Monthly Archive for January, 2012

Newtenstein 2012, the Origin Story

You must admit some relish in watching conservative elites teeter around like defective bumper cars trying to figure out how it possibly came to be that their party is seriously considering elevating Newton Leroy Gingrich to a national presidential candidacy. It’s worth taking a little tour of the disbelief and panic setting in:

Jay Cost of the Weekly Standard provides the main case:

The problem with Gingrich, of course, is that he comes with a cargo ship full of baggage – ideological, financial, and personal. Gingrich has made a career since leaving the House as a well-connected insider; he has bona fide ethical scandals on his resume. His personal life is a total mess, and he has turned off the broad middle of the country for the last 15 years.

The “of course” is priceless.

David Frum, though not really in the good graces of the conservative elite these days, certainly shares their disdain for Newt:

Gingrich remains one of the very most disliked figures in national politics…. Over a political career of nearly 40 years, Gingrich has convinced almost everybody who has ever worked closely with him that he cannot and should not be trusted with executive power. […]

He is a candidate of talk-show hosts and local activists—and of course of Rick Perry and Sarah Palin—but not of those who know him best and have worked with him most closely. Gingrich may raise more money after his South Carolina win. But prediction: Romney will raise even more, among the great national network of Republicans who recognize that to nominate Gingrich is to commit party suicide.

Ross Douthat strikes against the core of the Gingrich pseudo-appeal: his supposed mastery of all those “big ideas”:

I have, for my sins, watched Gingrich make his pitch across what feels like seventeen thousand Republican primary debates, and I am at a loss to identify the “big ideas” and “big solutions” that he is supposedly campaigning on. […] Instead, so far as I can tell, his “idea-oriented” campaign consists almost entirely of promising to hold Lincoln-Douglas-style debates with President Obama, grandstanding about media bias and moderator stupidity, defending his history of ideological flexibility much more smoothly than Mitt Romney, and then occasionally throwing out a wonky-sounding notion (like, say, outsourcing E-Verify to American Express) that’s more glib than genuinely significant.

So how did this come to pass?

I say, Republican Establishment, quit your whining. You might not have pulled the final switch to bring the Gingrich monster to life, but you outfitted the laboratory and set all the wiring. Jon Chait explains perfectly:

The Republican Establishment, having spent three years stoking its voters into a fit of wild rage against President Obama, now finds itself in a panic over the possibility that those voters might be wild and enraged enough to go ahead and select Newt Gingrich as their nominee. There really is a lot of humor in the situation. The proposition Gingrich is offering GOP voters is just the natural extension of what they have come to believe. Obama is an ultra-radical, as well as a lightweight, who can’t speak without a TelePrompTer, so simply forcing him into a series of lengthy debates will expose his incompetence and extremism.

Exactly right. Republican party, you birthed Newtenstein 2012. Anyone who ever said the word “death panels”; anyone who ever tried to convince themselves that Sarah Palin was a worthy national political figure; anyone who ever wondered or gave cover to those who wondered where the President was born, or if he hates white people, or if he was a socialist, a Marxist, a radical anti-American, a danger, an illegitimate usurper. All the thought leaders who praised “the passion and intensity” of the base, and pandered to the low denominators of human decency in order to drum up votes. Well done, the Republican electorate believed everything you said.

Here is Newt, your frontrunner, feeding off and reflecting back your fears and resentments like Freddy Kruger:

What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together his actions? That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior. This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president.

Foreign, alien, illegitimate, duplicitous, at once incompetent and mastermind of a grand national con. It’s all in there. Newt is the full-spectrum Republican.

Those establishment elites, the politicians and op-ed and magazine writers, are now waking up to the nightmare they’ve helped create. They are now engaged in a rather pathetic display of pining for what might have been, including a surprising amount of anger and contempt directed at those potential candidates who decided not to run this year.

Brett Stephens, in an otherwise very amusing column in the WSJ:

Finally, there are the men not in the field: Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour. This was the GOP A-Team, the guys who should have showed up to the first debate but didn’t because running for president is hard and the spouses were reluctant. Nothing commends them for it. If this election is as important as they all say it is, they had a duty to step up.

Douthat:

[T]he decisions by various capable Republicans to forgo a presidential run this year have been a collective disgrace; …Republican primary voters deserve a better choice than the one being presented to them.

And as of this week, Bill Kristol is still trying to get Mitch Daniels to run.

Why did these bright credible Republican leaders all take a pass? Are they really disgraceful cowards who abdicated their duty to lead?

I don’t think so. I think the reason is related to the first point. It’s because none of these reasonable people wanted to expose themselves to this Republican primary electorate. You cannot spend three years stoking popular demand for a Newtenstein, then wonder how someone like Mitch Daniels comes to think that maybe this isn’t his year.

It’s a calculation made not out of fear but pragmatism. We’ve known for three years that this is not the age of Republican Reasonableness. If you were one of these talented politicians contemplating a run, would you want to compete to out-bombast and out-demogogue Newt Gingrich? Would you want to try and win South Carolina by stoking racial stereotypes about food stamps and calling the media dispicable? Would you want to debate tax policy with Herman Cain? Pander to Ron Paul’s insane idea about reviving the gold standard? Insinuate that the president is illegitimate and wants to undermine American values?

No, you probably wouldn’t. That’s why, if you ran, you’d likely have no clearer path to the nomination than Romney does, or Jon Huntsman for that matter. And why at some point in your principled rock star campaign you’d probably be labeled a heretic and a moderate for this or that mistaken bout of sanity.

You would try to play the Obama-hater, as Romney does, but your forced attempts at vitriol will be deeply unconvincing, as Romney’s is. You’ll never match Newt’s natural ease with bilious sneering contempt, or his brilliance at combining maximum condescension with maximum populist emotionalism. You’d have placed in Iowa. You’d have lost South Carolina by 12 points too. If you made it this far, you’d now be tied in Florida, wondering how it came to be that Newt Gingrich was on the verge of destroying your party. Party leaders would be contemplating new saviors.

I believe Mitt Romney will still be the nominee. But this spell of trouble has exposed how very weak he is as a general election candidate. It is not a good sign of party enthusiasm if after only three primary contests, the main feeling is one of misplaced regret and nostalgia for the candidates who didn’t run. It’s also exposed the dark depths of Republican dysfunction. I fear a Romney defeat in November will convince the party base not that it needs more moderation, more erudition, more rationality, but that it needs a stronger, better, faster, Newtenstein to set things pure and right. Sadly, we might be a few more cycles away from a credible conservative opposition.

Mitt Romney’s Terrible General Election Preview

Unlike David Frum, I was very disappointed in Mitt Romney’s victory speech in New Hampshire last night (transcript here). If Romney was awakened from a cryogenic freeze, and was asked to give a speech without being told anything about the national circumstances or about the president other than that he was a Democrat, this is the sort of speech he’d deliver.

Our campaign is about more than replacing a President; it is about saving the soul of America. This election is a choice between two very different destinies.

President Obama wants to “fundamentally transform” America. We want to restore America to the founding principles that made this country great.

He wants to turn America into a European-style entitlement society. We want to ensure that we remain a free and prosperous land of opportunity.

This President takes his inspiration from the capitals of Europe; we look to the cities and small towns of America. [..]

I want you to remember when our White House reflected the best of who we are, not the worst of what Europe has become.

That America is still out there. We still believe in that America.

And cue the weak-on-defense music:

Internationally, President Obama has adopted an appeasement strategy. He believes America’s role as leader in the world is a thing of the past. I believe a strong America must – and will – lead the future.

He doesn’t see the need for overwhelming American military superiority. I will insist on a military so powerful no one would think of challenging it.

He chastises friends like Israel; I’ll stand with our friends.

He apologizes for America; I will never apologize for the greatest nation in the history of the Earth.

Doesn’t this just seem so tedious and anachronistic? Europe, appeasement, defense, Europe, thank you goodnight. They’re just rote themes that could be trotted out against any Democrat at any time in history. Much like Republican economic prescriptions remain exactly the same for all time, regardless of the circumstance. Boom time? Regressive tax cuts! Historic recession? Regressive tax cuts!

