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:
Aug '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
Paul,
I appreciate your thoughtful explanation of your concerns about Romney and the fact that you will ultimately vote for him if he is the only choice other than Obama. We should all pledge to do so whomever the Republicans nominate.
I actually agree with your take on the Republican party and the type of presidential candidates they tend to nominate - it's hard to argue with history. I've always maintained that we've been on the slow march to socialism for quite awhile now, Obama has just kicked it into a much higher gear which has spooked people out of their complacency.
The problem is there are too few people who feel like you and I and most Ricochetians do to make the wholesale changes needed in this country. Our educational system is pumping out people who have no clue about constitutional principles and has been doing it for a long time which make it extremely difficult to reverse course.
CONTINUED BELOW;
Nov '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
Let's start with a working definition of a statesman.
A statesman must have four qualities:
1. A bedrock of principles
2. A clear moral compass
3. A vision for the country
4. The ability to build a consensus around that vision
Congressman Paul has #'s 1 and 3, and a pretty good moral compass, though perhaps a wilfully limited view of containing evil in the world lest it end up on your doorstep. However, he is nearly completely lacking #4. He has a minority constituency and fails to convince his fellow citizens that: 1. He is statesman enough to run the ship of state calmly; 2. He has the executive experience to implement his vision; 3. He can build a consensus.
He is admirable and I agree with many of his ideas. But, he is decidedly not a statesman.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Aug '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
I support Romney even though it would possibly mean a return to the slow road to socialism because I don't think we can reverse it - only slow it down. Don't kid yourself - Pawlenty or Daniels would be no different. They are cut from the same Republican cloth as Romney.
Romney does not have the best political instincts and is not a natural like a Fred Thompson or a Chris Christie but he does have experience and skills they lack. While not an ideal candidate, I feel that Romney is the best overall candidate currently in the field. All of the other declared and possible candidates have drawbacks and weaknesses as well.
You are also correct in stating that many Mormons support Romney because he's a Mormon - I include myself in this group but for reasons other than you offer. Because of my religious affinity with Mitt I feel very strongly that he is a man of strong moral fiber and integrity which will inform his method of governing. Does this make him a conservative? Not necessarily, but I do trust him to keep his word.
Re: The Last Man Standing
Frozen Chosen:
You are also correct in stating that many Mormons support Romney because he's a Mormon - I include myself in this group but for reasons other than you offer. Because of my religious affinity with Mitt I feel very strongly that he is a man of strong moral fiber and integrity which will inform his method of governing. Does this make him a conservative? Not necessarily, but I do trust him to keep his word. · May 23 at 11:28am
On that last point, you may well be right. Where we disagree, it is because I think that the crisis of the entitlements state, recognized by a majority of the American people thanks to Obama, provides us with an opening for rolling things back. If we could win the Cold War and roll back communism, why not roll back socialism?
Oct '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
Copperfield
A statesman must have four qualities: Let's start with a working definition of a statesman.
1. A bedrock of principles
2. A clear moral compass
3. A vision for the country
4. The ability to build a consensus around that vision
... May 23 at 11:26am
It's #3 that makes me nervous - I don't need someone else's vision for my life, thank you. I don't think the country is car for the folks in Washington to drive to some destination that the voters - relegated to the back seat - get to influence (or not) every few years. A 'vision' that was a deeply felt humility about the capacities and morality of government and of leadership would be welcome. And surprising.
Jun '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
Paul A. Rahe
. . . the crisis of the entitlements state, recognized by a majority of the American people thanks to Obama, provides us with an opening for rolling things back. If we could win the Cold War and roll back communism, why not roll back socialism? · May 23 at 11:36am
This is the question for our age. As per Codevilla, we're locked in a new class struggle, the "country class" (traditional America) versus a new oligarchic elite who draw their support from the nation's urban centers. Mitt Romney doesn't represent traditional, small-government, pro-liberty America. He's the face of the oligarchy whatever his political affiliation.
You will remember that Maggie Thatcher forced a roll-back of socialism in Britain, but her efforts proved to be an interregnum, not a revolution. We've been fighting this ebb and flow battle with the socialism since Woodrow Wilson. The only way to win is to suffocate the administrative state by cutting its funding. How many Americans know this? I suppose we'll find out over the next 18 months, but I am not sanguine about the possibilities.
Edited on May 23, 2011 at 9:06pmApr '11
Re: The Last Man Standing
I wonder what your thoughts are on a point that I made earlier about our new Republican primary rules: The Democrats went through a long primary in 2008, yet it didn't really damage them in the general election. Why should our long primary be any more damaging to us in 2012? Is there some historical context I'm missing? If Republicans have a habit---more so than Democrats---of nominating the next guy in line, maybe it has something to do with the way we've conducted elections in the past. Maybe shaking things up will help us break out of that pattern. No?
Dec '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
The most shocking thing to me in this and other topics concerning Romney is how enthusiastic (edited from rabid) his supporters are. I'm not saying they're on par with Paul supporters, but they're sure giving it a go. In my opinion it is simply too early in the process to be that solidly behind any one candidate. But, maybe I just like to have a little more information prior to coming to a conclusion.
Re: The Last Man Standing
Because Obama is a far more formidable opponent than the hapless John McCain. Obama may be a disaster as President, but he knows how to run for office (in that sphere he has ample experience). McCain failed to use the time he had to advantage; Obama's people are already running ads.
Incidentally, this was the advantage that Clinton had over Bob Dole, and he used it to great effect.
Jun '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
The last man or woman standing, whoever it may be, needs to be prepared to carry the axe, explain why the axe is necessary, and then be willing to follow through on wreaking permanent damage to the entitlement state and its supporting bureacracies. The country will ultimately be better off, but that individual will be undoubtedly hated. Everybody wants a happy warrior - for now, I'll just take the warrior.
