David Brooks writes today that “Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana who I think is most likely to win the G.O.P. presidential nomination in 2012, is the spiritual leader” of the new wave of conservative Republican candidates.
Policy leader, maybe, although I prefer Bobby Jindal. Or electoral leader, although the rising star of Chris Christie seems to be showing conservative candidates the way to go. But spiritual leader? This is the man who called for pro-life voters to put their concerns away and declare a truce—because the economic issues are more important than any social or moral issues.
Spiritual isn’t exactly the word for it. And the reaction to Daniel’s “truce” comment suggests that this isn’t the way to win the G.O.P. presidential nomination.
UPDATE: Peggy Noonan adds: “Whatever stand you take on the social issues, you have to be blind to think they will make a big difference this year.” Now, she’s writing in the context of answering the claim of the White House’s David Axelrod that abortion will “certainly be an issue” for Democrats and will be raised “across the country.” And she’s right that, in people’s minds, the economic issues loom—as they must—very large.
So I think I agree with Peggy. But the Republican candidates would be mad to imagine that they can therefore put away or hide from abortion. The base of the party is energized and angry. A non-pro-life candidate, or a constant drumbeat of claims that abortion doesn’t matter, will only leave them demoralized. Still angry, of course, but no longer determined to use the ballot box to change the course of the country. If your voters don’t show up, how are you going to win?
October 1st, 2010 | 2:36 pm
Replace “the spiritual leader” with “my spiritual leader” since the truce is something Brooks loves to hear.
October 1st, 2010 | 3:01 pm
You are correct Mr. Bottum. After his “sit down and shut up” (I paraphrase) comment to social conservatives, I am an ABD (Anybody But Daniels) voter.
October 1st, 2010 | 3:05 pm
Brooks’ grammatical structure is awkward. I would argue that the object of “spiritual leader” is not the GOP but his so-called “austerity caucus.” He goes on to say: “These are people who can happily spend hours in the budget weeds looking for efficiencies.” Mitch Daniels is certainly the champion of budgetary weed-combing. Look, everyone knows that Daniels’ “truce” comment was a blunder. Even Mitch knows it by now. Focusing on budgets, however, is not a bad position. Chris Christie, discussing only the money side, managed to just cut off all state funding for Planned Parenthood in NJ. If a squish like Brooks wants to call it “austerity,” that’s fine by me.
October 1st, 2010 | 3:10 pm
Contra Noonan: Abortion Debate Driving Election Spending in California.
If abortion really is an non-issue, then both sides of the debate are certainly wasting their resources.
October 1st, 2010 | 3:26 pm
Can somebody explain why Democrat politicians aren’t anywhere near as eager to throw their social issues voters under the bus as Republicans are? Why do Republican leaders constantly try to marginalize such a large bloc of their own voters?
October 1st, 2010 | 3:41 pm
Can anyone point to any prediction from David Brooks that came true? He seems to me the least perceptive of any columnist claiming to be a conservative. That’s probably why the New York Times finds him worthy of a weekly column.
October 1st, 2010 | 4:52 pm
Brooks is a Rockefeller Republican…which means that in a pinch, like Arlen Specter…he’s a Democrat.
The New York Times exists to denigrate and diminish conservative ideas…Brooks is a leader in that effort.
Daniels just went down on my “never” list.
October 1st, 2010 | 5:32 pm
1) David Brooks is an Obama voter, and hardly someone to find spiritual leadership anywhere in the modern GOP.
2) Men like Daniels and Jindal and Christie face what I think are insuperable problems in today’s world. The candidate has to look the part, like it or not. (We’re way past the day when voters went for Cleveland, McKinley or Taft. The last president without hair — Eisenhower — was a war hero. And Jindal, whatever his merits, lacks the tame voter base that helped Obama gain the nomination and then the presidency.)
3) One of the oldest rule of electoral politics is, You can’t beat somebody with nobody. It’s right there beside, It’s hard to win with just your base. Nominating a movement-approved nobody (Daniels, Jindal) will guarantee four more years of Obama, and doom any prospect of a pro-life judiciary for decades to come.
4) The Republicans need a candidate who will excite the center as much as the base. (And the base should worry less about getting thrown under the bus and more about having a seat on a bus that’s actually going to reach its destination.)
October 1st, 2010 | 6:27 pm
Wait, so social issues don’t matter this year, right? GREAT! Then the GOP can finally run a bunch of candidates who fit the economic bill who are ALSO pro-lifers and good on the social issues and get a two-fer, platform-wise! Totally awesome. Oh, wait. That’s not what they mean?
Sigh.
Heads “moderates” win, tails “extremists” lose again.
October 1st, 2010 | 11:32 pm
Old G.: A few months ago it might have been reasonable to think a candidate had to look the part. But now: Do you have any idea of the large and passionate fan base Chris Christie has? How the videos of him fly around the web?
October 2nd, 2010 | 8:28 am
JKW –
I’m a big fan of Christie, and I love those videos.
But YouTube hits are not the same thing as general election votes. And that’s a good thing, if you think about it.
If Christie keeps on as he has, and scores some lasting victories over the legislature and the unions, he might deserve the adulation he’s now getting.
But face it — what he’s doing now is primarily sassing The Problem People. He’s still got to turn all this (very enjoyable) in-your-face criticism into legislation, and then get it passed. And then it’s got to work!
None of this will make a good video, but it could conceivably — as you say — make him President.
(But how much easier that would be if he dropped a hundred pounds …)
October 2nd, 2010 | 8:36 am
I may be over-optimistic here, but I think that in the aftermath of Obama — he of the immaculately-creased pant-leg that sent thrills up David Brooks’s and Chris Matthews’s and millions of other supporters’ legs — maybe, just maybe, merely “looking the part,” as opposed to being substantively qualified to play the part, will matter more the next time around.
October 2nd, 2010 | 8:40 am
PS: I’m glad to see that David Brooks in favor of Democrats doing the sensible thing and calling a truce on the culture wars. Focusing less on gay marriage, abortion, and the bitter, clinging Christianist, neo-fascist Tea-Party mob and more on economic nuts and bolts is both what’s called for in the current crisis and likely to be a far more effective electoral strategy long-term.
October 2nd, 2010 | 9:57 am
@Sean:
I have heard it works like this: the Republicans who raise large amounts of money and the Republicans who give large amounts of money aren’t all that committed to the social-issues leg of the GOP-Reaganite stool (the other two being defense and fiscal issues), so a lot of establishment GOP types misperceive that it’s not a major issue. Money talks. Many GOP voters, however, who may or may not give $50 to a candidate or the nat’l GOP, are deeply committed to the GOP for the sake of life issues and cultural issues.
@all: Didn’t Jody Bottum write in a recent print issue of FT something like that 4% of voters were single-issue prolife voters, while only 2% of voters were single-issue prochoice/abortion voters, and that the math was therefore simple? Net 2% gain for any national candidate who comes out and says s/he’s prolife?
October 2nd, 2010 | 1:57 pm
Again with the monomania.
Can we social conservatives and Christians of the right please stop railing against absences? The least convincing critiques concentrate on “what wasn’t said” rather than the gist of the material at hand. Not every political speech or maneuver is a commentary on every issue, not even the most important issue, which abortion-slaughter indeed is.
The House GOP made a pledge that was not primarily an anti-abortion jeremiad. That is not proof they are soft on abortion. It is proof they are canny. When Mitch Daniels called for a truce on social issues, that doesn’t mean he has sold us down the river to balance the budget. It might mean he has a reasonable understanding of the limits of politics. What could be more conservative than maneuvering within one’s acknowledged limits? Is the polity not limited in its ability to eradicate sin? Is abortion, and our popular acceptance of that evil, not ultimate result of individual acquiescence to sin?
Can we please allow our public servants the latitude to do their very limited job? I look not to princes and men to save me or my country from its many mendacities. I look to them to plow the roads.
We don’t prove our social conservative bona fides by pointing out every time someone doesn’t wave the bloody shirt.
Mitch Daniels is indeed a “spiritual” leader for those of us who understand the exigent need to reestablish political limits after decades of abuse. Maybe he is a raging reprobate who does secret abortions on the weekends. That’s between him and the Lord of Justice. His overspending of taxpayer money? That’s between him and us.
The absurd literalism of the separation of church and state has corrupted us. Yes. The doctrine itself has mutated into positive irreligion. Yes, yes! But empowering politics to save our souls validates the technique of the left and outfits them with new weapons for the next time they gain political control. It is therefore imperative — the absolute number-one goal of politics — to effect restraint, even when achieving happy results is available to our side. The problem isn’t that abortion is legal. The problem is that we have empowered the judiciary to define what is legal above and beyond our protest.
A healthy, Neuhausean public square begins with a respect for the separation of the church and state, one that acknowledges not just clerical encroachment on politics, but more importantly in this imbalanced age, political encroachment on the church. The solution to the imbalance is not to advocate redress by any means, to claw back the public real estate that has been unfairly denied the church. We rebalance by first reestablishing the integrity of the scale. This is not accomplished by asking politicians to do preachers’ work — or for that matter, our work.
Mitch Daniels for president. Chris Christie for president. Rudolph Giuliani for president. Mike Huckabee and GWB might make a sweet speech that changes some citizens’ hearts on abortion, even as the state rots beyond repair, but the trade-off is not worth it. In this world there is most definitely a trade-off. Political capital is not unlimited. Mushy moderates and limp independents are decisive in the grand compromise of electoral leadership. We must concentrate on what we agree on — while working on their indifferent hearts. Alienate them now and we never get to speaking terms.
Let justice be done though the heavens may fall? That is not conservative. That is impatient and faithless. And doomed to failure, albeit a romantic one.
“What are you afraid of, O men of little faith?”
October 3rd, 2010 | 10:43 am
’4) The Republicans need a candidate who will excite the center as much as the base. (And the base should worry less about getting thrown under the bus and more about having a seat on a bus that’s actually going to reach its destination.)’
-The Republicans need someone who won’t throw social conservatives under the bus before it takes off, or off the bus after it gets to its destination. I don’t see too many politicians like that in evidence.
October 3rd, 2010 | 6:35 pm
King: Maybe he is a raging reprobate who does secret abortions on the weekends. That’s between him and the Lord of Justice. His overspending of taxpayer money? That’s between him and us.
So “us” doesn’t include fetuses?
October 4th, 2010 | 1:25 pm
“So “us” doesn’t include fetuses?”
I think most people who are not actively pro-life just Do Not Get This. They think that abortion is some kind of boutique issue we choose because it suits our need for moral indignation and scores us moral or religious brownie points with ourselves.
The idea that it really is about believing that we just don’t want unborn children to get killed without any sort of legal sanction, just because they’re people like we are, doesn’t penetrate. They think the whole “dead babies” thing is just extremist rhetoric to try to get people to agree with us on an emotional level.
There are exceptions, but I’ve seen enough of this kind of thing from “moderate pro-lifers” to believe that this is really what is at work.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact