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
LowcountryJoe There’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 trillion reasons why I’m no so optimistic of things working out with really squishy, flip-flopping contenders vying for the job of being liked rather than saying and threatening to do what is necessary even if it is unpopular with the voters who so desperately need to hear it.
Superman isn’t even acceptable in the GOP primaries. Some prefer the Green Lantern while others Batman. Too many issues made from kryptonite in Gotham City to kiss someone’s powerful ring.
But…but, if both barrels blasting causes some new liberty-oriented rhetoric and denunciation of previously espoused stupidness, I am all for blasting away…and keeping the guns pointed just in case of relapse.
You’ve Lost.
The winning numbers are: 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, & 42
The winning numbers are: 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, & 42 ·Dec 18 at 9:04am
Which is why I don’t play the lottery. Having the last name of Patrick does not carry with it the luck of the Irish.
I have never bought a lottery ticket either.
What I’ve read is that a few hundred million dollars of transformer-hardening (I don’t know what the really means exactly) would prevent the backbone of our power system being destroyed in a Carrington-like event. We could recover in such a circumstance. I suspect that the reason EMP is ignored so broadly is precisely because its resolution does not require a massive invasion of the government into the few freeish remnants of our once free society. It could even be considered constitutional (upgrading national power grids sounds related to interstate commerce to me, unlike banning farmers from growing grain to feed their own livestock.)
But I don’t want to live in fear of EMP. If you can provide some links to resources that show either that EMP isn’t a problem, or that its resolution is onerous beyond AGW’s, then by all mean do so. In the mean time, I’d suggest buying food and ammo. ·
It’s my sense that a lot of good can be done at a state level, and is probably best done there for all but the smallest states. The Constitution may permit federal action, but why prefer it?
“King of Prawn: 4-16-28-8-9. · Dec 18 at 8:43am You’ve Lost. The winning numbers are: 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, & 42” I’m buying two tickets today with those numbers. Just to be on the safe side. And if I win, I’m going to be very very generous with both of you. You’ll both receive lifetime Ricochet memberships.
From K T Cat: Rob Long: From katievs: “Since there are good solid reasons for doubting that Newt is the right man for the job we’re facing, it is strange to the point of being almost comical to find him being defended so vehemently–as if anyone who opposes him is part of the establishment selling out true patriots.” My thoughts excacty. But I’d like to thank everyone who contributed to this post — especially Professor Rahe, whose students are lucky to have him in the classroom — for clarifying the choice. Neither guy is The Guy. Wish it weren’t so, but it is. Rob, I disagree. We have only extrapolations of existing data to know how either would react to the presidency. We do know that Mitt has managed difficult corporate turnarounds and we do know that Newt balanced the Federal budget. For all their character flaws (luckily none of us have them), they’ve accomplished impressive things of direct import to the job of president. I strongly support Newt because I think he’s most likely to give us the biggest changes in DC. From Rob: Nicely put. I’m still on the fence, but this is a very realistic scenario.
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 4:11
Fair point. I find it very strange that those who, on balance, have been considering Newt are reviled as knuckledragging morons on this site. (Listen to the most recent “Young Guns” podcast).
It’s my sense that a lot of good can be done at a state level, and is probably best done there for all but the smallest states. The Constitution may permit federal action, but why prefer it?
James,
You are – as always- spot on, but I’m beginning to believe that the powers of class warfare (here, there, and everywhere) are more powerful than not.
………..Here is the irony: Levin and Limbaugh backed Romney in 2008. I agree with you about Ryan. Since he has been in the public eye, he has not put a foot wrong. Also, too many of Gingrich’s former colleagues really loath the man. Some of this is no doubt sour grapes, but some of those who dislike and distrust him are people worthy of our admiration. It gives one pause. ·Dec 17 at 6:09pm
No, Ryan backed away from his Medicare plan and joined forces with a Democrat (Wyden). Ben Domenech threw a fit.
Sorry- Paul Ryan is now impure liberal too, not committed to Real Reform. I suspect he’s also a Managerial Progressive, because he is looking for gradual fixes that are politically feasible instead of blowing the house down.
…. This is a class thing, really. George Will is more in the class of Barack Obama — he would more likely have him over for dinner than he would Newt Gingrich, for example. It is this class that is selling us out. And Prof. Rahe is playing into their hands, unwittingly, by confusing people on what the issues are. He is doing the work for ruling class.
The people most likely to be uncritical of any post on Ricochet or column by one of its contributors are also the least likely to have read them.
I thought we were supposed to be worried about scaring off “middle” voters. We are arguing about whether Romney or any other current candidate is conservative enough. If swing voters are displeased by candidates being too conservative, then what’s the problem? The more we claim so-and-so doesn’t adequately represent us far-right wackos, the more swing voters will like him, right?
Paul A. Rahe
………..Here is the irony: Levin and Limbaugh backed Romney in 2008. I agree with you about Ryan. Since he has been in the public eye, he has not put a foot wrong. Also, too many of Gingrich’s former colleagues really loath the man…but some of those who dislike and distrust him are people worthy of our admiration. It gives one pause.
Sorry- Paul Ryan is now impure liberal too, not committed to Real Reform. I suspect he’s also a Managerial Progressive, because he is looking for gradual fixes that are politically feasible instead of blowing the house down.
They all are! So why get caught up in the politician worship and political horse-backing when you’re bound to be let down by clowns who will bend to the will of voter wants — wants that include the sincere wish to prevent individual adults from enjoying a free(er) life? Let’s just accept the evil of two lessers and try to influence things for the best while sticking to principles.
………..Here is the irony: Levin and Limbaugh backed Romney in 2008. I agree with you about Ryan. Since he has been in the public eye, he has not put a foot wrong. Also, too many of Gingrich’s former colleagues really loath the man. Some of this is no doubt sour grapes, but some of those who dislike and distrust him are people worthy of our admiration. It gives one pause. · Dec 17 at 6:09pm
Sorry- Paul Ryan is now impure liberal too, not committed to Real Reform. I suspect he’s also a Managerial Progressive, because he is looking for gradual fixes that are politically feasible instead of blowing the house down. · Dec 17 at 9:29pm
By the way; nice straw man. Did you erect that yourself?
Paul A. Rahe
Larry Koler
The word “gay” has also been in continuous use since that time. But, we all know that its meaning has changed. So, too, the word “progressive” has changed and morphed now into being identified with anti-American hard leftists. TR would simply not be a progressive nowadays. Alger Hiss would, Henry Wallace would, Barack Obama is.
You are simply misusing it here and elsewhere to sow dissension. You are using it as a form of litmus test for purity — plain and simple ·Dec 18 at 7:05am
It did not fall out of use, and Romney did call himself a progressive in 2002.
Here is where Mitt Romney in 2002 says, “My views are progressive.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMcjJEXt9ToFolks in Taxachusetts know what that means, and Romney lived up to his promise when he gave them Romneycare.
And the only defense of it is either he flip flopped or lied. Neither excuse is satisfactory.
“I’m not a partisan Republican.”
Bipartisanship is politispeech for surrending to Democrats and growing government.
He also called himself “moderate.” Is that better than progressive? I took them for synonyms.
Let the “purity test” accusations fly!
Paul, I think you need to sit down, lean over and breath into a paper bag for a while. It’s going to be OK. Mitt knows how to handle a balance sheet and Newt’s balanced the Federal budget for crying out loud. Either one will be fine. For me, Newt is clearly the better choice but it’s going to work out.
There’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 trillion reasons why I’m no so optimistic of things working out with really squishy, flip-flopping contenders vying for the job of being liked rather than saying and threatening to do what is necessary even if it is unpopular with the voters who so desperately need to hear it.
Bipartisanship is politispeech for surrending to Democrats and growing government.
He also called himself “moderate.” Is that better than progressive? I took them for synonyms.
Let the “purity test” accusations fly! ·Dec 18 at 10:23am
“Moderate” in this context means, “I am a managerial, not a utopian progressive. But I am most definitely a progressive.”
There are two “squishes” running for the GOP nomination. One has earned $250 million; the other has spent that in taxpayer revenues.
Joseph Eagar
Edited on Dec 17 at 06:18 pm
Let her run and then you will brand her a left-wing progressive? Is that how it works? After all, she actually has a track record. Better look into it and see if she has a single issue that might brand her a closet left-winger.
Gingrich forced Clinton to balance the US budget. However critical we may be of these men, we should not think them irresponsible in this particular.
How does a left-wing progressive force another left winger to do anything? It seems since they are on the same team that force should not be necessary.