I found Romney’s unusually large focus on Euro-bashing—following a primary victory which makes him the presumptive nominee—to be in bad taste, and poor politics. The only explanation is that he was aiming his message at South Carolina primary voters, after which he’ll switch to general election mode for good. But that speech sure seemed general election-like, with its broad themes, vacuous platitudes about American awesomeness, and attempts at stark contrasts with the president, without even hinting that any of his primary opponents exist. We have to wonder, is this Romney’s general election message? Can this be all he’s got?  

His foreign policy critique is a rehash of fabricated talk radio tropes—Obama apologizes for America, appeases our enemies—that just doesn’t square with the president’s record, or the high marks he gets from the public in this area. He’s of course banking on his economic critique of the president, which may or may not be compelling depending on how things go over the next ten months. But if the recovery continues apace, and more importantly, it is perceived as improving come November, Romney will be left with nothing but a very contrived and unconvincing cultural critique. Maybe we’ll hear about arugula again.

The president’s favorability rating has been hovering over 50% for most of his term. (George W. Bush left office in the low 30s.) In the worst economy of our lives, and amid the most rancorous partisan political environment anyone can remember, people still like this president. (It’s Congress they absolutely loathe.) They also know him. Trying to redefine him as an effete Europhile who wants to transform the country into a socialist dystopia will not work. Plus, Mitt Romney is not exactly the ideal messenger for this sort of cultural attack. He and the president come from the same educational milieu and probably share the same broadly cosmopolitan cultural values (which I believe they both obscure in interesting ways). George W. Bush could bury his patrician past with his drawl and his down-home mannerisms. But Mitt doesn’t seem to realize that he will be the John Kerry in this race.

Romney needs to claw away 97 electoral votes from Obama’s 2008 total. If he tries to get there using the tepid, tired playbook of Euro-bashing and American jingoism, well he better hope the employment market improves by 2013, and that Bain is hiring. 

Genetic Lottery Winners and Globalization

image

I really enjoyed this ESPN Magazine piece (via The Browser) on India’s 15 year old, 7-foot tall basketball phenom Satnam Bhamara. His father, a farmer, is also a seven-footer, and his grandmother is 6’9”. The piece tracks his journey from his small farm village in Punjab to the elite IMG sports and education facility in Bradenton, Fla. The kid is doing well and looks to have a genuine shot at being the first Indian ever to play in the NBA.

The article is titled "One in a billion," and the theme running through it is that Satnam has the opportunity to do for basketball in India what Yao Ming did for it in China. He’s very aware of the cultural and national prestige that would accrue to his homeland if he were to succeed. And of course, if he does make it to the NBA, it won’t just be India’s collective ego that benefits, but basketball fans everywhere who will be exposed to his talent.

Reading it, I was thinking about the similar gains to be had from the ongoing rise in living standards in the developing world, and the replication many times over of Satnam’s general journey off of the farm. The analogy is not great, since Satnam’s road to success involved mostly having had the good fortune of a 6’9” grandmother.

But the hope is with increased economic development and the deliverance of hundreds of milllions of people from lives of subsistence labor and grinding poverty, that other one-in-a-billions will emerge. Rather than being athletic phenoms, maybe they will be science researchers, genius  inventors, or innovators in health care or energy or education. That the "rise" of underdeveloped parts of the world represents not just the greatest poverty-alleviation scheme in human history, but a massive potential boon to human welfare the world over.

There’s also a high-skilled immigration story here. Satnam was plucked from obscurity because the NBA happens currently to be making a huge marketing push into India. But Satnam didn’t have dreams of playing in Europe or in South America: he’s in Florida, and he’ll likely play basketball at an American university, and if things go very well he’ll become an American millionaire and make his home here. Would that we made it just as easy for other high-skilled foreigners—not only the one-in-a-billions—to come develop their talents and do their work here, pay their taxes here, raise a family here.

Liberalizing immigration laws is the closest thing we have to an economic free lunch. In my view our continuing unwillingness to do this represents our single most short-sighted national policy. That’s quite a distinction, in a strong field.