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
James Of England
Paul A. Rahe
And Romney? There is no substantive difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. One does not have to be a purist to notice and be appalled.
No one who is even half-way conservative could enthusiastically embrace either of these candidates. ·
Also, just for the record, I consider myself more than half-way conservative. I’m willing to accept that this is a subjective judgment, however. ·
Both are, however, tyrannical. ·
Assuming that you do not seriously contend that Masscare might be unconstitutional, does their both being tyrannical mean that, by definition, there is no substantive difference, or do you make the claim as a separate matter?
It certainly appears to me, despite what sources are cited, that Dr. Radosh is saying what he actually says: “So, if we continue to look at and evaluate the Obama record and position today, it is precisely the opposite of what TR intended and believed in.”
I don’t see a disclaimer that the 1912 Bull Moose Party platform unwound everything TR stood for.
Why is he not worth a serious second consideration?
Because he is unable to effectively communicate.
That’s a dealbreaker, and I say that as someone who was an immediate supporter of Perry when he entered the race.
We’ll see if he can learn quick enough to become the not-Romney again, but I doubt it.
In any case Gingrich has shown that he can communicate, and that’s why I’m supporting him in the absence of anyone I consider to be a better candidate.
Sorry Rick. You blew it, at least this time around.
Paul A. Rahe
EThompson
LowcountryJoe
While it was tough to fight them, Mitt did so hugely successfully. Scroll down to “2003”, his first year. Compare, eg., the mid-90s here.
…. 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.
…
Not during the early primaries we aren’t.
Because he is unable to effectively communicate.
In any case Gingrich has shown that he can communicate, and that’s why I’m supporting him in the absence of anyone I consider to be a better candidate.
Well, if your number one qualification for the job is debate prowess, Rick Perry certainly shouldn’t be your guy. I have no doubt that Gingrich could be a great communicator of conservative values in the general election and as President. However, just because he can doesn’t mean he will. You’re obviously more willing to gamble that you’ll get the Newt of your imagined ideal and not the actual Gingrich of the past decade than I am.
You and many others were willing to give Newt another look after nearly two decades of flubs not only of communication but of core principles. Perry makes a few flubs in an supersaturated debate cycle and you’re not willing to grant him the same, even as he’s made clear improvement. Isn’t Perry’s record worthy enough to grant him at least a second serious consideration, even if you still decide to stick with Gingrich?
“A progressive” would always be a big p progressive, a reference to the progressive movement. Progressive as an adjective has a far wider range of meanings. To give an example, the meaning that Romney was applying at the time, progressive views can mean modern, accepting, views on homosexuality and race. You can find a good example of this in this article on LA’s Archbishop Jose Gomez; he is described as a Bishop with conservative and progressive views, which the article suggests means that he’s Catholic (against abortion and women priests), but a latino cheerleader. Obviously, increased immigration was not a Progressive aim. Also, obviously, he is able to hold “progressive views” without being a progressive.
Romney’s meaning wouldn’t be obvious if he spoke today, as Obama, Clinton and others worked hard to resurrect the term.
Did you pull any joints out of the socket on that stretch? What he meant, which is clear to anyone not cheerleading for him, is that he was no different from the liberal left of Massachusettes except for his party label.
Paul A. Rahe
James Of England
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. ·Dec 18 at 1:54pm
A man with progressive views is a progressive — and though the term waxed and waned, the phenomenon has been with us now for more than a hundred years.
Paul A. Rahe
I don’t see a disclaimer that the 1912 Bull Moose Party platform unwound everything TR stood for. ·Dec 18 at 3:32pm
If Ron thinks that Obama is not in sync with the 1912 Bull Moose Platform, it is because he has not read it recently. You and other Ricochet readers should do so. It is linked in my piece.
Paul A. Rahe
James Of England
Paul A. Rahe There is no substantive difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. One does not have to be a purist to notice and be appalled.
Also, just for the record, I consider myself more than half-way conservative. I’m willing to accept that this is a subjective judgment, however. ·
Both are, however, tyrannical. ·
Being tyrannical is far worse than being unconstitutional. Liberty is the aim.
Having just plowed through this massive thread I feel compelled to say to Professor Rahe: thank you for your patience and fortitude. You explained yourself with precision, then re-explained, then clarified, then cited references, then embedded links that incisively affirm your point, and all the while tolerated snarky attacks on, bizarrely, your scholarship and motives. And you have done so with your characteristic grace and economy. Goodness me, I must be getting not only old but old fashioned: no matter how strong the urge to emote, one simply does not address members of the Learned Class in the tone read here (by a tiny minority, I must add). I mean, is a metaphorical doffing of the hat too much to ask?
Oh, and though hardly an afterthought, let me add . . . no one in any forum I’ve yet discovered has done a more useful and clarifying job of framing the essential nature of the choice in front of us. So, again, thank you.
Oh, and though hardly an afterthought, let me add . . . no one in any forum I’ve yet discovered has done a more useful and clarifying job of framing the essential nature of the choice in front of us. So, again, thank you. ·Dec 18 at 6:32pm
I second every word.
