POLITICS DECEMBER 14, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
For all of their differences, the Republican candidates agree on one thing: They don’t like President Obama’s policies. That’s fine. Elections are supposed to be about clear choices. And, while we have found plenty to admire in Obama’s tenure, we too believe that there are many issues on which he has fallen depressingly short. He didn’t act swiftly or aggressively enough to improve the economy. He was too deferential to Wall Street. He’s been too lenient toward dictators and too slow to unequivocally align the United States with those seeking freedom the world over. Some of these critiques resonate with the left, some with the right, and some with both.
But what would the Republicans do instead? It’s hard to know—and that’s a pretty damning statement, given the timing. The Democrats running to replace George W. Bush were no less vehement, or unanimous, in their rejection of everything Bush. But, by this point in the last election cycle, they had also issued detailed and substantive plans for how they would govern and how they would address the nation’s most pressing problems. They had sketched out proposals for improving education, rewriting the tax code, and reforming health care. And, in their numerous debates, they spent a great deal of time arguing about these proposals. The arguments over policy—in particular, the dispute between Obama and Hillary Clinton over health care mandates (which Paul Starr revisits in this issue on page 11)—were so substantive that the wonkery drew mockery from “Saturday Night Live.”
The contrast between Democrats in 2007 and Republicans in 2011 is most striking on health care. Candidate Obama did more than provide programmatic details when he laid out a plan. He provided figures, including estimates of the program’s eventual cost. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, like the rest of the Republican field, have spent a lot of time pledging to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But they’ve been far more sketchy about what they’d put in its place, saying merely that they’d support familiar conservative initiatives like allowing the purchase of health care across state lines. Numbers—how much the program might cost, how many people it would reach, and that sort of thing—are virtually nonexistent.
Of course, the issue landscape has changed since 2008: The economy is far and away the most important subject this time around. Last time, it was something of an afterthought until the end of the campaign, when the housing market cratered and the financial crisis began. But, even here, Gingrich and Romney remain pretty vague. Both candidates have made proposals for tax reform, for example, but beyond that they’ve offered mostly slogans. Romney’s brief on the economy seems superficially more detailed than Gingrich’s, if only because it consists of more than 150 pages and boasts 59 ideas. But it spends about as much time criticizing Obama as laying out new proposals. And those ideas are, again, surprisingly devoid of dollar or employment figures. (One exception is a forecast of how many jobs would be created by expanding off-shore drilling: The prediction, of 1.2 million new jobs, appears to come from an estimate published by the lobbying arm of the oil industry.)
Meanwhile, the foreign policy discussion on the Republican side has been incoherent—equal parts interventionist, dovish, isolationist, and nationalist. Would Romney and Gingrich practice a foreign policy in line with the vision of George W. Bush? Would they return to the GOP foreign policy stance of the 1990s, which led Republicans to oppose foreign interventions and nation-building? Or is there some other broad vision that would animate their approach? Given the contradictory, difficult-to-parse signals generally being sent by the major candidates, it’s impossible to say.
The contrast between the current moment and the last campaign may, in part, reflect the philosophical differences between the party bases. Liberals in 2008 didn’t simply want to throw Bush out of office. They wanted, among other things, to fight climate change and to make health care more affordable. Modern conservatism, by contrast, holds that government is best when it does least.
Yet it has not always been the case that conservatives have lacked for detailed and concrete solutions to the nation’s problems. Sometimes, they have come up with creative proposals that have ended up being championed by liberals. (See, for instance, Romney’s health care reform in Massachusetts. Or cap and trade, which was once seen as a market-driven alternative to government regulation. Or charter schools.) Sadly, such substantive conservative thinking has been almost completely absent from this campaign. Whatever you think of Barack Obama, so far he is the only candidate in this race who is taking the presidency seriously.
This article appeared in the December 29, 2011, issue of the magazine.
19 comments
Eric Cantor was on 60 Minutes Sunday, and he's an example of what a complete mess the Republican Party is. He simply wants government to be dysfunctional. His idea of compromise is offering 1 dollar in closing tax loopholes for every 10 dollars in cuts to government spending. "You give me ten dollars and I'll give you one." Cantor calls that "incrementalism." I call it fascism. That kind of "compromise" is the Bolshevik and Nazi kind. And the Republican presidential candidates are all infected with this model of "governing." It all goes back to Grover Norquist. He wants a Republican "brand" that says if you vote for a Republican at any level of government, that you can be sure that Republican will never vote to raise taxes for any reason. "Starving the beast" is a totalitarian concept, as is "no compromise." Even Jon Huntsman will not admit to the slightest of compromises with any Democratic idea in interviews. The reason that the Republican presidential field is such a mess is that it's comprised of a bunch of totalitarians competing with each other for power. Good luck, America, if the GOP gets back control of the Senate and the Oval Office. 2012 may, indeed, bring at least the beginning of the Apocalypse.
- magboy47.
January 2, 2012 at 1:04am
"fascism" "Nazi" "totalitarian" This kind of diction is rarely helpful or appropriate in modern political discourse. There are real American WWII veterans who fought real Nazis a few decades ago, and they do not deserve to have their efforts trivialized by the undue prevalence of the current generation's silly comparisons to a struggle against fantasy Nazis today.
- Konstantin
January 2, 2012 at 2:22am
Funny, I just watched "Triumph of the Will" last night and the real thing is quite different from a mere metaphor. That said, the Republicans will be very poorly situated to govern when and if the time comes. If Obama manages to prevail he will still face a House and Senate filled with these new Republicans and they will work hard to block any policy initiative. Every year that goes by with a government that cannot work to engage real problems with effective and intelligent policies will help to speed our decline.
- paskunac
January 2, 2012 at 6:55am
"He didn’t act swiftly or aggressively enough to improve the economy." Oh please. This has already been debated extensively, but the idea that Obama could have acted significantly faster or more aggressively to help the economy given the political constraints is highly questionable (see Jonathan Chait and Ezra Klein).
- kluhman
January 2, 2012 at 8:06am
This editorial is hilarious. It opens with the editors' vague criticisms of Obama's policies and then castigates Republicans for having vague criticisms of Obama's policies. Criticise the Republicans if you wish (I'm all for it!), but at least frame the criticism in a way that doesn't apply equally to yourself.
- rayward
January 2, 2012 at 9:10am
kluhman."He didn’t act swiftly or aggressively enough to improve the economy." Unless you're a doctinaire Panglossian Presbyterian (everything is for the best-- and preordained), of course BHO could have done much more-- or at the very least tried and failed. He didn't. He was a Senator, and should personally have known (as did MANY others) that the key to any transformational political success was first to break the Senate filibuster rule. He had the troops and votes to do so in February of 2009 had he made it Job1. (By the nuclear option, if need be) And the stimulus was at least 50% too small to reverse the economic slide-- even those advisors who could do basic Keynesian calculations understood that. BHO didn't, does'nt, and won't. In times that call for a Lincoln, Churchill, or FDR-- he has governed as a Buchanan, Chamberlain, or Hoover---- all bright, humanitarian, nice guys with personalities and policies not up to the crises of their times.
- drofnats1
January 2, 2012 at 9:34am
"It opens with the editors' vague criticisms of Obama's policies" That's because they're doing this thing I like when I see it in student papers called "staying on topic." This piece is about the Republican candidates' lack of concrete proposals, not the editors' own criticisms of Obama, which they mention only to make it clear that mere criticism of the president is NOT the issue. If you want more specifics on what this magazine's writers would like to see Obama do differently, you can find it easily enough in several other articles. And if some points are lacking, well, TNR isn't running for president.
- frippo
January 2, 2012 at 10:52am
Konstantin. Magboy is generally correct. Repubs may not be Adolph or Uncle Joe type totalitarians (they're more disorganized and incoherent), but they certainly have strong anti-democratic theocratic tendencies (mind-meld F. Franco and B. Mussolini). Dismissing such concerns can be as inappropriate as overstating them. What terms would you use to characterize what the party in power is doing in Hungary?? The economic conditions of the Great Depression are what really brought many would-be dictators to power. If economic conditions get much worse in the EU and US, you'll see many more extremists in power, including here. If unemployment next summer is greater than 9.5% and rising, BHO is toast. And it matters not if the Repub nomineee is Mittens, Ron, Rick, Newt, or whoever. Its ABO time (Anybody But Obama). Google Hungary.
- drofnats1
January 2, 2012 at 11:31am
Konstantin, I've been studying Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia since the mid-Fifties, and I know the fascist mind. A politician whose whole program is based on no-compromise is a totalitarian and a fascist. Compromise is the very essence of American democracy. Rigid obstructionism is not. You don't have to be a mass murderer--a Hitler or a Stalin--to be a fascist. Republicans in America are not Hitlers or Stalins or Maos. I disagreed with people who said G.W. Bush was Hitler. But anybody can have a religious-fanatic type mind that brooks no compromise. And most Republicans are virulently against compromise now. If Republicans get back in power and crash our economy again, Americans will not be selling apples in the street, like my dad did in the Thirties. They'll be selling bullets to the teeth. And the Republican Party will be only too glad to restore strong order in the streets. That's what religious-fanatic, no-compromise types do. Drofnats1 is right. A dictator could arise in America. But not for long. We are not an extremist people. I, too, got a taste of fascism firsthand. I was stationed in Berlin with Air Force Intelligence in the early Sixties, and I was there when the Wall went up and during the Berlin Crisis that followed. We were 110 miles inside communist territory, surrounded by Soviet and East German troops and warplanes and at the mercy of Berlin Betty, who played "Don't Fence Me In" for us on an East German radio station. We came closer to nuclear war during the Berlin Crisis than we did during the Cuban Missile Crisis a year later. Khrushchev cared much more about Berlin than he did Cuba. No, the Republicans are mild, as fascists go, but let us pray that they don't crash Wall Street again with their fanatic deregulation policies. I repeat: Let Us Pray. By the way, Frederick Kempe's Berlin, 1961, which I'm reading now, is a brilliant evocation of the Berlin Crisis. drafnats, thanks for the Hungary comment. Both my parents were born in Hungary. I'll check out the situation in the land of my ancestors.
- magboy47.
January 2, 2012 at 1:03pm
magboy. Agreed. Except "It can happen here" (Google Upton Sinclair). It's a human tendency to look for strong leaders in a crisis. Hungary is a disaster-- in a (formerly?) democratic State. As was Chile under Pinochet. And Chile was a LONG-time model democracy. As was Uraguay. Without FDR, we could easily have gotten a Huey Long ("democratically" elected in LA as was Adolph in GR) or a Father Coughlin type.
- drofnats1
January 2, 2012 at 2:07pm
I forgot to mention pledges. Like Republicans, Nazi and Bolshevik politicians signed pledges when they took office--to the Leader and to the Party. Republicans not only signed a pledge to Grover Norquist, the leader of the GOP. They signed a GOP one saying they would not cooperate with Obama on anything. Democratic politicians in any country do not sign obstructionist pledges to a person or a party. When I saw Eric Cantor call getting ten dollars in return for giving one "compromise," it took me right back to Hitler and Lenin. While those two were coming to power, they made exactly the same type of "compromises." What a slap in the face to America and Americans the GOP's idea of compromise is.
- magboy47.
January 2, 2012 at 2:12pm
The fear of providing any specifics started before 2010, when Boehner hoped to get the House and instead of providing specifics on whose Ox would be Gored, he went on and on about us having an "adult conversation" over the deficity. An adult conversation might sound titilating but it was only a way to avoid doing something like a Ryan Plan that would have scared voters.
- Nusholtz
January 2, 2012 at 5:36pm
The debate for this article about whether the the current GOP leaders are fascist totalitarians is amusing and entertaining (as many irresponsible discussions are). Without a doubt, many of the commentators (based on reported experiences and personal observations), are more qualified than I to analyze the matter. However, I will add that the analogy that pops to mind for me is to the Mafia, GODFATHER, et al. Do not people such as Gingrich, Caine, Santorum, et all deserve the label "wise guys?" Would Romney not seem well on the way to being a credible Godfather. Well, maybe even Perry for that matter.
- skahn
January 2, 2012 at 6:47pm
There are a million reasons to loathe today's Republican party leaders. Accusing them of supporting fascism & totalitarianism and such will only accomplish the feat of marginalizing oneself, no matter the litany of valid complaints one might have about the sad, dangerous state of today's American conservatives. Yes, their blind, blatant anti-Obamaism is disgusting and indicative of an intellectual void as well as a moral deficiency, a callous indifference to the well-being of most American citizens. No, it doesn't quite mean they are leading us toward a dictatorship. Yes, their clinginess to guns & religion disturbs me, but I don't foresee an American theocracy. American institutions are too strong to allow that, and for that I thank Republicans & Democrats of previous generations.
- Konstantin
January 2, 2012 at 8:05pm
I don't know that magboy47 is exaggerating THAT much, especially when you throw in the religious angle. Also, the law allowing indefinite detention of suspects is scary. I can't escape the feeling that our country has changed in some fundamental ways. One of these is the apparent disregard of Republican congresspeople, especially in the House, for the will of the people. When poll after poll indicates that we feel strongly about protecting the old, the poor, the unemployed, sick and disabled people and the environment, and Republican congresspeople wantonly ignore us, haven't we crossed a bridge? This is supposed to be a democracy not a fascist state, in which we have government theatre.
- Sophia
January 2, 2012 at 8:05pm
PS how do we get rid of the Shell pop up? Sorry to change the subject, if in fact I am changing the subject, which come to think of it I might not. It is driving me nuts. Thanks!
- Sophia
January 2, 2012 at 8:06pm
skahn. you really need read more carefully. Having strong totalitarian tendencies is common, relative few being fascists. As for being a Godfather, your post may be the most amusing of all in terms of wingnuttery. Romney as Godfather?? Really?? Mittens as Prez would now probably be the best outcome in 2012 for Dems. A Repub wuss with little political appeal other than he's ABO in thwe White House in an economic crisis!! He'll do at least as well (probably better) than BHO in getting some stimulus passed (to aid his business buddies)-- and any stimulus is better than no stimulus. And serve as an excellent stimulus for Dems to really re-organize around Progressive candidates that understand and promote Keynesian economics and Liberal values. That will NOT happen with any success in 2016 if BHO is re-elected. Repubs may well run against a Democratic Hoover for a generation.
- drofnats1
January 2, 2012 at 8:08pm
Sophia, I'm getting tired of the Shell pop-up, too. And sometimes there's an audio ad coming from somewhere on a TNR page. I paid top dollar for my 3-year subscription to TNR. It seems like I or anyone else should not have to put up with full-page pop-ups and mystery voices. Konstantin, I never accused Republicans of supporting fascism or totalitarianism--just acting like fascists. And there's a lot of wiggle-room in that definition. A control-freak family member can act like a fascist. Republicans just happen to belong to our wonderful American political family. They're the in-laws we never want to invite back.
- magboy47.
January 2, 2012 at 9:11pm
drofnats says, "skahn. you really need read more carefully. Having strong totalitarian tendencies is common, relative few being fascists. As for being a Godfather, your post may be the most amusing of all in terms of wingnuttery. Romney as Godfather?? Really??" First of all, it is indubitably true that I need to read more carefully. My 7-year-old non-genetic granddaughter (who goes to a private school for disgustingly bright children) visited today and is reading quite well. Probably by the time she is in second grade, you can hire her to tutor me to read more carefully, though I am sure her mommies will not approve in the slightest of her reading TNR. [I won't repeat here my comments about the need for a junior TNR edition similar to junior Nat Geographic safe enough for a sheltered child to read.] In any case, your comment is one of the sweetest, kindest, most appropriate flames directed at me on the TNR comment threads I've read. I will go to bed tonight with a /s/m/i/r/k smile on my face contemplating “most amusing of all in terms of wingnuttery.” I have no coat of arms (at least none that I know of, and I think one would hardly apply to Eastern European Jewish ancestors) and I have no artistic talent to create one, but I am trying to visualize what a coat of arms flourishing a wingnut would look like. Seriously, the nature of the Godfather was that most of the people he controlled were doing what he wanted them to do while thinking it was what they wanted to do. That was the secret of his power as much as the “muscle” and the threat [the stick] and the money and babes [the carrot].
- skahn
January 2, 2012 at 9:33pm