Pre-Debate Thoughts

1.  I’m not staying up until 11:00 PM.  I’ll watch a recording tomorrow and get back to you.

2.  Comparisons of Rick Perry to Ronald Reagan along the dimension of electability are problematic.  The electoral prudence case against Rick Perry (which doesn’t entirely convince me yet) is that Perry would have trouble winning a sufficient share of persuadable voters to win the general election against Obama.  The case is supported by evidence that Perry polls worse than Romney when the two are matched against Obama.  The electoral prudence case against Reagan was similarly supported by polling evidence that Reagan fared worse against Carter than other potential Republican nominees. 

The Reagan/Perry comparison has some problems.  The electability case against Reagan was more that he was “too conservative” than that he lacked the rhetorical skills to reach most voters.  But when it come to forward-looking entitlement policy, it isn’t obvious that Perry will be any more “conservative” than Romney.  Neither of them have released a specific plan, a both have argued that current retirees should keep their benefits unchanged and that the system needs reform so that younger workers will have a system waiting for them upon retirement.  The main difference is that Perry’s recent statements give an impression of hostility to the Social Security program.  It is mainly a difference of tone and attitude, but since there don’t seem to be serious policy differences, tone and attitude matters a lot if it impacts the opinions of the voters who will decide the next election.

Reagan was a master at selling his favored policies to persuadable voters.  Some of it was talent (and he had a lot of it), but some of it was background and preparation.  Even before he ran for public office, Reagan was giving conservatism-themed speeches for GE.  His audiences were primarily FDR-living unionized workers.  Imagine you had the job of trying to sell the Paul Ryan budget to groups of people who overwhelmingly voted for Obama.  Reagan had a great deal of practice trying to win over people who didn’t share his view of the world.  Reagan won two landslide wins in races for California governor even though there were enough non-conservatives in the state that Reagan’s two terms were bookended by the Edmund Browns (father and son.)  Reagan was a master at parrying liberal arguments (read A TIME FOR CHOOSING  and see) and for explaining his policies in the least threatening way he could think of.  By 1980, Reagan had also shown appeal to white Southerners (in the 1976 primaries against Gerald Ford) and white Southerners were a presidential swing voting group in 1980 - though not really since minus some modest changes in voting margin between parties. 

Perry has no comparable record of appealing to swing voters.  That isn’t to say that Perry won’t prove capable of shaping his arguments and persona in ways that will make him more appealing to 2011-2012 model persuadable voters.  The evidence so far has not been encouraging, but we still have months before the first real votes of the nominating contest are cast.  Perry seems like tough and shrewd politician.  We should keep an open mind about his capabilities, but it would be prudent to wait to see improvement before casting a ballot for him.