Two striking articles that appeared yesterday frame what may be our choice in the next presidential election. Both are concerned with base politics, in both senses of that word: initially referring to a politician’s choosing to excite and energize his most enthusiaistic supporters rather than reach out to “moderates,” but also implying that such politics is divisive and bad — “a. Having or showing a contemptible, mean-spirited, or selfish lack of human decency…. b. Devoid of high values or ethics…. c. Inferior in value or quality.”
Charles Krauthammer argues compellingly that what we are witnessing now is “The Return of the real Obama,” by which he means a soak-the-rich class warrior who in the name of “fairness” would raise some taxes on “the rich” even if, as he admitted to Charlie Gibson in a 2008 campaign debate, he knew such taxes would reduce the amount of revenue flowing to the federal treasury. As a result, Krauthammer argues (with some help from John Updike):
Obama’s Democratic base is electrified. On the left, the new message is playing to rave reviews. It has rekindled the enthusiasm of his core constituency — the MoveOn, Hollywood liberal, Upper West Side precincts best described years ago by John Updike: “Like most of the neighborhood, she was a fighting liberal, fighting to have her money taken from her.”
Added Updike: “For all her exertions, it never was.” But now with Obama — it will be! Turns out, Obama really was the one they had been waiting for.
On the right, Ronald Brownstein argues that Rick Perry is “A One-Party Pol,” by which he means that Perry’s political persona has been shaped by a career where he has never had to face sharp opposition from the other party.
Perry presides over a state that has tilted so solidly Republican for 15 years that he has not faced significant political opposition from Democrats, or the groups usually allied with them, at almost any point in his governorship. Perry’s approach to political leadership—from his unbending positions on most issues to his frequently barbed rhetoric—carries the unmistakable stamp of his experience as the leader of the dominant faction in a one-party state. He is the Republican equivalent of a San Francisco Democrat, a politician molded by unshielded exposure to his party’s brightest flame. That pedigree helps explain some of his greatest strengths—and potential vulnerabilities—in the 2012 presidential race….
Perry, who began his career as a Democratic state legislator, won a tough statewide campaign for Agriculture commissioner in 1990 as a Republican, at a time when Democrats remained competitive. But mostly he has ascended—first as lieutenant governor in 1998, and then as governor after Bush’s election as president in 2000—with the tailwind of GOP dominance. Unlike Bush, Perry as governor hasn’t usually needed to negotiate with legislative Democrats to pass his priorities. He also hasn’t had to attract many truly moderate swing voters to capture elections: In Texas, consolidating conservatives is almost always enough to win.
Perry has quickly demonstrated on the national stage that he has emerged from these experiences as a politician innately attuned to the Republican base.
I think Brownstein offers a valid and valuable insight, but I also think he overdoes it a bit. If Perry “often seems to channel the unmediated conservative id,” what about when he doesn’t, such as opposing a fence on the border and claiming that those who oppose in-state tuition for illegal immigrants have no heart? Moreover, presiding over what is in many respects a de facto one party state does not imply the smooth-sailing absence of vigorous and talented opposition. Anyone who doubts that should read (or re-read if you’re old enough and took good history or political science classes) V.O. Key’s 1949 classic, Southern Politics.
But those qualifications aside, I think Brownstein is right. Perry is a base politician, like Obama. Since Romney, as a former red (slightly red?) governor of a blue state, is a classic, no rough edges, appeal to the center moderate, Republicans have a clear choice of competing styles (at least unless or until another candidate emerges to challenge the top two).
Which, you may well ask, should they choose? Conventional wisdom says “elections are won in the center,” and thus the conventionally wise believe (no, being wise, they know) that Romney would be the stronger general election candidate. On the other hand, Rush Limbaugh and other committed conservatives make a strong argument (the mirror image of the argument of the Democratic left) that Republicans win when they energize their base and not when they appeal to the center.
If I knew who was right I wouldn’t be sitting here writing a blog. But let me muddy the waters by introducing another perspective on this issue (I say “introducing” because I haven’t seen anyone else making this point). At the moment it seems to me that either Perry or Romney has a strong chance of winning — for the sake of argument, let’s say equal chance. As a Limbaugh-listening sort of rough-edged guy myself I tend to like Perry, but I’m still not sure he’d be the best president.
Winning, after all, is the beginning, not the end. If Perry is as divisive as his critics fear (a still open question, I think), then a President Perry would fire up the opposition, and we’d be doomed to continuing on the hyper-partisan pendulum-swinging path we’ve been on for too long. Moderation may not work in campaigns, but it might be nice to see if it could work better in governing.
