Where Do We Go from Here?
The answer to the question I have posed depends, of course, upon where here happens to be. I have an unorthodox opinion on this matter. I have held it since quite early in President Obama’s administration, and I first articulated it online in a post entitled The Great Awakening in August, 2009. I believe that we live in no ordinary time and that we have opportunities within our grasp that, if we let them slip, we may never have available to us again. You may want to consider whether I am right.
The brute fact that explains the peculiar nature of the-here-and-now is the impending collapse of the welfare state. As Gunnar Myrdal recognized as early as 1944, that system contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction, and we can see the consequences in nearly every advanced industrial state. Put simply, social insurance of the sort invented by Bismarck in the nineteenth century depresses population growth and is apt to produce populace decline. Before there was social insurance, people had a motive for having children that they no longer have: it was for most people the only way in which to provide for their old age. The existence of programs like Social Security and Medicare reduces the incentives for having a family. In the short run, this alteration of the incentive structure may not have a very great impact. But slowly, over time, under the influence of the introduction of social insurance, mores are apt to change, and they have – dramatically – in Europe, in Canada, in the old Soviet bloc, in Japan, in China, and in the United States. For the first time in human history, in the absence of both war and plague, prosperous countries are experiencing a demographic implosion. Margaret Thatcher was wont to say that the trouble with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money. We can now add that the trouble with the welfare state is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s children. And when you do, you do not have enough people working and paying into the system to support those taking out from the system and the Ponzi scheme collapses.
You can, of course, raise taxes on the comparatively young people who work, invest, and earn. But this, too, alters the incentive structure. Punish something by taxing it severely, and it is apt to stop altogether. Punish investments by imposing on them high taxes, and people will cut back on their investments, innovation will slow down, there will be little or no economic growth, and structural unemployment will add to the state’s burdens. We can see the consequences in France. Punish high earnings with high taxes, and employees will refuse to work overtime. There is a limit to the percentage of what people earn that a government can take in as revenues. This is just another way in which you can run out of other people’s money. We cannot tax our way out of the bankruptcy of the entitlements state.
This has been obvious to anyone with the wit to look for a long time, but of course the instinct of most people in such circumstances is to look the other way – which brings me to a second salient fact. Barack Obama may not be, as I have sometimes puckishly suggested, a Manchurian Candidate foisted on an unwitting Democratic Party by that evil genius Karl Rove, but he sure does a good imitation. By the manner in which he handled the recession he inherited from George W. Bush, President Obama brought the crisis of the entitlements state to a head and demonstrated for all to see that bankruptcy looms. Moreover, by the manner in which he and the Democratic congress handled the so-called “stimulus” bill, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank, they made a mockery of the legislative process and demonstrated their moral bankruptcy for all to see. Obama ran for office promising transparency and he delivered government that is opaque. He promised a government that would serve all the people and he delivered a government intent on favoring the few who belong to the constituencies favored by his party. He promised honesty and he has delivered thuggery. Remember what was done to the bondholders of General Motors and who gained? Well, consider what the Obama administration is trying to do to Boeing right now. Remember the push by the Democrats to eliminate the secret ballot with regard to the establishment of labor unions? Watch what the National Labor Relations Board is up to now. And ask yourself why the President wants to know about the political donations made by those who are seeking government contracts. Lots of people have taken note, and many of them, in frustration with the Republicans, voted for Barack Obama in 2008 but are not apt to do so again.
There is a third salient point. The Americans see what is amiss. Never in my lifetime has there been anything like the Tea-Party Movement, which emerged spontaneously out of nowhere in the Spring of 2009, gathered strength in August of that year during the debate on Obamacare, and forced the Republicans to act as if they belonged to a party of principle. Never in my lifetime has there been an electoral shock as great as Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts early in 2010 in the contest for the senatorial seat long held by Ted Kennedy. Never has there been a midterm election as decisive – especially at the state level – as the contest in 2010. Nor is there any indication that since that time the pendulum has swung back in the direction of the Democrats. Obamacare is more unpopular than ever. President Obama’s economic stewardship is regarded with less approval with every passing day. Americans may like the man and pride themselves on having elected an African-American President, but they strongly disapprove of what he has done, and it is most unlikely that anything is going to happen on the domestic side of the equation to alter their opinion. The man who promised that unemployment would never go above 8% has delivered economic stagnation and an unemployment rate that thirty months later still threatens to exceed 9% – and these numbers hide the fact that many have given up looking for jobs and that many more are underemployed. Moreover, inflation – if we measure it by the standards in place back in the days of Jimmy Carter – exceeds 10%, and the folks at the gas pump and in the grocery lines know it.
Finally, there is a fourth salient point. When the Republicans won the House of Representatives by a wide margin in 2010, they did not betray those who voted for them. This is a signal accomplishment. Who in the recent past has seen the like? And we should be more appreciative of the wiliness of John Boehner than we are inclined to be. He has been a low-key Speaker of the House. He has been patient, cautious, and careful – sometimes, many of us were inclined to think, to a fault. But the truth is that he held his caucus together; he encouraged Paul Ryan to put forward a serious and daring budget proposal. And between them, they have shown that our President is an emperor with no clothes. They forced him to repudiate as unacceptable his own budget proposal, and they gently but forcefully make it ever more clear that – in the face of the fiscal crisis that everyone on both sides of the aisle now acknowledges we face – President Barack Obama has nothing to offer.
In sum, the here from which we need to move on in an appropriate fashion is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in which a standard-bearer and a party can make a compelling and rhetorically effective case against the entitlements state, win a sweeping victory, and begin to set things straight. The issues are on the table. The voters have already made up their minds. Our opponents cannot triangulate. They passed Obamacare on a one-party vote, and now they cannot even agree with one another on a budget proposal. They cannot govern, and they have demonstrated as much. Our party in Congress can do so, and with the Ryan budget they have demonstrated as much.
There is only one fly in the ointment. We do not yet have a plausible candidate. We have any number of individuals in the wings with the appropriate qualities and ideas – Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, John Kasich . . . the list is long, longer perhaps than even I think. But at the most promising moment for Republicans since 1928 we only have two genuine contenders in the field. As Michael Barone has recently pointed out, no one but these two is currently raising money and putting together an organization. The others who claim to be running or who are hinting at it would appear to be taking a flier and can be safely ignored.
One of the two contenders, as I argued yesterday in my post The Last Man Standing, has the inside track on getting the nomination. It is his turn, and Republicans tend to choose the one whose turn it is. He has the name-recognition, the money, the organization, and the ability to stay the course, but his signature achievement, of which he is inordinately proud, is a state healthcare program that was the model for Obamacare. If he is nominated, those who rallied to the Republicans in 2010 because they appeared to be a party of principle are almost certain to stay home. Why vote for a Republican version of Barack Obama? And if he is elected, he is guaranteed to disappoint those who bit their tongues and turned out to vote for him. He does not understand what is wrong with socialized medicine and the individual mandate. He is a managerial progressive. He does not understand the situation we now face and the opportunity that it affords us. How could he possibly be adequate to the situation?
The other is a promising former governor with a distinguished career of service, who has stumbled on occasion, but who certainly deserves careful consideration. Reports indicate, however, that he is having trouble raising money, and even some of his admirers worry that he may not be ready for primetime.
In contemplating the difficulty we face, we need to keep one fact in mind – which no one has ever summed up better than did Abraham Lincoln in his debates with Stephen Douglas, when he said, "In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently he who molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed."
What we need in a standard-bearer is someone who has given evidence of possessing an executive capacity – whether in an executive office or elsewhere – who also has the courage, the understanding, and the resolve to make the argument that has to be made: someone, in short, who sees it as his task to do what Lincoln did in and after 1858 and mold public sentiment. That is where we need to go from here. If we do not, those who rallied to the Tea-Party Movement, who elected Scott Brown to the Senate, and who gave the Republicans an historic victory in 2010 will grow disillusioned, give up hope, and leave us to what I call Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift.
We should almost certainly forget Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, John Bolton, Ron Paul, and Sarah Palin. Those within this select group who have declared or who do declare their candidacies may enliven the debates, and, as individuals, they may have certain estimable qualities, but they are not really running. We should encourage Tim Pawlenty to articulate his vision of the situation in which we find ourselves and of the measures needed to meet the crisis – and if he proves worthy – we should support him with everything we have.
In the meantime, however, we need to draft one of the promising backbenchers. As you know, I was inclined to think that Governor Mitch Daniels had it all. When I thought that he stumbled, I was severely critical. When he seemed to be on the road to correcting his mistakes, I gave him high praise. I have made it clear in an earlier post just how much I regret his decision not to run. But that is past, and there is nothing to do. He has his reasons for not running, and they merit our respect.
It is time, I believe, to turn to those less seasoned who have nonetheless demonstrated a firm grasp of the principles at stake. I have in mind Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie.
It will be said that neither Ryan nor Rubio has held executive office, and that claim has force. But we must consider what they have, in fact, done. Paul Ryan has established himself as the de facto standard-bearer of the party. He has done what executives do; he has articulated a practical plan and taken responsibility for it – and he has met the President of the United States as an equal in public debate and left him reeling, whining, and without recourse to an argument.
Marco Rubio was, to be sure, a lowly state representative. But while in office he did not vote present, and he soon rose to become Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives – where, like Ryan, he found himself doing what an executive does by taking responsibility. He is far better qualified than was the man who now holds the presidential office three years ago. He is handsome, and he is articulate.
Chris Christie has served in executive office for less than two years. But what a two years! No one can doubt that he is a decision-maker, and no one can question his capacity to mold public sentiment. Barack Obama knows as much and reportedly has his people trying to dig up dirt on the Governor of New Jersey.
Ryan, Rubio, and Christie are principled men. They are good on their feet. Someone should corner them one by one and say to each: “Your country needs you. The time is now. Why did you go into this line of work if you are unwilling to seize such an opportunity? Do you really think that for you there will ever be a better time?”
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
Professor, Chris Christie is no true conservative. A supporter of the Ground Zero mosque, a long-time advocate of gun control, a man who rallied to the side of a radical Imam who faced deportation, a Republican who favors amnesty for illegals and some form of cap and trade- the guy is ersatz. New Jersey's true conservatives are tearing their hair out.
Meanwhile the latest polling shows his home-state approval rating has fallen to 40/44.
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
Kenneth: Professor, Chris Christie is no true conservative. A supporter of the Ground Zero mosque, a long-time advocate of gun control, a man who rallied to the side of a radical Imam who faced deportation, a Republican who favors amnesty for illegals and some form of cap and trade- the guy is ersatz. New Jersey's true conservatives are tearing their hair out.
Meanwhile the latest polling shows his home-state approval rating has fallen to 40/44. · May 24 at 3:24pm
I am sad to learn what you have to say in the first paragraph. His fall in the polls may or may not be significant. Tough decisions come at a price. But that first paragraph . . .
Apr '11
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
What do you think of Gov. Rick Perry? I know he's said he isn't running, but perhaps he can be persuaded to at least go one term until the 2009-2010 group is ready to take the helm...
How about this article?
Dec '10
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
Professor Rahe, I am one class away from completing my BA in Political Science and I receive more knowledge from each of your posts on Ricochet than I received in many of my classes.
Do you think Ryan is acting as a leader in the way he has carried the standard of his budget proposal before the grumbling hordes of Republican Representatives, or is he simply another manager with a better plan for how government can organize our lives? I understand how serious his plan is, but is it still too palatable to those who would give up their individual sovereignty for bits and pieces of comfort provided by the collective? Does his plan work toward breaking the cycle of dependency, or does it merely water down the addicting opiates of the welfare state?
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
Dan IV: What do you think of Gov. Rick Perry? I know he's said he isn't running, but perhaps he can be persuaded to at least go one term until the 2009-2010 group is ready to take the helm...
How about this article? · May 24 at 3:37pm
The article makes him seem quite interesting. I am wary, however, of guys who talk about secession.
Oct '10
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
The key is to infuse fresh blood. Understandably it would be akin to thowing sheep to the wolves in todays Washington environment... Perhaps of those current office holders some would like to see in place know this.
Get the feeling there is a No Win Situation in the wind, erroding the mind and hearts of many...
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
The King Prawn: Professor Rahe, I am one class away from completing my BA in Political Science and I receive more knowledge from each of your posts on Ricochet than I received in many of my classes.
Do you think Ryan is acting as a leader in the way he has carried the standard of his budget proposal before the grumbling hordes of Republican Representatives, or is he simply another manager with a better plan for how government can organize our lives? I understand how serious his plan is, but is it still too palatable to those who would give up their individual sovereignty for bits and pieces of comfort provided by the collective? Does his plan work toward breaking the cycle of dependency, or does it merely water down the addicting opiates of the welfare state? · May 24 at 3:40pm
I think the plan is as radical as one could hope for right now. It brings the immediate fiscal crisis to an end, and it starts the ball rolling fast in the right direction. Ryan has also been exceedingly skillful in getting his colleagues on board. He is playing the role of a statesman.
May '10
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
Paul Ryan is too influential where he is. He won't budge. But I hope he remains the voice of the party.
Romney will certainly be a frontrunner. It's too early to know who will be #2 and #3 in the early primaries.
Lt. Col. Allen West is as good a speaker as Chris Christie. I see no hints that he might enter the race, but he should be elevated by the party to a spokesman role alongside Ryan.
I suppose it's a sign of hope that Republicans have so many individuals in the wings who are explaining the direness of our present situation to voters.
May '10
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
I would like to see Thaddeus McCotter throw in. He is an undisputed champion of liberty and the good sense and decency of the American people. He's not an isolationist, he's someone who's looking to face the challenges America faces in the world to our advantage. And I think he would debate circles around Mr. Obama. He may not have a chance at winning but he could have tremendous influence framing the debate beyond trite slogans and platitudes.
Jun '10
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
Daily Show: June 10, 2010 - Tim Pawlenty interview Pt. 3
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-10-2010/exclusive---tim-pawlenty-unedited-interview-pt--3
Jan '11
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
This post really sums up things quite well. Count me in as a Ryan supporter. Thaddeus McCotter is wonderful as well, very erudite. I was awefully disappointed that Mike Pence didn't run - perhaps he could be persuaded? I too wish to hear more from Pawlenty, though I'm pretty receptive to him now.
I'd like to see Rubio & Christie log some more time before making that jump.
While I'm anxious about our prospective candidates, I'm optimistic as well - think of the bench we have - 2016 We have to collectively shake of the deadwood that we've been offered up - Dole>>McCain>>of Romney.
Jan '11
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
A couple years ago, I was enthusiastic about David Petraeus. A general has the executive skills for the presidency. Petraeus would certainly bring foreign policy credibility. The mess in Afghanistan dimmed his star a bit, and from what I've read, he isn't enthusiastic about the idea. He's also dull as paint. At least Pawlenty smiles.
But I mention Petraeus to expand the candidate pool beyond politicians, all of whom disappoint us to some degree.
Career politicians have advantages, but maybe it's time to look elsewhere. I'm not sure whether the Trump and Cain are just flashes in the pan, or signs that the public is truly open to alternatives. So I'm musing about people who might be good presidents, but who wouldn't have considered a run because no one assumed they had a chance.
Instead of predetermining who will catch fire ... maybe we should open the possibilities, and let someone catch fire on their own.
May '11
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
Paul A. Rahe
Dan IV: What do you think of Gov. Rick Perry? I know he's said he isn't running, but perhaps he can be persuaded to at least go one term until the 2009-2010 group is ready to take the helm...
How about this article? · May 24 at 3:37pm
The article makes him seem quite interesting. I am wary, however, of guys who talk about secession. · May 24 at 3:47pm
Paul A. Rahe
Dan IV: What do you think of Gov. Rick Perry? I know he's said he isn't running, but perhaps he can be persuaded to at least go one term until the 2009-2010 group is ready to take the helm...
How about this article? · May 24 at 3:37pm
The article makes him seem quite interesting. I am wary, however, of guys who talk about secession. · May 24 at 3:47pm
Rick Perry never talked about secession. He was remarking on the 10th amendment and is very much a States Rights guy. He will be on Gretta tonight so take a look. He is the only guy with the experience, accomplishments and political skills to take on Obama.
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
With regard to Rick Perry and secession, see this article or simply Google Rick Perry secession as I just did.
Nov '10
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
"...the trouble with the welfare state is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s children."
Good article. Classic line!
Jul '10
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
Why is there such a rush?
Ronald Reagan, as I recall, did not declar himself a candidate for president until November or December back in 1979.
It was somewhere around the same time as the Iranian Hostage taking as I remember.
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
the reason for the rush is that it takes time to raise money and build an organization. Reagan had an organization already from his previous run, and he had donors lined up from that effort.
Aug '10
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
Holy long Ricochet post! I'm gonna have to save it as a PDF for later reference...
Sep '10
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
I think this post is a stealth Encounter Broadside. Dr. Rahe, I salute your fiendish cunning.
Apr '11
Re: Where Do We Go from Here?
Regan was a union man, and for amnesty for illegals, was he not a true conservative? I'm not crazy about the ground zero mosque, but I think you can be a conservative and still support it. What I'm getting at is conservatives can disagree and Christie would still be a fine candidate, he could certainly beat President Obama and would be much better than President Obama.