Obama Is The Big Loser In
This Election
WASHINGTON – Outgoing President Barack Obama and his wife
Michelle actively campaigned for Democratic Party nominee
Hillary Clinton. In fact Obama spent more time campaigning for
Clinton than any other sitting president ever did on behalf of
the presidential nominee of his party. And why such a big
effort? Because it was all about his legacy.
Indeed, a Clinton victory, especially if it had taken place
with a significant margin, would have amounted to a final and
lasting endorsement of Obama’s eight year presidency. Hillary
Clinton would have been portrayed as the rightful and
competent heir to his (great?) legacy. She would have moved
America towards even higher achievements, by building on
Obama’s record of success and the solid foundations they
created for future accomplishments.
It did not work
Well, it did not turn out this way, as we know. It is not just
that Clinton lost. She lost badly. The numbers look pretty
awful for Clinton, if we compare them with how well Obama did
when he ran for office.
In 2012, Obama won a convincing re-election campaign against
Republican Mitt Romney. In that election, Obama got 65,915,795
votes, or 51.1%. Romney got 60,933,504, or 47%.
Well, guess what. On November 8 Hillary Clinton got only
60,839,922 votes, or 48% of total votes cast. Which is to say
that she got almost 5 million fewer votes than Obama in 2012
–and in fact even fewer votes than losing contender Mitt
Romney.
Democrats did not vote
Which is to say that a large number of Democrats or
Independents leaning Democrat simply did not bother to get out
and vote. I doubt that former Obama supporters voted for Trump
in large numbers, although a small number probably did. The
unpleasant truth –for both Clinton and Obama– is that millions
of Obama Democrats stayed at home. They did not show up. They
did not vote.
Well, so much for the legacy of the great transformational
presidency of Barack Obama, the man who had promised in 2008
that we would re-engineer America, by bringing everybody
together. The sad truth is that millions of people who belong
to his own Democratic Party did not bother to show up and vote
for his officially anointed successor, Hillary Clinton, this
way paving the way for Trump’s victory.
Trump’s victory
As for Donald Trump, it is clear that he won. But he won with
a small margin against Hillary Clinton, a very weak candidate
deserted by many in her own Democratic Party.
Yes, Trump the total outsider achieved something quite
remarkable. He gained traditionally Democratic states like
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin –and this is almost unprecedented.
But his overall numbers, while more than enough to get him
into the White House, are not overwhelming, and this should
induce careful reflection among his key advisers.
Enough votes
Donald Trump won enough states to become president. But he
lost the popular vote, even though by a small margin. And all
this happened in a year in which a lower number of Americans
voted. Trump got only 60,265,858 votes. A good number; but not
impressive. Barack Obama won 5 million more votes than he did
in 2012. And do keep in mind that millions more were entitled
to vote in 2016 as compared to 2012.
So, here is the thing. Trump won because he managed to
energize millions of Americans who felt betrayed by the
traditional political establishment run by Washington
insiders, this is true; while Clinton failed to fire up her
own Democratic Party base. And so he won and she lost. But do
keep in mind that this is not “a wave election”. Trump won in
some measure by default, because many on the opposite side
simply did not show up.
Ronald Reagan in 1980
In contrast, Ronald Reagan’s victory in 1980 was a real “wave
election”. In a three candidates contest in which Independent
John Anderson got a respectable 6% of the total vote, Reagan
got 50.75% of the votes. He carried 44 states and 489
electoral votes. Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter did not
just lose, he got crushed. He got 41% of the vote. He carried
just 6 states and only 49 electoral votes.
A mandate
After his 1980 electoral triumph Ronald Reagan could
reasonably claim “a mandate” from the American people. Donald
Trump is the clear winner in 2016. But I do not see the same
mandate. His numbers are good enough to get him into the White
House; but they are not overwhelming.
His political and policy advisers should ponder on these
results and decide how far can this new president push into
uncharted territory when it comes to bold new policies. Based
on these numbers, there is some political margin for him, but
not a very big one. And, please, do keep in mind that history
shows how quickly American voters can turn love into
resentment towards their elected leaders.
Barack Obama is the real loser
The interpretation of the significance of this vote in this
unusual 2016 presidential election has just begun. How strong
and, most importantly, how resilient is Trump’s political
base? Can it be expanded? How seriously wounded is the
Democratic Party after this surprising (for the party elites
anyway) defeat?
While all this is still being discussed, as I indicated at the
beginning, a clear result of this election is that Barack
Obama has been rejected by most Americans. Based on these
elections numbers, it is clear that he left no strong legacy.
Therefore, he is the real loser in these elections.
The American people –among them millions of Democrats– who
voted for him twice, in 2008 and in 2012, at this most
critical juncture chose not to go out and vote for his chosen
successor –a successor on whose behalf he strongly campaigned.
American voters implicitly rejected Hillary Clinton, the
candidate of his Democratic Party, and therefore the candidate
who would have inherited Obama’s great policy achievements,
while moving America to even greater heights.
Rejection across the board
And the rejection does not stop with the presidential race.
The American voters also rejected almost all the Democrats who
tried to unseat Republicans in the Senate, even though all
prognostications indicated that they had a great chance to
succeed in becoming the majority party in the Senate after
this vote.
So, here is the score. Republican Donald Trump is now
president. The Republicans keep the House and the Senate,
while advancing across the country at the state level. Indeed,
on November 8 the GOP gained 3 Governors, for a total of
33 republicans versus 17 Democrats.
As I said, no Obama legacy. Sad, but true.
Populist Trump: Great Appeal,
No Agenda
WASHINGTON – Donald Trump’s unexpected popularity is largely
the result of the unappealing mediocrity of the rest of the
Republican field. At the beginning of this campaign, many
pundits commented that “this time” the GOP has come out in
full force, displaying an impressive array of super competent
heavy hitters. Well, this is just ridiculous. Most of the 17
contenders are just mediocrities who do a pretty bad job
trying to pose as inspired leaders.
Mediocre contenders
And it is precisely the shop worn appearance of so many wouldbe presidents (Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, George Pataki,
Lindsey Graham, among others) that gave Trump an opening. Most
of the GOP contenders are tired robots endlessly repeating
ultra-rehearsed and bland talking points. Frankly, most of
them look like what they are: retreads.
And the young blood, (Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul), also
look bad: inexperienced, ideological, or positively weird. As
for the “reliable” candidates, (Jeb Bush, John Kasich),
whatever their records as policy-makers and real
qualifications, they look boring and uninspiring.
Trump’s opportunity
In an instinctive way, Trump saw all this. He realized that at
least one segment of the public wants “Guts and Glory“. They
want a “Man“. A Man who looks big and talks big. Never mind
the actual substance, the coherence, the feasibility of what
he proposes. It is enough to look credible. It is enough to
look good on TV. This is the triumph of style over substance.
Well, Trump knows how to blend generic populism, (“I’ll make
America great“), plain demagoguery, (“I’ll kick out all the
illegal immigrants”), personal attacks, (“People fall asleep
when they listen to Jeb Bush”), histrionics, (releasing
Senator Lindsey Graham’s personal phone number), some
vaudeville quality humor, and a lot more.
They are all stupid
But his real strength rests in pointing out, in a ferocious
way, how all his Republican opponents are vastly overrated
professional politicians who are in the pockets of big donors.
They have no vision, cheat the voters, do not deliver, and
–most of all—have been around essentially forever.
There is nothing new in a wave of populist, anti-establishment
sentiment. Sadly, It happens every now and then in America.
“Throw the rascals out”. Trump’s genius is that he managed to
feel this wave of disgust for establishment politicians when
all the pros and the seasoned pundits did not. Then he jumped
ahead of it, and now he both leads it and rides it.
A sorry-looking establishment
Yes, much can be said about the sorry state of a
Washington byzantine political process controlled and in a
sense “occupied” by a small elite of professional politicians
(three terms Senators, 12 or 14 terms Representatives)
propelled to the pinnacle of national politics not by personal
virtue but by complex alliances with special interest groups
who pick this person or the other as the most suitable elected
representative to defend “their issues” in Washington, DC.
Beholden to special interests
Yes, it is disheartening to see how large agribusiness
controls the allocation of farm subsidies and bogus energy
programs like corn-based ethanol. On the other side of the
political divide, the Teamsters and various teachers unions
protect their interests via their unyielding support to
Democrats who really need the large, disciplined and wellorganized manpower rolled out by the unions at election time
to help Democratic candidates get elected. So here is the
bargain: “We got you elected. But now you work for us”.
In all this, there is ever-growing government spending, too
much debt, lack of accountability, waste, and a lot worse.
Trump is different
Hence Trump’s appeal. He promises that he will clean house. He
can claim that he is a successful CEO, and therefore naturally
suited to engineer a complete Washington make-over. He has his
own money, plenty of it, and therefore he is not beholden to
any special interest. He will take care of America’s interest.
He’ll kick ass.
When it comes to the world, he’ll re-balance our trade with
China and Japan –in no time. (This is all about protectionism
and trade wars). He’ll build a wall on the southern border,
and then force Mexico to pay for it. (This is totally
preposterous). The bigger the ideas, the better. The point is
not to say something doable. The point is to impress. And
unfortunately there are millions of Americans who want to be
impressed.
There have been other anti-establishment political
insurgents. Some did well, at least for a while. But, even as
they presented themselves as outsiders, they worked within the
system.
Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan
If we look back, in 1976 Jimmy Carter was one of them. As the
former Governor of Georgia, with zero connections at the
national level, Carter was a most improbable presidential
candidate. And yet he won in 1976 because his theme of moral
rectitude (“I shall never tell a lie”) seemed to be the right
medicine that America needed after the twin traumas of Vietnam
and Watergate.
And Ronald Reagan was another successful populist who could
claim that he would come to Washington as the California
outsider who would drastically reduce the size of government
and cut taxes, this way unshackling the righteous
resourcefulness of the average, mostly virtuous, American.
There is no plan
But now, with Trump, we have a different would-be leader. He
is the instant political celebrity who stays a celebrity not
because he has a coherent program to sell, but simply because
he is constantly outrageous. His “vision” is that he should be
elected because he is smart, and all the others are weak and
ineffective.
Unfortunately, what we observe is that Trump is popular
because he keeps his audience attention mostly by being
offensive, irreverent and outrageous.
In a sense, he is a conservative version of TV icon Jon
Stewart. Stewart’s “Daily Show” was very popular, especially
among young viewers. His well-crafted political satire exposed
the failings, the ethical breaches, the inconsistencies, and
more of the Washington political elites in a funny, biting,
and irreverent way. While he obviously targeted the right more
than the left, Stewart’s satire was overall beneficial. It is
good to remind the public that most of the time “the Emperor
has no clothes”.
The critical difference here is that Stewart is not running
for office, while Trump wants to be President. And he wants to
be President by lampooning his opponents, without having
articulated any coherent policy agenda. Exposing other
people’s fallacies is a skill. It can work wonders during a
campaign. But it is not a substitute for leadership.
Many Americans love this
And here is the larger problem. I can understand how millions
of Americans are fed up with professional politicians beholden
to special interests who seem unable to take care of basic
matters, like rebalancing federal expenditures.
That said, the enthusiasm towards Trump reveals a most
superficial approach towards public policy. Choosing to vote
for Trump mostly because you find his dismissive and openly
offensive rhetoric appealing is a bad idea. And it is equally
a bad idea to accept as sound policy Trump’s grandiose
rhetoric with all his promises about restoring America’s
greatness via trade wars, and more.
It seems that Trump’s supporters treat Trump as if he were a
reality TV show hero. The guy who stays on top because he is
clever and defiant. But this is not about being clever on TV.
This is about running America.
America needs a real heavy weight leader
Yes, you may agree with Donald Trump that South Carolina
Senator Lindsey Graham is a lightweight. But this does make
Trump a real heavy weight. A heavy weight national leader
will build a majority around a coherent, sustainable agenda
aimed at promoting real economic growth, fiscal rectitude,
sound national security, government effectiveness and social
cohesion.
A large number of people love to watch Trump when he calls all
his opponents stupid. But, even assuming that some of them
are, this name calling is not a demonstration of enlightened
leadership.
America
Needs
A
New
Interpreter Of The Old Values
WASHINGTON – Intentionally or by default, Barack Obama has
become the champion of the dispossessed and of the
downtrodden. Against all odds, (considering a weak economy and
high unemployment), he won the 2012 re-election with a simple
message: Mitt Romney and runnig mate Paul Ryan are “bad
people”.
Evil conservatives
Their (evil?) goal, according to the well orchestrated Obama
campaign narrative, was and is, (if they get another
chance), to destroy the social safety nets that guarantee a
semi-decent life for those who work hard but get little from a
system that is stacked against them.
If you vote for me –promised Obama– I guarantee that you’ll
keep your Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability
Insurance, and the rest of it. And I promise that I shall keep
fighting for greater equality. Therefore, and mark my words,
don’t be stupid. If you vote for the Republican ticket you are
doomed, because they’ll take the little you have away from
you.
Well, thanks in part to Romney’s unforced errors that seemed
to confirm the artfully created image (by the Obama campaign)
of the heartless “vulture capitalist”, Obama got re-elected.
“Sweet Populism” has no standard-bearer
But the moderate right that had placed its hope on Mitt Romney
right now is a political orphan. As Pepperdine University
Professor Ted McAllister points out in an extremely insightful
and elegantly written WSJ op-ed piece, (“Sweet Populism”
Awaits Its Leader, August 6, 2014), now within Middle America
(traditionally centrist but leaning conservative) there is a
palpable yearning for a new, inspired leader (a new Ronald
Reagan) who will be able to forge a message of hope based on
the reaffirmation of the “Good American Myth”, that McAllister
calls “Sweet Populism”.
This is about a set of old (but still vibrant) principles
that explain how “everybody can make it in America” if we
would only refocus on self-reliance and industry in this rich
and generous land of opportunity that always rewards personal
effort, ingenuity and enterprise.
Here is the creed and the program: Let’s unleash the
creativity of all hard-working Americans. Let’s tear down the
barriers (taxation, hyper regulation, and what not) that
stifle individual efforts. Let’s make this country great
again.
Conservative and revolutionary ideas
And so, (I would add), we can be both conservatives and
revolutionaries, reaffirming the eternal validity of old
principles that will allow us to dream about and reach greater
heights. And, while engaged in this endeavor, we shall also
reaffirm this country’s greatness, a greatness founded on the
fundamental goodness of the American people.
“Sweet Populism”: America’s secret sauce
As Ted McAllister puts in his essay:
“Sweet populism is a peculiarly American species, organized
around a version of the country’s history that is positive and
incomplete; stresses the importance of self-reliance; seeks to
remove obstacles to individual empowerment when they emerge;
and aims any anger it produces at those who deny the essential
goodness of the American idea”.
Tea Party got it half right
I fully agree. And I also agree with McAllister that the Tea
Party Movement failed to capture the essence of this Good
Myth. It could only articulate an emotional anti-government
message. “Cut taxes and cut government”. But this is not
enough. Ronald Reagan’s brilliance was in his ability to make
himself into the prophet of a New Era of Hope, strongly
grounded on the reaffirmation of old values.
The Tea Party focused on theoretically correct but in the end
abstract and impractical ideas of fiscal purity. In the
end, its members have been unable to produce a compelling
message that would convincingly combine good ideas that will
promote growth, while restraining spending. The Tea Party
seems to be “anti-this, and anti-that”. But it is unable
to provide a warm, inspiring message that will sway Middle
America.
Left: focus on injustice
As McAllister points out, the left has its myth too. But it is
not in sync with the narrative of America as a Blessed Land of
Opportunity. Its focus is on injustice. The rich rigged the
system in their favor. As a result they get all the goodies
while the rest of us, hard-working Americans, get the crumbs.
Therefore, the thrust of any progressive public policy has to
be the promotion of social and economic equality. And, in
order to get there, those who gamed the system now have to pay
up.
As the 2012 elections have demonstrated, this “social justice”
message, (combined with a weak Republican candidate), worked
rather well.
America is on the wrong track
But now we are stuck. While we got out of the Great Recession,
there is a general sense of unhappiness. The economy now
grows, but only a little, (about 2% a year). Unemployment is
down; but it is still very high, (around 6%), while millions
of people who are lucky enough to be employed struggle with
the meager income provided by their low paying part-time jobs,
the only ones they can get.
Indeed, by coincidence the WSJ today also published the
results of a national poll that shows how 71% of Americans
believe that the country is “on the wrong track“. This high
percentage of really unhappy Americans includes people who
voted for Obama in 2012.
Who will lead?
As McAllister writes, the yearning for a new interpreter of
the American idea of freedom, and of the promising horizons it
can open up today, is there. However, the millions of American
moderate conservatives need a convincing standard-bearer.
Romney Finally Showing That
He Is a Highly Competent,
Affable Man – Obama Now Looks
Lost and Angry – Is This
Enough
To
Election?
Determine
The
The hard reality is that most American voters do not care
about his legacy
By Paolo von Schirach
October 26, 2012
WASHINGTON – Months and months of carefully orchestrated and
diligently planned Romney character assassination (“super
rich, vulture capitalist”) went up in smoke during the first
presidential Denver debate on October 3. With 70 million
Americans watching, Obama was flat and despondent, Romney
engaged and pleasant. The Obama strategy to win by default
because of the successful demonization of challenger Romney
has failed.
The impact of the debates
The effect of this debate performance has been extremely
powerful. Obama’s consistent lead in the polls vanished.
Romney is now a possible winner, something considered almost a
dream before Detroit.
True enough, the American electorate is split almost 50-50.
Still, while rock solid partisan voters will vote for their
man no matter what, some with less intense feelings may be
swayed. And in this context “likability” becomes a critical
factor. Up to Detroit the unanimous consensus was that Romney
was wooden, not comfortable in his own skin and therefore not
projecting any personal warmth.
Well, now this perception has changed. Obama was lost in
Denver, angry and patronizing in the subsequent two debates.
Romney has his flaws too, of course. But he came out of these
highly publicized events as a far more credible would-be
president.
Who has the most appealing personality?
In the end, while a policy agenda matching the needs of the
country does matter, Americans want to fall in love with their
President. And now at least some who thought Obama was their
man are seriously considering Romney as an alternative because
he looks the part, while Obama in their eyes no longer does.
If we believe Bob Woodward’s new book, “The Price of
Politics“, what we saw in Denver and afterwards is the real
Obama: a man of perhaps above average intelligence who is
however way out of his depth in the White House. He hectors
and lectures but he does not know how to lead.
True leadership needed
In America true leadership is about bringing the other side to
the table in order to hammer a decent compromise that carries
the country forward, all this without making the other side
look like a loser. Obama lacks this quality. He is described
by many as haughty and patronizing, when he should be affable
and engaging.
The personality difference between Obama and Romney emerged
clearly during the debates because they were not scripted
events. Under pressure Romney could still be engaging and
relatively relaxed; while Obama was either lost or angry.
Obama could not bring the other side to the table
All this is of course largely speculation. Still, the record
of the last four years shows that Obama could not lead when
America needed grand bargains on fiscal and tax reform, with
special focus on Medicare and Social Security. He had a great
opportunity when the Bowles-Simpson Debt Commission issued its
Report in December 2010, and he let that one go. Likewise,
Obama could not lead on new pro-growth policies that would
inspire confidence (and therefore stimulate new investments)
among business leaders.
Of course, the other side has its responsibilities. There is
now a strident and frankly irresposible fringe within the
Republican Party (Tea Party and all their friends) that will
say “No” to any and all compromises with this White House as a
matter of principle. This is very bad. But Congressmen,
however numerous and misguided, are not national leaders. The
President is the national leader. His voice counts a lot more.
Reagan had a good touch
President Ronald Reagan was demonized by the Left as a trigger
happy, hopelessly far right and unintelligent lunatic. And yet
Reagan was a genuinely affable man. He had a personal touch
that made it possible for him to bring the Democrats to the
table and achieve tangible results such as Social Security
reform and the 1986 major tax reform.
The next President will have to lead
Personality does matter in US politics. Should Romney get
elected, for the sake of America’s future let’s hope that what
we saw in the debates is the real thing: a man whit good ideas
who can credibly bring all parties to the table and strike
honorable compromises that will help the country emerge out of
this funk.
In 2012 Democrats Will Run as
Defenders of the Welfare
State – Beyond Spending Cuts,
Republicans Have to Make a
Case That Small Gov. Works
Better
–
Examples
from
Indiana, New Jersey, Virginia
The hard reality is that most American voters do not care
about his legacy
By Paolo von Schirach
May 26, 2011
WASHINGTON– The Republicans just lost NY-26. This used to be a
safe House seat in up state New York. This defeat happened
largely on the basis of the Democrats’ strong opposition to
the Medicare radical reform plan presented nationally by the
Republicans. True enough, Democrat Kathy Hochul did not win by
a huge margin, (only a 47% plurality), while Republican Jane
Corwin was hurt by Jack Davis, a third party candidate
claiming a Tea Party allegiance, who syphoned off 9% from the
Republican vote. Karl Rove commented in The Wall Street
Journal that it was this unfortunate combination, and not the
Medicare issue, that cost the Republicans this safe seat.
Medicare the issue?
Well, the Democrats have an entirely different reading. As
they put it, it was all about “Medicare, Medicare, Medicare”.
The Republicans –this was the message– want to take it away
from you, the Democrats want to keep it for you. The emerging
conventional wisdom is that this New York state upset is an
indication
that even
Repeat the
electoral
House.
that the Republican plan for Medicare is so scary
conservative voters lean towards the Democrats.
NY-26 results nationally and you got another major
upset in 2012, with the Democrats retaking the
Difficult to make national extrapolations from one House race.
But I believe that the Republicans need to do a lot more work
to convince the general public that: 1) Radical Medicare
reform is absolutely necessary, as the system will be broke
soon; 2) Their reform plan is the way to go. So far, I see no
indication that they know how to do this. I also see no Middle
America appetite for a radical overhaul of such a key
retirement benefit. Very simply, nobody “sees” the federal
deficit; for most its is still an abstraction. Everybody
“sees” very tangible Medicare benefits.
Pundits think that the Republicans have a strong platform
But some pundits think instead that a GOP bent on serious
fiscal reform has excellent electoral chances. Daniel
Henninger of the WSJ, (The Building Blocks of a GOP Agenda,May
26, 2011), gives an upbeat prognostication about future
Republican success on the basis of spending cuts implemented
at the state level by capable Republican Governors such as New
Jersey Chris Christie, Indiana Mitch Daniels; and now newly
elected John Kasich in Ohio and Scott Walker in Wisconsin.
Henninger’s point is that these elected officials are working
to shrink bloated and unaffordable state governments in order
to recreate fiscal health as the necessary precondition to
restore the fundamentals for economic growth. Downsizing
government and reducing taxes are going to be the building
blocks of a national political agenda to be embraced and
carried forward by whoever the Republican nominee to run
against Barack Obama in 2012 will be.
Fiscal rigor, no taxes is not enough for a national agenda
This is all well and good. I am totally in favor of reestablishing fiscal sanity. Looking at our monstrous yearly
deficits and at the accumulation of more and more federal
debt, we should all be in favor of cutting spending, including
entitlements reform, as most of the federal money goes to
entitlements.
That said, I am extremely skeptical that “the fiscal probity
theme” is enough to build enthusiasm around a Republican
platform. Cutting spending is absolutely necessary. But this
cannot be the core of a governing platform.
True enough, Ronald Reagan run on a similar platform in 1980,
“Get the government off the back of the people”. But at that
time it got traction because it was bold and new. And the
issue was not the deficit. The issue was a conservative
revolutionary wave that wanted to do away with liberal
thinking.
The Reagan Revolution was different
Reagan could say that he was the reformer that would dismantle
the oppressive machinery of the state in order to unleash the
productive potential of millions of Americans. This was new
talk. And it sounded intriguing. By slashing and killing the
federal monster, Reagan could restore the American Dream to
its proper station and glory. And so he won in 1980 and again
in 1984.
But at that time all this neo-liberism –and indeed the first
version of neo-conservatism– were all new. The Republicans
appeared to be the party of new ideas. The Reagan/Conservative
Revolution was about a deep rethinking and reappraisal of the
role of the state and especially about debunking the liberal
conventional wisdom asserting that “Big Government” is good
that had been accepted for decades as “the truth” by the
larger part of the American cultural establishment.
We cannot repeat the Reagan experience, it will not be new now
The point of this historic reference is that we cannot do a
Reagan Revolution again, because we have already done it once.
And, by the way, whatever the faithful may claim, it did not
work as advertised. The Federal Government was not defeated by
Reagan. Whereas tax cuts, without matching spending cuts, gave
us the first taste of large federal deficits. And then the
Revolution was diluted. After Reagan it was George H. Bush.
But he lacked the credentials of a believer. And then 8 years
of Bill Clinton, to be followed by George W. Bush who could
not be considered a disciple of Ronald Reagan. He allowed
profligate spending without any regard for deficits. And
finally, under Republican stewardship we have had the most
colossal financial disaster since the Great Depression shaking
any confidence in the Republicans ability to run anything at
all.
Ronald Reagan looks awfully far away, after all what happened,
and his model and legacy hard to recreate. And, most
fundamentally, Reagan’s small government ideas –at the time–
looked new, revolutionary and exciting. The painful cuts
proposed by his current would be Republican disciples look
just painful.
A national platform needs an invigorating plan
While fiscal rectitude may be a good currency at the state and
local level, at the national level Americans want to believe
in someone who says something new and energizing. Small
government and no new taxes alone just will not do it.
Not to mention the fact that, as things are shaping up, while
Obama will have to defend his record, now he is also the selfappointed defender of the welfare state against the insane and
mean spirited attacks of the Republicans. This is a bonus
handed over to him by the House Republican budget blueprint.
Fiscal rigour versus populism
Sensible people should recognise that the Republicans are
serious about fixing public finances, while the Democrats are
demagoguing on this, using scare tactics to convince people
that if the GOP wins it will throw widows and orphans in the
snow, just to save a penny, while giving tax brakes to their
millionaire friends. If you think that people will see through
this attempt to muddy the waters and choose the sensible
economic rebuilding platform proposed by the GOP, I think you
are a real optimist.
Magic trick: show that small government really works better
The real magic trick that the Republicans should be able to
produce, on the basis of real facts, is that their smaller,
streamlined government really works better. Yes, lean
Government under competent stewardship delivers higher quality
services at a lower cost. Yes, you can be lean, and smart and
capable and truly serve the public interest, all at the same
time. Can such a case be made between now and November 2012?