For example:
Being tyrannical is far worse than being unconstitutional. Liberty is the aim. ·Dec 18 at 6:24pm
How wonderful is that?!
James Of England
Paul A. Rahe
James Of England
Paul A. Rahe There is no substantive difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. One does not have to be a purist to notice and be appalled.
Both are, however, tyrannical. ·
And, to be clear, tyranny that has quite bad impacts is not substantively different to tyranny that has very bad impacts?
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.
There are two “squishes” running for the GOP nomination. One has earned $250 million; the other has spent that in taxpayer revenues.
And what did Massachusetts spend in Romney’s day?
Whatever the liberal, veto-proof state legislature wanted to spend. (See also: Sacramento). ·
While it was tough to fight them, Mitt did so hugely successfully. Scroll down to “2003”, his first year. Compare, eg., the mid-90s here.
Good point.
A man with progressive views is a progressive — and though the term waxed and waned, the phenomenon has been with us now for more than a hundred years. ·Dec 18 at 6:20pm
“A progressive” would always be a big p progressive, a reference to the progressive movement. Progressive as an adjective has a far wider range of meanings. To give an example, the meaning that Romney was applying at the time, progressive views can mean modern, accepting, views on homosexuality and race. You can find a good example of this in this article on LA’s Archbishop Jose Gomez; he is described as a Bishop with conservative and progressive views, which the article suggests means that he’s Catholic (against abortion and women priests), but a latino cheerleader. Obviously, increased immigration was not a Progressive aim. Also, obviously, he is able to hold “progressive views” without being a progressive.
Romney’s meaning wouldn’t be obvious if he spoke today, as Obama, Clinton and others worked hard to resurrect the term. The only regional party termed “Progressive” at the time Romney spoke, though, was the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, with which Reagan found kinship.
“A progressive” would always be a big p progressive, a reference to the progressive movement. Progressive as an adjective has a far wider range of meanings. To give an example, the meaning that Romney was applying at the time, progressive views can mean modern, accepting, views on homosexuality and race. You can find a good example of this in this article on LA’s Archbishop Jose Gomez; he is described as a Bishop with conservative and progressive views, which the article suggests means that he’s Catholic (against abortion and women priests), but a latino cheerleader. Obviously, increased immigration was not a Progressive aim. Also, obviously, he is able to hold “progressive views” without being a progressive.
Romney’s meaning wouldn’t be obvious if he spoke today, as Obama, Clinton and others worked hard to resurrect the term. The only regional party termed “Progressive” at the time Romney spoke, though, was the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, with which Reagan found kinship.
Very well said, James. This is not rocket science, is it? Your last sentence conforms perfectly with my understanding of recent history and the meaning — as used today — of the word.
The reason I remember this is because I was shocked to see this come out of mainstream Democrats. I just assumed they would think it’s too risky to use this discredited word and remind people of the conspiracy theory that the Progressive Party people wanted to infiltrate the Democratic Party.
Only hard leftists used it before Hilary and Barack started using it again. I’m sure Bill Ayers and his ilk always wanted the word rehabilitated and once it was acceptable to start using it again this would rekindle warm feelings and fond memories of better times. They were using this word as a dog whistle (a term I love) to alert the comrades that they were back in business.
Well, if your number one qualification for the job is debate prowess, Rick Perry certainly shouldn’t be your guy.
I’ll give you points for trying but I’m not buying your argument.
A huge part of the job of president is communicating. Perry has shown that he can’t. Yeah, he’s gotten better- but I’m sure Herman Cain knows all about Libya by now. Too late, for both.
Gingrich, on the other hand, has shown he is quite able to communicate. He’s gone from laughingstock to serious contender because of his debate performances. That’s vastly more presidential than going on the Letterman show and making a fool of yourself, like Perry did.
And unless complete and total failure is a key conservative principle I’m not much willing to believe the GOP has any sort of adherence to those lofty ideals. Quite the opposite, in fact.
So I won’t feel too bad about any deviation from them by Gingrich, especially considering that Romney is the alternative.
I’ll give you points for trying but I’m not buying your argument.
Well, clearly debate prowess is your #1 qualification. Great. You have your guy then. We’ll see how well it works out for you.
Duane Oyen
Paul A. Rahe
I don’t see a disclaimer that the 1912 Bull Moose Party platform unwound everything TR stood for. ·Dec 18 at 3:32pm
I sent it to Ron Radosh.
You should read through the 1912 platform of the Progressive Party, for which TR bore full responsibility.
Party platforms?
I don’t mean to defend Theodore Roosevelt, but if you want to talk about party platforms I believe Hamilton arrived at the Constitutional Convention wishing to establish a system of life-time appointments for senators and also for a life-time appointed president who would have absolute veto power with the various states losing power with their governors being appointed by Congress.
Both Theodore Roosevelt and Alexander Hamilton seem to me to have been highly- intelligent, ego-driven New York colonels who were prolific writers who died young due to their flamboyant personalities.They seem quite similar to me.
Experts with special knowledge on a subject seem to over-magnify various differences that others would not see or understand.