Tuesday, April 3, 2007
I do think Mitt is smart, a good fundraiser, and a super-salesman, so I try to think about what he thinks he's doing. My view in general that no one really wants the 2008 Repub nomination, so he might well be positioning himself as everyone's second choice on the reasonable theory that the front runners (McCain and Giuliani so far) will falter. I also thought he could construct a kind of narrative out of his business and Olympics background, and the relative success of Massachusetts in recent years, that he was a pragmatic and effective fellow. This would allow him to play events in the Iraq war and national economy either way.
But that isn't what he did, and it's not his strategy. It turns out that Romney's idea was that the religious right controls the Republican nomination, and that he should be everyone's social conservative second-choice. His business credentials provide him the money to knock out the more consistent but unappealing religious conservatives in the race.
Now, I'm notoriously bad at picking elections, that goes with the territory out here at the political horizons. But I think Romney's strategy has several problems:
1. The religious right are not the most stable voting element in the Republican party. Prior to 2000 and 2004 they didn't vote in large numbers, and many are poor, elderly, and minorities who may split off on fiscal policies. Their leaders have already signaled Bush to forget about changing social security, and they show signs of dividing on Iraq and the environment.
2. Despite a lot of pork in the faith-based initiatives department, the second Bush administration has not really delivered major results for social conservatives.
3. Even if Romney can hold reassemble Bush's coalition of business Republicans and social conservatives (Holding onto it won't do with presidential approval ratings in the 30s.) to win the nomination, what does he do in the general election? He can no longer go either way on Iraq, and will be constrained on the economy, which ought to be a strong point for him.
He will (or would) have an opponent, and that will be one of the Democrats, so anything can happen. But from here it looks like Romney is painting himself and his supporters into a very expensive corner.
Monday, March 26, 2007
However, the real problem is: What is another axis? (And there could be more than one.) The late Christopher Lasch, whose ideas will appear here often, suggested two other axes. He began by suggesting the libertarians and communitarians had common cause with other such across the right-left divide. As a man of the left, Lasch felt a strong sympathy for the communitarian pull of many social conservatives. Later, in his book The True and Only Heaven, Lasch suggested that a believe in infinite progress, on both right and left, was a problem, leaving progressive conservatives (such as many free market enthusiasts), as distressed in power (he was writing during the Reagan administration) as the progressive liberals. Lasch then went through American history seeking a tradition of "Civic Republicanism" which combined a hope (distinguished from progressive "optimism") of human improvement with a stern acceptance of the limitations of progress.
There are even some political activists who cross up the usual labels. The wife of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is an anti-abortion feminist in word and deed. A former mayor of Boston, Ray Flynn, is now a conservative Catholic radio commentator with all that implies, but as a politician would describe himself as a "practically a Leninist" on housing policy. I admire both of these principled people for what they have accomplished, and where I disagree with each of them, would consider them the best possible kind of opponent.
- The Politics of Healthcare
- Iraq and Vietnam
- Economic Issues
Obviously, other issues will come up, but I will try to develop some materials on these four where I have done largely private writing and thinking, but some professional work as well. The opinions I express should not be identified with any of my employers, nor with anything I have published or will publish as a journalist in a medium of fact.