POLITICS SEPTEMBER 8, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Rick Perry, who has pulled ahead of Mitt Romney in the national polls, had to show whether he could hold his own in last night’s presidential debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California; and he did so. Romney began to develop an avenue of attack against Perry, but I don’t think it is going to be effective.
The main thing in debates is not so much what you say, but how you say it. It’s a matter of attitude. Perry appeared tough, confident, able to deflect criticism, and to fire back when fired upon—whether over jobs in Texas, or his support for vaccination. When faced with a difficult question, his strategy was to reassert his position on “gettin’ America workin’ again.” He dealt gingerly with questions about social security and climate change, but his statements on these subjects are not going to get him in trouble with a Republican primary and caucus electorate that could cheer lustily when it was announced that during Perry’s governorship, Texas had executed 234 people.
On social security, he avoided affirming the position he took in Fed Up against the program itself. And he made the ritual assurance that whatever he might do would not affect those on or about to be on the program. He might have to ditch his rhetoric about a “ponzi scheme” if he gets the nomination, but he might be able to get away with saying that the program needs to be reformed for the sake of the young. After all, George W. Bush won a general election in 2004 taking a position like that.
Romney is the Nelson Rockefeller of today’s Republican party. Rockefeller, elected four times as governor of New York, was one of the most able politicians in America, but he was too liberal for the Republican party of his time. He backed civil rights and the welfare state, he was a big spender, he was pro-union. And he was also divorced. He might have won the presidency in 1960 or 1968, but he could never win the Republican nomination for president.
Romney was raised in Michigan, not Utah; he learned economics at Harvard Business School; he made his mark as a businessman and governor in liberal Massachusetts. He has tried to recreate himself as a conservative Republican, but it simply has not worked. He could be the candidate by default against someone like Michele Bachmann, because most of the Republican electorate does understand that she is unelectable, but someone like Perry takes all the air out of his candidacy.
Romney tried earlier to run a kind of general election campaign. He denounced Obama, but tried to avoid embracing the wackier positions of the Republican right on climate change, regulation (Romney insists there are good regulations), and immigration. During the debate, he refused to get drawn into Bachmann’s promise to bring the price of gasoline down to $2. He also has appointed an economic team that includes Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, who was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under George W. Bush, but also endorses a version of Keynesian economics. (In the debate, Perry pronounced Keynesianism “dead.”)
During the debate, Romney portrayed himself as businessman and Perry as “career politician.” That might work, except that being a “career politician” is not an entry on a resume; it’s the way someone acts; and it’s Romney, with his equivocations and evasions, and changes of position, who acts like a career politician. When Romney and Perry talked to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Texas on August 30, a reporter from National Public Radio asked one of the participants what he thought of the candidates:
“I like the governor yesterday much better,” said Tom Ferguson, a former Marine from Colonial Heights, Va. “I don’t understand all of Mitt’s policies or his plans … but I feel more in tune with the governor from Texas. … He seemed more personable than Mitt does. Mitt seems like a career politician, as you would say.”
That reaction says it all.
Romney’s other ploy was to attack Perry on social security. Even while the debate was going on, I was getting an email from the Romney press operation titled “Perry does not believe social security should exist,” and listing quotes from him to that effect. Gerald Ford used that strategy in 1976 to win the nomination from Ronald Reagan, but I don’t think it’ll work today. Perry showed in Simi Valley that he is willing to back off from the position that he took in Fed Up.
Of course, it’s just September, and other frontrunners have flamed out once the caucuses and primaries began. Rudy Giuliani comes to mind. But Giuliani was always a difficult fit for the GOP, especially in the South. Perry is not. And unless he says some really untoward things, or unless revelations appear that discredit him, I think the nomination is his to lose.
John B. Judis is a senior editor of The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
7 comments
Not enough information yet. It's like calling a boxing match at round 2 with the opponents still looking relatively fresh and healthy. Of course, that's just me and I actually watched the debate. To some extent, the political class will be able to interpret what happened to their liking and help Bachmann start to go down, Huntsman start to go up some, Romney stay level or slightly increase, and Perry go down slightly. It's all about the filter, which is the classic argument that conservatives make about "the liberal media". I think the questioners did a pretty good job, but everyone probably knows that the debate is shaped by the moderators and their desire to be combative in the name of truth. If you doubt that, think about how a debate moderated by Barack Obama would differ from one moderated by Paul, Perry, Huntsman, or Bachmann. I'd actually be interested in seeing a semi-political debate, in which a liberal could debate several conservatives and directly call them out. Fight if they need to, but the dignity of the cross-examination is both spirited and edifying.
- chaitless
September 8, 2011 at 12:17am
I'm getting a sense that this will be a real fight through the primaries, not a cakewalk for an anointed leader. Perry will try to ride his success all the way, but Romney has endurance and will run a dogged race. Just like Obama's 2008 path to the nomination came through many of the red states, so will Romney's come through the blue states. Perry has the South, and will take some industrial and mid-West states, but Romney will take the fight all the way to the end. In the end, the choice will be between red meat and perceived competence - the culture war and the economy. People who are economically fearful will vote for the person who they think can fix the economy soonest. I can't see how Perry can win that sector as time goes on and the race drags out across the country in early 2012. Romney will have to work for it, but he's smart enough to strategize and respond where needed. Of course, if he can't show heart and passion, he won't win; but he does have tenacity... and as is well known, he is extremely adaptable to his circumstances.
- jcovell
September 8, 2011 at 12:47am
Oh PLEASE. What people say doesn't matter any more? Perry is nuts. Why aren't people listening to what he says instead of applauding his "tough Texan" attitude? OMG this is NOT NORMAL, this guy isn't normal, he may look like Reagan fresh from the crypt, but he is NOT REAGAN. OMG I am nostalgic for REAGAN. He doesn't think like a normal person. The media better start telling it like it is. Huntsman at least stated that we have to stay on Planet Earth here! Thank goodness for Huntman.
- Sophia
September 8, 2011 at 1:14am
At the risk of bursting this way premature bubble of 24/7 attention to Republicans 'possibles' for the nomination eleven months hence, I cannot resist noting to TNR that the entire extravaganza of 'possibles' holding most news media enthralled day by day, week after week, during most of 2011 smacks of carefully stage managed hype. So compatible, too, with the publishing side worrying hourly about how much air time and newsprint will cost. how much ad sales and subscriber tolerance for rate increases will address the threat off too much red ink. But I can almost feel the wind shift to zephyrs of sighed relief with Gov. Perry appearing to contribute some real world poise and polish as the curtain closes on the opening acts of aspiring pretenders to the presidency from Minnesota, Texas, Pennsylvania, Utah and wherever. Perhaps attention will shift again late this Thursday, as President Obama hastens to deliver a major speech that his harshest critics will skip and NFL fans will tune out for less mind-strain as they watch the first round of concussion risk takers launch their billion dollar business season. Judis probably has it right, about the GOP willing to risk a full year from now the inevitable question, 'How much harm can a governor from Texas do?' with so much money to promote his quest and to sully the unlucky first black president. Still, I kind of yearn for an intermission in the GOP presidential 'possibles' show, entertaining as it is for so many. Long enough to go out for popcorn, which should be strung decoratively at Christmas or New Years perhaps. Then early in 2012 we can resume in the grip of winter and warm to the campaign tasks after intermission. After governing, after making durable poiicy for a while.
- lespin
September 8, 2011 at 1:40am
Just what we need, another final g droppin' Texas Governor. I mean, it worked out so well the last time. K2K can take heart that at least the elevators will run on time. I must agree with Lespin, this crowning of the GOP flavor of the month the inevitable nominee, months before a single real vote has been cast, is ridiculous. At this time 4 years ago, John McCain's campaign was written off as dead and buried.
- dubyadoubte
September 8, 2011 at 8:30am
Please. Around this point in relatively recent presidential nomination cycles, Clinton was a non-factor, Dean was a shoe-in and McCain was imploding. Lots of votes to be cast, fumbles to occur, unanticipated events to take place, etc. before we know who the likely nominee is.
- Thunderroad
September 8, 2011 at 3:18pm
More and more we are becoming more like we are. It's "obvious" to us that Perry and the Republicans are dangerous idiots. It's obvious to "them" that we are the dangerous idiots. More and more we all pay attention just to information that confirms these beliefs and discount or ignore any information that tries to present counter information. As we harden our positions we fall more and more into the second Civil War. It's still mostly civil; we have a lot of civility in the bank to call upon. But as with peak oil, as times get rougher the level in the tank will drop a lot faster than we now expect. Be afraid, etc.
- skahn
September 8, 2011 at 7:10pm