Amidst the torrent of commentary on the Second Coming of Newt, Jonah’s point is worth considering:
Mitt Romney is still the sensible choice if you believe these are rough, but generally sensible, times. If, however, you think these are crazy and extraordinary times, then perhaps they call for a crazy, extraordinary — very high-risk, very high-reward — figure like Gingrich.
This helps explain why Newtzilla is so formidable. In order to stop him, you need to explain to very anxious GOP voters that the times don’t require him.
I’m in the latter camp: I think these are “crazy and extraordinary times.” Matter of fact, I wrote a whole book on the subject. So, for me, it’s not enough merely to replace Obama: He’s a symptom of the problem, rather than the underlying cause. The ship of state has become encrusted with barnacles upon barnacles, and, if the next guy isn’t committed to getting rid of them, we’re still going to sink.
Is Mitt the fellow to do that? Hillsdale’s Paul Rahe considers the matter:
He will do what he needs to do to attract our votes, or, at least, in his awkward, inept way, he will try. And in this one particular he may feel bound to keep his promise. But once in office – like Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush One, and Bush Two – he will drift into extending the power and scope of the administrative entitlements state.
That would seem the way to bet. “Drift” is the best way to sum up his nominal stewardship of Massachusetts. In national office, he might approximate the instincts of David Cameron: Occasionally, depending on the audience he’s pandering to, he’ll say the right thing, but it’s entirely whimsical and arbitrary, and underneath the drift goes on.
This next term is critical for America, not just because (if the IMF is correct) it may mark the end of America’s long run as the world’s leading economy but because, if Obamacare is not repealed in the next four years, it will never be repealed. As I’ve said for years, government health care fundamentally (as Newt would say) redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state into one closer to junkie and pusher. Once the Obamacare goodies kick in, getting back across the Rubicon will be a tough job. Nothing in Mitt’s past suggests he’s got either the stomach for that fight or the savvy to win it — and that’s before you consider his basic instincts on the matter:
His initial response to Obamacare was to want “to repeal the bad and keep the good,” and among the things he thought good about the President’s healthcare reform were the incentive structure (i.e., the individual mandate enforced by fines) and the provision that insurance be provided to those with pre-existing conditions who had not seen fit to pay for insurance when they thought that they were healthy (i.e., making the responsible pay for the irresponsible).
So, if these are “crazy and extraordinary times,” go with the crazy, right? Newt certainly thinks bigger than Mitt, but unfortunately he thinks in the same direction of unbounded micro-managerial faux-technocracy. Professor Rahe again:
Gingrich is a lot like Romney. Neither man recognizes that the source of our problems is government meddling and the distortion that this produces in what would otherwise be a free and relatively efficient market. What they think of as a cure is, in fact, the disease… What these managerial progressives in their desperation to manage the lives of the rest of us fail to understand is that the intellectual presumption underpinning the aspiration to “rational administration” that they embrace is the principal cause of our woes.
It’s a tragedy that the Republican nomination has dwindled down to a choice not worth making. Yet not a single real vote has yet been cast. Iowa and New Hampshire will do us all a favor if they look beyond the frontrunners and keep genuinely conservative candidates in the game.
The problem is that the sine qua non to reversal of the status quo is the defeat of President Obama in 2012. Newt can't do that, Mitt can. Case closed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf it's crazy you want, why not go all the way to Ron Paul bizzaro world? You get plenty of crazy, and don't have to be embarrassed by the tawdriness of Grindgrinch. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs much as they envied and hated him, when the stuff started to fly, and the Fate of the Enterprise was in jeopardy, they called Patton. Or Grant. Take your pick.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJonah has indeed struck upon the crux of the matter.
There lies the Rubicon. Are we prepared to cross it? And who will lead us?
Big Questions.
Hear! Hear!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeriously, when do we ever get to vote for anything other than the lesser of two evils? Yes, Mitt and Newt may both be managerial progessives, but no one measures up to the ideal (even if we knew what that's supposed to be).
The important thing is, we need to get one of our guys elected. If it's Newt, we'll have to work at reining him in at times. If it's Mitt, we'll have to drag him along to get anything done. Either way, our work's cut out for us. Me, I go for the guy who's most likely to take down Obama in a debate: Newt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hear you, but can't remember a single debate Newt won during the Clinton years. Yes, there were issues won and lost but if he couldn't out talk Slick Willy do you really believe he'll fare any better with Obama?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe is also the most likely to say something to take himself down.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, very likely Newt will say something the smart set will run around pretending to be all outraged about. I, for one, won't be buffaloed by the fake hysteria, having seen the routine too many times in the past.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOr he will say something half baked. He has no filter between his imagination and his mouth.
