Thoughts From CPAC

The crowd’s reaction was mixed.  Boos and angry shouts of “No!” clashed with cheers of vindication as Mitt Romney was declared the winner of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference Straw Poll.  This three-day conference—the largest and most famous of its kind, with over 10,000 participants—is an opportunity for conservatives to join together in small-government, traditional values brotherhood, but is it good for the conservative movement, and is it good for the country?

The mixed reaction to Romney’s straw poll victory was indicative of the nature of today’s conservatism.  Based on his policy positions, he would probably be the most conservative presidential nominee in recent history.  He is pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-traditional marriage, strong on immigration, strong on defense, espouses austerity, the Ryan Budget, and the repeal of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.  And yet, he is inadequate for some conservatives. 

The conference was chock-full of varying personalities, but not varying opinions – I’ll get to that later.  It involved journalists, like Jonah Goldberg and Cal Thomas, giving insightful analysis and thoughtful recommendations for future action.  It included former political figures, like Herman Cain and Sarah Palin, engaging in unabashed self-promotion in an effort to maintain their grip of some sliver of the conservative population and to sell more books.  It also involved current political figures, like Senators Rand Paul and Jon Cornyn, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, clearly and passionately espousing the principles of conservatism in a way that reflected positively on themselves, their states and their cause. 

The general drift of the proceedings, however, was an unflinching, unequivocal, and stunningly tactless bombardment of President Obama and the policies of the last three years.  Obama was described as a radical, a socialist, a failed president, hater of the rich, hater of the poor, and – my favorite – an argument in favor of contraception.  Speakers and participants alike railed against welfare (which breeds dependency), Social Security and Medicare (which are bankrupting the country), gun-control (the essence of liberal overreach), and gay marriage (disgusting).  In some of these areas their points are valid, but the level of anger and, at times, heartlessness with which the participants viewed these issues is a recipe for electoral disaster. 

Which brings us back to Romney.  For all his conservative bona fides, many conservatives don’t believe he’s gone far enough, or is passionate enough.  Foster Friess, a wealthy investment banker and Santorum supporter, introduced the former Pennsylvania Senator and began with a joke: “So a Liberal, a Moderate and a Conservative walk into a bar and the bartender says, ‘Hey Mitt.’”  In his remarks, Santorum argued that Romney disqualified himself from the Republican primary race by passing and continuing to defend Romneycare, a Massachusetts health care reform bill with many similarities to Obamacare.  Gingrich called Romney “timid” and “moderate.”  Without using his name, Texas Governor Rick Perry spelled out the conservative dissolution: “We do the American people no great service if we replace the current embodiment of Big Government with a lukewarm version of the same.” 

Current conservatism views Mitt Romney, whose own policies would put Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley’s to shame, as a “lukewarm version” of Big Government ideology.  Is this viewpoint good for the conservative cause or good for the country?  I don’t think so.  And this attitude applies to my larger point about CPAC itself. 

As I walked through the halls and the lobbies of the DC Marriott, two things struck me.  First, I was amazed by the overwhelming sense of otherness and isolation that hovered over the hotel like a heavy fog.  The three-day conference progressed completely devoid of outside influence and alternative opinion.  It was as if the conservative movement was acting out their own version of Gilligan’s Island, stranded on the sandy beaches of small-government philosophy, bolstered in their conservative camaraderie, and surrounded by the seas of liberalism and the circling sharks of the Obama Administration.  They must act in unison if they want to survive.  Social Psychologist Jonathan Haidt describes the phenomenon as a Matrix-like “consensual hallucination,” an unwavering, psychological adherence to their image of the political world.  But the lack of disagreement and dissent will only weaken the conservative movement and deter its success. 

Writers such as David Brooks, who has written about the political skill and admirable leadership qualities of President Obama, or Andrew Sullivan, the gay conservative blogger who opposed the war in Iraq and the torture of detainees, are not welcome at CPAC.  Politicians such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who have been willing to compromise and work across the aisle, are also not welcome in more conservative circles.  These figures are viewed as disloyal to the cause of conservatism.  But as Edward R. Murrow stated, “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.  When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.”  In this case, the death of loyal opposition within the conservative movement is a precursor to the death of conservatism as we know it. 

The second thing that struck me is a result of the first.  Without dissent and debate, the participants of CPAC carry the cross of conservatism with a biblical surety and unwavering passion.  The result is a myopic vision of America and its political landscape.  Participants immediately dismiss welfare and deem its recipients lazy, manipulative malcontents without even considering the plethora of factors (low education spending, lack of law enforcement, poor health care and health education) which deprive millions of the opportunities we enjoy.  They dismiss any type of gun-control as a massive overreach of statist government without considering the thousands who die every year from gun deaths.  They dismiss what they see as the homosexual perversion of marriage without even considering the implications of personhood for the LGBT community.

In many ways, their positions are fundamentally sound.  The welfare system is flawed and does, in some cases, breed dependence.  Universal gun-control does infringe on the rights of those who hold their second-amendment rights dear to their heart.  Gay marriage may negatively affect the fundamental values of our society.  But the way the conservative movement carries itself, most clearly portrayed in the three-day proceedings of CPAC, lacks tact, nuance and the ability to compromise – all valued skills in politics and in the basic art of persuasion. 

Mitt Romney may not be the most conservative candidate in the Republican field.  He may lack a certain fluency in conservatism (most likely the result of being a result-focused pragmatist for much of his life in the private sector).  But a Republican Party that decides Romney is not a conservative at all is a Republican Party doomed to failure.  And a conservative movement that lacks nuance and rigorous internal debate does nothing but harm itself and the country at large.  

Jon Huntsman is the Most Electable Republican

For the last three years, the Republican Party has been engaged in a struggle to define itself.  They have seen the backlash resulting from the failed policies of the Obama Administration and realized that this is an opportunity to reassert the small government, free market, low tax pillars of Conservatism.  We have seen the emergence of the Tea Party, the sweeping midterm election of 2010 and the increasingly abysmal daily tracking polls for President Obama.

As the Republican primary commenced, this struggle played out in the constant tug and pull between a resurgent Republican base and the party establishment.  It is, as the media has portrayed it, a struggle between philosophical catharsis (Newt Gingrich) and electability (Mitt Romney).  But that dichotomy is deeply flawed.

Romney has been seen since day one as the establishment candidate with a broader appeal to independents and thus better general election chances.  The reality of the situation, however, is that Romney’s persona does not appeal to the country at large.  In a year when the electorate loathes the political process, and the politicians who guide it, Romney’s image of politician through and through will be viewed with skepticism, at the very least.

His electability is in question for another reason: the Obama Administration, which is inept at governing but unparalleled at campaigning, knows his weaknesses and has a strategy in place to defeat him.  They will—in fact they have already started to—paint him as an unattached, job-killing flip-flopper with no moral center, willing to say or do anything and everything to get elected.  It is hard to imagine a more powerful strategy for a general electorate which values consistency and boldness over almost anything else.

Which brings us to Newt Gingrich.  His recent rise in the polls is the result of his constant, vocal, and sometimes outlandish criticism of Barrack Obama, a cathartic experience for Republican voters who are angry and passionate about defeating him in 2012.  But Conservatives, Liberals, and the Obama Administration itself realize the ease with which they would cruise to victory were Gingrich nominated by the Republican Party, for two reasons.

First, his bombastic personality, which is a positive in the primary election, would become a negative in the general election and the chances of him saying something too outlandish would increase day by day.  His past statements, such as when he stated that “people like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz” or when he described himself as a “definer of civilization” paint a picture of a Nixonian candidate, one with bold ideas and political prowess but hindered by substantial personal flaws.

Second, Gingrich is not the bastion of Conservatism that the Tea Party thinks he is.  The flip-flops on issues such as climate change, the individual mandate, and Libya are well known.  But more importantly, Gingrich has shown an utter disregard for some Conservative principles.  Last week, Gingrich committed Conservative heresy by responding to Mitt Romney’s statement asking the speaker to return the $1.6 million he received from Freddie Mac with his own challenge to return the money Romney made “bankrupting companies and laying employees off” at Bain Capital.  To equate crony capitalism and influence peddling with the market realities of capitalism itself is to completely misrepresent Conservatism and its principles, something voters will realize under greater scrutiny. 

If the Obama Administration is content with facing Mitt Romney in the general election, they are licking their chops at the potential nomination of Newt Gingrich.  But the dichotomy of Gingrich and Romney is flawed because it doesn’t include the candidate who is the most electable and who the Obama Campaign is most worried about, Jon Huntsman. 

As Conservative columnists George Will and Erick Erickson pointed out, Governor Huntsman has the most Conservative record of any of the Republican candidates.  The Wall Street Journal and most recently The Tax Foundation, a Washington based Think Tank, endorsed the Governor’s tax and jobs proposal as bold and transformative.  The New York Times ranked him as the most likely Republican candidate to defeat Barrack Obama.  He appeals to independents because of his consistent record, his foreign policy experience and his nuanced demeanor. 

The true dichotomy is not between catharsis and supposed electability; it is between candidates seeking political absolution through shallow verbal barrages and a candidate with the leadership credentials and bold proposals necessary to win.  Put simply, it is true electability.  Jon Huntsman is truly electable and he is the right leader to set the United States on the path toward future sustainability.  

Jobs, Taxes, and the Republican Primary

Economic factors are always paramount in presidential elections.  But in a year when the unemployment rates remains above 9% and the Eurozone debt crisis looms, the importance expands exponentially.  With the first Republican primary less than two months away, each of the potential candidates has outlined a tax and jobs plan that will, according to them, bring the United States out of this recession and restore it to its once great position as the only viable superpower.

Mitt Romney, the unflappably stagnant former governor of Massachusetts, introduced his 49 point jobs plan last month in Las Vegas.  It entails cutting corporate tax rates from 35% to 25%, eliminating the estate tax, and extending the so-called Bush Tax Cuts.  He also recommends reducing the regulatory burdens on business by repealing Obamacare and Dodd-Frank (the financial reform bill) and expanding drilling in areas such as the Gulf Coast, the Plain States and Alaska. 

Texas Governor Rick Perry, the unflappably flappable candidate, introduced his tax and jobs proposals in recent weeks.  His jobs plan focuses mainly on increased energy production in oil and natural gas which he states will “unleash 1.2 million American jobs through safe and aggressive energy exploration at home.”  His tax plan proposes creating an opt-in flat tax, meaning those who choose to do so, can have their taxes reduced to a flat rate. 

Former Godfather Pizza Executive Herman Cain, the ever-present attention seeker, has infamously proposed his 9-9-9 plan to reform the tax code.  It would throw out the existing tax code and replace it with a 9% corporate tax rate, 9% individual income tax, and 9% national sales tax.  Cain has not explained his plan much beyond that except to say that his advisors have crunched the numbers and it will be deficit neutral.

Former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman (disclaimer, I volunteer on Huntsman’s campaign) has proposed a tax and jobs plan that synthesizes many aspects of Romney, Perry and Cain’s proposals.  He calls for tax reform in which loopholes and deductions for corporations and the rich are eliminated and the base is broadened.  The corporate tax rate would then be reduced from 35% to 25% and the personal income tax would be reduced to flatter, fairer rates of 8%, 14%, and 23%.  He has also called for expanded oil and natural gas exploration, regulatory reform, free trade expansion, and stronger relationships with foreign nations.

Other candidates have made various similar and sometimes outlandish proposals.  Rick Santorum, has proposed cutting the tax rate for manufacturing to 0%, an interesting thought.  Ron Paul has proposed eliminating the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development.  Michelle Bachmann has not been able to formulate a sentence that does not end with “repeal Obamacare.” 

Many of these proposals are seriously flawed.  Romney’s tax plan leaves the existing tax code, loopholes, deductions, and all, in place allowing for companies like GE to continue to make billions of dollars and pay no income taxes.  Perry’s tax plan also leaves the existing loopholes and deductions in place because those benefiting from them will not choose to opt-in to the proposed flat tax.  Cain’s plan is simply simplistic; as a tax lobbyist I spoke to recently put it, “I have serious questions about a tax policy that can be summed up in a catch phrase.”

 Santorum’s proposal concerning tax rates on manufacturing is intriguing but has little chance of success in Congress.  Paul’s proposals are simply ludicrous; maybe in a perfect world we could do away with five Executive Agencies and be fine, but that is not this world.  Huntsman’s jobs and tax plan was called “big and bold” by Reuters and “as impressive as any to date in the GOP presidential field, and certainly better than what we’ve seen from the front-runners.”  Because of my stake in the Huntsman campaign I will let you decide for yourself.

What is clear is that the Republican candidates for president have displayed many similarities and many differences in these proposals.  The distinctions may seem minute, but they are clear and integral in this time of economic woe.  The candidates now have approximately eight weeks to distinguish themselves from each other and from President Obama.  It should be interesting to watch.  

Winners and Losers from the GOP Presidential Debate

Wednesday night’s debate was the much anticipated debut of newly crowned Republican front runner Rick Perry.  From the beginning, two things became obvious.  First, it is not only the press but the rest of the Republican field that views Perry as the frontrunner, evident by the constant barrage of criticism from the other candidates.  Second, the main competition, for better or for worse, is and will continue to be between Perry and Mitt Romney.

From the get go, Romney and Perry engaged in a political pissing/spitting contest about their records as governors and their plans for job creation.  Perry touted his record as the 4^th ranked job creator among governors in the United States and Texas’ record as the top job creating state during the current recession.  He then criticized Romney’s record as the 47^th ranked job creator among US governors during his tenure.

Romney responded by explaining the difficulties the state of Massachusetts faced at the start of his term and the positive steps he took as governor, creating jobs at a faster rate than the national average.  He also touted his private sector experience in creating and optimizing companies around the world.  He then pointed out that a large percentage of the jobs created in Texas are the result of their surplus of natural resources, not Perry’s policies or leadership, and that Texas has the highest rate in the country of jobs at or below the minimum wage. 

Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah and perennial voice of reason, chimed in that Utah was the 1^st ranked job creating state during his tenure, but that did not detract from the Romney/Perry rivalry. 

By the end of the debate, the hierarchy of candidates became much more clarified.  Romney and Perry maintained and even solidified their position as the top tier of candidates.  Considering the setting and the crowd, they both presented strong arguments in favor of conservative positions on jobs, immigration, health care and defense.  They were both winners of the debate and will now attempt to spin the results more in their own favors using it as a springboard to future debates and appearances in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and around the country.

Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul presented strong arguments but failed to make a statement in terms of policy positions or memorable rhetorical flourishes.  Both, in my opinion, did more harm than good.  Paul further reduced himself to the periphery by arguing that the FDA, TSA and Air Traffic Control are unnecessary government agencies.  Bachmann was simply outshined in her conservative, Tea-Party message by Perry who is now funneling her support to his own campaign.

Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are most likely on the verge of dropping out of the race.  They simply do not have the financial and electoral support to continue the rigorous process of campaigning for elected office.  Gingrich, by making multiple attempts to claim unity among the candidates and defend against supposed efforts by the media to divide them, gave off the impression that he was above criticizing his fellow candidates and ready to get behind the eventual nominee.  This is not the attitude a real player in the Republican primary should have.

The two remaining candidates, Jon Huntsman and Hermain Cain, are both polling in the low single digits but made positive strides on Wednesday night.  Cain articulated coherent policy positions (whether or not they would be beneficial or passable is another story) and Huntsman continued to position himself as holding the rational middle ground.  Unlike some of the other candidates, however, Huntsman sounded more presidential; he did not stoop to the personal attacks and criticisms like the other candidates did and he made real, useful references to his past experiences as Ambassador and government official in four presidential administrations.  Because of the financial support both maintain, they are likely to remain in the race at least through the New Hampshire primary and have the potential to gain support in the next few months.

Very little was said in the debate that was at all novel.  It was simply part of the process of whittling down the field and creating a coherent message for the coming months.  Tonight is the Democrats’ turn, with President Obama giving his jobs speech, but it’s also opening night for the NFL…

What Did the Ames Straw Poll Accomplish?

On Saturday, a small percentage of the Republican electorate in Iowa flocked to the little town of  Ames for an event with no real meaning but for which candidates have spent many millions of dollars.  Only once in the last thirty years—George W. Bush in 1999—has the winner of the Ames Straw Poll gone on to win the Republican nomination and the White House.

Some candidates, such as John McCain in 2007, skipped the Iowa Caucus altogether because of its reputation as an Evangelical litmus test.  McCain had also opposed the Ethanol Tax Credit during his career in the Senate which would have killed any chance he had in the Caucus.  Mitt Romney is at least partially following this path due to the fact that his New England persona and Mormon religion do not necessarily play well in Iowa. 

While the Straw Poll has very little substantive meaning, it did help to clarify and simplify the Republican primary race which can now be viewed in three tiers. 

The top tier of candidates is now made up of Romney, Michelle Bachmann and, as of his entrance into the race on Saturday, Texas Governor Rick Perry.  This is where the real action of the Republican primary will occur.  Perry and Bachmann will now compete for the votes of the ultra-conservative, evangelical, Tea-Party types while Romney will seek to portray himself as the businessman with a plan to fix the economy and a mainstream electability. 

The second tier of candidates will now look to either increase their exposure in Iowa, working towards the Caucus in February, or focus their attention on New Hampshire and South Carolina.  In reality, these candidates—Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Jon Huntsman—have little chance of making much headway in the primary, although some, such as Jon Stewart, believe Paul should be getting more press.  Huntsman, due to his strategy from the beginning of focusing on New Hampshire and South Carolina plus his financial backing has the greatest chance of becoming a spoiler but that chance is still slim. 

Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Thaddeus McCotter round out the Republican candidates as the third-tier.  With little support and limited funds, these candidates will likely remain in the race through the Iowa Caucus in order to “get their message out” but with little chance of making any electoral headway. 

So what does this mean for the Republican Party and for the country?  With Bachmann and Perry jockeying for position as the Conservative thoroughbreds, the chances of unseating President Obama become slimmer and slimmer.  The majority of Republican Primary voters may agree wholeheartedly with the small-government, deregulatory, social conservatism of Perry and Bachmann but the majority of the American people do not—at least not to that extent. 

The further these candidates move to the right, the more difficult it will become for them to pivot naturally to the center in the general election making a general election victory all the more difficult. 

There is still a long way to go before the general election and circumstances can change drastically.  The economy and job market will be the major factor that decides the election of 2012 and Republican would do well to remember that.  A candidate’s perspective on the role and size of government or on abortion and gay rights can be important in a Republican Primary but will be dwarfed in the general election by the issue of jobs. 

The Straw Poll is over and there are now six months before the actual Iowa Caucus.  Anything can happen—maybe if we’re lucky Jon Huntsman can get a little more traction—but more likely the first tier candidates will continue in their barrage of Conservative talking points and anti-Obama rhetoric all the way to the Republican Convention in August.