Mona, I get some of the same mail you do, from people who think that Newt is the Last Word in Conservatism. I’m learning, more and more, that political perceptions have a great deal to do with style. If you slash and shout, many people think of you as “conservative” or “right-wing.” If you say right-wing things in a calm, polite way, you may be seen as a moderate.
“Attitude” is another word that comes to mind — attitude and style. They have so much to do with political perceptions.
Think about two governors, Perry and Romney. (Well, one’s a former governor.) Perry is considered the more conservative by far. But there are some areas in which Romney is to the “right” of Perry. Thing is, Perry could quote The Communist Manifesto and he’d still come off as conservative. It’s the swagger, the chest, the twang — all that.
I used to say that Richard Armitage seemed right-wing, looked right-wing. He was built like a brick you-know-what. I think William Safire once referred to him as “a State Department source, with no neck.” But Armitage was at one, philosophically, with Colin Powell.
Newt Gingrich will always seem more conservative than Romney, if for style and attitude alone, I think.
P.S. The enemies a guy makes makes a huge difference too. In some ways, Nixon out-LBJ’d LBJ, as he occasionally liked to brag. But the Left hated Nixon so much, righties rallied to him.
"If you slash and shout, many people think of you as “conservative” or “right-wing.” If you say right-wing things in a calm, polite way, you may be seen as a moderate."
This is b/c modern Conservatism is more about being angrily against things than it is coming up with solutions for anything. This is perfectly clear when you read the emotional exhortations for support for Newt and his confrontational style.
I honestly believe that a certain category of person has been completely unable to come to terms with the sweeping changes we've seen socially over the last two decades, and the fact that the American public simply does not wish to have the sort of limited and small government that many of them prefer. I can see how it would be frustrating to them, but it results in extremely short-sighted policy and disastrous political proposals - there is very little 'long game' thinking going on on the right side of the fence these days, which is really depressing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"the fact [is] that the American public simply does not wish to have the sort of limited and small government that many of them prefer."
Wrong-o-mundo. Read the polls instead of Huffpo.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInstead of the polls, I'll just review the last three decades, thanks very much. The gov't has expanded that entire time, under both parties, and both parties' politicians keep getting elected right back in to keep doing it.
Don't listen to what people say - watch what they DO. Nobody is DOING anything to stop the expansion of government - and even those who say that they want to do so, aren't numerous enough to actually make that happen, and always have exceptions from programs they like (such as the military - expanded military = expanded government).
I don't see that changing anytime soon. The recent crop of 'tea party' candidates, for example, who specifically ran against the expansion of gov't, didn't take long to settle right down and start finding pork for their own districts...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"the gov't has expanded that entire time, under both parties"
more leftist clap trap lies. The government has been run by the Democrat party (which is controlled by liberals) continuously, uninterrupted for over 4 decades. The only way to say that Republicans EVER controlled anything is to look toward a brief 2yr period and count Arlen Specter as a Republican. History has shown that he never was.
Meanwhile, the "government" has been staffed up with multiple generations of leftist bureaucrats who have continuously expanded control.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find your comments here to be amusingly ignorant - a willful blindness to the reality of the expansion of gov't under Republican rule as well as Dem rule.
'Bureaucrats' don't expand control. The legislature and Exec branches either instruct or allow them to do so.
But yaknow, keep on blaming everything on the Dems, that'll work out about as well as it has for, oh, never.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnyone who can't call the Democratic Party by its proper name can't be expected to get anything else right either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat makes you think I CAN'T call them by their proper name?
I typically use both 'Dem' and 'GOP' as shorthand, as it's a lot faster than typing out the full name every time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is nothing democratic about urging unelected judges and bureaucrats to fundamentally transform our constitutional order.
So, it doesn't deserve to be called by the name it chose for itself.
Given its name in light of that undemocratic project, however, they sure had a moment of clarity when choosing a mascot!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sure I won't be the only one to point this out, but....
Ronald Reagan (a Republican) had a GOP Senate for 6 of his 8 years in office. Bush I (a Republican) never had the House or Senate on his side. Bill Clinton (a Democrat) had a GOP House and Senate for 6 of his 8 years in office. Bush II (a Republican) had a GOP Senate for 5 of his 8 years, and a GOP House for 6 of his 8 years. Obama (a Democrat) will have had a GOP House for 2 of his 4 years.
Maybe if you actually understood who was in charge of what and when they were in charge of it you wouldn't be so angry, or perhaps you would channel that anger to where it more properly belongs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFour uninterrupted decades of continuous Democratic rule? What are you smoking? That's so obviously false I feel embarrassed to reply to it. Oh well, noblesse oblige. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If you slash and shout, many people think of you as “conservative” or “right-wing.” If you say right-wing things in a calm, polite way, you may be seen as a moderate."
Ding! Ding! Ding! Give that man a cigar.
When I was growing up my dad used to say he raised "two good conservatives and one Atilla the Hun" - with me in the starring role. Then, when I got involved in local politics, people started to refer to me (behind my back) as a moderate. I soon learned it had everything to do with style and what you wear on your shoulder and nothing to do with actual policy positions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice try, but no dice.
Romney is to the Left of Gingrich and has always been to the left of Gingrich and will always be to the Left of Gingrich. Romney has nothing going for him to inspire the base of the Party. He's another GHWB Sr., Dole, McCain. <--- why do you like these loosers?
And for the record, Newt was criticizing Reagan from the RIGHT for rebuking Jeane Kirkpatrick March 1986 U.N. speech stating we would support right-wing governments of any stripe versus Communist ones.
Newt joined ranks with Jeane Kirkpatrick, NRO contributor CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, Irving Kristol, and George WIll:
Newt:
"... measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire's challenge the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic fundamental change in strategy will continue to fail ...
...the fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan's strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administrations weak policies, which are inadequeate and will ultimately fail."
Romney is no Reaganite and opposed any public association with Reagan throughout his political career!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is really the point. You at NR can pontificate and opine all day about the sullied and sullying rabble you disdain for their purported affinity for bombast and "bombthrowing". I get it; we who support Gingrich in his quest to vanquish Romney are all teeth and snarls and lust for "red meat." We're immature sensualists committed to nothing but "the fashion." We're foolish children turning deaf ears to your wise counsel, dancing to the tunes of a pied piper charlatan who lead us to our doom. We are wretchedly, willfully blind to the secret truth that Gingrich is a liberal (he sat with Pelosi, for God's sake!) and Romney a staunch conservative. We're just plain stupid.
Anyone who has followed Gingrich's career will recognize Romney's tactics - they are those used by the leftist media in the 90's to successfully demonize Gingrich for taking back the congress, moving toward fiscal responsibility, and generally standing up against and then channeling the power of Bill Clinton. Gingrich isn't a leader? Ridiculous, and you know it.
Purportedly, Romney is a guy who only realized that abortion was wrong when he was in his late forties (at about the same time his advisers were warning that a "principled" pro-choice position wasn't going to play nationally). So he has less moral acumen than the stars of 16 and Pregnant. Champion him all you want; moon over your Tigerbeat dreamboy. But spare us the intellectual hand wringing and feigned perplexity over the real world's genuinely thoughtful rejection of your fantasies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJay, you need to read Rich's "Last of the WASPs" that he published today.
I am 72, daughter is 48, and we were raised to see Romney as the ideal man - she said recently, "Newt says some things that we all would like to say but we were raised not to say them."
So much of Romney's not connecting is that he was raised not to show all of his emotions and much of his business skill had to include listening to how things were and not showing emotion or favoritism.
Like Romney, I consider Bush 41 to be a hero.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I’m learning, more and more, that political perceptions have a great deal to do with style."
Including the perception that a certain former governor of Massachusetts--who enshrined Planned Parenthood into law permanently, banned "assault" weapons permanently, created the template that later became Obamacare, and destroyed his state's fiscal standing--can style himself as a conservative and create the perception among chattering classes that he actually is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf there was ever a template for Obamacare, it can be found in the Heritage Foundations archives.
"Laying the Groundwork for Universal Health Care Coverage" - March 10, 2003
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe difference being that Heritage admits the idea was a mistake. Romney not only will not do so, he continually praises it as a great idea and a success.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusea CONSERVATIVE idea.
That is what he called it: inherently conservative.
Why is it inherently conservative? Because the states posses the power to enact it.
So, he loses miserably on two fronts: he thinks mandating people to purchase a financial instrument is conservative, and he totally misunderstands the tenth amendment as it relates to conservatism.
As a poseur, he's awful. But, at this point, who knows what the genuine article would look like?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is nothing more Constitutionally Conservative that the notion that your State should have the wherewithal to enact the health care policies that the people of your State wish to have enacted via their elected representatives.
The OUTCOME of that decision may not be palatable to small-government conservatives, but the Constitution does not guarantee outcome, it only seeks to protect the process by which the outcome is arrived at.
As a Constitutional Conservative, I want Roe v Wade overturned, and even acknowledging that abortion on demand will remain available in many States of the Union, I want each State to have the ability to arrive at their own, independent decision on the issue.
That's why Romneycare is an inherently Conservative concept that fully embraces the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...he totally misunderstands the tenth amendment as it relates to conservatism."
No actually, you have no clue.
There is no such thing as "the tenth Amendment as it relates to conservatism", there is only the Tenth Amendment.
The Tenth Amendment draws a simple line...those powers not specifically granted to The United States, or denied to the States, belong to the States, and the people.
The Constitution neither grants The United States the power to mandate the people to purchase health insurance, or deny the States the ability to do so, so the States CLEARLY can decide to enact an individual mandate at the State level.
The decision to do so may not be palatable to conservatives, but if arrived act by act of the State legislature, and in a manner consistent with the State's Constitution, a State-level individual mandate is completely Constitutional, and in tune with the Constitutional concept of Federalism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse