Posted on 02/02/2012 9:51:34 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The short answer is that Mitt Romney isn’t a small-government conservative. The slightly longer answer is that Barack Obama has been – as he promised to be – a game-changer, and the 2012 election is the one in which libertarian anti-statism will either have a voice in the Republican Party, or will have to do something else.
This primary season is a fight for the character of the GOP. The fight is not the perennial standoff between “social cons” and “fiscal cons”; it is a long-postponed dispute over the size and charter of government, and how the GOP will approach it. It is the most basic possible dispute over ideas about man and the state and their consequences. It’s also a dispute only the Republican Party could have. The Democratic Party does not have such a diversity of viewpoint, at least not in any politically consequential way. The decision about whether America will continue on a fiscally unsustainable path of ever-growing statism comes down to the GOP’s fight with itself.
The Romney wing represents the attitude that America is really OK with the size of government we have now: it just needs better management and some tweaking on the margins. The Romney wing does not by any means have a class-hostile, socialist vision for the future. It has no intention of interfering with the citizens’ intellectual liberties, and its view of managerial government is not predicated on the idea that the people need to be coerced (or “nudged”) into collectivist life choices. It simply sees the existing size of government as compatible with a free-enough life, in the sense that we don’t need to push for significant changes.
The other wing – the one that has been getting behind a different candidate every few weeks – believes precisely that America is not OK with the size of government we have now. Its main point is that our fiscal and economic problems, and many of our social ones, result directly from the size and interventionist activities of government. The size of government is the problem – already, today – and if it isn’t fixed, America literally cannot survive as a republic with the intellectual and lifestyle liberties we have enjoyed up to now.
Many in the GOP’s “Not OK” wing have perceived government to be out of control for some time. But the shock administered by the Obama administration gave the most direct impetus to the Tea Party movement, because it brought home to many Americans how vulnerable we had already become to executive overreach.
For this wing of the GOP, it isn’t enough to put a Republican in charge of the sprawling, momentum-driven executive. The mere existence of such a gigantic apparat is an already-proven threat to liberty. A Democrat could be reelected to head it at any time, and even with a Republican in charge, the civil-service army would continue in obscurity to pursue regulatory and money-spending charters issued years or decades ago. The failure of Congress to pass a budget for over 1,000 days has suspended the legislature’s principal hammer over the executive’s freedom to do what it wants. As long as government limps along from month to month, on continuing resolutions that are mainly about constituency-tending fights in the House and Senate, Congress cannot gather its will to bargain seriously with the executive over spending priorities.
For the “Not OK” wing of the GOP, what is essential in 2012 is repudiating government on this model. Nothing is more important to America’s future than that. The different wings of the GOP have differing views of what constitutes “realism”: the “America is OK” wing views it as unrealistic to focus on something other than putting up the candidate whom they feel will appeal to the most voters. The “Not OK” wing sees that as an unrealistic perspective on the current situation. If government is not reined in – put through an effective bankruptcy proceeding, with its assets sold off and its charter reorganized – then nothing else will matter.
Who is right? While I am with the “Not OK” wing philosophically, I don’t think it would be the end of America as we know it if Mitt Romney were elected. But I do believe it would be a grave strategic error for the Republican Party to endorse him early, and silence intra-party dissent as if he represents what America really needs. A Romney presidency would be no more than a hiatus in deliberately using the state as a steamroller for ideological purposes. That would be better than 4 more years of Obama, but from the perspective of getting America on a different path, it’s not good enough.
The GOP needs this fight over philosophy of government. What has to be established in the 2012 primary season is that the small-government vote matters. If that is not established, the GOP itself will matter little. Its difference from the Democratic Party will not be sufficient to attract (or keep) membership.
I believe Palin has a strategic view of America’s future that looks beyond the 2012 election itself. The most important thing now is that the small-government perspective continue to have a chance to express itself on its terms. If it is silenced in electoral politics, there will be no hope of changing America’s path. And the only way for it to have a voice is for this primary season to continue on a competitive basis. That is the mechanism through which the voice of either wing of the party matters to the industry of politics. That’s where the noise has to be made.
Palin is right. This is an incredibly “political” year, more so than any year I can remember other than maybe 1979. Americans are more engaged in political ideas than I have ever seen them. Obama’s poll numbers aren’t good, but perhaps more importantly, those numbers and others on GOP candidates keep shifting. People’s choices haven’t been set in stone. They’re not sure what’s going on, they’re still trying to find a candidate who says what they’re waiting to hear, and they haven’t made up their minds. The media will do what they’re going to do, but the people are having a separate dialogue with themselves, and it isn’t over.