Don't get me wrong I like people who throw out ideas for people to chew on, but when you are running for president your ideas that you propose as policy should be well thought out before you put them in the spotlight in a debate or national televised interview. i know that kind of leaves him constrained in that one thing that he does best, imagining new creative solutions, and it is hard to ask him to do less of that. But as the editors say, he should advise the party, not lead it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd why would it be so terribly wrong if a president suggested a half-baked idea? Why would that threaten the collapse of our republic? Every president has put forth at least one bone-headed concept. Reagan, Lincoln, Washington... they've all floated some dumb ideas, and we've survived it. Partly it's because of the balance of power - the president proposes and Congress disposes.
We needn't inordinately fear what Gingrich might put forward. Besides, if one doesn't put out some overly bold suggestions, then one's playing things too timidly (which would be the Romney approach).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe wouldn't have to about him actually coming up with half baked ideas as president because he isn't going to get that far.
But it isn't throwing out one bone headed idea, it is one every ten minutes. Also focus is something he isn't particularly good at, and focus is a skill that comes in handy if you are a president. He will jump from idea to idea without ever seeing them through. It is not a character flaw, it can be an asset in certain situations, but it is not particularly successful character type for a president.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGetting a Republican in the White House would solve nothing if it isn't the right Republican. Do you really think that John Boehner's House and Mitch McConnell's Senate would pull a Republican President to the right?! Without active, effective conservative leadership from the President, nothing good will happen in Washington and you won't get that sort of leadership from Newt or Mitt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCincy,
I completely agree - if we can put some more Tea Party fighters in Congress in Nov2012, then we can keep Newt on the straight and narrow.
But we've got to 1) beat Obama, and 2) beat him with someone who has the grit/pugnacity to FIGHT. Ryan was the guy with the timing and the tools, but his declination signals he's a brilliant technician who doesn't have the stomach to FIGHT and an ear for History (or at least he doesn't share my opinion that 'I'll run down the road aways' isn't going to be an option that can then make a difference). So that leaves Newt (if he can win).
2012 is the Normandy and the Battle of Midway rolled into one. If Obama wins, it's good night, nurse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt Gingrich will lose National Election dramatically.
It is like giving Obama another 4 years.
Besides, Newt Gingrich has entertained Federal Mandates for Health Care, Cap and Trade, even Amnesty. He has been selling a con game to Our Base, while profiting from Fannie and Freddie for years.
He is a disaster, not even a Reaganite anymore.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEven Nostradomus couldn't make that prediction with certainty. Statements like that are ludicrous by you or by any of the other smartypants in the beltway or outside of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNeither Mitt Romney nor Newt Gingrich is a true conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe stereotype some are presenting using the name "conservative" - no, they aren't.
But in real conservative terms, even compared to Reagan, Mr. Romney clearly is a conservative. He is center right, with a strong record.
His excellence and devotion to the Free Market is part of the basis for his conservative offering. But even while he as Mass Gov, he balanced the 3 Bill Dollar deficit, cut taxation and regulation like a typical conservative.
The fashion is so lost, that is the problem, not the Romney offering.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo what's a true conservative? Was Reagan a conservative? He changed his mind on many key topics like abortion. Does that disqualify him? Was he the bastion of conservative leadership when he was governor of California? Not really. So why this standard being applied to Mitt? Do you reject all Republicans who became more conservative as they mature in their political life? That dismisses a lot of people. Romney is not McCain. He knows economic issues, whereas McCain was clueless (in fact McCain started losing big when the economy stared crashing and all he could talk about was earmarks. Utterly clueless. So what about supporting conservative issues? Romney testified in defense of DOMA. McCain led the Gang of 14 in derailing many of Bush's judicial nominees and in thumbing his nose at the Republican leadership. He actively pursued amnesty, whereas Mitt has not. Need more examples?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI follow the logic here on Romney, but less so on Newt. Firstly, he had the stomach for welfare reform and balanced budgets in the 90s, and once he was gone, we saw exactly how much stomach was left in the fight by his fellow Republicans. None.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSecondly, if you look at his platform, he is proposing five executive orders on his first day. Two of them repeal enormous regulatory bills (Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank), one gets rid of the White house czars, one repeals Obamacare and the last directs the US embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. All except that last one (as Gingrich would say) fundamentally change the game and chart a reverse course for American society. Yes, Newt has big Government ideas, but these are not the same as accepting, as Romney apparently does, that the real problem is management, and not culture. Newt's big ideas seem to stem from a desire to change the society to value science and progress, the only way the US is going to stem that Chinese tide you're so concerned about. Government programs may not be the best way to do this, but it is a serious attempt to tackle the problem. As for his "conservative" opponents, Rick Perry seems to think the best way to deal with drought is communal prayer, and Michelle Bachmann thinks conservatism means bringing back the good old days of polio. There are real reasons these candidates poll numbers are in the gutter. They should be frankly addressed.
This is very well said. Wish we could have a choice rather than an echo.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse