I prefer not to overreact to jobs reports, but today’s unemployment and job creation news has Obama looking weaker than ever. This would be a good time for a Republican who has shown the ability to win over Democratic-leaning voters, take on the spending interests, and produce a sustainable budget while maintaining public services. Chris Christie would be a pretty strong general election opponent for Obama. Christie’s biggest obstacle would be the primaries. He is for New Jersey’s gun control laws (though I think he has left himself some wiggle room) and for the old Clinton “assault weapons” ban. His stated belief in anthropogenic global warming won’t help. I think that taking a Jim Manzi-type approach to global warming would mitigate the damage but…
Do I think that Christie’s weaknesses would prevent him from beating Bachmann or Romney? Nope. Those candidates have even bigger weaknesses. Do I think they would prevent him from beating an uncrippled Rick Perry? Probably. Christie’s path to victory (given the present field) would be to gather large amounts of institutional support (endorsements from other governors in the Midwest especially), knock Romney out of the box in New Hampshire (that is plausible actually) and hope that Bachmann and the media wound Perry severely (as a spending increaser who would gladly use government power to take your home etc.) I wouldn’t count on that last one. No shot at Perry has laid a glove on him with right-of-center voters. Given the current field, if Christie ran, I’d give him less than a 50% chance of getting the nomination and the run would weaken his ability to govern New Jersey. Maybe he will take the shot. I’m ambivalent but (since I have nothing personally on the line), I hope he does. But the incentives are mostly against Christie running.
September 2nd, 2011 | 2:59 pm
I respect Jim Manzi a lot, but that was not one of his better moments. So Friedersdorfian, a tendency I lost almost all patience with and respect for a couple years ago. Thus, outside of some of the specific recommendations, that’s a bad approach. But respectfully presented to conservatives, an approach that could be easily accepted as “one Republican opinion about unsettled science among several others.”
And again, shades of No Cap and Trade opinion are not going to matter. Unless a Republican candidate is a squish on the EPA, Global Warming is not a voting issue this time around. Guns I guess always are in the primaries, but the passions there post-Heller seem subdued.
And, Pete, what about the “late-run for the nomination” scenario? Or the “survive-like-McCain until others drop out” scenario? You seem to have NH as make or break for a Christie candidacy.
I’m frankly weak on nomination dynamics, so school away…
September 2nd, 2011 | 4:24 pm
Carl, I think “respectfully presented to conservatives, an approach that could be easily accepted as “one Republican opinion about unsettled science among several others.”” would be the key in defusing what I think is more an identity politics problem than any real threat of cap and trade from a Christie administration. Points to emphasize would be:
“The government can catalyze improvements in the relevant technologies, but it’s absolutely essential that we avoid turning this into yet another huge corporate-welfare program: The last thing we need is a repeat of shale-oil subsidies to Exxon or the multibillion-dollar fiasco of funding the development of a totally uneconomical wind turbine by Boeing.”
I’m not expert either but If Christie doesn’t win Iowa and doesn’t win New Hampshire (and Romney does), I don’t know when he starts winning in a big enough way fast enough to get the nomination. Imagine if McCain had lost New Hampshire and South Carolina. I guess it is possible to start winning in Florida (I’m not sure how the calander will play out next year), but you are banking on the winners of the early contests looking like losers and Christie (who either competed in those contests and lost, or didn’t announce that he was running at all – and there might be downstream ballot access problems if he tried that, I dunno) looking like a winner. It is possible, but I think any Christie scenario where he wins (and the other candidates don’t just self-immolate) involves him displacing Romney as the competent/electable/conservative enough candidate and then building support outwards.
If I were talking to Christie I would say that, if he ran, he would probably not (as in less than a 50% shot) get the nomination, that running and failing would hurt his ability to govern and be reelected in New Jersey. The main reasons he might run are patriotism, a sense of the high stakes of the issues (especially crafting a responsible budget), and that he might be elected President.
And if he ran, I would support him over the current crop of Republican contenders.
September 3rd, 2011 | 6:36 am
Christie for POTUS? No thank you… No self-respecting little (r) conservative from NJ with a glimmer of hope of ever moving to one of the free states would want to inflict him on the rest of the United States. While he is a small step in the right direction for NJ he is far from what would be considered a conservative west of the Delaware River. Besides do we really want a US Supreme Court Justice Paula T. Dow? No thanks…
September 3rd, 2011 | 8:14 am
Exhibit A.
September 3rd, 2011 | 9:20 am
Pete, do you want a republican or a Republican?
September 3rd, 2011 | 9:37 am
Bob, I’m not sure there is a meaningful choice there, and (for example) I don’t take Perry’s more radical Tenth Amendment posturing especially seriously (we could have two full terms of Perry and we still won’t have a states-based Social Security system) and I doubt he does either. So we get to stuff like policy, electability the ability to form coalitions under various circumstances (and some circumstances are easier than others.)
I want a President who comes close to my policy preferences and has the executive and political capabilities to work with Congress to enact his (or her) agenda. Enacting a responsible right-leaning fiscal consolidation is foremost in my mind and Christie has been very good there under difficult circumstances. There are issues like abortion, foreign policy, federal judges, etc. and Christie will have to compete and articulate his views there like everybody else. If it comes out he wants to appoint more William Brennans to the Supreme Court I reserve the right to change my mind.
September 3rd, 2011 | 10:08 am
Pete, I lean a little more toward the principle side (Constitutional, anti-statist) and less toward the policy side, simply because the political contretemps go a long way to clarifying the debate for the unwashed, though your points have merit. I do grow weary of the GOP candidate who is really ‘democrat lite.’
And, you’re right, I think there’s going to be a great deal of movement in the next fourteen months or so. And, what if Barry wins a second term?
September 3rd, 2011 | 10:46 am
So, M. Brennan, tell us more about more about Christie’s judicial “Brennan-ism,” while I go google Paula T. Dow.
A shame what that justice did to your good name.
September 4th, 2011 | 6:40 pm
Bob, a John Roberts/Scalia/Thomas common denominator constitutional originalism (to include the Reconstruction Amendments) should be a priority and Christie would have to either explain why he is for it or why he is against it. Walter Russell Mead aside, I don’t think we are going to get a Supreme Court to impose a Madisonian rather than a Hamiltonian (and implicitly Washingtonian) reading of the general welfare clause. We also aren’t going to get a return to the policy mix of 1928 or 1860 or 1787. Perry toys with people’s emotions with his “nice Union you got here, be a shame if someone seceded from it” talk, but it is all talk (just like his talk about maybe having to withdraw from Medicaid.)
September 4th, 2011 | 7:47 pm
But, what if he was serious? What if we have a GOP candidate who sees secession as a political solution to a festering problem and really, really wants to return to state legislatures the responsibility of electing federal senators?
First, what’s not to like, and second, sometimes returning to the ground, politically speaking, is a good thing considering the current level of corruption, and we might be surprised how many of the unwashed will support the idea?
My goodness, I’m getting the idea that more and more people are beginning to comprehend the total and complete failure of the American version of statism.
Secession isn’t nearly so ‘radical’ an idea, outside the beltway, as it once was when you consider who it is you’re seceding from.
September 5th, 2011 | 9:06 am
Robert, if Perry were serious about his more radical-sounding interventions, then he would have a certain kind of Ron Paulish integrity, but he would also not have much chance of being elected President. Or to put it this way, if Perry is elected to two terms, he will leave office with all fifty current states still right in the Union, with a massive federal entitlement state existing (though possibly restructured and smaller than the one that is projected block grants, forced savings, defined contribution) and Senators chosen by the voters. It isn’t that I think Perry is radical. His record is to say radical-sounding things and then practice a kind of center-right veryday politics.
September 5th, 2011 | 10:15 am
Pete, my point is that a major political contender is speaking of secession and other aspects of state’s rights. And, you’ll have to admit that it does resonate with many on the Right (obviously it upsets those on the Left).
It wasn’t that long ago that even speaking of ‘secession’ could get you in trouble. Now, it’s a viable point of political/public discussion. I think, that over the past twenty-thirty years the historical/political/philosophical discussion related to the founding era, the Constitution, the historical events surrounding the establishment of the general gummint, and how that all relates to the current issues has had the serendipitous effect of informing many Americans concerning the nature of the very limited power the foundng generation sought to place in Washington City.
If Perry is saying ‘radical’ things, his comments don’t appear to be upsetting anyone but the effete Left.
September 5th, 2011 | 11:14 am
“Now, it’s a viable point of political/public discussion.”
Robert, over in Porcher-land it is.
Among any electorally viable politicians it is nothing more than what Pete says…mere talk. Ooo…Perry dares to say the word, what a good brave man is he! Let’s see a real candidate for the Texas or Kentucky legislature seriously adopt an “our legislature should declare its openness to secession” plank into his platform and see how it goes with them.
P.S. Repeal of the 17th and other proposals for beefing up federalism should not be associated with secession. A difference of kind there.
September 5th, 2011 | 11:46 am
I enjoy reading secession studies, of course. But it ain’t going to happen, would be disastrous for foreign policy and the world’s future if it did, and the whole thing is so above Perry’s pay grade. There would be no great harm and some good maybe in repealing the 17th amendment. But it ain’t gonna happen either.
September 5th, 2011 | 12:26 pm
Robert, I don’t actually doubt that it resonates with some on the right (though it is a minority taste in the electorate as a whole), but if you listen to him carefully he usually leaves himself a whole bunch of escape hatches (on secession, on dropping out of Medicaid) so that he can say that he didn’t really say what people thought they heard. This kind of talk might win him some support along the right and might make winning a general election marginally harder (though the complicated slipperiness of his language would make that tougher) but he is advancing repealing the federal welfare state and advancing secession in neither policy nor principle. Whatever his personal preferences, there is no reason to think he is serious about any such things or would do anything to advance those causes as President (good thing too imho.) I’m no Ron Paul guy, but on stuff like repealing the federal welfare state and supporting the legal right of secession at will, he is your Texan.
I think I’m with Peter Lawler on the 17th Amendment though it would change state-level politics in ways I can’t see clearly.
September 5th, 2011 | 1:26 pm
Well, Ima thinking we’re beginning to split hairs here.
So, we’ll see how the political talk goes, and see what the trajectory is. I’m impressed that a number of candidates are at least looking at the possibilities of limiting the ‘power’ of the general gummint. If this keeps up maybe we can talk about moving SS, Medicare/aide to the states where they and so much else the general gummint has messed up belong?
Peter, I don’t necessarily disagree re: the chances for repeal of the 17th Amendment considering the attitude/desire of many Americans for a ‘free’ handout. It may require the collapse of the gummint before we move in an anti-statist direction, and if that happens things are going to get very ugly, very quickly.
Carl, I think secession and federalism/state’s rights have both a political and historical linkage. Secession is what happens when enough Americans interpret the actions of the general gummint as irredeemably harmful to their liberty and ability to provide for the basic needs of their families.
Sadly, I think many of our friends at the ‘Porch’ are inclined toward an inimical statism, couched in the Berryesque language of God, the planet, and man as subject to his betters in gummint, particularly those concerned apparatchiks who write the EPA regs.
September 5th, 2011 | 2:01 pm
Bob, block granting Medicaid (which means retaining the federal funding role) seems to be the dominant position among Republican politicians. If Perry runs on moving to a states-based Social Security system and abolishing the federal funding role in Medicare (rather than explaining away that he was talking about a road not taken and moving on to some kind of Ryanish proposal), he should check himself into a clinic for the politically suicidal. Since he seems to be a shrewd and ambitious politician, I fully expect he is going to disappoint you on that score.
September 5th, 2011 | 3:51 pm
Robert, our porcher friends aren’t statists.
Not intentionally.
Because what they really do, I fear, is to alienate good American Christians from their presently quite natural place in the conservative big-tent. And they are too strident in thier “pox and both houses” stance to serve in what ought to be their proper role: the conservative counter-weight to popular libertarianism within that big-tent.
So if were they ever to really help seed a real political movement, it would be a movement that would unintentionally help the Democrats.
(Unless a lot of things change between now and the rise of a genuinely popular porcherism.)
September 5th, 2011 | 4:46 pm
Carl, I like and appreciate your analysis on almost every question. Re: our Porcher friends, you haven’t convinced me, yet. So, we’ll keep an eye on their always interesting essays.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact