If you read only one Wall Street Journal editorial this year, read today's "Romney's Guilty Republican Syndrome" by Kimberley Strassel. She hits the nail on the head: Romney would make an ineffective candidate against Obama, because he accepts an unearned guilt for his wealth, and only timidly offers a semi-defense of freedom. He would be an easy target for Obama’s more consistent anti-capitalism. Even if he won the election, he would not fight hard or effectively for freedom.
She writes:
"Mr. Romney is clearly hoping that his own passive form of class warfare will head his opponents off at the blue-collar pass. Really? The 2012 election is shaping up to be a profound choice. Mr. Obama is making no bones about his vision of higher taxes, wealth redistribution, larger government.
Mr. Romney has generally espoused the opposing view—smaller government, fewer regulations, opportunity—but only timidly. This hobbles his ability to go head to head with the president, to make the moral and philosophical case for that America."
and:
"Mr. Romney isn't the first Republican to develop Guilty Syndrome, and one option would be to form a support group with, say, George H.W. Bush. A better cure might be the tonic of Ronald Reagan, who never let his own wealth get in the way of a good lower-tax argument. Reagan's message, delivered with cheerfulness and conviction, was that he wanted everyone in American to have the opportunity to be as successful as he had been."
Speaking 50 years ago at Princeton, Ayn Rand identified the same phenomena but gave a much deeper analysis of the problem. The speech – “Conservatism: an Obituary” – was later reprinted in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. To understand the importance of a moral defense of capitalism, as opposed to just an economic defense, read this essay. (And if you haven’t already, read her novel Atlas Shrugged as well.)
The timid defense of capitalism is thus nothing new. My focus here is the importance of it and to use it to evaluate the GOP candidates. Are there better alternatives than Romney if we want to defeat Obama next November, and return to a smaller, individual-rights-respecting limited government that doesn't muck around with the economy?
To turn the economy around, we need to turn hard and quickly away from statism. That requires strong leadership. It is not enough to have the right positions, politically or philosophically. It requires projecting confidence, certainty, and pride in one’s positions.
I’m not a fan of Sarah Palin, but what attracted many to her was exactly that emotional chord. It also caused her opponents on the left to respond so strongly. On some level both sides got it: she acted as if she wasn’t going to compromise. In the one speech that made her an overnight sensation, she proudly refused to cower before attacks from the left. She proudly promised to fight back.
Consider the current crop of GOP candidates. The debates have been telling. Look not only at the positions they take (and how consistent they are with capitalism, individual rights, and Objectivism), but pay attention to their behavior. Who projects confidence? Who inspires a willingness to fight for one's values? Who can generate real enthusiasm for their cause?
Mitt Romney is the extreme case of the compromiser: nobody believes his alleged support for capitalism. It comes across as weak and timid, and given his record (especially on health care) he has zero credibility to advocate for limited government. He also projects, more than any other candidate, the too-polished, too-rehearsed, lack of authenticity of a politician. I suspect, ironically enough, that it is that very polish which many of his supporters find attractive, as if they are more comfortable with the devil they know then with taking a risk of rocking the boat to make substantial change.
Rick Perry projects confusion and an inability to effectively argue for a position. Even if he supported capitalism, he is unable to fight for it. (He recently came out for a flat tax and got support for it from Steve Forbes, but Perry is not capable of an intellectual defense of it, and certainly not for the moral case. If elected, such a person, immersed in Washington politics, would not be capable of a principled stand for anything. The HPV vaccine case was particularly telling: he ignored individual rights and forced girls to get it, until he lost the political fight and compromised. He is no champion of rights.)
Newt Gingrich projects a respectable intellect (at least compared to the rest of the field) but he also projects a lack of motivation. He doesn’t behave like someone “in it to win it.” Some speculate he’s running now in order to raise his speaking fees later on. It’s telling how many of his comments were about the nature of the debate, as if he were already an outside commentator rather than a participant. That aspect doesn’t communicate a more intellectual side; it says he’s disengaged.
Gary Johnson has some surprisingly good ideas for domestic policy but is very weak on foreign policy. He’s in a race with Ron Paul when it comes to blaming America and not being willing to fight a war against Islamic radicalism. Here again we see a timid, apologetic appearance. He doesn’t stand out from the field. He projects the image of a nice guy who is very sincere, authentic, and considerate, but not a rough-and-tumble fighter. His domestic policy ideas are the best, and he has a good record as NM governor, but he doesn’t come across as a leader.
Ron Paul is the kooky grandfather of the bunch. He’s the only one in the debates to use the “b-word” (broke) to describe the American economy and to correctly advocate for real radical change: ending the Fed, returning to a gold standard, and cutting $1 trillion from today’s budget. Nobody else is coming close to that. However he has the usual libertarian baggage of holding a mish-mash of positions, from wanting to outlaw abortion to blaming America for war in the Middle East. He has a zealous following, but that devotion comes without intellectual depth. He has spent 30 years advocating the end of the Fed and has only recently via the Tea Party movement gotten some broader discussion.
Jon Huntsman is Romney-lite (extra lite?). He doesn’t seem to stand for much at all and doesn’t stand out from the pack. When people discuss the debates, he is one of the “other candidates.”
Bachmann and Santorum are trying to hide the depth of their religiosity and not succeeding. Their poll numbers show Americans aren’t buying it.
Herman Cain projects pride in having worked hard his whole life and achieved real success. He speaks clearly and confidently. The subtext of his candidacy is the American dream of a man pulling himself up by his bootstraps. That message resonates with Americans and the poll numbers show that.
He's best known for his 9-9-9 tax plan, which may be more fair and more simple than what we have now. But interestingly, he's also pushing to end Social Security by following the Chilean model. That means he is at least promising to fight for a substantial reduction in the size of government.
He's best known for his 9-9-9 tax plan, which may be more fair and more simple than what we have now. But interestingly, he's also pushing to end Social Security by following the Chilean model. That means he is at least promising to fight for a substantial reduction in the size of government.
He has stumbled on a few points, from debate about an electrified border fence to his stand on abortion (he’s against it personally but thinks it is a personal choice, so seems to oppose a ban). Time will tell whether he can maintain the image he projects, or whether his lack of political experience will undermine him.
I fully expect Huntsman, Bachmann, Santorum, and Johnson to drop out soon as they are too far behind the leaders and aren’t gaining ground. Gingrich is slowly gaining ground but I expect him to drop out later.
That leaves Romney, with Cain, Paul, and Perry competing to be the anti-Romney.
Of those three, on a sense of life basis, Cain projects the American spirit, with Paul looking confused and Perry looking insincere and ineffective. The contrast with Romney is the greatest with Cain.
The country will not follow someone who apologizes for his position, who scampers away from any tough stand against bleeding heart appeals. Reagan is often praised for his “morning in America” message. Americans want to be proud of their country and of themselves. It is to this emotional issue that candidates need to appeal, and nobody does that better than Cain.
It is not enough to elect someone with a similar philosophy or simply a few good political positions. In this election, the brink of economic collapse is coming so fast that it will take real leadership to turn things around. A good leader must project moral certainty and confidence. He must inspire people to action. He must be willing to fight. He must appeal to the American spirit of individualism and to the idea that hard work pays off. Most Americans don’t hate the rich, they want to be one of them, despite hearing a constant refrain about the evil of money. A leader who will be able to turn things around must inspire people to not apologize for wealth, but to take pride in having earned it.
Cain is far from perfect and I disagree with some of his positions. In the end he may not take radical enough positions. But part of the package to consider is the image projected, and the implicit moral stand imbedded in it.
From that perspective Herman Cain is the best candidate.
------------------------------
10/22/11 Correction:
I struck out a sentence above where I alluded to a "blame America" foreign policy held by Johnson. After looking into it further, I see no basis for that conclusion. Paul has publicly declared that much of the Middle Eastern animosity toward America comes from America's actions in the region (a view I do not agree with). Paul and Johnson have a great deal of their policies in common, so I mistakenly assumed they shared this view as well.
Mea Culpa.
That said, there isn't much to say about Johnson's view on the "war on terror" or dealing with Islamic radicalism, because he really hasn't said much on it. In watching several video interviews and reading many interviews, foreign policy is not given nearly as much coverage as are Johnson's views on legalizing drugs or his interests in running, biking, and mountain climbing.
In general, Johnson offers the right platitudes -- we should have a strong military for national defense and not get into unnecessary wars. Problem is, who disagrees with that? I don't get a sense that he has thought enough about foreign policy, especially for a candidate for POTUS.
He has said two very troubling things in foreign policy: (1) Iran is not a threat to America and (2) that the killing of AnWar al-Awlaki "raises questions."
1. Since 1979 Iran has declared war on America and has been the top state sponsor of terrorism. They have repeatedly attacked America. They are developing long-range missiles and nuclear weapons. To say they are not a threat is absurdly naive.
From his website:
"Governor Johnson largely blames Iran’s ascendancy in the Middle East on the unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy. “Iran had one, real military foe, and they were completely consumed with thwarting that military foe, and that was Iraq,” he said. “Iran is rearing its head right now because it doesn’t have to worry about Iraq.” While he believes “we should be vigilant,” he maintains at this time “there is no military threat from Iran.”
Notice that here Johnson suggests an ascendent Iran is indirectly and unwillingly aided by America taking over Iraq. I agree with that, but that is not equivalent to the usual meaning of the "blame America" idea. I think our actions in Iraq will encourage Iran because we have removed the largest regional opponent to Iran. I do not think that blames America, however, as the real culprit -- the initiator of the use of force -- is Iran, not America.
The "blame America first" crowd puts the moral blame for the initiation of force on America's shoulders, rather than on those of our enemies. Johnson implies our actions in Iraq are exacerbating the existing situation, but not blaming America for causing it in the first place.
2. The killing of an American citizen by the American government should raise concern -- except when that citizen has openly declared war on America, in the middle of a global war on America, and has been linked to multiple attacks. It should be clear that a decade after 9/11, the radical Islamists of the world have declared a war on America. The matter should be treated as a war, not as a criminal or legal matter. For someone running for POTUS, who would be in charge of that war, it should be crystal clear. We should be glad this person is dead, rather than questioning ourselves over it. Does that project moral certainty over the conduct of the war? What does that portend about Johnson as Commander in Chief?
Some of his stands, such as against nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, are warranted, and are at least worthy of discussion. It concerns me that more candidates aren't looking at how to end our stay in those countries or defining more specifically what our role ought to be.
(My view is if we are to go to war with Iran, having a military presence in both countries serves us well. But if we aren't going to war with Iran, or perhaps Pakistan, then I don't see any reason to be there. Once we leave those nations will likely revert back to enemy hands: Iraq to Iran, and Afghanistan to the Taliban who are biding their time in Pakistan.)
I know many Objectivists find a lot to respect in Johnson's views, but I see him as too weak on foreign policy. He has a wonderful record of cutting spending in NM and would hope to see him replicate that in Washington. Yet the theme of this piece is the personality of the candidates and their ability to inspire and lead. Given how Johnson has run his campaign (by often being too timid to let people know he's even running), and his low-key manner, I don't think he's capable of turning around a country of 300 million, even if he had all the right policy positions.
That said, I'd love to see a run-off election between Cain and Johnson, whose policies are at the moment the closest to my own.
------------------------------
10/22/11 Correction:
I struck out a sentence above where I alluded to a "blame America" foreign policy held by Johnson. After looking into it further, I see no basis for that conclusion. Paul has publicly declared that much of the Middle Eastern animosity toward America comes from America's actions in the region (a view I do not agree with). Paul and Johnson have a great deal of their policies in common, so I mistakenly assumed they shared this view as well.
Mea Culpa.
That said, there isn't much to say about Johnson's view on the "war on terror" or dealing with Islamic radicalism, because he really hasn't said much on it. In watching several video interviews and reading many interviews, foreign policy is not given nearly as much coverage as are Johnson's views on legalizing drugs or his interests in running, biking, and mountain climbing.
In general, Johnson offers the right platitudes -- we should have a strong military for national defense and not get into unnecessary wars. Problem is, who disagrees with that? I don't get a sense that he has thought enough about foreign policy, especially for a candidate for POTUS.
He has said two very troubling things in foreign policy: (1) Iran is not a threat to America and (2) that the killing of AnWar al-Awlaki "raises questions."
1. Since 1979 Iran has declared war on America and has been the top state sponsor of terrorism. They have repeatedly attacked America. They are developing long-range missiles and nuclear weapons. To say they are not a threat is absurdly naive.
From his website:
"Governor Johnson largely blames Iran’s ascendancy in the Middle East on the unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy. “Iran had one, real military foe, and they were completely consumed with thwarting that military foe, and that was Iraq,” he said. “Iran is rearing its head right now because it doesn’t have to worry about Iraq.” While he believes “we should be vigilant,” he maintains at this time “there is no military threat from Iran.”
Notice that here Johnson suggests an ascendent Iran is indirectly and unwillingly aided by America taking over Iraq. I agree with that, but that is not equivalent to the usual meaning of the "blame America" idea. I think our actions in Iraq will encourage Iran because we have removed the largest regional opponent to Iran. I do not think that blames America, however, as the real culprit -- the initiator of the use of force -- is Iran, not America.
The "blame America first" crowd puts the moral blame for the initiation of force on America's shoulders, rather than on those of our enemies. Johnson implies our actions in Iraq are exacerbating the existing situation, but not blaming America for causing it in the first place.
2. The killing of an American citizen by the American government should raise concern -- except when that citizen has openly declared war on America, in the middle of a global war on America, and has been linked to multiple attacks. It should be clear that a decade after 9/11, the radical Islamists of the world have declared a war on America. The matter should be treated as a war, not as a criminal or legal matter. For someone running for POTUS, who would be in charge of that war, it should be crystal clear. We should be glad this person is dead, rather than questioning ourselves over it. Does that project moral certainty over the conduct of the war? What does that portend about Johnson as Commander in Chief?
Some of his stands, such as against nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, are warranted, and are at least worthy of discussion. It concerns me that more candidates aren't looking at how to end our stay in those countries or defining more specifically what our role ought to be.
(My view is if we are to go to war with Iran, having a military presence in both countries serves us well. But if we aren't going to war with Iran, or perhaps Pakistan, then I don't see any reason to be there. Once we leave those nations will likely revert back to enemy hands: Iraq to Iran, and Afghanistan to the Taliban who are biding their time in Pakistan.)
I know many Objectivists find a lot to respect in Johnson's views, but I see him as too weak on foreign policy. He has a wonderful record of cutting spending in NM and would hope to see him replicate that in Washington. Yet the theme of this piece is the personality of the candidates and their ability to inspire and lead. Given how Johnson has run his campaign (by often being too timid to let people know he's even running), and his low-key manner, I don't think he's capable of turning around a country of 300 million, even if he had all the right policy positions.
That said, I'd love to see a run-off election between Cain and Johnson, whose policies are at the moment the closest to my own.
