons can be said to support certain candidates over another, the percentage of Mormons compared to rest of the electorate is too small to make much of a difference.
Jun '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
"The reason why I oppose Mitt Romney is simple, He was born to destroy everything that we have accomplished since the Tea-Party Movement emerged in the Spring of 2009. Romney is the very model of a managerial progressive. He has one great virtue. He knows how to run things; he knows how to organize things. He would make a good Secretary of Commerce. He has no understanding of the principles that underpin our government."
Excellent summation of the Romney problem. He is likely to win the nod. Such a shame. I so wish Ryan would run!
Apr '11
Re: The Last Man Standing
Do you feel the same way if Huntsman, by some miracle, becomes the nominee?
May '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
Paul, you're right about Romney, but you underestimate Gingrich. He can speak powerfully about conservative values. What little I know of Cain and Bachmann suggests they are skilled speakers as well, but Gingrich has the political experience so many are looking for. I would not be surprised if he ends up among the top candidates.
Paul A. Rahe:
Nor do I think that there is anything dishonorable in Mormons favoring Governor Romney. I can understand why African-American hearts swell with pride when they contemplate the Presidency of Barack Obama. I remember the response of many Catholic Republicans to the election of John Kennedy, and I understand why Greek-Americans flocked to the banner of Michael Dukakis.
I do not mean to say, however, that I judge the tribal loyalties that give rise to support of this sort a sign of good sense. I do mean to say that such loyalties are understandable and not dishonorable.
It works the other way, too. It's understandable, if not entirely justified, that Christians are often wary of Mormons, who understand God in a very different way and bar outsiders from their temples.
Politically, our values seem equal.
Apr '11
Re: The Last Man Standing
Robert Promm, you're an embarrassment to Ricochet. Your straw-man description of LDS beliefs is not one that any practicing Mormon would recognize. Obviously Christians can disagree on doctrine, but they have to deal with each other honestly and fairly. Mormons do not believe that Christ was a mere man, nor even a "mere exalted man." Nor is the Holy Spirit "a kind of divine electrical charge," as you so flippantly put it. Your comments epitomize the bigotry that Professor Rahe mentioned above.
Oct '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
Richard Young
raycon
Perhaps you would care to mention which comments, in particular, you disagree with. Romney is, in fact, all of the above. He is, indeed, a political cameleon. · May 23 at 6:35am
Sure. A man with his accomplishments is certainly not someone who "never misses an opportunity." As an example he completely turned around the 2002 winter Olympics from a failed to a profitable venture. In responding to my post Mr. Rahe explains what opportunities he missed. Fine, but to use the word "never" is unserious. My point is about the hyperbole. Romney never "embraced" abortion. He opposed it personally always and forever but took the position that government was not the one to decide. Though it may not coincide with the hard-line stance others favor (including me) it is hardly an "embrace." · May 23 at 7:12am
So... the state should not decide on abortion. How about other forms of murder? Sharia law makes if nominally OK to off your wife. Not for the state to decide? What about infanticide (aka: partial birth abortion) Not for the state to decide.
To watch Romney slither through that mine field is, indeed, a thing to behold.
May '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
However wary I am of Ron Paul's foreign policy beliefs, he is the only candidate, that I'm aware, who has called for the elimination of an entire government agency (technically, the Fed isn't a part of government, but...). No candidate can earn my enthusiastic support without boldly proposing we take a sledgehammer to government's budget, bureaucracies and authority.
It would be unacceptable for a candidate intent on drastic changes to obscure that intent during the campaign for reasons of electability, even to save our nation. Citizens should know what they're voting for.
Richard Young
Romney never "embraced" abortion. He opposed it personally always and forever but took the position that government was not the one to decide.
That's a nonsensical position. It's like saying, "I'm against murder, personally, but I'm not going to stop you from shooting that person." It's one thing to suggest that we are incapable of preventing a mother from killing her unborn child. It's quite different to suggest that the killing of a children is a private matter that merits no social interference.
Re: The Last Man Standing
David
Mr. Rahe, are you someone who will listen to reasonable arguments that much of what you wrote, including the paragraph above, does NOT describe Romney at all? · May 23 at 7:32am
Edited on May 23 at 08:04 am
If you can show me that I am wrong, I am prepared to eat my words. I have had to do so on occasion in the past.
Mar '11
Re: The Last Man Standing
There is a wide spectrum of beliefs regarding abortion, from those on the left who think it is permissible anytime up to and including partial birth abortions with no call for interference from the government to those on the right who think it is reprehensible in any situation, even if the mother was raped or could die from giving birth. Romney's initial position fell between those poles and simply couldn't accurately be described as an "embrace" of abortion. His position now still lies between those poles though much further to the right. It might be worthwhile remembering that even our much reverenced President Ronald Reagan also had a change of heart on the matter.
Re: The Last Man Standing
Richard Young
raycon
Perhaps you would care to mention which comments, in particular, you disagree with. Romney is, in fact, all of the above. He is, indeed, a political cameleon. · May 23 at 6:35am
Sure. A man with his accomplishments is certainly not someone who "never misses an opportunity." As an example he completely turned around the 2002 winter Olympics from a failed to a profitable venture. In responding to my post Mr. Rahe explains what opportunities he missed. Fine, but to use the word "never" is unserious. My point is about the hyperbole. Romney never "embraced" abortion. He opposed it personally always and forever but took the position that government was not the one to decide. Though it may not coincide with the hard-line stance others favor (including me) it is hardly an "embrace." · May 23 at 7:12am
I had politics, not business, in mind. I praised his managerial accomplishments.
Re: The Last Man Standing
Robert Promm
Paul A. Rahe:
Firstly, Mormons are not my brethren. To be "brethren" we would have to have a common parentage. Apparently, the father of the Mormons is a god who was once a mere man like Adam -- not at all like my Father Who is the eternal God. Their savior is a mere exalted man who is brother to Lucifer. My Savior is the 2nd Person of the Godhead coequal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, to the Mormon, is a kind of divine electrical charge. My Bible tells me that the Holy Spirit is a Person Who is a comforter like unto Christ.
A question: if the Mormons are a monolithic reliable voting block, how do we explain the likes of Harry Reid? · May 23 at 7:28am
As fellow citizens, we are brethren under the skin. We share a common political faith summed up in the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence.