There’s probably a bit of wishful thinking in John Dickerson’s The Coming War Within the Republican Party, arguing that a lot of major conservative voices are already assuming Romney will lose the election, as shown by their jumping in to be the first ones to explain why and therefore try to set the story for the future. (He quotes David Brooks, Haley Barbour, and Bill Kristol.) Even if a little ahead of the story, Dickerson is right that advance postmortems performed by people on his side suggest they think Romney is going down.
The debate that will develop among conservatives if Romney loses an election that a few months ago was widely thought to be unlosable will, Dickerson thinks, cover two subjects, one specific and one more general.
The rough contours of this conversation about the party’s future center on whether the party’s tone on immigration and the role of government have gotten out of sync with the electorate. Grassroots activists will argue that Romney was a compromise candidate who could never articulate the anti-government case for freedom and that’s why he’s having a hard time. (That is the argument Rick Santorum made during the primaries.) Others will argue that the Tea Party pushed Romney—as it will every candidate—into ever-more absolutist positions on immigration and the role of government.
The majority of the country believes the government does too much. So there the Republicans should have the winning argument.
But though having the winning argument they seem to be losing the game anyway. It’s like watching someone with a royal flush trade in the queen, the king, and the ace — after putting all his money in the pot. Or like watching a man who ought to present a vision of hope for struggling Americans telling his wealthiest supporters that a lot of them (the strugglers, not, definitely not, the wealthy) are just no good. It’s what Republicans do, lose their advantages, but one wishes Romney hadn’t done it by kicking people when they’re down. Outside the people he was talking to and would-be Randian supermen and a few others, Americans don’t like that.
Here’s another entry of the sort Dickerson was writing about, and a very good one. Writing in the Washington Post, the American Enterprise Institute’s Henry Olsen laments Romney’s drift from the true heart of conservatism. Referring to the examples of Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp, he writes that at the center of modern American conservatism’s achievement
was an obvious respect for the innate dignity of the average American. . . . Reagan addressed what he called “the forgotten American — that simple soul who goes to work, bucks for a raise, takes out insurance, pays for his kids’ schooling, contributes to his church and charity and knows there just ‘ain’t no such thing as free lunch.’ ” In Reagan’s America, it was okay if you wanted to lead a quiet life, so long as you did not prevent others from pursuing their dreams. . . . And in Reagan’s view, ordinary people were capable of greatness. . . .
It wasn’t so long ago that mainstream conservatism represented these values.
Olsen is a vice president of AEI, not only an insider in the conservative world but an insider fairly high up. He implies, though he doesn’t quite say, that Romney does not share these mainstream conservative values. When the candidate
divides the world into makers and takers and presumes that our ability to pay federal income tax is a measure of which group we belong to, he sends a different message. He implicitly tells average Americans that their quiet work doesn’t “make” America unless they are entrepreneurs who make enough money. Worse, he tells them that their lives aren’t even dignified, that they are “takers” who are unable to exercise personal responsibility over their lives.
It is hard to disagree. And it is hard not to think that whatever Romney says, his comments on the makers and takers reflect his real beliefs about the world, and the beliefs by which he will govern, if elected. A conservative may say, as Olsen does, that he has no choice but to vote for Romney. But not because the candidate offers a humane, hopeful, and realistic — a genuinely and winsomely conservative — vision for American life.
September 20th, 2012 | 8:13 pm
Four years ago, the conservative movement opposed McCain so ferociously that they treated Romney as some sort of knight in shining armor. A number of those who are now pulling out the dagger were sighing loudly that conservative A listers tend to go into business, and we should favor those who have “real” experience running something over those with none. (This pejorative was directed towards McCain.) Oretty strong talk on talk radio and elsewhere insisted that it would be better to vote for Obama than for McCain.
Well, these guys finally got what they wanted, and now that their man can’t barely break even with Obama, they’re drawing out the daggers. Romney has to be bewildered, since he’s only been caught saying in private the same things they say in public. I almost feel sorry for him.
What was it Mencken said? Democracy is when the voters get to choose what they want — and get it good and hard. Conservatives have enjoyed quoting that the past four years, apparently ignorant that it applies to them no less than the general population.
September 20th, 2012 | 9:15 pm
When did Romney tell people who are down that they are “no good”? If the number of Americans on means tested public assistance is four times the unemployment rate, might that indicate that something has changed in the American character, and not for the better? Instead of focusing on the fact that Romney said this to a bunch of millionaires, maybe we should focus on the content of his remarks. This might actually be an opportunity for a genuine debate over the role of government vs. personal responsibility, but it will only happen if we can move past the idea that because some people’s feelings were hurt Romney’s comments were misguided.
September 21st, 2012 | 12:05 am
Jack Perry: You may be right, but no one I know said what you claim conservatives were saying about Romney. In any case, your focus on the reactions of conservatives four years ago tends to be more evidence for Dickerson and Olsen’s point. The focus is on the internal conservative debate and not on the Republican candidate.
Publius: “were no good” is a reasonable paraphrase of his remarks. The old “This is the chance for a good discussion” line is the one people offer to divert attention from the problems someone else is pointing out. True enough, of course, but still, not to the point.
September 21st, 2012 | 2:38 pm
If the number of Americans on means tested public assistance is four times the unemployment rate, might that indicate that something has changed in the American character, and not for the better?
publius,
Before jumping to any conclusions about the American character, it would be wise to see what constitutes “means tested public assistance” and then to see who receives it, and why. Ezra Klein has some great information on the topic.
His point number 3 is as follows:
Whatever one may think of Social Security and Medicare, which account for more than half of the people receiving “public assistance,” I don’t think you can say they “foster a culture of dependency” (as the familiar conservative phrase puts it). Many people may receive more from these programs than they put into them, but when it comes to questions of “the American character,” people certainly do not think of Medicare—and particularly Social Security—as a government handout. Social Security is something they have paid into all of their lives, and they feel they have earned it.
Another point that Klein makes about EITC recipients I would make more generally and say that it is not that a fixed group of people receive government benefits throughout their lives. For example, of the 12.7% of households that receive food stamps, many will move off of food stamps as their economic situation improves, and others will move on to food stamps. It is not as if the 12.7% of households who received food stamps last year were the same the year before or will be the same next year. In order to claim that people are dependent on the government, it seems to me their use of government benefits must be “chronic.” You are not part of a “culture of dependency” if you make use of food stamps during a time of need (such as unemployment) and stop using them when your finances improve.
September 21st, 2012 | 9:17 pm
David,
Social security recipients and Medicare beneficiaries may “think” they have earned their benefits, but that is of course a myth. They are being paid off the earnings of today’s workers, not from any money they put into the system. It’s a shell game, a ponzi scheme, as those willing to take the time to examine these programs realize. The number of workers needed to support one retiree continues expand to the point where shortly none of this will be sustainable. But yet God forbid if someone, Paul Ryan for instance, proposes changes that would help sustain these programs into the future. They are “heartless” and “uncaring,” and get booed at the AARP convention, as happened to Ryan today.
Even if one rejects the dependency argument, Klein and his cohorts never seem to be able to explain how a $16 trillion national debt, fueled primarily by “entitlements” and growing by the hour, will be tamed. Obama will likely win this November, because he has a “heart” and he cares about the little man . . . Unfortunately, pandering rhetoric, while making us feel good, doesn’t pay the bills. Nor will taxing “millionaires” — the day of reckoning will be with us soon, and we will see if Klein can wax poetic as the United States defaults.
September 23rd, 2012 | 6:50 pm
Very good post, Mr. Mills. If conservatism becomes conserving the wealth of the rich, it cannot be taken seriously. Mr. Romney is becomingthe rich Wall Street man. Reagan, Kemp, Eisenhower, Harding were not this.
September 24th, 2012 | 4:17 am
Publius wrote, “They are being paid off the earnings of today’s workers, not from any money they put into the system.”
How does that differ from the holders of British 3 1/2% War Loan, issued during WWI or 2 1/2 Consols, issued in 1923?
September 24th, 2012 | 11:10 am
It’s a shell game, a ponzi scheme, as those willing to take the time to examine these programs realize.
Publius,
This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful. There is a lengthy response to the accusation on the Social Security web site. Social Security is neither a shell game nor a Ponzi scheme. That kind of talk seems very much like an expression of contempt for Social Security. It is no wonder that some fear the Republicans want to destroy Social Security rather than fix it.
Even if one rejects the dependency argument . . .
It has been made crystal clear from any number of conservative Republican commentators and economists that “the dependency argument” is bogus, and also that Romney was trashing many of his own potential voters, as well as Republican programs in the past to lessen the tax burden on the poor and children with families. Even Romney, while allegedly doubling down, has been contradicting the idea of the 47% right and left. (He said, for example, he thinks that people really want to pay taxes, because they want to make enough money to to move out of the group that has too little income to owe federal taxes.)
What is really disappointing is that the choice of Paul Ryan was supposed to elevate this debate about “big government,” taxation, deficits, and so on, but clearly it hasn’t.
Nor will taxing “millionaires” — the day of reckoning will be with us soon, and we will see if Klein can wax poetic as the United States defaults.
I am not quite sure why millionaires is in quotes. Are they imaginary?
The United States is not going to default. You seem to have a lot less faith in our government than, say, China, who is willing to hold huge amounts of US debt and get paid very little in interest for it. If the United States were anywhere near to defaulting, we would not have other countries so eager to hold our debt at such low interest rates.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact