-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The cover story for the latest Weekly Standard is Andrew Ferguson’s profile of Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, which, both merely in the fact Daniels gave Ferguson access and in its content, strongly suggests that Daniels is considering a presidential run. Taken in tandem with Mike Allen’s mention of Daniels with Jeb Bush as a favorite GOP ‘12 candidate, the article suggests that Daniels has begun plotting a strategy for a potential run.
One of the many interesting notes in the piece (the whole thing is well worth reading) is the very broad platform that Daniels sketches out. It emphasizes fiscal conservatism, which is what Daniels is known for, both as governor and as OMB director under Bush:
Beyond the debt and the deficit, in Daniels’s telling, all other issues fade to comparative insignificance. He’s an agnostic on the science of global warming but says his views don’t matter. “I don’t know if the CO2 zealots are right,” he said. “But I don’t care, because we can’t afford to do what they want to do. Unless you want to go broke, in which case the world isn’t going to be any greener. Poor nations are never green.”
And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until the economic issues are resolved.
Is it a winning strategy to put the so-called social issues on the back burner? Thinking in terms of what a “truce” on social issues would like like substantively, it’s not obvious how Daniels’s truce would differ from past Republicans’ policies. What exactly did Bush do on the social issues that President Daniels would have to forgo?
If Daniels’s strategy is a widely palatable campaign platform aimed at bringing on board disaffected and economic issue voters, the question is how much of a trade-off would social conservatives have to make to vote for him. What typical Republican policies would he have to suspend and they have to sacrifice? It’s not clear to me that it would be anything more than simply the usual social conservative rhetoric. He might not have to do more than what he’s already started doing, which is merely playing down the importance of social issues and telling liberals that we “just have to agree to get along for a little while.”
If that trade-off would allow for a coalition that would elect president that would actually cut spending — and that’s a big if — then it’s one social conservatives should definitely be willing to make.
View all comments (16) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/08/mitch-danielss-truce
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
greg| 6.8.10 @ 11:44AM
He can not be elected if he has a 'comb over'. No joke.
Brooksanne| 6.8.10 @ 12:23PM
Saying "social issues take the back burner" means that liberals will decide.
Nothing stands still. If it's not a priority, your enemies will just scoop it up -- and there are big things at stake.
SCM| 6.8.10 @ 12:30PM
In this day and age, fiscal/monetary/tax/spending/debt issues are just as much social issues as abortion or homosexual marriage. Liberals must always be fought on all fronts. That's what they do to conservatives.
Interested Conservative| 6.8.10 @ 12:38PM
I dunno Brooksanne - This may be a very subtle hint of swinging over to the offensive.
Say there's a "truce", but budget issues dictate our actions. Say one of those involves deep cuts to federal govt. programs in the Dept. of Education.
Who does that hurt? Who controls much of the policymaking portion of national government, even of spending control alternates with political control?
Less federal spending means less leftist policymaking.
Let's have a truce, reduce central control, spend less and see how policies changes.
David wagner | 6.8.10 @ 1:50PM
Daniels must know that, "truce" or no "truce," the next Pres will have to appoint fed judges, maybe a SCOTUS Justice or two, & exec branch officials whose decisions will affect social issues. So if by "truce" he means he'll be the kind of candidate the social-left activists will fret about, with some cause, but won't be able to motivate their mailing-lists against, then he's got my attention. If he means he's another Giuliani, then fuhgeddaboutit.
ContrarianLibertarian| 6.8.10 @ 4:55PM
He's not another Giuliani at all.
In fact, Daniels has made clear that he would sign a bill restricting access to abortion if the Indiana General Assembly passed one preemptively (ie, anticipating the reversal of Roe v. Wade)....but stressed that it would only be symbolic until the federal courts changed course.
Would Giuliani have said that? I don't think so.
No, Daniels isn't Rudy Giuliani -- but he isn't Mike Huckabee either.
And if social conservatives are going to demand a Mike Huckabee, then they should get accustomed to being repeatedly disappointed.
Derek Leaberry| 6.8.10 @ 2:19PM
I think Andrew Ferguson thinks he did Mitch Daniels a favor with the WEEKLY STANDARD article. On the contrary, Ferguson exposes Daniels as pro-amnesty on immigration and an agnostic on the culture wars. Ferguson even points out the marital history of Mitch Daniels which is quite exotic. Daniels should not receive the Republican nomination for president. A second Obama term would be preferable to a President Daniels.
Mick Lee| 6.8.10 @ 3:40PM
The first thought that comes to mind is that here are the Republicans once again donning their historic dunce role in becoming the tax collector for the Democrat agenda. We sing the same song of fiscal responsibility by raising taxes or trimming the fingernails of the beast. These extra funds never to paying off the debt—even that precious “down payment” debt hawks love so much. Instead, those moneys go toward enacting even more programs and entitlements the Democrats want.
The second notion deals with the actual proposal in which social issues be put on hold until the nation financial house is put in order. It is IMPLIED that once the books are balanced then we will look at social issues. And just when will that great day come? Never. For economic conservatives, the government books and expenses will always be a mess filled with pork and fat. What’s more, they never actually intend to ever tackle social issues. Social issues are never “convenient” in election as far as they are concerned. Besides, most for us know that “social issues” is code word for “abortion”. Many Republicans are just fine with abortion but they know that much of the time it was the social conservatives who brought them to the dance in Washington. So these Republican wise men give social conservatives lip service, take their money and stoop to gather their votes. Why? Because for all their big talk, economic conservatives don’t deliver on attracting financial contributions, votes, or on their fiscal goals.
The Republican Party and My Man Mitch need to remember that social conservatives can stay at home on Election Day too.
ContrarianLibertarian| 6.8.10 @ 4:51PM
Yes, they can. It's everybody's right to vote (or not vote) as they see fit.
I tend to see such acts as cutting off one's nose to spite their face. But, still, people have a right to do that, too.
FTR, Daniels is not, in my experience, a social liberal or moderate. He just doesn't emphasize social policy much either way.
And, given what our nation desperately needs right now, that's just fine with me. Because I think it needs what he has to offer -- and soon. The other arguments will still be there to be had at some future date.
ContrarianLibertarian| 6.8.10 @ 4:47PM
Being in Indiana and watching Gov. Daniels up close, I think he's the perfect guy for this critical moment in history.
I think his point about the truce is that the Republicans should more or less mirror the Tea Party in emphasizing the pressing fiscal matters more than the divisive social matters.
Is the Tea Party a pro-life group? A pro-choice group? Does it favor federally funded embryonic stem cell research? What are its feelings on gay marriage?
I don't think they've taken positions on any of those things. Now, Republicans -- individually and as a party -- obviously don't have that luxury. And that's fine.
But squabbling about abortion and gay marriage while our nation is headed towards fiscal collapse is about like a couple fighting about the living room furniture while their house is catching fire.
It's not that the social matters are unimportant -- it's just that we have more urgent needs about which conservatives need to be united at present.
James| 6.11.10 @ 4:36PM
I agree 100% with your assessment. If we have a full economic collapse, will there even be a country left to debate gay marriage issues over? Seriously, the unsustainable debt is the over arching problem we face right now. Your example of arguing over the living room furniture while the house burns is very appropriate. Our economic stability is the foundation for our civic society and we would be putting the cart before the horse if we splinter off into social issues dominated groups while we ignore the fiscal conservatism that binds all of us on the right together. Its like the oil spill problem and immigration too- PLUG THE WELL, then worry about BP's legal responsibilities; SECURE THE BORDER, then worry about a guest worker program or national ID. STABILIZE THE ECONOMY and reduce the size and scope of the federal government, and then lets worry about social issues. As a libertarian, I really don't care about social issues at all actually...just don't infringe on my rights and we're all good!
Chris | 6.9.10 @ 12:08PM
While I agree with Derek, above, that Daniels is not ideal on immigration, his histronics about Obama II being preferable to Daniels need to be reduced. Agnostic on the culture wars is a bit strong: I'd say he's more pre-disposed to them than the current guy (by far). You can't always get what you want, so you take what you can get. In the end, even Reagan raised taxes.
Jon A Firebaugh| 6.9.10 @ 4:39PM
Sorry Joseph, but you are just plain wrong. The first, and most important task the next president has is to get the fiscal house in control. The second is national security. The third is restoring trust through honest dialogue with the voters. Mitch Daniels has shown that he is a master at items one and three. The Left won big time in 2008 and have profoundly angered the electorate by attempting to radically foist there entire agenda at once. Mitch is only stating the obvious when he states that social issues should take a back seat while the nation is "righted" economically. Gay marriage and abortion should be considered "back burner" issues until the fiscal house is in order. They are "hot button" issues but clinging to them as needing priority would be the same as dropping your paddles as your canoe approaches the waterfall, and grabbing for a Bud Lite. Once the fiscal house is in order, the rest of the agenda will be easier to fulfill. Daniels has said: “We will do everything we can to raise the net disposable income of individual Hoosiers.”
Imagine a president that pledges this for all Americans, and then follows through. If he could accomplish half as much in Washinton as he has in Indiana he will have been more successful than every president since Reagan. Contrarian Libertarian has it right..... Get the derailed train on the tracks, and then sort out luggage.
Freedom for all| 6.18.10 @ 12:30PM
I agree with Mitch Daniels. Why the hell should the GOP be fighting abortion and gay marriage while Rome is burning? This goes back to the argument made by the libertarian wing of the Tea Party (20% of it) that the GOP let America down too.
I can understand the need to be pro-life... but gay marriage??? Have any of you ever been to a state college campus? Do you know what happens when a GOP candidate speaks and then brings up the issue of gay marriage?
Americans under 40 have made their mind up on gay marriage equality. They are strongly in favor and they WILL NOT be changing their mind anytime soon. At a time when we are trying to expand the party we are also looking at gay Republicans and basically giving them every reason to stay home with this type of hateful rhetoric.
Who the hell cares if gay people get married? REALLY?!?! It's coming and there is nothing any of you can do to stop it. If you want the GOP to continue being the party of Redneck Militants living in remote rural areas, go ahead.
If any of you don't care for America's youth, America's urban population, America's diversity... you better start caring because they are now the voting majority. In the next decade we will see more marriage amendments overturned by popular vote while Christian Conservatives are forced to be protected by police escort.
Move the GOP away from Hitlerism and back towards Goldwaterism!