Redstate...
Can
Republicans Win In 2012 Without Leadership?
Leading
From Behind
Posted by
Dan McLaughlin
Monday,
March 12th
Fred
Barnes, who is nothing if not plugged in to the thinking of leading
Beltway
Republicans, looks at how the Congressional GOP plans to work with the
presidential nominee:
Republicans
would like to revive party unity and repeat the Reagan-Kemp success
story.
House speaker John Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell
are
planning to confer with the Republican nominee, once one emerges. Their
aim:
agreement on a joint agenda.
McConnell
has specific ideas about what the presidential candidate and
Republicans in
both houses of Congress should promote. “Obamacare should be the number
one
issue in the campaign,” he says. “I think it’s the gift that keeps on
giving.”
Next are
the deficit and national debt. These, in turn, would make entitlement
and tax
reform important issues against Obama. “We’re not interested in small
ball,”
McConnell says.
And there’s
another Republican initiative on Capitol Hill aimed at thwarting
President
Obama and Democrats. Republicans plan to keep up a steady stream of
bills and
proposals, mostly coming from the House, to foil the charge that
Obama’s
policies have been undercut by a “do-nothing Congress” – that is, a
Republican
Congress.
Even
considering the fact that McConnell has to play coy due to the fact
that
there’s as yet no nominee, you will notice what is missing in this
picture: the
idea that the nominee himself, now most likely Mitt Romney, will have
any ideas
of his own to which Congressional Republicans will have to accommodate
themselves. This is part of a broader pattern: outside of the party’s
most
moderate precincts – where Romney is seen as a bulwark against
conservatives –
Republicans who have resigned themselves to Romney have done so, more
or less,
on the theory that he can be brought around to do things the party’s
various
constituencies want him to do. This is the opposite of the thing we
normally
look for in a president: leadership in setting the agenda of the party
and the
country. As such, it represents an experiment, or at least a throwback
to the
late-19th century model of how the presidency operates. Can the GOP
beat Barack
Obama and run the country the next four years without presidential
leadership?
If you’ve
read many endorsements or apologias for supporting Romney, you’re
familiar with
the genre. Let’s start with the National Review’s always-incisive
Ramesh
Ponnuru, who endorsed Romney in December. If there were compelling
arguments to
be made for Romney’s ideas, Ramesh would make them. He waves a few
times in the
direction of Romney’s various current positions (Romney “now favors a
market-oriented reform to Medicare”), but nearly all of his argument
for Romney
as acceptable to conservatives are based on the idea that the party
would lead
Romney, rather than the other way around:
If Mitt
Romney becomes president, he will almost certainly be dealing with John
Boehner
as speaker of the House and Mitch McConnell as Senate majority leader.
While
they, too, have their conservative detractors, they are the most
conservative
congressional leaders Republicans have had in modern times, and they
will exert
a rightward influence on the Romney administration. If they send him
legislation to repeal Obamacare, cut taxes, or reform entitlements, he
will
sign it where Obama would veto it. If at some other point in his
presidency a
liberal-run Congress sends him tax increases, he will veto them where
Obama
would sign. Compared with President Obama, a President Romney would do
more to
protect the defense budget.
A President
Romney’s judicial nominees would be superior to President Obama’s
simply
because he would not be trying to stack the bench with liberal
activists. But
they are likely to far exceed that low bar. Each Republican president
since the
Nixon-Ford era has nominated a higher percentage of conservatives as
justices
to the Supreme Court than his predecessor. That’s mostly a testament to
the
growth and development of the conservative legal network. Romney is
likely to
look for nominees whom conservative lawyers like – Robert Bork is a top
adviser
– who are professionally accomplished, and who cannot be portrayed as
extreme.
If Republicans hold the Senate they will almost certainly be confirmed.
If they
do not, they will probably be confirmed.
Romney’s
regulatory agencies will be relatively restrained. His appointees to
the
National Labor Relations Board will not punish Boeing for locating a
plant in a
right-to-work state. He will act, within the limits of his legal
authority, to
keep the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing expensive
restrictions
on carbon emissions. He will reinstate conscience protections for
pro-life
health-care workers.
It’s true that
almost any Republican president, not just Romney, would do these
things. But
that’s the point.
Then
there’s Ponnuru’s National Review colleague Jonah Goldberg. Jonah has
long been
my favorite NR writer, someone I respect and almost always agree with.
He
hasn’t really taken sides in this trainwreck of a primary season, but
in early
February he laid out what he thought was the best argument for Romney:
Even if
Romney is a Potemkin conservative (a claim I think has merit but is
also
exaggerated), there is an instrumental case to be made for him: It is
better to
have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you.
A President
Romney would be on a very short leash…If elected, Romney must follow
through
for conservatives and honor his vows to repeal Obamacare, implement
Representative Paul Ryan’s agenda, and stay true to his pro-life
commitments.
Moreover,
Romney is not a man of vision. He is a man of duty and purpose. He was
told to
“fix” health care in ways Massachusetts would like. He was told to fix
the 2002
Olympics. He was told to create Bain Capital. He did it all. The man
does his
assignments.
How about
RedState’s own Martin Knight, offering his own take on Goldberg’s
column?
I don’t
believe he’ll be a Conservative out of gratitude, i.e. because he’ll
“owe” us –
it will be because he’ll have no choice. Keeping the GOP’s conservative
rank-and-file happy would not be just be a matter of political profit
for a
President Romney, it will be a matter of political survival.
…I believe
Romney would be a strong and able President and he would be fiscally
better
than George W. Bush and most importantly stratospherically better than
Barack
Obama. I believe he will be pro-life and pro-gun in word and deed
throughout
his Presidency and that he would nominate conservative judges and push
them
through the Senate.
I believe
all this because I believe that a President Mitt Romney would seek a
second
term in 2016. He’s too ambitious not to, and if there’s anything no one
can
doubt, it’s the breadth and depth of Mitt Romney’s ambition. And he
certainly
would not want to be a one-term President. Which is where we’ll own
him, lock,
stock and barrel.
…[U]nlike
2008 and 2012, in 2016 Conservatives are going to have lots and lots of
…
options.
And you’d best
believe that a President Romney and his staff are going to be well
aware of
those options and what would happen if he fails to walk the line – and
the need
for him to do so would be even more acute given how little he’s trusted
by
Conservatives in the first place. No Republican White House would want
a repeat
of 1992 – and with so many viable alternatives, and a significantly
more
organized conservative base, it’s not so much that a President Romney
would
fear not being able to win the General Election in November 2016, it’s
that he
might just become the very first sitting President to experience the
humiliation of failing to win his own Party’s nomination in the
Primaries.
In point of
fact, I think Martin’s argument overlooks two points: (1) Romney will
have
enormous tools at his disposal to raise money, change the primary
rules, etc.
to throttle off any primary challenge and (2) even if all this works, a
re-elected Romney after 2016 would have no such constraints. But take
the
argument as it is; it is still primarily an argument that Romney will
be led
rather than lead.
Next up is
Leon Wolf, another RedState Contributor I greatly respect and usually
agree
with. Leon’s point, written in early January:
Now, Mitt
Romney has often been criticized (fairly and completely accurately, in
my
opinion) as a flip-flopper. I agree that this is less than a desirable
trait
and if I had my druthers I would prefer someone like Rick Perry who has
been
more or less consistently conservative for a relatively long time (an
easier
feat in Texas than Massachusetts, no doubt, but that is beside the
point).
However, the most salient point I can divine about this criticism,
given the
fact that Romney’s latest flops are all to the right, is that Romney is
being
criticized for accurately perceiving that he needs conservatives. Yes,
I would
agree that Romney would bear careful watching as President and constant
egging
on from Congress, but I would certainly prefer someone who panders to
me for
political reasons than someone who openly gives me the finger in order
to
pander to centrists and/or leftists, which is exactly what we have
gotten in
terms of Presidential nominees for the last 20 years.
Then we
have former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, writing back in
October; Gerson is hardly a trusted movement conservative, but he’s an
eloquent
writer. What’s his “conservative case for Mitt Romney”?
So are
Romney’s current views his most authentic ones? On some issues – say,
health
care policy – it is difficult for an outsider to tell.
…Even
conservatives who buy none of these explanations may calculate that
Romney is
acceptable. Precisely because he has a history of ideological heresy,
it would
be difficult for him to abandon his current, more conservative
iteration. He
has committed himself on key conservative issues. Having flipped, he
could not
flop without risking a conservative revolt. As a result, conservatives
would
have considerable leverage over a Romney administration.
There is,
however, a less-cynical conservative case for Romney. Opponents accuse
him of
political pragmatism – of which he is clearly guilty. But Romney might
put his
pragmatism to good use. His economic advisers are solidly conservative.
Before
the primary season is done, we are likely to see some serious
entitlement and
tax reform proposals. A leadership team of Romney, Speaker John Boehner
and
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell might be just what the moment requires:
prudent
adults who are conservative but not too far ahead of the public.
In other
words, the best arguments for Romney as the leader of the party are
arguments
that Romney will not lead the party but follow it, subsume his own
ideas and
inclinations and cater to what the voters and his caucus on Capitol
Hill seem
to want. How does this work in practice? Let’s look at what supply-side
analyst
James Pethokoukis, one of the sharpest minds on the right-leaning
economic
punditry beat, wrote about Romney’s original 59-point economic plan:
[I]magine
private-equity boss Romney back at Bain Capital sitting down to read
his team’s
59-point turnaround plan for some troubled widget maker. And imagine if
the
first two action items started with the phrase “Maintain current ….”
Romney
probably wouldn’t bother reading any further before tossing the report
in the
trash, calling a meeting, and cracking heads. Heck, if Private Equity
Romney
were called in to turn around Romney Campaign Inc., axing CEO Romney
might be
the first move on his to-do list – especially after looking at last
night’s
numbers from Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri.
Pethokoukis
included a number of suggestions for how Romney could overhaul his
agenda, but
he wrote much more glowingly about Romney’s revised plan. Here’s what
Rush
Limbaugh, who has been critical of Romney, took away from Pethokoukis
and his
fellow supply-sider Larry Kudlow enthusing about the improved plan:
[D]o you
remember a piece by Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal not
long ago, I
quoted from it repeatedly. Henninger’s point was that Romney is not
naturally a
conservative. He’s gonna have to be nudged. He’s going to have be
shoved in
that direction. And here we have a long campaign, and it looks like
that’s
happening. Jim Pethokoukis writes critically of Romney’s 59 point plan.
The
next day Romney calls or his office calls Kudlow and says, “Hey, big
change
coming on the economy. We got two new economic proposals, and it’s all
supply-side.” So Henninger was right. He’s being nudged to the right.
It’s all
good, folks, it’s all good. The long campaign is just fine.
And maybe
this is all good; maybe it’s time to throw out the book of the past 100
years.
Maybe the second decade of the 21st century will be the time for a
party that
is run by legislative consensus and responsiveness to popular demand,
rather
than principled leadership. Maybe for once, public servants will do
nothing but
serve us what we ask them for. Stranger things have happened. But it
will be a
grand new experiment, running a presidential campaign and maybe a
presidency
without the candidate’s own opinions entering anywhere into the
picture. It
remains to be seen if the experiment will succeed.
Read this
and other columns at Redstate
|