Romney/Bush 2012
December 18th, 2011 § Leave a Comment
Despite Newt Gingrich’s lead in nearly every poll, the GOP should get solidly behind Mitt Romney.
Romney’s weaknesses are in full view, and have been for several years; there are no surprises with Mitt. His primary faults are that he seems unprincipled and unable to relate to the “average” American, because of his changing positions and life-long wealth, respectively. But that’s pretty much it—no adulterous relationships, no political scandals and no problem with hyper-partisanship or inexperience. He’s a relatively uncontroversial figure.
What Republicans fear the most—Mitt’s moderate past—will probably be his greatest asset in the general election. Obama ran as The Uniter, but in reality has been one of the most divisive presidents of the last century. Obama’s weakness is Romney’s strength, as he can point to a solid record of bipartisan accomplishments. Indeed, Romney’s record inculcates him from Obama’s only line of attack for 2012: accusing the GOP candidate of Tea Party extremism.
Yet, Mitt can have his cake and eat it too. Tea Party leaders are lining up to give their stamp of approval. Governors Chris Cristie and Nikki Haley, as well as grassroots Tea Party darling Christine O’Donnell have endorsed Romney. All three cited Romney’s executive experience in their endorsements—Haley and Christie further mentioning his ability to get things done. They recognize that winning and doing is more important than thinking and talking.
Romney is a non-polarizing pragmatist executive with private and public sector success and right-leaning principles. In other words: exactly what America needs right now.
Until recently, I really liked Newt Gingrich. He can articulate conservative principles with impressive philosophical and historical eloquence. But Ann Coulter put it well when she characterized Newt’s approach as “speak bombastically and cary a tiny stick”—a play on Teddy Roosevelt’s famous line. Gingrich has all the talk, image and offensiveness of a blazing right-winger, but all the effectiveness of a cash-for-clunkers program. I fear a Gingrich nomination would be like a firework spectacular gone haywire. A multiplicity of DC insiders have confirmed his lack of discipline and focus, in case his marital affairs do not. Newt’s previous two marriages began with romance and ended in utter disaster. His time as Speaker followed the same course. How much does this reflect the man himself?
Debates are only one part of winning an election. As I tweeted a few days ago “Newt’s support is based on America’s assumed eagerness to explore the depths of conservative philosophy. A grave miscalculation.” Let’s face it: the only people who are interested in Newt’s lectures are political junkies and academics. Ben Stein marveled at the Gingrich-Huntsman Foreign Policy debate, which was admittedly the most intellectually stimulating. But people don’t want intellectual stimulation; they want conviction, integrity and know-how. They don’t want big ideas and broad reforms; they want the economy and government to work.
Conviction is a problem for Mitt, but he makes up for it with his enormous success as a father, husband, entrepreneur, executive and Governor. And the one area where he does convey rooted conviction is will be the rallying cry for 2012: America’s greatest era is yet to come.
Romney’s recent book was titled No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. His campaign slogan is “Believe in America.” In the last debate, he stated that Obama believes America is in decline, but he believes a new American century lies ahead. This message will resonate in the general election. Americans are fatigued by economic woes, political polarization and fear that America is becoming fat, lazy and uneducated. Obama has not helped.
The message also fits well with the person Romney should choose as his running mate: Jeb Bush.
Jeb is not George. He is the more conservative, better-spoken, and less Texan younger brother. As the popular former Governor of Florida—a very important swing state—Bush supported Marco Rubio in 2010 (he explains why in this video). Among other things, Bush has been active in the Project for the New American Century, founded by Bill Kristol. This DC policy think tank promotes the message of a bright future of American leadership. But beyond message, Jeb Bush’s experience, personality and policy positions would be able to bring moderates and conservatives together, and he has significant appeal to the hispanic community. No one will doubt Jeb Bush’s conviction and amiability. Making him Romney’s VP would be a geographically, ideologically and stylistically advantageous move.
A Romney/Bush ticket does not need to inspire a new revolution in conservative political philosophy. Thankfully, Barack Obama has already done that. But it would produce an effective rightward policy shift, shaped by a renewed Republican congress and implemented by a pragmatic, proven executive. Few things would be better for the future of conservatism than a successful and popular Republican presidency.
_______________________________
Postscript: Who else would be stellar VP match-ups? Condi Rice for her foreign policy experience, near universal respect and, yes… gender/race. I’ve mostly skipped over Rick Santorum because he has no shot at the presidency. But he’d actually provide a lot of personal likability and base enthusiasm to a Romney campaign.
Newt vs. Mitt
December 5th, 2011 § Leave a Comment
We can safely say the GOP nomination process has come down to Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.
Now what?
I wrote a blog on this a couple of days ago, but somehow it got deleted (wordpress has been doing strange things) so I’m going to give a quick summary. Too bad, it was amazing… full of wit, humor and insight. You’ll just have to trust me.
Basically, here’s where we stand:
We’ve got Newt — the DC insider with a vision for the future, an impressive command of history and long-standing conservative credentials, despite his occasional wandering. If he doesn’t become our president, it will be due to lack of integrity in his personal life, and the fact that his third wife is a bit creepy looking.
Then there’s Mitt — the Wall St. insider who reminds you of A) a rich boy CEO who hasn’t worked a real day in his life, or B) a clean-cut businessman and ol’ fashioned dad from the 1950′s, before America fell apart. If he doesn’t become president, it will be because he seems to have no core principles, saying whatever he must to get into office.
I’m really at a loss for guessing who will, or should, get the nomination. Gingrich will undoubtedly deliver a killer performance in debates against Obama, and his real advantage over Romney is his ability to articulate social and fiscal conservative philosophy better than just about any other Republican in national politics. And you actually believe he means it.
Yet, when you get down to policy, there’s little difference in the two candidates, and Mitt has a couple of serious advantages. First, his personal life is clean as a whistle. He has a strong family and a wife who has a comfortable stage presence. And he’s got a career’s worth of experience building successful companies in the private sector. He’s got better business savvy than just about any other Republican in national politics—at at a time when the economy is our top concern.
My gut feeling is that when the dust settles and the Gingrich surge has reached equilibrium, the anti-Romney feeling will begin to subside. He’s been the only constant in a wild race. He has been a consistently strong debater, presidential in knowledge and demeanor. His stable family life will earn new respect after hashing through the adulterous histories of Cain and Gingrich. And for all the populist rhetoric out there, people still admire a man who has done so well in so many areas of his life. For goodness sake, the man speaks fluent French from his days as a foreign missionary!
Strangely, though he’s known as a flip-flopper, Romney seems like the most stable guy in the field.
Gingrich can certainly keep his lead, however. If he maintains a cool, humble tone through the next 11 months, the Oval Office is his. But based on his record, that doesn’t seem likely.
The Myth of the Underclass
November 15th, 2011 § Leave a Comment
Due to my work/class schedule, I haven’t been adding much to my own site, but the good folks at ValuesAndCapitalism.com have asked me to up the ante to two posts a month. Bookmark it!
Check out my new post, The Myth of the Underclass.
- WG
Occupy Wall Street: Right Anger, Wrong Direction
October 20th, 2011 § Leave a Comment
In my latest post for Values & Capitalism, I offer my take on the Occupy [insert location] protests.
There is some legitimacy in the anger of the protestors. Recent years seem to have lacked ethical leadership in both the private and public sector, leading to a wrecked economy and fewer opportunities for the average American. Conservatives would do well to be outspoken against dishonest and unjust business practices, and serious about accountability and social responsibility. The “Occupiers” miss the mark, however, when they their solutions involve greater government oversight and wealth redistribution.
If what OWS wants is more opportunity for the 99%, the savior is the enemy—free markets and smaller government is the only way.
New “Durbin Fee” on debit cards
October 3rd, 2011 § 2 Comments
Several months ago I recall getting a letter from my bank, informing me that as a result of the Durbin Amendment to the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010“ passed last year by the Democrat “supermajority,” I would no longer be getting rewards points for using my debit card. I looked up the amendment—which limits how much banks can charge other companies for debit transactions—and said to myself, “Wow, that’s really going to mess up their revenue system… I wonder what they’ll start charging for to make up for it.” When a bill has something like “consumer protection” in the name, duck.
The signs of change are surfacing: Bank of America will now be charging customers for using their debit card. Actually, the signs have been evident for months in the poor performance of big bank stocks. No one wants to invest in companies that have their revenue streams cut off by a cantankerous Illinois Senator. The new fees are causing customers to flee and protestors to get out their craft supplies.
Yesterday I watched both CNN and FOX News cover the story. The CNN coverage made a very brief mention of the regulation, which can be paraphrased as “the government isn’t letting banks ripoff merchants anymore, so their going to rip you off instead.” The FOX coverage went into more detail, and at fault in this version was the government, not B of A.
Masters of the Universe - Obama with Senators Frank, Durbin and Dodd
This chain of events offers a great example of policymaking in America today. Let’s examine the steps:
First, the housing bubble burst, and because it was tied to all sorts of other investments, the whole market crashed.
Next, a debate sprung out across the country over the cause of the collapse—whether it was greedy bankers, decades of poor housing legislation, or both. The media pushed more of the second explanation, and democrats in Congress rushed to save the world from corporate greed. Dick Durbin tacks on what he believes is a fair restriction on a certain bank fee, which has nothing to do with the Dodd-Frank legislation.
Then, financial markets freeze up, the economy slows back down, and banks start charging customers for things that were previously free.
Now, consumers are angry and sending in complaint letters to… the banks.
I can’t help but see government regulations as the root of the problem here, but most people are blaming the very companies that are trying to take care of their customers. And YES, that is what they do… that is what all successful companies do in order to stay in business. That’s common sense, though it would be easy to forget when listening to the president explain his agenda by making villains of anyone with authority in business.
So who do I blame in this? I blame the sad state of economic education in America. Too many people lack a core understanding of the relationship between producers and consumers, and it’s the fault of both teachers and parents. I don’t blame politicians—they’re just doing what their constituents elected them for. And I certainly don’t blame businesses, who require profit to grow. The sad thing is that unintended consequences like this are abundant in our society, and they are entirely avoidable.
Americans need a conversation on economic decision-making, from the household to the board room to the legislature. Hopefully, that’s exactly what we’ve headed into, which is why the GOP presidential nominee absolutely must be someone who can articulate the principles of a free economy and the damage done by an overreaching government.
Extravagance & Benevolence
August 26th, 2011 § 1 Comment
Which is better at serving the poor: food stamps or corporate jets? Read my take at Common Sense Concept’s Two Cents blog. [http://www.commonsenseconcept.com/extravagance-benevolence/]
Also, check out the video below, which discusses the findings of a recent study by the Heritage Foundation (I mention it in the post).
The “What Would Jesus Cut?” debate
August 4th, 2011 § Leave a Comment
While elected officials in Washington have been debating over the debt ceiling, another robust conversation has been materializing at the intersection of faith, poverty and economic policy.
In July, an ecumenical coalition of Christian leaders met with President Obama to present a statement—the “Circle of Protection“—casting welfare programs as a moral imperative. Claiming a commitment to the values outlined in Matthew 25 (“…whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”), groups like Sojourners, led by God’s Politics author Jim Wallis, insist that “funding focused on reducing poverty should not be cut.” This initiative reflects a larger movement among young Christians toward a view of wealth redistribution as “social justice.”
While the moral appeal for welfare is nothing new, the boldness of couching it as an explicit commandment of Christ adds a new log to the fire. After a bloody culture war in which the church fought at the front lines, many young evangelicals resented the pigeonholing of Christians as a right-wing voting block. Those sentiments were intensified as Republicans in the Bush era were characterized as ignorant and bigoted. The current fiscal debate has provided an opportunity to set up camp alongside the progressive wing in a way that emphasizes compassion. Unfortunately, while they are right in suggesting that “budgets are moral documents,” they confuse individual responsibility with collective coercion.
In response to this shift, and recognizing the lack of sound economic principle in the church, a countermovement has emerged declaring the virtue of free enterprise and the danger of bloated government. Throughout the Twittosphere, Christian capitalists have been critiquing the agenda of the Circle of Protection, making the case that government programs frequently exacerbate and prolong poverty, and that Christ calls us to serve one another as voluntary individuals, not through a bureaucratically adulterated political game. Furthermore, they argue, a burdensome regulatory and tax system slows economic growth and makes it more difficult for individuals at every income level to pursue a fruitful life.
“Christ calls us to serve one another as voluntary individuals, not through a bureaucratically adulterated political game.”
A full-page ad by the American Enterprise Institute’s Values & Capitalism project appeared in Politico, in opposition to a previous ad by Wallis. In turn, Sojourners’ communications director Tim King attempted to clarify the Circle’s position, albeit ineffectively. King writes that the Circle does not seek a “blanket exception for all poverty programs under any and all cuts,” yet everything in the statement communicates otherwise—including the aforementioned quote that such programs “should not be cut.” If what King says is true, the authors of the Circle’s statement were merely sloppy and irresponsible in their prose.
Adding depth to the conversation, the Values & Capitalism project, represented by Eric Teetsel, is helping to build a new coalition—Christians for a Sustainable Economy (CASE)—to provide a counterweight to the Circle. Teetsel co-authored CASE’s Letter to the President, requesting their own meeting with Obama. The letter dismisses the idea that the Circle of Protection represents a majority view among Christians, and provides a freedom-oriented, values-based approach to fiscal responsibility. The letter, like the Circle, is signed by a wide array of respected Christian leaders. The letter was made available for the public to sign, and continues to add names. (You will find my moniker at #33. sign here)
This discussion is a very important one for the Church body, though there is a tendency to shy from such complex and controversial topics. Religion and politics are ostensibly forbidden from friendly discourse—especially in the same sentence. But there are some issues that cannot be passed over. Public policy must be rooted in ethical purpose, and if the church is silent, others will fill the gap. We must engage fully in a search for understanding about humanity and social institutions, and we must do so with grace and cordiality. We are first and foremost brothers and sisters in Christ, and secondly agents of His justice on Earth.
For those interested in exploring this debate, Remnant Culture has posted a convenient round-up of responses from various Christian writers on the “What Would Jesus Cut?” question.
How “Free” Kills (posted @ CommonSenseConcept)
July 22nd, 2011 § Leave a Comment
In case you missed it, a piece I wrote for the “Two Cents” blog at Common Sense Concept was published Tuesday. In the post, I talk about the degrading effects of free money. (click image to read)
We’ve all heard phrases like “you don’t appreciate what you don’t earn” or “no pain no gain.” The idea that income must follow labor goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden, where Adam is told, “by the sweat of your brow you will eat your food” (Gen. 3:19).
A good work ethic is a cornerstone of a healthy character and success in life. When we talk about helping the poor, passing on an inheritance, or winning the lottery, we must proceed with caution, recognizing the destructive potential of income disconnected from effort.
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with a friendly gift, and there are appropriate ways and means of assisting those in need—it is, in fact, a fundamental calling of the Christian life—but it is imperative that we look beyond material circumstances to ensure that our actions produce their intended results. This requires knowing the person, and that tip should clue us in on God’s design in all of this. Bureaucracies, drive-thru food pantries and quick hand-outs at the intersection are cheap knock-offs of the real thing: relationally-driven service and grace. When we remove relationship from the equation, we also remove accountability and responsibility—the lack of which is often the very source of the problem to begin with.
——————————————————–
The “Two Cents” blog is part of the American Enterprise Institute‘s “Common Sense Concept” project, an initiative to bring young people into the discussion about faith, politics and economics.
The Conservative dilemma & why Santorum will fall
January 4th, 2012 § Leave a Comment
The impressive near-victory by Rick Santorum in last night’s Iowa caucus is making headlines today, but his star will fall soon enough. As I argued in my last post, Mitt Romney is the inevitable candidate, and for two reasons: he can beat Barack Obama, and he would be a pretty good president.
Santorum is simply the latest in the never-ending train of “anti-establishment” candidates, a fact evinced by his complete inability to earn serious consideration by Republicans until all other options imploded. Mitt Romney is not the guy conservatives wanted this time around, but they will soon have to admit what we really knew all along: that guy isn’t in the race.
I rooted for Mitch Daniels early on. He declined to run. Others rooted for Chris Christie, Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio, but it simply isn’t their time. What we ultimately ended up with is a field of candidates who are each impressive in their own way, but come with at least one massive handicap. Perry’s home-state success can’t outweigh his debate gaffes; Paul’s conviction for individual liberty can’t outweigh his wacky foreign policy; Gingrich’s excellent debate skills can’t outweigh his personal baggage; Cain has his sketchy past and Bachmann has this.
Santorum cannot be the nominee because he is completely mismatched to the concerns of the electorate. He is a hard social conservative running at a time when jobs, the economy and international instability are key concerns. I like that faith and family are important to him (just as they are with Romney) but sometimes you need a chaplain and sometimes you need a mechanic.
The 2016 and 2020 cycles will provide a bevy of seasoned conservatives from which to elect a national standard-bearer. But for 2012 we have two possible choices: Romney or Obama.
This is sad news for fiscal conservatives who felt they were abandoned in 2008 with a McCain nomination (include me among them). This, not Obama, is what kick-started the Tea Party movement. They have spent four years anticipating 2012, and they are working hard to show that they will not be pushed around, which has resulted in one of the most bizarre nominating processes in recent history. But again, Santorum’s social focus will not enthuse this crowd for long.
I am willing to acknowledge the good fight and go with the candidate most likely to result in a better America, even if he’s not ideal. But there are plenty of martyrs left to continue the resistance. Those who think America is ready for a hard-lined conservative are ignoring the realities of the country they live in.
Our best chance is nominating Romney and making sure that the Congress he must work with is solidly conservative. He might not win. And he wouldn’t be as conservative a president as one of the other guys. But let’s not forget that what brought our nation leftward was not presidents but culture. If we want to reverse course, it’s got to happen outside of the voting booth.