One of the problems in trying to select a leader for any large organization or institution is the tendency to start out looking for Superman, passing up many good people who fail to meet that standard, and eventually ending up settling for a warm body.
Some Republicans seem to be longing for another Ronald Reagan. Good luck on that one, unless you are prepared to wait for several generations. Moreover, even Ronald Reagan himself did not always act like Ronald Reagan.
Advertisement
The current outbreak of “gotcha” attacks on Texas governor Rick Perry show one of the other pitfalls for those who are trying to pick a national leader. The three big sound-bite issues used against him during the TV “debates” have involved Social Security, immigration, and a vaccine against cervical cancer.
Where these three issues have been discussed at length, whether in a few media accounts or in Governor Perry’s own more extended discussions in an interview on Sean Hannity’s program, his position was far more reasonable than it appeared to be in either his opponents’ sound bites or even in his own abbreviated accounts during the limited time available in the TV “debate” format.
On Social Security, Governor Perry was not only right to call it a “Ponzi scheme,” but was also right to point out that this did not mean welshing on the government’s obligation to continue paying retirees what they had been promised.
Even those of us who still disagree with particular decisions made by Governor Perry can see some of those decisions as simply the errors of a decent man who realized that he was faced not with a theory but with a situation.
For example, the ability to save young people from cervical cancer with a stroke of a pen was a temptation that any decent and humane individual would find hard to resist, even if Governor Perry himself now admits to having second thoughts about how it was done.
Many of us can agree with Rep. Michele Bachmann’s contention that it should have been done differently. But it reflects no credit on her to have tried to scare people with claims about the dangers of vaccination. Such scares have already cost the lives of children who have died on both sides of the Atlantic from diseases that vaccination would have prevented.
The biggest mischaracterization of Governor Perry’s position has been on immigration. The fact that he has more confidence in putting “boots on the ground” along the border, instead of relying on a fence that can be climbed over or tunneled under where there is no one around, is a logistical judgment, not a question of being against border control.
Texas Rangers have already been put along the border to guard the border where the federal government has failed to guard it. Former senator Rick Santorum’s sound-bite attempts to paint Governor Perry as soft on border control have apparently been politically successful, judging by polls. But his repeated interrupting of Perry’s presentation of his case during the recent debate is the kind of cheap political trick that contributes nothing to public understanding and much to public misunderstanding.
Those of us who disagree with Governor Perry’s decision to allow the children of illegal immigrants to attend the state colleges and universities, under the same terms as Texas citizens, need at least to understand what his options were. These were children who were here only because of their parents’ decisions and who had graduated from Texas high schools.
Governor Perry saw the issue as whether these children should now be allowed to continue their education, and become self-supporting taxpayers, or whether Texas would be better off with a higher risk of those young people becoming dependents or worse. I still see Governor Perry’s decision as an error, but the kind of error that a decent and humane individual would be tempted to make.
I have far more questions about those who would blow this error up into something that it is not. Error-free leaders don’t exist — and we don’t want to end up settling for a warm body.
Ultimately, this is not about Governor Perry. It is about a process that can destroy any potential leader, even when the country needs a new leader with a character that the “gotcha” attackers demonstrate they do not have.
Dr. Sowell is as persuasive and eloquent as always, and he ablaly answers all of the recent criticisms of Rick Perry, save one. That is that the Governor has taken the most vile, mean and unfair attacks of the Left against Conservitives, that we are heartless bigots, and made it his own. Rick Perry has not only thrown out this vitriol for his own benefit, but he supplies our opponents on the Left with fresh ammunition and cover to continue their lies. This is unforgivable, Dr. Sowell. And "I'm sorry, I won't do it again," just won't cut it.
Wildbillcuster didn't say Perry was vitriolic -- he merely characterized one statement as being "vitriol." So only one example is necessary.
The quote is from the recent FoxNews/Google debate, and is (in accurate quotes): "But if you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they've been brought there by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart."
I'm getting a little tired of the righteous anger of Perry's "heartless" comment. Your manufactured outrage is a tad bit over the top.
Perry is the GOVERNOR of a state that has to deal with the real world consequences of the Federal Government's inaction. He cannot deport these people, but they live in the communities in his state. Therefore, he has to make decisions based on the reality of the situation he is dealt. He has basically two choices- educate these kids so that they can support themselves and not become a burden on the state or not educate these kids, who are then likely to become residents of our prisons (and pay to incarcerate them at $23K/year). Deporting these kids is not an option available to him.
He is therefore left with crafting public policy that benefits all residents of his state. Is it better to educate these kids or pay to incarcerate them? Which is cheaper from a monetary and human standpoint? And the facts are these kids did not cross the border on their own. They were in fact brought here by their parents. What is fair? Hold them responsible for the actions of their parents or allow them to continue their education in the only state they have ever known? Keep in mind, these kids do not get "special treatment" over American kids. They get the same treatment as kids in other states.
Another thing to keep in mind is this Texas Dream act passed in 2001 with overwhelming bipartisan support. No one in the Senate voted NO on the bill. Even if Perry had vetoed the bill, the legislature would have overturned it (like they did his Gardesil decision). Why? Because the citizens of Texas decided that if they have to live with these kids, they would rather have them educated and productive members of society than terrorizing their neighborhoods committing crime.
Another thing to remember - we are talking about less than 1% of college students. Why all the fuss over 1% of college students?
Perry's decisions as Governor are different than his decisions as President. Why? Because the roles and responsibilities are different. For example, a fence would not work in Texas because we share a river and 2 lakes with Mexico. As Sowell pointed out, it is a matter of logistics, not soft on border security. That doesn't mean a fence wouldn't make sense along AZ border.
As a citizen of Texas and someone who lives in the state and lives with all these illegals, I support Perry (and the state legislature) decisions. They have to make decisions that work for everyone, considering they can't deport these people. I agree with Perry that you are heartless to say that this kids shouldn't be educated. There is a humane way of dealing with this problem and I am disgusted by some of my fellow Republicans attitude towards these kids. These children have spent their entire life here. They don't know Mexico or Guatemala or El Salvedor or Ecuador. This is the only county they know. They have become part of our communities. They went to school with us and our children, they attend our churches, they play little league with our kids, ect. Our government has allowed these people to flood into our country unchecked and looked the other way for 25 years. We are now going to tell them, sorry...I don't care if you have lived here for 25 years, don't know the country of your parents origin but you have to go!!! But hey, it was great playing soccer with you.
Newt was right when he said the solution is not an either/or - we either deport them all or we give them all amnesty. There is a workable, hybrid solutions that is both fair and humane.
Final point - The state of Texas does not have the resources or money to secure the border itself. Now if the Feds would like to let us keep more of our Fed taxes we pay, we can divert them to the state and let the state deal with this problem, but I don't see that happening. Perry has already spent $400M of Texas state residents tax money on border security that we don't have and we pay the feds money to take care of this problem...but they refuse. So we get to spend money twice to take care of the same problem.
Perry is doing what he can to deal with a difficult situation. His options are limited and if you guys think that bachmann, santoreum, or Romney are really going to take immigration seriously, you are kidding yourself. This has become an issue that neither side really wants to solve. They use it to campaign on and raise money.
Error free science doesn't exist either. With the surprising discovery of a particle faster than the speed of light the sacrosant theory of relativity is spun on its ear. The fundamental basis of Physics is now in question. If Relativity is in error what about global warming? Evolution? If you seek perfection look to God, not scientists nor politicians. Then we speak of ecnonomists the Dismal scientists.
Washington was demeaned by Peter Porcupine , Jefferson by James Callender and Lincoln by his own cabinet members. None would have survived sound bites taken out of context.
One "apparently" contradictory observation does not invalidate a scientific theory, especially one as thoroughly tested as special relativity. This isn't the first time someone thought they observed something contrary to the theory, but on further investigation it turned out they were in error. Until the recent observation is replicated, relativity is safe. Odds are the claim is mistaken
Relativity and evolution are not remotely in the same category as anthropomorphic global warming. The first two have been thoroughly tested by repeatable experiment, and by scientists with no political axe to grind, while the latter is the product only of computer models which fail to account for several important factors. And its promoters start with a preconceived notion of how they would like things to be. In fact AGW has a lot more in common with so called "creation science" than it does with the well tested principles of physics or biology.
Thank you for this column.
I have said elsewhere that the way the news media and even conservative commentators have been judging our field of candidates, even Ronald Reagan would have been mocked and not have been acceptable.
I too wish there were more simple statements of facts and less look how smart I am in the way panelists discuss the debates and candidates.
I think Perry is better than he has been portrayed on Fox and others. He would be fine against Obama in a debate and I think he would be a good president.
I say this even though my candidate is not yet in the race.
Another important related point, which Dr. Sowell didn't touch on, is that candidates that attempt to present themselves as unerring are dishonest.
