Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Peas in a Pod
The Mitt Romney video that Ben Domenech has posted below deserves attention. It demonstrates – if the point needs demonstrating – that Romney is a managerial progressive. His initial response to Obamacare was to want “to repeal the bad and keep the good,” and among the things he thought good about the President’s healthcare reform were the incentive structure (i.e., the individual mandate enforced by fines) and the provision that insurance be provided to those with pre-existing conditions who had not seen fit to pay for insurance when they thought that they were healthy (i.e., making the responsible pay for the irresponsible).
In short, Governor Romney sees us as children who need to be policed in a thorough-going way for our own good. His objections to Obamacare are those of a social engineer. This is the real Romney. The fellow now calling for the wholesale repeal of Obamacare is, as I have argued at length in an earlier post, a chameleon. He will do what he needs to do to attract our votes, or, at least, in his awkward, inept way, he will try. And in this one particular he may feel bound to keep his promise. But once in office – like Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush One, and Bush Two – he will drift into extending the power and scope of the administrative entitlements state. In most regards, he will consolidate what Barack Obama has initiated.
I would like to think that Newt Gingrich represents a genuine alternative. His record in office as Speaker of the House of Representatives is much more conservative than Mitt Romney’s record as Governor of Massachusetts. But his record since then is even more disappointing than I thought it was when I described him as the wild card.
I was inclined to give Gingrich the benefit of the doubt with regard to the consulting work that he did for Freddie Mac. I was wrong. As The Wall Street Journal points out in an editorial in this morning’s newspaper, Gingrich publicly defended both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as late as April, 2007 when he remarked, “While we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself.” He defended Fannie and Fred on the ground there are times “when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development,” and he described himself as being “in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism.”
As the Journal points out, Gingrich was notably silent when Congressman Richard Baker, Senator Richard Shelby, and Bush White House aide Kevin Marsh went to “the barricades” in an attempt to force a reform of Fannie and Freddie:
As for the destructive duo’s business model that Mr. Gingrich said he didn’t want to change, this was precisely their problem. Far from a private-public partnership, they were private companies with a federal guarantee against failure. Their model was private profit but socialized risk. This produced riches on Wall Street and for company executives. But taxpayers bore the risk of loss—to the tune of $141 billion so far. Why does the historian think they were called “government-sponsored enterprises”?
The real history lesson here may be what the Freddie episode reveals about Mr. Gingrich’s political philosophy. To wit, he has a soft spot for big government when he can use it for his own political ends. He also supported the individual mandate in health care in the 1990s, and we recall when he lobbied us to endorse the prescription drug benefit with only token Medicare reform in 2003.
As late as Thursday night’s debate, Mr. Gingrich was still defending his Freddie ties as a way of “helping people buy houses.” But that is the same excuse Barney Frank used to block reform, and the political pursuit of making housing affordable is what led Freddie to guarantee loans to so many borrowers who couldn’t repay them. Yesterday’s SEC lawsuit against former Fannie and Freddie executives for misleading investors about subprime-mortgage risks only reinforces the point.
In short, Gingrich is a lot like Romney. Neither man recognizes that the source of our problems is government meddling and the distortion that this produces in what would otherwise be a free and relatively efficient market. What they think of as a cure is, in fact, the disease. Fannie and Freddie, with the help of a Federal Reserve Board that kept interest rates artificially low for a very long time, produced the subprime mortgage bubble and the subsequent economic crash. If healthcare is outrageously expensive and health insurance can be hard to get, it is because of the manner in which the federal and state governments structure and regulate the market. What these managerial progressives in their desperation to manage the lives of the rest of us fail to understand is that the intellectual presumption underpinning the aspiration to “rational administration” that they embrace is the principal cause of our woes.
Romney can perhaps be forgiven for his folly. He is not an especially well-educated man. He is the son of a businessman, and he is himself a business-school product. He understands management; he believes in management; and he is ready, willing, and able to manage our lives for us. Like many Republicans of similar background, he has given next to no thought to first principles.
For Gingrich, there is no excuse. He poses as an historian, and he was trained as one. He is a lot more thoughtful than Romney, a lot more imaginative, and a lot better informed. But he also lacks perspective – for he has been inattentive to the American Founders. Or he has read them through the eyes of the Progressive historians of the early part of the twentieth century.
Alexander Hamilton and Teddy Roosevelt do not belong together. The former was an exponent of natural rights and an advocate of limited government; and, despite their differences, he had far more in common with James Madison and Thomas Jefferson than with the Progressives of a later day. In office, Jefferson and Madison embraced much of what they had once found objectionable in Hamilton’s program.
Teddy Roosevelt was in no way a conservative. He was a sharp critic of the American Founding and of the Constitution it produced. He was prepared to jettison natural rights and limited government, and he did so in a dramatic fashion ninety-nine years ago when he ran for the Presidency as the nominee of the Progressive Party on a radical platform advocating the creation of what is now known as the administrative entitlements state.
A few weeks ago, Robert K. Landers reviewed in The Wall Street Journal a book by Scott Farris, entitled Almost President: The Men Who Lost the Race and Changed the Nation. Among the influential losers discussed in the book was Thomas E. Dewey, who ran unsuccessfully against Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1944 and Harry Truman in 1948:
“Dewey, along with his protégés Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon,” Mr. Farris writes, “moved the Republican Party away from an agenda of repealing the New Deal to a grudging acceptance of the permanent welfare state.” Dewey—who had been a nationally renowned prosecutor and then a three-term governor of New York—called himself a “New Deal Republican.” He favored the pursuit of liberal ends by conservative means. “It was fine for the federal government to initiate social reforms, Dewey believed, but those reforms should be implemented at the state or local level, and they should be funded in a fiscally responsible manner that did not increase the national debt.”
Dewey was the heir of Teddy Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover, as was every Republican Presidential nominee since his time – apart from Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are cut from the same cloth. As New Deal Republicans, they are peas in a pod, and they have a lot more in common with Barack Obama than with Alexander Hamilton.
It is a scandal that the Republican Party cannot do better than these two at a time of opportunity like the one in which we live.
Published in General
Paul, I had to go for awhile. Your last statement about Hilary speaking of herself as a Progressive was the 1970s. What happened between then and the 2000s? My memory is that she called herself a liberal during that time. The use of the word progressive by the liberal left wing is new for politicians. That’s all I’ve been saying about this. To have to reach back to 1970 to find Hilary’s use of the term seems to be dodging the issue.
This whole subject is important because I maintain that you are confusing people by using 19th Century and early 20th Century terms for present days disputes and applying them to people who are conservatives as a way of denigrating them. How can a person tell the difference between Newt Gingrich and Hilary Clinton using your terminology?
Here’s question 1: do you think Newt and Hilary are basically the same ideologically?
and 2: Are they maybe not exactly the same but close enough to not care much which one is in power?
Well stated.
You, sir, are reaffirming my man-crush. The founders knew instinctively and reflexively that any powers given to the national government would be stretched to their maximum by those elected. For this very reason they sought to specifically limit and enumerate those powers. It seems to have been all for naught. We give our government a pass on their extra-constitutional indulgences because at some point we bought into the line that our society will cease to function properly if government is confined to its box. I would at least like to make an honest try at having a functional society with government in its box.
Yes it is.
This is when I start wondering in the GOP is ready to go the way of Hamiilton’s party.
“It is a scandal that the Republican Party cannot do better than these two at a time of opportunity like the one in which we live.”
Actually wouldn’t it be an anomaly if they did do better?
He doesn’t support a federal mandate in the video you refer to. He says that he wants to get rid of the differences, which include it being a federal program, explicitly referring to the Tenth Amendment’s placing of healthcare as a state law matter. What he means by keeping the good isn’t clear (it’s my uninformed guess that the interstate insurance purchases he wants might include some kind of an exchange), but before and after that interview he’s committed himself to removing the federal mandate and he does not contradict that there. I’m curious about the context; it’s a very short clip from what looks like a long form interview.
I guess part of my problem is I don’t fully understand what you mean by “Managerial Progressive”. Any framework that government creates even if it is closer to harnessing the power of markets will be managerial. It simply has to be. A case in point would be the Healthy Indiana Plan which lets individuals make market decisions about relatively small ticket health purchase purchases. There are all kinds of rules and requirements, e.g., requiring yearly physicals, mamograms, etc., that an individual may not have chosen to purchase for health maintenance purposes. This is a program that Mitch Daniels has constructed for those who do not qualify for Medicaid but do not have health insurance through an employer. Because individuals may not have chosen to purchase physicals or mamograms yearly, does this qualify Mitch Daniels for being a “Managerial Progressive” if he were to push the plan on a national level?
Also, because Paul Ryan keeps insisting that his reform package is a way of saving Medicare because it is unsustainable and those currently in the system will be unaffected, does he qualify as being just another Republican in the “Managerial Progressive” mold?
Agreed. They’re both trouble. The biggest difference I see between them is, at least Newt’s got game. But, maybe it isn’t worth it.
I’m beginning to think, “Brokered convention? Meh. Tea Party Convention.”
He is quite explicit about liking the incentives, James. He loves the individual mandate, and he likes off-loading those with pre-existing conditions on everyone else.
“It is a scandal that the Republican Party cannot do better than these two at a time of opportunity like the one in which we live.”
Actually wouldn’t it be an anomaly if they did do better? ·Dec 17 at 2:29pm
The times suit just such an anomaly.
Leave aside pushing it on the national level. It might mean that at the state level Governor Daniels is a managerial progressive. I may not know as much about the man as I should.
Paul Ryan is dealing with an inherited institution. It cannot simply be abolished — without betraying those who have paid into the system for up to forty years.
Anyone who wants to expand on these institutions is certainly a managerial progressive (or worse: Obama is a utopian progressive). Genuine conservatives recognize the necessity for prudence. Moving away from the administrative entitlements state must of necessity be gradual.
