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
In the absence of principled leadership from the President, we will have to settle for this. But it is not apt to work. Congress is responsive to constituent demands, and they always want more (not less).
Thank you for another great piece, Dr. Rahe.
Alas, I fear that Obamacare will be our Guantanamo.
I nominate Professor Rahe for Ricochet pot-stirrer of forever!
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:
Mr. Tee. Rick Brookhiser, whom I knew as an undergraduate, got much of his take on Hamilton from a book entitled Republics Ancient and Modern. I wrote that book. Let me suggest that you read the chapter on Hamilton. You might learn a thing or two.
As for Rick, you are, to say the least, misrepresenting his take on Hamilton’s overall intention.
Michael, it’s all well and good to disagree with people. However, some of the language you’ve used should, in my view of what Ricochet is, be considered unacceptable. It borders on the sort of excessive confidence in the correctness of one’s ideas (as opposed to those of another intelligent, well-intentioned person) that is unbecoming of someone who’d call himself a conservative. Spirited debate is one thing; name-calling and fairly abusive language and tone (“ridiculous”; “hysterical”; “It’s posts like these that make me want to ask for some change back…”) is another.
I agree with your basic point, Professor. And this is why I think Rush has been off the mark lately, interpreting the race as between the establishment Romney and the conservative Gingrich.
On positions they are much the same. Reasons for supporting one over the other have to do with risk/benefit analysis.
I find it very strange that those who on balance come down in favor of Romney (like Nikki Haley) are being reviled as sell-outs.
Larry Koler: 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.
…
Paul, why not use the meaning in the word “gay” from a century ago and see how well people follow your conversation?
Mitt did not mean what Hilary means when she says “progressive.”
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. · Dec 17 at 3:55pm
Ill-considered? Hysterical? Gingrich has a long history of fascination with what the federal government can do for us (and to us).
Should we ignore his embrace of the policy that produced the Great Recession? His embrace of anthropogenic global warming and the need for a public policy to counter it?
I do not deny — I have documented and celebrated — his accomplishments between 1994 and 1999. He is a force of nature. But he has always been unsound and a bit unhinged, and his recent history is disgraceful.
The partisans of Gingrich would appear to be as willfully blind as the partisans of Romney — and that is quite an achievement.
Paul A. Rahe
Larry Koler: 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.
…
Mitt did not mean what Hilary means when she says “progressive.” ·Dec 17 at 4:12pm
Utter nonsense. In 2002, in running for Governor, he used it as the people in Massachusetts use it — and Massachusetts is where Hillary got her education.
Man up, please. This is not child’s play. The defenders of the status quo are closing ranks and it is very chilling to watch. There is every reason to see this as ridiculous and hysterical — with respect to the extents that people are willing to go here. We are conservatives, most of us, and we want the dogmatists and the inflexible intellectuals to take some blame regarding what their safe approach has done to lose battle after battle in this country.
On positions they are much the same. Reasons for supporting one over the other have to do with risk/benefit analysis.
I find it very strange that those who on balance come down in favor of Romney (like Nikki Haley) are being reviled as sell-outs. ·Dec 17 at 4:11pm
I agree entirely, and the trouble with risk/benefit analysis is that it is very hard to know whether one’s judgment is sound. I still lean towards Romney because he is steadier, but . . . Gingrich, as one commenter put it, has got game.
Mitt Romney calls himself a progressive (or did so in 2002). So did Teddy Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover.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.
Mitt did not mean what Hilary means when she says “progressive.”
Not true.Hilary’s use is new (less than 10 years old) and aligns with the leftists new hubris in peddling the term in their chameleon intellectual gymnastics. Some people think progressive is just a term for being for progress — as in anti-Luddite. You have to use the words as defined in the time in which we live now.
Larry, I am quite comfortable in my manhood maintaining that humility is a virtue of a good man. It does not crowd out courage.
The notion that Prof. Rahe is an “inflexible intellectual” and a “defender of the status quo,” if you are implying these things, is hard to accept.
It is worth remembering, in these internecine debates about Romney vs. Gingrich, that virtually none of us are thrilled at having to make this choice. Prof. Rahe himself lamented this in his original post, and he, along with many others here and elsewhere in the conservative world, called for someone else to be our standard-bearer this time around.
Larry, this is too strange. You are writing as if Gingrich is an unimpeachable conservative. As if he never supported climate change legislation and Freddie Mac and ethanol subsidies; as if he never called Ryan’s budget plan “right wing social engineering.”
This is not a case of country club Republicans turning up their noses at a Tea Party candidate they find “too extreme.” This is a case of serious conservatives having serious misgivings about both frontrunners.
Mr. Tee. Rick Brookhiser, whom I knew as an undergraduate, got much of his take on Hamilton from a book entitled Republics Ancient and Modern. I wrote it. Let me suggest that you read the chapter on Hamilton. You might learn a thing or two.
As for Rick, you are, to say the least, misrepresenting his take on Hamilton’s overall intention. ·Dec 17 at 4:08pm
Edited on Dec 17 at 04:10 pm
Oh, my what a silly statement.
Page 66. “The elected governor-for-life, analogous to the British king, was the proper executive of his system…”that such an Executive will be an elective Monarch.”
Perhaps you should have read what you wrote?
I would think that you might not take such a pedantic tone, since you know, you’re wrong…
Paul A. Rahe
Larry Koler: 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.
…
Mitt did not mean what Hilary means when she says “progressive.”
Both Mitt and Newt prefer solutions planned from above; they’re too friendly toward the state and wish to manage within the current frameworks rather than re-working the frame.
I’ll add this. It’s very hard to take Mr. Rahe seriously when he is plain dead wrong about history my son is learning at the age of seven.
But yeah, page-views.
Might as well post a picture of Erin Andrews.
But yeah, page-views.
Might as well post a picture of Erin Andrews. ·Dec 17 at 4:31pm
Wow. You might want to consider using the title Professor or Doctor.
Paul, why not use the meaning in the word “gay” from a century ago and see how well people follow your conversation?
Mitt did not mean what Hilary means when she says “progressive.”
Because Newt is conversant and dealing with real problems does not make him a progressive. It makes him thoughtful — and sometimes wrong. That’s all.
Ideological purity tests get the Libertarian Party nowhere. We conservatives need to learn that lesson. And the Republicans need to stop going down this road.
Expressing frustration over the lack of conservatism displayed by the two front runners is the safe approach? Sticking up for flawed candidates because they can present well enough to make a race interesting is somehow bold? Cue the Rod Serling intro because I think we’ve just entered
This is not a case of country club Republicans turning up their noses at a Tea Party candidate they find “too extreme.” This is a case of serious conservatives having serious misgivings about both frontrunners. ·Dec 17 at 4:29pm
Unimpeachable conservatives are who I am fighting. Impeach Newt if you want, but stop making up things about him. This recasting of Newt as not a conservative will be seen in the future for what it is — a perfectionist tantrum that damages us much more than our true enemies in this country.
I give my guy a lot of rope and don’t just strain at gnats while the progressive camel is going down whole in this country.
Michael Tee, I have to go now — good luck with this. It’s ridiculous and hysterical what’s going on.
LowcountryJoe
Paul, why not use the meaning in the word “gay” from a century ago and see how well people follow your conversation?
Mitt did not mean what Hilary means when she says “progressive.”
Ideological purity tests get the Libertarian Party nowhere. We conservatives need to learn that lesson. And the Republicans need to stop going down this road. ·Dec 17 at 4:38pm
Primaries are supposed to be about getting the most purity, are they not? I want a rightward lurch not a come to the center and then cross the line into the ideology that claims the collective knows what’s best. That’s the road I’d like to see us stop heading down and I want someone to step up and start being consistently pro individual.
Primaries are supposed to be about getting the most purity, are they not?
I think primaries are about finding the best candidate, which for the GOP should be (to use the Buckley rule) the most conservative candidate who can win. If someone favors Romney over Gingrich on that basis, or Gingrich over Romney, that makes sense to me. If someone comes to the conclusion (right or wrong) that Romney has a better shot than Gingrich and yet still thinks that Gingrich should be the nominee because of his allegedly superior “purity,” then I just don’t understand that, as it translates into a vote for four more years of Obama, which (though perhaps I’m wrong on this) should be considered the worst possible outcome.
Perhaps we should look at it this way: even if one of Romney, Gingrich beats Obama, we’ll still be at war with the administrative state. We’ll still be fighting pitched political battles to preserve the Constitution. And yes, indeed, Gingrich ought to know better!
Paul A. Rahe
Larry Koler
Edited on Dec 17 at 04:28 pm
Wrong on the facts.
Hillary identified herself as a Progressive in the 1970s when she helped out with the impeachment of Richard Nixon, and she knew what she was claiming. The term has been around for a long time, and it has been used in a consistent fashion from the beginning. Romney knew what he was identifying himself with in 2002. He was making the same appeal to the pro-abortion crowd and the supporters of affirmative action as in 1994.
Paul A. Rahe
Mr. Tee. Rick Brookhiser, whom I knew as an undergraduate, got much of his take on Hamilton from a book entitled Republics Ancient and Modern. I wrote it. Let me suggest that you read the chapter on Hamilton. You might learn a thing or two.
As for Rick, you are, to say the least, misrepresenting his take on Hamilton’s overall intention. ·Dec 17 at 4:08pm
Edited on Dec 17 at 04:10 pm
Page 66. “The elected governor-for-life, analogous to the British king, was the proper executive of his system…”that such an Executive will be an elective Monarch.”
Perhaps you should have read what you wrote?
I would think that you might not take such a pedantic tone, since you know, you’re wrong… ·Dec 17 at 4:29pm
My, my, Mr. Tee. You take a maneuver that Hamlton engaged in at the Federal Convention in 1787. You take it out of context and treat it as the whole, misrepresenting what Hamilton was up to and Rick Brookhiser’s take on the man. And then you sneer. Not smart, Mr. Tee. Not smart.
Yes, our problem will be that our own leaders are not really on our side. I do not doubt that, in the end, we will have to choose among the candidates now available, and that our choice will have to be based on a guess as to which one is the least likely to betray us and which one is the most electable. My own guess (right now) is that Romney is preferable. But I have little confidence in my judgment in this particular. Gingrich (or even Perry) might be the better choice. I would like to think that, after the election, the conservative base will keep up the pressure.
Mr. Tee. Rick Brookhiser, whom I knew as an undergraduate, got much of his take on Hamilton from a book entitled Republics Ancient and Modern. I wrote that book. Let me suggest that you read the chapter on Hamilton. You might learn a thing or two.
Now that’s impressive.
My own guess (right now) is that Romney is preferable. But I have little confidence in my judgment in this particular. Gingrich (or even Perry) might be the better choice. I would like to think that, after the election, the conservative base will keep up the pressure. ·Dec 17 at 5:21pm
These are my thoughts exactly.
The fact that Ryan seems to prefer Romney is big for me.
But it worries me that great conservative stalwarts like Mark Levin and Rush disagree. On the other hand, that will be a consolation if Newt ends up with the nomination.
Either way, I fear we’re in for a bumpy ride.
…. I would like to think that, after the election, the conservative base will keep up the pressure.
I’d like to think that we will keep up the pressure during the election. People seem to be forgetting that campaign season is when we, the voters, set the terms for the election.
Instead of meekly surrendering to all the foolish independents who pay no attention to politics and just want more government expansion, we should make it clear to the candidates available to us that we, too, must be appeased. The less pressure Republican candidates feel from conservatives, the more likely they are to bend to pressure from supporters of the progressive norm.