Like the off-brand CEOs who come into failing companies, perform a hatchet job to force radical restructuring to enable a return to profitability - these rarely stay on as leaders for the long term. But the service they provide may very well be just as essential. And if done right, it can pave the way toward a renewal of an economy more free than it would otherwise be.
Aug '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
Paul A. Rahe
Frozen Chosen:
Does this make him a conservative? Not necessarily, but I do trust him to keep his word. · May 23 at 11:28am
On that last point, you may well be right. Where we disagree, it is because I think that the crisis of the entitlements state, recognized by a majority of the American people thanks to Obama, provides us with an opening for rolling things back. If we could win the Cold War and roll back communism, why not roll back socialism? · May 23 at 11:36am
Communism was built on a house of cards to a certain extent. Socialism is much more entrenched in the world and in our very own federal government.
Even if you are right about the opening - which I really hope you are - show me the candidate that can take advantage of it? The ones with solid conservative principles have no executive skills or experience and the ones with the skills tend to be more moderate.
A president must have the skills, experience and philosophy to exploit any opening that may exist. Show me someone with all three and I will gladly support them.
Feb '11
Re: The Last Man Standing
Paul A. Rahe
Show me a passage in which I belittle managerial capacity. The series of posts I wrote on executive temperament -- linked and summarized in yesterday's post -- demonstrate my appreciation that it is essential. My point today is that it is not enough: principles matter -- and never more than at the present moment. · May 23 at 10:49am
OK, thanks for clearing that up.
Aug '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
Jim Chase: The last man or woman standing, whoever it may be, needs to be prepared to carry the axe, explain why the axe is necessary, and then be willing to follow through on wreaking permanent damage to the entitlement state and its supporting bureacracies. The country will ultimately be better off, but that individual will be undoubtedly hated. Everybody wants a happy warrior - for now, I'll just take the warrior.
Like the off-brand CEOs who come into failing companies, perform a hatchet job to force radical restructuring to enable a return to profitability - these rarely stay on as leaders for the long term. But the service they provide may very well be just as essential. And if done right, it can pave the way toward a renewal of an economy more free than it would otherwise be. · May 23 at 12:30pm
I think you're on to something here, Jim;
Mitt Romney - The Right Hatchetman for the Job
Aug '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 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. · May 23 at 5:37am
Thanks both for this fine essay and for this comment.
While I disagee with my Mormon neighbors on theology, I am mindful that most American Evangelicals cannot draw meaningful distinctions between Mormonism and Evangelicalism and most would be thrilled to see their families demostrate similar modesty and order.
Continued
Aug '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
Given that lack of awareness anti-Mormon bigotry is all the more reprehensible.
Again, from Martin Luther, "Better a wise Turk than a foolish Christian".
May '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
Because I haven't heard howls of outrage from vested interests and the professional statists.
Uh...he hasn't even officially declared he's running yet. The campaign isn't even underway in any serious way. Silence at this point is to be taken as disagreeing with you? That's absurd.
Jun '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
Frozen Chosen
I think you're on to something here, Jim;
Mitt Romney - The Right Hatchetman for the Job · May 23 at 12:45pm
Well, my comment wasn't intended as an endorsement for Romney. I'm certainly not sold on his candidacy, at least so far. It was more of an observation that setting our fiscal house in order is going to take radical action that will make that leader reviled among many. It can't be fixed in one term, but perhaps enough can be done to free up the economy so that the next wave of leadership can use that output to address the debt. It's a tall order for 4 years.
It's funny, really. You'd think it would be far easier to tear something down as opposed to build something up. With entitlements and the state, it seems to be the opposite.
May '10
Re: The Last Man Standing
Paul A. Rahe
To my knowledge, none of them -- except possible the fellow who was our ambassador in China -- is an expert. This is a matter that will have to be probed in the debates. We need to find out whether they have strategic vision and a good sense of what is going on in the larger world. The President's job largely turns on the conduct of foreign affairs. Of course, the next President will have other matters of grave import to deal with as well. · May 23 at 8:45am
Thanks for responding. Regarding Huntsman: Having myself worked briefly with the State Department, my first inclination is that his experience as an ambassador leaves him well prepared to host and attend gala dinners with foreign dignitaries...and not much else.
To be fair, though, his broader foreign policy experience, as far as I know, has predominantly involved trade policy with East Asia. My sense is that he's an liberal idealist toward China falling somewhere between the Clinton and Bush (43) admins. In other areas, I have no clue.
Edited on May 23, 2011 at 10:41pmMar '11
Re: The Last Man Standing
I am not Catholic, Buddhist, Jewish or Muslim and would feel presumptuous trying to explain their religious beliefs. Particularly because there is a big difference between studying a religion and living it and the subtleties of understanding such living brings. Would I invite them into my home? Assuming they are honorable, absolutely! Would I ally with or vote for them if their political goals coincided with mine? Without a doubt!
May '11
Re: The Last Man Standing
Paul A. Rahe Stretching out the process means that the fellow with his own money can outlast everyone else. Romney is not going to sweep early on. He has too much baggage. But the other candidates may knock one another out -- as happened in 2008. That year the last man standing was the man who lost to W in 2000: John McCain, the man who brought us McCain-Feingold. I voted for him . . . reluctantly. I will vote for Romney if I have no viable alternative other than President Obama. But I will do so, as I did in 2008, with a sinking heart. · May 23 at 5:30a
m
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. The only nationally known figures in the primaries right now are Romney, Gingrich, and - to a lesser extent - Paul. Paul is not much of a threat to Romney, and Gingrich just imploded. Pawlenty's a pretty good candidate, but people still don't really know who he is yet. The longer the primaries drag on, the more time Pawlenty has to establish himself.