I wrote recently that the United States is facing a sort of 'battle for it's soul' in this upcoming presidential election. I stressed then, and continue to stress, that this is not meant to be melodramatic, rather this is a framework to explain the particular challenge of this election season. I think also that the Republican Party is facing the same challenge as it grasps for relevance in the twenty-first century.
The seeds of the modern Republican Party were sown at their 1964 presidential nominating convention. At that time, conventions still served a functional role in the selection of candidates for president. The favorite in 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, embodied a hard turn rightward for the Party. His top challenger, Governor George Romney of Michigan, advocated a moderate position, including support for civil rights for black Americans. At the convention, Gov Romney's positions were repudiated, and Sen Goldwater went on to lose the general election to President Lyndon Johnson. In the aftermath of 1964, the radical right wing of the Republican Party rallied behind Goldwater supporter Ronald Reagan, who was elected governor of California in 1967, and president in 1980.
The always-uneasy alliance between economic and social conservatives within the Republican Party is coming to a head in 2012. Representative Todd Akin of Missouri, who is running for Senate, dragged social issues to the top of the discussion when he articulated his peculiar views on biology. Social issues are among the last things 2012 Republican nominee for president, the former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney, wants to discuss, as his previous positions on these matters are, one could say, all encompassing. As this Gov Romney seeks to focus on economic issues, the attention paid to social conservatives like Rep Akin, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and Representative Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota has been a millstone.
As Gov Romney seeks to self-identify as a 'true conservative,' and seeks to convince much of his party to identify him in this manner as well, he faces also an unusual challenge from his right flank. Representative Ron Paul, in addition to representing the 14th district of Texas, represents a peculiar, some might say unique, brand of conservatism. While many modern conservatives are content to adhere to William F Buckley's command to stand astride the train tracks of history yelling 'stop!', Rep Paul is so enchanted with the simpler time of the the eighteenth century that he seeks to repeal nearly everything that followed it. Chief among these are modern government and central banking. While it remains unclear if Gov Romney shares his views, the Republican Party has endorsed a return to the gold standard, a mainstay of Rep Paul's talking points, in it's 2012 platform.
If the Republicans are to remain viable in the new century, these nebulous positions must be resolved. While it is certain that, given enough time, this Gov Romney will come around to any position imaginable, it's not at all clear that the Republican Party has that much time.
29 August 2012
15 August 2012
Two Visions
The announcement that the Romney campaign has settled on Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as its choice for Vice President confirms my evolving belief that this election is less a referendum on the current state of the macroeconomy, and more another incarnation of a very old trope of American politics: the Battle for the Soul of the Country. I don't intend this to sound melodramatic; these Battles need to be fought from time to time, perhaps more often than they've been.
The most recent example was in 1996. Following the election of President Clinton in 1992, young upstarts in the Republican Party seized power from the old guard, and mounted a very successful midterm campaign in 1994, which led many to believe that the pendulum swing away from Mr Clinton signaled a shift of the median voter back toward the staid Republicanism of the 1980s. Thus the reelection of Mr Clinton in 1996 served as a mandate for his radical centrism, at least inasmuch as it contrasted with the radically regressive economics of his opponent, Senator Dole of Kansas.
The parallels between 1996 and 2012 are striking. While Senator Obama, as he then was, didn't seek to unseat an incumbent, the strength and cohesion of the machine he challenged made his task similar. Like Mr Clinton, Mr Obama offered an alternative to insider politics and the economics of division. The bitter and thorough revulsion of the establishment led to a overwhelmingly reactionary midterm election, manifest in Mr Obama's case by the rise of the Tea Party, the faux-populist creation of Charles and David Koch and other big-business libertarians.
Where we as a nation are to go from here has become the issue in this election. Mr Romney represents a return to the prerogatives of another era, one in which what was best for the captains of industry is best for the nation and common individuals are merely factors of production, rather than full citizens. Mr Romney summed up his vision of opportunity in America concisely when he advised that enterprising young people should start businesses, and should borrow $10,000 from their parents if necessary. The America to whom Mr Romney speaks is comprised solely of those for whom this is a natural option. None other count. By his brutal calculus, those who need government assistance are by definition unworthy of it. The selection of Mr Ryan, a devotee of Ayn Rand who advocates the virtual elimination of the social safety net, is a clear affirmation that Mr Romney speaks only to established power. 'This is your country,' he whispers soothingly, 'don't let one of them take it from you.'
Like Mr Clinton, Mr Obama is a centrist whose policies have broad appeal, mitigated mostly by their association with him, but who's been painted as the 'other' in an effort to discredit him. The cynical appeal to baseless fear is an old part of the political toolkit, but its deployment against Mr Obama evokes a particularly dark and sinister chapter of our shared history.
The story of Barack Obama is a complete horror story to the Mitt Romneys of the world, and many of those to whom he speaks. A smart, ambitious kid, born behind the socioeconomic eight-ball, leverages his talent to achieve the power to do great things. In Mr Romney's fantasy, kids such as the young Barack Obama settle for less: maybe assembling cars in Detroit, maybe even selling insurance, leaving the running of things to the children of those who previously ran things. The great hope that Mr Obama represents to the rest of us is that people who start out with less needn't be constrained by their circumstances. For all that Mr Obama has not accomplished in the last three and a half years, this hope remains alive.
This Battle is what this election is about. A vision of America in which the successful are worshipped because of their inherent superiority, and everyone else knows their place, in which our sick and our old are anchors on the great ship of prosperity, in which we are all left on our own, to fend for ourselves, or a vision in which opportunity is fairly distributed, achievement is honestly attained, and one's destination is not solely a function of one's starting position.
The selection of Mr Ryan pegs Mr Romney to a very specific agenda. The advantage to voters of this selection is clearly the contrast it will illuminate in the positions of Mr Romney and Mr Obama.
The most recent example was in 1996. Following the election of President Clinton in 1992, young upstarts in the Republican Party seized power from the old guard, and mounted a very successful midterm campaign in 1994, which led many to believe that the pendulum swing away from Mr Clinton signaled a shift of the median voter back toward the staid Republicanism of the 1980s. Thus the reelection of Mr Clinton in 1996 served as a mandate for his radical centrism, at least inasmuch as it contrasted with the radically regressive economics of his opponent, Senator Dole of Kansas.
The parallels between 1996 and 2012 are striking. While Senator Obama, as he then was, didn't seek to unseat an incumbent, the strength and cohesion of the machine he challenged made his task similar. Like Mr Clinton, Mr Obama offered an alternative to insider politics and the economics of division. The bitter and thorough revulsion of the establishment led to a overwhelmingly reactionary midterm election, manifest in Mr Obama's case by the rise of the Tea Party, the faux-populist creation of Charles and David Koch and other big-business libertarians.
Where we as a nation are to go from here has become the issue in this election. Mr Romney represents a return to the prerogatives of another era, one in which what was best for the captains of industry is best for the nation and common individuals are merely factors of production, rather than full citizens. Mr Romney summed up his vision of opportunity in America concisely when he advised that enterprising young people should start businesses, and should borrow $10,000 from their parents if necessary. The America to whom Mr Romney speaks is comprised solely of those for whom this is a natural option. None other count. By his brutal calculus, those who need government assistance are by definition unworthy of it. The selection of Mr Ryan, a devotee of Ayn Rand who advocates the virtual elimination of the social safety net, is a clear affirmation that Mr Romney speaks only to established power. 'This is your country,' he whispers soothingly, 'don't let one of them take it from you.'
Like Mr Clinton, Mr Obama is a centrist whose policies have broad appeal, mitigated mostly by their association with him, but who's been painted as the 'other' in an effort to discredit him. The cynical appeal to baseless fear is an old part of the political toolkit, but its deployment against Mr Obama evokes a particularly dark and sinister chapter of our shared history.
The story of Barack Obama is a complete horror story to the Mitt Romneys of the world, and many of those to whom he speaks. A smart, ambitious kid, born behind the socioeconomic eight-ball, leverages his talent to achieve the power to do great things. In Mr Romney's fantasy, kids such as the young Barack Obama settle for less: maybe assembling cars in Detroit, maybe even selling insurance, leaving the running of things to the children of those who previously ran things. The great hope that Mr Obama represents to the rest of us is that people who start out with less needn't be constrained by their circumstances. For all that Mr Obama has not accomplished in the last three and a half years, this hope remains alive.
This Battle is what this election is about. A vision of America in which the successful are worshipped because of their inherent superiority, and everyone else knows their place, in which our sick and our old are anchors on the great ship of prosperity, in which we are all left on our own, to fend for ourselves, or a vision in which opportunity is fairly distributed, achievement is honestly attained, and one's destination is not solely a function of one's starting position.
The selection of Mr Ryan pegs Mr Romney to a very specific agenda. The advantage to voters of this selection is clearly the contrast it will illuminate in the positions of Mr Romney and Mr Obama.
01 August 2012
Introducing...
I am running a guest post today by Richard Hammer. Mr Hammer is a graduate student in economics at North Carolina State University and has written extensively on limited government and related topics.
Mr Hammer's views are his own; I am merely providing a forum for discussion. His post will appear shortly.
Mr Hammer's views are his own; I am merely providing a forum for discussion. His post will appear shortly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)