I know, I know, please try to contain yourselves. The excitement from the conventions can be overwhelming. If you are a Republican, you might even be experiencing withdrawals after last night's extravaganza-- Ted Nugent has already checked into rehab, along with a handful of tea party patriots.
Truthfully, though, I thought this year's Republican National Convention was interesting and even mildly entertaining. Let's start with the entertaining part. Clint Eastwood clearly took the gold medal in this category after giving an improvisational speech to a chair (or with a chair, depending on how you want to look at it). If you have not seen the speech, you should check it out as soon as possible. Eastwood spoke, mumbled and rambled for a total 12 minutes (his allotted time was 6), making vague assertions about Obama's poor job performance and the political landscape as a whole. After watching it again, Eastwood's speech and demeanor reminded me a litte of Michael Scott from The Office: he walked on stage with a smirk on his face, probably thinking that he was about to just kill it and wow the audience, then quickly found himself struggling to stay on point. The real joke came about one minute into the speech when he said, "I've got Mr. Obama right here. And I'm going to ask him a few questions." He then proceeded to engage in an awkward, not-sure-if-he's-trying-to-be-funny dialogue with a chair on stage. Meanwhile, the Romneys and many other GOP elites were holding their breaths, praying to baby Jesus that nothing catastrophic would happen.
I think it's safe to say that the whole thing was a better idea in Eastwood's head.
Now for the interesting. I thought David Brooks' most recent column harped on many of the key takeaway points from the convention. He argues that Republicans have gone to great lengths to frame themselves as the champion of the individual-- the person who does any and everything to improve his standard of living in the United States. Republicans want to make the case that the Obama administration and Democrats have expanded government so much that it now stifles the average Joe's chance to achieve the American Dream. However, as Brooks points out, they have essentially abandoned the idea that "social forces" beyond our control have a direct affect on our "destinies." Instead, the RNC selected a series of speakers who told stories of how they, or their relatives, broke their backs to give their children a better life. The Republican party used the convention as a way to show the world its sleek, new "libertarian" look while, at the same time, distancing itself from the "compassionate conservatism" of the Bush years. They even had two of the speakers, Senator Marco Rubio from Florida and Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, incorporate a bit of Spanish into their speeches to appeal to the Latino community. Only one spreaker, according to Brooks, spoke in the tongue of "an older, less libertarian conservative, which harkens back to Washington, Tocqueville and Lincoln." That speaker was former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Before I move onto Romney and Ryan's speeches, I think it is important to note the differences between the more libertarian speakers like Rubio and Rand Paul and the more "traditional" conservatism of officials like John McCain, Sec. Rice, and even Mitt Romney himself. For the most part, the small government, libertarian wing of the Republican party has grown significantly since about 2009. One reason is that Republicans want to distance themselves from the Bush years. Another is that the Tea Party wins. In 2010, we saw a host of Tea Party Republicans win elections to help the GOP recapture the House. These Tea partiers, which includes Rubio, have proven to be a fiery group of individuals who can rally the base, mobilize voters, and stick to their guns. At the same time, however, they have proven to be very difficult to work with, even with members of their own party. Boehner has had his hands full with the House freshmen (think back to the 2011 Debt Ceiling debacle). Obama and the Democrats have been unable to reach any sort of compromise with them on fiscal policy because they initiated and proliferated a pledge to not raise taxes under any circumstances. Nevertheless, this wing of the Republican party, to my amazement, has steadily expanded its influence within the Chambers of Congress as well as the country as a whole.
Meanwhile, moderates and traditional conservatives have become increasingly rare. A recent segment on NPR's All Things Considered refers to this dying bread as "Rockefeller Republicans." Robert Seigel, the reporter, found that moderates like Mike Castle of Delaware and Tom Davis of Virginia have come under fire recently by the right wing of the Republican party for a few reasons. First, congressional districts have been drawn to favor one party or the other (about 80% of redrawn districts), which means the elected officials "are not rewarded for compromise. They're punished in their primaries if they compromise." Second, Seigel contends that McCain-Feingold has starved political parties of funds which has subsequently tilted the scales in the favor of Super Pacs and special interest groups which tend to support more extreme candidates (admittedly on both sides). The political parties, he says, used to be a centering force in this country; but now, as their candidates sport the endorsements of "political action committees" and other groups, the parties have no choice but to follow suite and embrace the polarization.
The most blatant example of this ideological migration is the Republican Presidential nominee himself: Mitt Romney. After serving as a moderate Republican governor in Massachusetts, compromising with Democrats and experimenting with legislation (even if the proposal contained the toxic word "mandate"), Romney spent the next six years trying to reinvent himself as a principled, no-nonsense conservative. For a while, I used the colloquial term "flip-flopper" to describe Mitt Romney as a politician. But now, I see it differently. Yes, he changed his views on abortion. Yes, he completely abandoned his health care victory. Yes, he hardened his stance on taxes, immigration, gun-control, [insert contentious issue here]. But that doesn't necessarily mean he's a flip-flopper. It means he's a conservative. A thoroughbred conservative. A true conservative Republican with the ability to adapt to different situations, different political landscapes-- like a chameleon. In a liberal state such as Massachusetts, Republicans simply cannot be ridiculous conservative because they rely on independent and crossover votes to win elections. Thus, Romney was compelled to lean toward the center. This was actually a huge selling point during his first bid for presidency in 2007 when the Republican party wanted to distance itself from the Bush administration and appeal to independents and minorities. Just four years ago, the Republican party nominated a candidate known for his ability to make deals with Democrats-- the Maverick, John McCain. When it came time to pick a running mate, McCain selected Sarah Palin because she appealed to the conservative base of the party. At the same time, the McCain campaign thought it could sell Palin as a maverick and a dealmaker much like McCain himself.
Today, we are seeing more or less the opposite happen within the ranks of the GOP. After losing the election in 2008, Republicans focused their efforts on the 2010 elections. Their goals were to win back the house, make gains in the Senate, and prevent Barack Obama from achieving any sort of success. By 2009, the Tea Party movement began to sweep the nation and their mantra of "fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets." By the 2010 elections, several champions of this "grass-roots" movement found themselves with a desk in Washington, DC. The Tea Party Caucus now wields a significant amount of power because its members are bound together by a rigid ideology that loves to vote "Nay." Republican candidates at just about every level must swear by these beliefs or risk losing to someone who does in the primary.
Its not surprising, then, that Mitt Romney has re-aligned his positions to reflect the "new and improved" post-Bush Republican party. To win the nomination, Romney had to defeat a whole slough of proven conservatives like Rick Santorum and Rick Perry-- not to mention, Mr. Libertarian himself, Ron Paul. However, instead of "pivoting to the center" for the general election as presidential elections tend to do (McCain did in 2008, Clinton in '96), Romney shows no signs of slowing down the conservative train. His selection for vice president, Paul Ryan, clearly shows his desire to prove himself as a bona fide conservative. To be sure, Romney and his team have avoided dealing with the "bold ideas" set forth by Ryan's budget last year. Mr. Ryan has publicly bowed down to Romney's core beliefs, such abortion in cases of rape. Nevertheless, the Romney-Ryan ticket reveals a fundamental shift toward the libertarian wing of the Republican party. This shift has manifested itself in the form of a hyphen that both divides and combines the last names of the candidates, placing Romney on the left and Ryan on the right.
As I said in a previous blog post, I thought that Paul Ryan would bring substance and detail to this muddy election. Well, after watching his speech I admit that I was wrong. He distanced himself from his own plans and proposals, choosing instead to bash the President with several false claims and misleading statements. He even omitted the fact that he served on the Simpson-Bowles Debt Panel and voted AGAINST the final proposal.
I thought Romney gave a solid speech. He managed to meet the expectations of his demanding party and his fiery constituency by telling his story to the American people and appearing like a human being. He received many boisterous rounds of applause after doing a little Obama-bashing and poking fun at liberals. At the end of the day, Romney did exactly what he was supposed to do at the convention: accept the nomination and rally the base. I think its fair to say that Romney has proved himself as a principled conservative with strong business experience. Now, the question is: Can he win?
No comments:
Post a Comment