I thought Gov. Perry's admission of regret at the approach he took with the vaccine was straightforward and sincere. In contrast, I thought Rep. Bachmann's refusal to walk back her statements linking vaccination to retardation were repugnant. (I also thought her presentation of the issue in the first place was overwrought but that's beside the point.)
Sen. Santorum's conflation of Perry's preference of more guards over an uninterrupted fence (lost in the noise was Perry's support of fences, generally) with an abject lack of interest in border security was appallingly disingenuous. Since Santorum's state borders other states, perhaps he could learn something from somebody who has sent his state's national guard to protect the border where the federal government won't and has actually called for Predator drones to patrol that border, along with federal troops. If not, as a fellow Republican, one would think he could "agree to disagree" if he thinks an unending fence is preferable to federal border guards.
To suggest that Gov. Perry is "soft" on border security is a falsehood, plain and simple.
I don't expect perfection, either, but Rep. Bachmann and Sen. Santorum, both of whom I liked and supported with my money in the past, just scratched themselves off my list. While I don't expect perfection, we've already got a dishonest president and I hope to avoid voting for a blatantly dishonest one to replace him.
Frankly, I thought Perry's non-apology apology for calling us heartless was less than satisfactory, and made reluctantly, only after the story dragged on for a week.
Also clearly evident is the double standard applied to candidates. Did Obama the candidate face even a tenth of the scrutiny that Perry et al. have received? I think not.
We don't (necessarily) want a superman, but give us someone who is as passionate about their beliefs as we are about ours.
Say what you will about Dutch, but it was his conviction to his ideals that garnered him his legend. Of course he came to us from the Democrat Party which does fight ravenously for their beliefs. Now, after decades of compromising to the Left, Republicans just don't have anything left to defend. They've either abandoned their principles or adopted a new one of just slowing the Liberal agenda.
Enter the Conservative moment and the Tea Party.
Perry is neither a Reagan nor a Carter. I'm lukewarm on him (I live in Texas) but, perhaps, that's because I've seen him for ten years.
Perry's problem is of mismanaged expectations. He's spent the last year speaking at Tea-party rallies and making the "right" noises. The reality hasn't lived up to the hype, which is no damnation of Perry.
Of course he will be the punching bag. While I agree with Dr. Sowell that we cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good, this, as they say, ain't tiddly-winks.
If Christie enters the race, expect a second verse, same as the first.
Dr. Sowell makes some good points, the main one being “Get a grip.” We shouldn’t completely trash a candidate because of a few flaws or bad decisions. This is a needed reminder and we are fortunate to have had it so eloquently expressed.
But a part of the equation that is being left out is that the reason so many are dissatisfied with the front runners — Perry and Romney — is not because of a dose of perfectionist Utopianism (something that does exist among Ron Paul enthusiasts), but the realization that neither of these men seem to be particularly conservative.
It’s a huge problem that Perry has supported giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens — something not given even to legal residents of other states and that therefore sets illegal aliens above American citizens. And the worst thing of all is that he called this a matter of “heart.” It is arguable that the biggest threat to our country is this kind of never-ending checkbook compassion.
But we’re running out of money. The mounting national debt is an existential threat to our continued existence as a free country. We keep paying for the benevolence of politicians and there seems to be no limit to what is demanded of us. Nor does this in-state tuition for illegal aliens issue give any hint that Perry sees any kind of natural limit to this compassion via our-tax-money. Does anyone honestly foresee Perry — decent man, though he obviously is — reducing the size of government should he become president? Or, as seems more likely, would he perhaps institute Medicare Part E?
"something not given even to legal residents of other states"
If you are going to criticize Perry, at least criticize for what he actually did.
The bill that he signed (it passed the legislature with veto proof margins) gave illegals the same rights as residents from other states. It did not, in any way shape or form give illegals superior rights.
You mean residents from other states get in-state tuition in Texas too? Or did you mean to say the bill gave illegals the same rights as illegal residents in other states?
If "having a heart" is the issue I wish Perry had a heart for out-of-state parents who could afford only Texas' in-state tuition. Why should he have a heart form them, I'm not sure. But he should have more heart for them -- e.g. me -- than for illegals, I would think.
More argument from ignorance.
Illegals only get in-state tuition if they establish residence.
The same residence requirements are there for Americans from other states.
That is, they both have the exact same requirements for getting in-state tuition rates.
How exactly does an illegal alien "establish residence" when they aren't legally here in the first place?
This is an excellent example of how far the left has managed to twist the argument over the years. We get tangled in issues that would be total non-starters if we just enforced our laws to begin with.
