More Rick Perry Studies, or On How to Mix Metaphors and Not Avoid Cliché Like the Plague

Everything is bigger in Texas, but is a big Texas governor bigger than the other candidates running for the Republican presidential nomination? With the popular perception of a lackluster slate of candidates, a recent poll shows most Republican primary voters lack enthusiasm for any of the current lot. Romney and Bachmann come out best, but no one seems to send a thrill up the collective leg of the party base. Of course, these polls don’t ask about the unannounced candidacy of Rick Perry. Could Perry grab hold of that enthusiasm deficit?

Perry has been getting ample good press lately, and below Pete adds two new favorable stories—one of which adds a new wrinkle by showing his formidable talents as a thrice elected, institutionally weak governor who can effectively deal with a largely simpatico Republican legislature. For over a month, talk of a Perry run has reached a near crescendo throughout the media. With reports on the thriving economy, the low taxes, the manageable deficit , the ability to make painful budget cuts —things are so good in Texas that even some California lawmakers want to learn the secrets to Perry’s management of Lone Star success.

Given such raves and the apparent desire for a candidate with bold personality, it is now only a matter of whether and when Perry decides to throw his hat in the ring. Since the Texas legislative session has recently concluded, Perry says he will announce his decision in a couple of weeks.

With the much discussed divisions between the Perry and Bush camps, the race may become one between an “establishment” and Bush backed Romney versus a Tea Party backed Perry. Except this potential king of the Tea Party would have to vie for its affection, funding and votes with its putative queen—Bachmann. This would be a difficult task after Bachmann’s stellar performance in the New Hampshire debate.

When Huckabee announced that he wasn’t running, many conservative evangelical voters flocked to Bachmann. Yet Perry, who sponsors a day of prayer called The Response this August, has his bona fides with this group too. Conservative Christian heavyweights like John Hagee, David Barton and Tony Perkins have allegedly rallied their support behind Governor “Good Hair,” noting among other things, his consistent pro-life and pro-traditional marriage stances.

If Perry could fill the charisma void and also gain the evangelical and Tea Party support over Bachman, then he would only need to outflank Romney (and maybe Pawlenty and Hunstman) to the right. Romney has recently had some effective tough talk about Obama’s failures on the economy, but surely Perry—who has stated he will refuse Obmamacare health benefit exchanges in Texas—would not miss the opportunity to body slam Romney on “Obomneycare.” And in his recent trips to New Orleans and New York, Perry has been equally as tough as Romney (if not more so) in his criticism of the president’s handling of the economy. He has also issued stinging rebukes to the president’s policies regarding border security , TSA searches and Israel .

Which brings us to foreign policy. Pawlenty recently made some well publicized (i.e., well publicized for him) remarks at the CFR, positioning himself as a hawk who would eschew engagement with enemies in favor of a bold and tough rhetoric in defense of American interests. He also criticized his Republican opponents for their alleged isolationist tendencies, affirming the necessity of a strong American presence in a dangerous world.

Perry has been largely silent on foreign affairs. Would Perry run as a hawk? Surely. A man who flew C-130 aircraft in the middle east, and who, perhaps more importantly, shoots coyotes in defense of his dog, would not be queasy in the use of American power. We know he endorsed Giuliani in 2008. Still, what about the details of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya? What about the Arab Spring? Pakistan? Iran? China? We don’t know, but Kevin Williamson suggests that Perry’s commitment to limited government could extend to a dampening of enthusiasm for American foreign adventures.

Does such lack of enthusiasm dampen Perry’s appeal amongst voters? Does a restrained and “constitutional” foreign policy work for voters who are war weary but who simultaneously wish to win what has been started? Will a modern president actually use restraint the use of military force abroad? Has any modern president been able to do so? Is this desirable? Would such a presidency be exemplary of the much touted idea of American decline? Would that vision appeal to American voters?

Despite these questions, all of this sounds relatively favorable to Perry on my part, but these comments are simply the results of an evening’s googling—no better than a procrastinated college paper as an attempt to figure out who the governor of my state actually is.

I have my doubts about Perry. For now, let me state my doubts about the viability of a Perry presidential run in a head to head against President Obama.

Obama’s presidency is surely in trouble, but given the continuous economic problems and the looming fiscal disaster his approval ratings are remarkably not horrible. Obama will keep his base, and with persistent appeals against the radical budget cuts proposed by the Republicans, I have little doubt about his campaign’s ability to garner as a high turnout as 2008. Back in the Bush years this was called the “politics of fear,” but today’s fears are about domestic security.

This leaves the independent voters, whom  polls suggest have turned away from the president. Independents want cuts in government spending and entitlement reform, but just not those cuts and reforms in things like education and Medicare and various middle class subsidies from which they immediately benefit. Obama’s strategy seems to be one which will play on this sentiment. Compared to a Republican majority in both houses of Congress with a Republican President of Perry’s ilk, such voters may decide they want to continue with divided government.

Perry may be fine for Texas, but with the recent experience of another Texas governor as president, would independents be willing to try that again (even if they came to know of the real differences and divisions between the two men)? Besides, many Texans allegedly think Perry is best kept for Texas.

Kevin Williamson begins his informative piece on Perry with the following quotation: “’If Jeb Bush’s name were Jeb Smith, he’d be the next president of the United States,’ says Texas governor Rick Perry, and then there’s a long pause in the conversation to let pass the unspoken corollary: ‘And if Rick Perry were the governor of Florida . . . ‘” This quote shows the degree to which even Perry is aware that the Bush name and the Texas “brand” have unsettling effects of for the a successful campaign—at least in its appeal to independents.

All this could be horribly wrong. Pete may be right. Many voters (including independents) might be persuadable to principled arguments, and Perry could the man to pull it off. To my mind, he still needs more vetting, and of course he has to actually run!