I believe the GOP would be out of step with the remarkable nature of this year to crown a big-government-as-usual candidate early, on the theory that we need to damp down philosophical debate and concentrate on “campaigning” as early as possible before November. The campaigning is what is annoying the living bejeebers out of the voters; it’s the philosophical debate that matters this year. Shutting it down would be a tactical as well as a strategic error. The only way to force Romney to the right is to keep the primary season competitive. It’s also the way to keep quality attention on the most important debate America has had on the nature of government since 1860.
Hear! Hear! Some people just like to fault her.
Excellent article. I agree that there is only upside to keeping the fight going against the Romney wing. All the way to the convention floor, if need be. Romney is still not a lock to win the nomination. I think Newt still has a shot, and a brokered convention is not an impossibility either. Even in the worst case scenario of Romney winning the nom anyway, a strong enough conservative showing throughout the primaries would at least present the opportunity to wrangle some platform major concessions from the other side.
The last scenario is obviously far from ideal, of course. Romney will never be a conservative. Heck, he barely qualifies as a RINO in some ways. I don’t want him anywhere near the ticket, personally. Just sayin’ that if he *does* become the nominee, conservatives could have to power to push him hard on Obamacare and other issues Mitt would otherwise surely leave alone.
the 2012 election is the one in which libertarian anti-statism will either have a voice in the Republican Party, or will have to do something else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Guaranteed that the leftist liberal fascists running our nation will have a strong dislike for that so called , “something else.” So will their supporters now in control of the RINO faction of the GOP.
Homeland Security has prepared for it by villifying ( via national security findings) honest, peaceful Americans who have a libertarian, anti-statism political view based on the plain meaning of the Constitition.
Very bad vibes are now in play. Very bad indeed.
Romney, IF he gets the nomination, will be the LAST candidate that the GOP will ever nominate. He will “lead” it to the scrap heap of history. His nomination takes the single most important issue - universal health care - off the table.
Oh, I know that the economy is in the s&^tter, but healh care is a Constitutional issue. If the government can force you to buy insurance, there are no boundaries to an already out of control government.
If Romney is the destroyer, Sarah Palin is the savior. I don’t care if she is on the ballot or not, I will vote for her in the primary and in the general election.
So why not just say it instead of the cryptic mumbo jumbo.
Santorum said he won’t go after obama?
Aren’t they competing to be the nominee so the winner gets to go after obama?
What is Santorum doing in the race if not to go after obama?
If the candidate does not differentiate himself from obama how on earth can he convince voters to vote for him?
Right. He said Obama is too popular, too well liked, so he won’t go after him personally. Won’t point out the obvious, that he is a Marxist with Marxist policies, much the same as Romney who wouldn’t dare to call Obama “a socialist,” but both Romney and now Santorum have no problem calling Newt Gingrich every unconscionable name in the book.
What do you find so cryptic about her statement?
Is she advocating only damaging Mitt or would she still be advocating for a competitive primary if Newt were the front runner and Mitt was a candidate nipping at Newt’s heels? That’s what is cryptic. Does she want a competitive primary or is this a left handed and deniable way to advocate for Newt?
Think that is close to the truth, she wants some deniability, exactly why, I'm not sure, but it does give her a bunch of future options if needed.
So to a point, and that is her intent, she’s being a bit dishonest.
Wonderful! I love the little touch with the “O.”
Now, the only thing better would be to see T-Shirts and campaign signs at primary events.
No, someone said on FR, a vanity post, that Santorum said he won’t go after Obama. It was a FReeper opinion, not a Santorum quote.
Newt and Santorum do share one flaw. That is failing to get on the ballots in all states.
About an hour ago, in Indiana, Santorum missed getting on the ballot by 24 signatures.
Romney qualified, Paul and Newts are still being tallied.
We will see.
You do realize she didn’t write this correct? This is Dyer’s expanding Sarah’s comment about keeping the contest going (she’s also said...more than once...that she would vote for Newt) and then giving his own opinion as to why the nomination process should continue. But I don’t see how either of them are being dishonest. What’s dishonest “to a point”?
Cindie
That's not what she said. But her comment was a more she wants to see a competitive process. But does she want a competitive process under any circumstance or only in the circumstance that may allows Newt to catch up? She appears to be say it in an all circumstance. But if she's not, then she is being less than honest. Character means clarity.
That's not what she said. But her comment was a more she wants to see a competitive process. But does she want a competitive process under any circumstance or only in the circumstance that may allows Newt to catch up? She appears to be say it in an all circumstance. But if she's not, then she is being less than honest.
Character means clarity. We've had too many clever word smiths.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
