…is pretty darn weak. And there’s no way in heck he could be elected.
Nonetheless, we read in VOEGELI’s great book that he and Bill Clinton were on the cusp of entitlement reform we could have believed in when the Monica scandal broke.
So there would be something to be said for a NEWT and BILL national unity ticket–two “morally challenged” guys with big brains could finish the job of hammering out the reform we’re stuck with needing due to our demographic crisis, the seemingly uncontrollable costs of health care, and all that. Ryan could work with them, but they could add strong doses of realism to to his unmarketable (not to mention unbrandable) plan. (Does it creep anyone else out that Ryan recommends his staff read Rand?)
Let me remind you of my view that the implosion of our safety nets is hardly an unambiguously good thing or some kind of “new birth of freedom” that returns us to the vision of the Founders. It’s something to be managed astutely with a variety of conflicting goals in mind.
Newt by himself would be too much, but checked by Bill (ambition counteracting ambition) he might be put to work for us.
Ain’t gonna happen, it goes without saying.
May 12th, 2011 | 6:42 pm
Yeah, I find the Rand thing unfortunate, but his policy prosposals aren’t Randian. Charles Murray wrote an article in the Claremont Review of Books explaining how someone who was neither a mopey teenager nor a fanatic could like Rand. It doesn’t work for me either. My bigger problems with Ryan (along with disagreements on some of the details of his spending policies) is that I don’t trust his political instincts on tax policies and (for reasons I can no longer remember) I don’t trust his judgement on monetary policy.
And that reminds me. Mitch Daniels’s reading list leans too heavily in the direction of different kinds of right-libertarianism. http://thebrowser.com/interviews/mitch-daniels-on-how-libertarians-can-govern?page=1
Though we could do worse…and we are.
May 13th, 2011 | 12:58 am
I agree Newt as president ain’t gonna happen, but ain’t gonna happen has some strange bedfellows in the opportunistic world of the punditocracy. Newt–even after the whole Monica/Clinton/cigar fiasco–looked good to some. He had such admirers as Arianna Huffington.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/11/guess-who-said-why-newt-must-run-first/
Newt currently has a video announcing his presidential run. I especially like how he says we should insist on “imposing solutions” on those who disagree. This type of rhetoric will will surely soften his high negativity poll ratings. If “imposing solutions” doesn’t work, then the listless soundtrack of piano and strings in the background should. Newt has discovered that America likes bad Debussy–whole tones that lead nowhere! If you don’t believe me, just take a look/listen–
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRSz21Vedxc
In this video, Newt says he wants to return to this and that regarding the Reagan years. He can’t win with this trope.
At the very least Newt’s belief in his own viability as presidential candidate should put to rest the alleged scientific futurology of Alvin Toffler. I don’t need to be able to read the stars (or generational demographics) to know that this boat don’t float.
But like Carl, I’d vote for him anyway–even if it were not for such noble reasons as not being not-Obama.
Or rather, like Peter–I would just have to sit it out.
May 13th, 2011 | 1:11 am
BTW, the Newt and Obama balance already exists with the Republicans in Congress. Paul Ryan (a seemingly much more likable politician though I didn’t know that Ayn Rand was on his must read over the summer list) represents the good personal and political aspects of Newt, minus the avuncularity.
Given this list of Republican candidates, I suspect divided government will be our lot. So it becomes a question regarding how Obama will deal with another two years behind the ball of a Congressional Republican majority (and this time with a Republican Senate to boot.)
May 13th, 2011 | 9:22 am
Ah…Daniels is a fan of Mancur Olson? The interviewer J. Rauch, author of the fine Olson-dependent books Demosclerosis and Government’s End of course loves it.
But those of us, like yours truly, trying to do our liberal arts political work in political SCIENCE departments, know that Olson is one of the gods of rational-choice, of the faith in modelling, which IMO ultimately leads in a “and the Correct Game Theory shall set you free” direction. (And it ruins a lot of political science departments along the way!) A different, if much more sane and chastened, sort of “technocratic approach” than that pretended to by Obama. But someday, we may have reason to fear its peculiar brand of scientism guiding our “governance.”
Also note the political foolishness and tactlessness of putting one of the authors of the Bell Curve on his list. I love a lot of Murray’s stuff too, but Daniels should know better.
I still very much want him to run.
May 13th, 2011 | 10:26 am
I agree with Carl. There’s no one out there who could be the “pomocon” candidate, but Mitch looks far and away the best among those who are (likely) running. It seems to me that his choice of reading materials actually adds to his credibility and genuineness. He is a budget-wonk kind of guy, and his reads the serious stuff that such folk, on the conservative side, do.
I watched some of the videos on Mitch’s official website, where he walks into places of business, government offices, etc. and I was impressed by the combination of seriousness, good humor, and affability that he conveys. I realize that he may not have the “wow” factor, but I think he could really catch on.
If he could win the nomination, and then persuade Rubio to be his running mate, he would have a fighting chance to win. Rubio certainly has the “wow” factor, and could excite both hawks and social conservatives. And of course he could probably attract a lot of support from Hispanic voters.
May 13th, 2011 | 11:13 am
Can sentences be oxymorons?
One newsreport describing Newt’s 3rd wife: ‘a devout Catholic who began her relationship with her husband via a lengthy extramarital affair’
And, of course, that reflects on his integrity as much as on hers.
May 13th, 2011 | 11:24 am
So I agree with Germaine on every point–including that’s the only path to a fighting chance.
I wish Mitch would actually call himself a libertarian, but Rubio is actually the kind of libertarian i can believe in.
May 13th, 2011 | 12:25 pm
1st thing: his conversion (and Callista’s re-conversion) to devout Catholicism are no doubt post-affair. For this and for the other sins that he and she may have committed, they have either been redeemed or can be via a visit to the confessional.
2nd thing: He’s a politician so vastly more qualified to lead the nation than any other Democrat or Republican that taking the moral high ground regarding the above seems as as foolish as putting aside The Psalms on account of King David’s backsliding.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact