JONATHAN CHAIT JUNE 11, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
If you want to know why I take Michelle Bachmann seriously as a dark horse candidate, check out her lengthy interview with Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Bachmann may be a paranoid loony, but she does seem possessed of a level of political savvy that allows her to understand what challenges she faces and what steps she needs to take to address them.
For instance, she understands that she needs to distinguish her image from that of Sarah Palin, which means establishing her intellectual bona fides. Obviously, talking to Stephen Moore is an excellent way to come off smart, in the same way that if you worry that you look too fat, you should get your picture taken standing next to Bobby Bacala. Second, Bachmann needs to assure economic conservatives that she shares their agenda, and isn't just some religious nut. Here she goes:
Ms. Bachmann is best known for her conservative activism on issues like abortion, but what I want to talk about today is economics. When I ask who she reads on the subject, she responds that she admires the late Milton Friedman as well as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. "I'm also an Art Laffer fiend—we're very close," she adds. "And [Ludwig] von Mises. I love von Mises," getting excited and rattling off some of his classics like "Human Action" and "Bureaucracy." "When I go on vacation and I lay on the beach, I bring von Mises."...
If she were to take her shot, she'd run on an economic package reminiscent of Jack Kemp, the late congressman who championed supply-side economics and was the GOP vice presidential nominee in 1996. "In my perfect world," she explains, "we'd take the 35% corporate tax rate down to nine so that we're the most competitive in the industrialized world. Zero out capital gains. Zero out the alternative minimum tax. Zero out the death tax."
You've got some highbrow names to establish gravitas (Friedman, von Mises) along with some disciples of voodoo economics (Laffer, Kemp) to excite a supply-sider like Moore and his audience. That's pretty much a bullseye.
Bachmann also expresses her view that the Paul Ryan budget is very hard to sell to voters:
She voted for the Paul Ryan budget—but "with an asterisk." Why? "The asterisk is that we've got a huge messaging problem [on Medicare]. It needs to be called the 55-and-Under Plan. I can't tell you the number of 78-year-old women who think we're going to pull the rug out from under them."
Again, she may be crazy, but she does have a strong grasp of political reality. The problem with so many radical candidates is that they lack political sense as well. Bachmann is a potent combination of substantively radical and politically shrewd, much like Ryan. And if Ryan does not run, Bachmann could make some noise.
16 comments
I completely agree with the premise. I think Bachmann has an outside shot. If Palin does not run, Bachmann and her crazy eyes would have a great chance at becoming the default Tea Party candidate. And as I've mentioned before and Chait touches on here, Bachmann is more crazy than stupid. And while stupidity is rarely helpful, a little dose of crazy might be quite advantageous in the GOP race.
- Jonas
June 11, 2011 at 4:39pm
A thief who doesn't get caught can be shrewd, too. The thought of her going anywhere near our revenue stream is frightening. We've already cut taxes and made the national debt so big that we now think the work involved in reducing it down will create jobs.
- Nusholtz
June 11, 2011 at 4:49pm
I like her defense of the Ryan plan is generational warfare! "55 and under" you are second class citizens! You see I need the FOX News demographic to come out for me.
- MikeB.
June 11, 2011 at 6:20pm
Wow, Michelle Bachman loves the wonders of Austrian economics by reading it at the source, but she couldn't figure out that slavery didn't end until the Civil War in America...hmmm!
- MikeB.
June 11, 2011 at 8:01pm
Her choice of economists tells us she is a fool. But what's new.
- hkaye
June 11, 2011 at 9:09pm
If she wants anyone from age 35 to 55 in a regular job to vote for her, she does indeed have an "under-55" problem!
- ironyroad
June 11, 2011 at 10:04pm
Milton Friedman was a Nobel Prize winner in economics. He was no fool.
- liberalref
June 12, 2011 at 9:20am
Friedman was an impressive thinker to be sure, but he's also partly responsible for the current strain of market fundamentalism and often put market liberalization above political liberalization (See Chile and Pinochet).
- Pnaut
June 12, 2011 at 1:52pm
Pnaut- although to be fair, I'd take Chile over Argentina which had neither for a much longer time.
- Nari224
June 12, 2011 at 7:04pm
Yours is a fair point, pn. Though I must say that it could be argued that market liberalization helped lead to the undermining of the rule of Augusto Jose Ramon Pinochet Ugarte. And the most severe critics of Milton Friedman's role in advising Pinochet never made similar protests directed at the likes of Nicholas Kaldor, who advised Mao. Further, though it might comes as news to the left, Mao was even worse than Pinochet.
- liberalref
June 12, 2011 at 7:11pm
I'm not quite convinced of her political astuteness. Maybe some people missed these moments, but there was a link to an article about NY-26 where one voter indicated he was not happy about the notion that his children wouldn't have Medicare when they turned 65, and there was another article about a Ryan town hall meeting where a constituent was similarly unhappy that his children wouldn't receive Medicare under the Ryan Plan. For Bachman to think it's just senile old hags who are confused about the merits of RyanCare tells me she, like the rest of the wackos, is not so much politically astute as out of their damn minds. Of course, in true republitard fashion, her main focus isn't on the message but the messaging; she thinks they just need to dress it up more attractively so they can sell it to the suckers on Main St.
- GSpinks
June 13, 2011 at 3:07am
Our politics are becoming unbearable.
- paskunac
June 13, 2011 at 6:41am
- I believe it's too early to take anyone seriously in The GOP Playoffs until we see how they match up against each other after a few debates. We've seen their offense, but even the gang at the far right will need to define, refine and defend. Can they do that and be taken seriously? The dilemma for the cluster at the fringe is how to secure a good number in Iowa where 60% of the caucus voters represent 30% of the general electorate. Show me the strategy that to win early with a message that has an appeal with a majority in late '12. The next year will provide the Obama Team with reams of oppo research and few on that side will appear serious after their done clawing each other.
- michaelg
June 13, 2011 at 9:54am
I think the GOP is well aware that they have a message problem - however, fixing the messaging is the only alternative they've left themselves with, given that all but three of them voted for Ryan's budget. For once, I think the GOP has scored an own goal ... that's the only way it seems the inept Democratic party has any shot at winning the messaging war.
- NR409654
June 13, 2011 at 10:36am
Why are we debating the merits of Friedman? did anyone else notice the plural form used by hkaye, as in 'her choice of economistS tells us she is a fool."
- miceelf
June 13, 2011 at 10:52am
You may be on to something, NR. Some days it really looks like the only thing keeping democrats in the game is the blundering incompetence of republicans.
- GSpinks
June 13, 2011 at 2:15pm