No point in pussyfooting around
The National Journal Insiders Poll illustrates just how deep the divide is between the two parties on economic matters. We don’t see that changing too much in the next 14 months, despite the fact that the current policies aren’t working. In a sense, it’s 1979 again and one side just doesn’t get it.
If this were a parliamentary democracy, we’d already have had a change of government, but it’s not, so we haven’t. So what should a GOP candidate do in the long period before the election? The insiders urge moderation and caution by a 7-3 margin. That seems exactly wrong to us.
We’re not sure of all the particulars at this point, but in general we think the leading GOP contenders might be well served by putting in place a shadow cabinet and making plans as if they’d already been elected. Tell the people what you’re going to do day one. Cut all non-defense agencies by 20%? Cut taxes by how much and for whom? Suspend all regulations put in place after 1992 except for X, Y and Z? Repeal which laws? The administration will take issue with each proposal, but they will then be in the position of having to defend the status quo, and that’s likely to get even drearier than it is today in the course of the next 14 months.
Of course the media will try to eviscerate a candidate who does this, but who cares? (Exhibit A.) The Beltway media are 12-1 against the Republican candidate anyway, and no longer really make much attempt to hide it. So why not try to use their bias to the candidate’s advantage? The more the other side whines about Pell grants, medicare-medicade-foodstamps and operations for Jerry’s kids, the more obvious it is that they will say anything other than “jobs.”
There are risks in the strategy of course. Chief among them is that the administration embraces the Republican candidate’s proposed changes, but what a blessing that would be for the country. And of course a particular candidate might not be nimble enough on his feet to avoid getting tripped up in some devastating way on an important policy matter. But generalities aren’t going to cut it week after week for the next 60 weeks or so, especially with things so bad in the country.
Frankly, it is hard to imagine what will go on in the country in 90, 180, or 270 days of continued self-inflicted economic distress, distress that is readily reversible and absolutely unnecessary. More speeches? More nonsense about non-existent green jobs? A majority of Americans demonstrated that they’ve already had it up to here with such foolishness — that’s what last November was about. (Independents flipped by a total of 33 points, an amazing number.)
Boldness, clarity, genuineness, competent and experienced cabinet-level advisers, take-charge demeanor, executive experience, unified message, detailed plan — these are the necessary things in our opinion. The point is not to simply win an election, because the stakes for the country are too high for that. The point is to have a mandate to govern, and then to promptly execute on that mandate.
September 3rd, 2011 at 4:26 am
Yes. I believe that is good advice.
The differences between the repubs and dems have never been clearer. The repubs should promote and contrast those differences, showing the voters that they have a distinct choice to make this election.
September 3rd, 2011 at 1:48 pm
I believe we are seeing the clash of two visions of the future of America – the progressive ‘social democracy model’ with government controlling the expenditure of 40% to 60% of GDP, crony capitalism, and a permanent underclass (largely exemplified by Obama/Pelosi/Schumer and the liberal fascists among the Left), versus the generally laissez-faire ‘traditional American model’ with limited government, low taxation, free enterprise and individual responsibility (largely centered in the TEA party movement and Libertarians).
I believe the Insiders Poll referenced above points to a few aspects of the radically different world views of the two competing visions. As your post notes there doesn’t seem to be any overlap between the two visions, so media and politicians’ calls for “compromise” or “balance” seem either ignorant or hypocritical.
Is there a compromise position between freedom and slavery? Between the Rule of Law and the Rule of Men? Between government by consent of the governed and government by decree?
Also, in this clash of visions, I don’t know that the labels ‘Democrat’ or ‘Republican’ are especially helpful, since the establishments of both parties seem generally unprincipled and amoral in their efforts to cling to their personal wealth, power and prestige.
I hope, with you, 2012 will give my preferred vision a mandate to govern.