“Anyone who thinks that sentient beings require an ulterior motive to be wary of a Newt nomination should have an herbal tea and lie down in a darkened room for half an hour.” ·Dec 17 at 8:57pm
So ad hominem statements are considered deep thinking now? Boy, I’m glad you took the time to show us this. It’s really deep. Just a half hour and we’ll all come out of our dementia? Deep Deep stuff.
Bob Dole came out in favor of Mitt today. Well, duhhhh. Mitt is the pre-Gingrich Republican party.
So, at the prodding of yourself and Dr. Rahe I have spent the non-church portion of my morning going over the 2008 report of the EMP commission.
Take a look – the practical upshot is that any electrical appliance not protected by a faraday cage and exposed to the EMP effects will behave as if it were struck by lightening. This doesn’t mean that it will automatically fail, but it may experience failure modes ranging from nuisance malfunctionsto complete failure limited only by the maximum output of the event.
The closest thing I found analogous to the EMP threat was the Y2K bug – the prevention of which cost about $300B worldwide according to the BBC. EMP hardening will cost much more.
Remember, when you talk infrastructure failure, don’t forget what that failure also does to workers – EMP doesn’t only take out the power grid, but extends to individuals too via their cars and homes.
Well, he may be the best we’ve got at this point. He obviously hasn’t been planning for the Presidency for much of his life the way others clearly have, but in the party’s hour of need he was the only called-on candidate willing to stand up and take the heat.
In spite of his relative inarticulateness, he seems to understand the moment and is willing to espouse bold ideas. Moreover, I think we could count on him to remain firm in his principles.
His his knowledge of federal affairs may not be the deepest, but he has clear, relevant executive experience as governor of Texas. I think we tend to overlook this reality when comparing his polish with the other candidates. Romney and Gingrich, Santorum, et al have been running for the presidency for the past 4+ years, Perry has been actively governing. He also has a solid record during that governorship.
Continued
Plus, if there’s a candidate most likely to defer to Congress on domestic issues, it’s Perry. That might not be a bad thing. (Does anyone really think that Romney or Gingrich would cede the agenda to a Tea Party Congress, as many here have prayed for?). On foreign policy, Perry’s certainly not an expert, but he’s also clearly not in Herman Cain territory. He’s done homework on the issues. Plus, given his military and governing experience, he is, in my view, the most prepared to serve as Commander in Chief.
At this point, I’d rather live with a candidate who will frustrate me with his communication skills than one who will frustrate me with his willingness (and perhaps eagerness) to toss aside conservative principles once he perceives it convenient to do so. Given the poor choices and the current trajectory, I don’t see how so many of us can afford to be so dismissive of Perry. And for what it’s worth, Perry has regularly been underestimated in politics and has regularly overachieved.He might not turn out that bad.
Why is he not worth a serious second consideration?
Take a look – the practical upshot is that any electrical appliance not protected by a faraday cage and exposed to the EMP effects will behave as if it were struck by lightening. This doesn’t mean that it will automatically fail, but it may experience failure modes ranging from nuisance malfunctionsto complete failure limited only by the maximum output of the event.
The closest thing I found analogous to the EMP threat was the Y2K bug – the prevention of which cost about $300B worldwide according to the BBC. EMP hardening will cost much more.
Remember, when you talk infrastructure failure, don’t forget what that failure also does to workers – EMP doesn’t only take out the power grid, but extends to individuals too via their cars and homes. ·Dec 18 at 12:17pm
Could I suggest that you do a proper post on this? We all need to be better informed. The practical consequence of such an attack would be a massive loss of life by starvation, etc.
James Of England
But it fell out of use. It returned more recently. Nonetheless, if Romney had called himself “a progressive”, you’d be spot on. Much like if someone called himself “a gay” when that meaning was not in common use. Using the term as an adjective, however, is not the same. Jonah Goldberg wrote a lot about this circa 2006-2008. ·
Just to be clear, I make the distinction between “progressive”, an adjective, and “a progressive”, a noun, claiming that Mitt used the former. You respond that he used the latter term, and you back it up by quoting him using the former term? Am I missing something?
The Progressive movement you refer to dominates what is called the “Progressive era” of American history. It is an era that ended, although one can dispute when the end came. Carter and Clinton were Liberals, not Progressives. The Clintonian discrediting of Liberalism repopularised the term, so Obama and Hilary, unlike Clinton, called themselves Progressives.
EThompson
LowcountryJoe
Whatever the liberal, veto-proof state legislature wanted to spend. (See also: Sacramento).