You do not see Ryan calling for its expansion. Is that what Governor Daniels did in Indiana?
I’m beginning to think, “Brokered convention? Meh. Tea Party Convention.” ·Dec 17 at 2:44pm
Yes, Gingrich may have game; and, in his desire to defeat the other side, he may take positions that merit our approval. His instincts are transformational. He has done wonders in the past, and he might do them again. But his instincts are also those of a progressive, and that is a worry.
He likes mandates, but doesn’t think that they should be federal. If it’s important to you that the President not support state mandates, that would be an problem. If it’s important to you that the President repeal the federal mandate, not so.
I forwarded this summary to all my friends. I think Perry is still the best candidate running.
Great analysis. Unfortunately, I’m now left holding my breath for Rick Santorum to catch fire. He’s the only conviction conservative left.
Paul A. Rahe
It is important to me and to a lot of other people that the President of the United States not be a friend of despotism — whether soft or hard. If the only reason that Mitt Romney thinks the individual mandate in Obamacare is inappropriate is the tenth amendment, he is a friend of despotism — and where he thinks the tenth amendment does not apply, he will be perfectly comfortable with social engineering on the federal level.
But, to be frank, I think that Romney’s citation of the tenth amendment is a con. His every posture is poll-tested. He is, as I have argued before, a political chameleon.
If only he were articulate and well-informed . . .
I agree with every word, Paul. And don’t you think that’s why the Romney v. Gingrich battle is getting so personal and so bitter? Because the differences between them, when you get right down to it, are so small and based mostly on the personal style of each man, and our own wholly-intuitive sense of which one might be slightly more conservative, or slightly more electable. When the differences get this slim, people tend to overcompensate by digging in.
Paul, please for the love of God, give us a definition of “managerial progressive” — you cannot just keep saying it and think it’s enlightening anyone. You know that the term “progressive” has a far left-wing pedigree. This only serves to confuse people — it’s not clever and it’s not accurate and it’s not helping your side in these issues.
What do words even mean when you misuse them and/or don’t define them intelligently?
Progressives simply do not roll back welfare, nor help Republicans get control of the congress. They don’t vote for Reagan nor do they help stump for Reagan nor do they stump for any Republicans.
Anyone who wants to expand on these institutions is certainly a managerial progressive (or worse: Obama is a utopian progressive).
…
Now we have utopian progressive? Completely incoherent.
This is why I think concentrating on controlling Congress is more important now. So long as we have a Republican president who will go along with reforms, I don’t really care who that Republican is.
George, I’m starting to think you may be right, but I get the feeling it’s a little like hoping the Washington Generals will beat the Harlem Globetrotters.
Yes, you are on the mark.
What do words even mean when you misuse them and/or don’t define them intelligently?
Progressives simply do not roll back welfare, nor help Republicans get control of the congress. They don’t vote for Reagan nor do they help stump for Reagan nor do they stump for any Republicans. ·Dec 17 at 3:39pm
Mitt Romney calls himself a progressive (or did so in 2002). So did Teddy Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover. And they hearken back to the Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. What lies at the heart of Progressivism? A rejection of natural rights, a frustration with limited government, and the desire to manage the lives of other people in the name of their good.
Hamilton’s vision of the executive was practically a monarchy. You might even call what he proposed an “elective monarch.” He explicitly called for the antidemocratic measures of a “governor” and senators that would serve for life.
I think Mr. Rahe would avail himself to read up on life of Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Brookhiser’s primer.
This is ridiculous on its face:
Yes, his instincts were transformationalfor a conservative . We needn’t list all of his conservative positions and actions while in power.
To dismiss the only transformational (your word) conservative in the race because of his stance on a GSE is ill-considered at best.
It is bordering on the hysterical to directly correlate that because Newt Gingrich accepted money from a GSE and said words supporting it to the imposition of government thatliterally controls every aspect of your life.
Sorry…
Paul A. Rahe
Anyone who wants to expand on these institutions is certainly a managerial progressive (or worse: Obama is a utopian progressive).
…
No, Larry. Herbert Hoover called himself a progressive; so did FDR. What was the difference? Hoover wanted to use the markets to achieve his ends; FDR thought that he could simply dictate the end and it would be achieved.
The difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama is that Mitt Romney has respect for the bottom line and Barack Obama does not. Romney is pragmatic (as Nixon was); Obama is utopian (as FDR and LBJ were).
More to come….
Larry, if you go back to the period from 1880-1910, you will discover that the American Historical Association, the American Political Science Association, the American Sociological Association, etc. were all founded by self-styled progressives, as were the first business schools.
Management . . . the need for management . . . that was the universal theme. What the two wings of the movement — the managerial progressives who came out of the business schools for the most part, and the utopian progressives — had in common was the conviction that people cannot run their own lives and that they need to be forced or at least nudged to be rational by a Guardian class educated at progressive universities.
Romney and Gingrich are practical men — sensitive to the bottom line. Obama is anything but. That is the difference.