By Daren Jonescu ——Bio and Archives--November 14, 2011
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
"'Cutting federal spending by $900 billion over 10 years' is Washington-speak for increasing federal spending by $7 trillion over 10 years. And, as they'd originally planned to increase it by $8 trillion, that counts as a cut." (ocregister.com, Aug. 5, 2011)
How dare he accuse Bachmann of failing to get things done, when he embodies the very spirit of the RPE that caused her, and others like her, to fail! Some politicians fail to "get things done" because they do not intend to get things done. President Obama, the erstwhile Senator Present, 'failed' to get things done for this reason. Some politicians, on the other hand, fail to get things done because their best efforts and intentions are simply insufficient to overcome the refusal of others--particularly among their putative allies--to follow them in taking a difficult stand against the interests of short-term popularity (as the heel-draggers perceive it), and in favor of long-term necessities. Michele Bachmann falls into this latter category. Her popularity among Tea Partiers--similar to that of Senator DeMint--has always been rooted in the Tea Party's knowledge that she was trying to do what they believed had to be done, and to persuade others to join her. That the others didn't join her can no more be blamed on her ineffectiveness than can an avalanche be blamed on the rocks that didn't fall.Throughout the summer and autumn, as polls have changed, and candidates have joined the race, dropped out, risen and then fallen in popularity, two things have been as constant and predictable as the sunrise: (1) Romney's poll numbers have remained under 30 percent among likely primary voters; and (2) mainstream RPE commentators have continually talked about him as the obvious frontrunner and inevitable Republican nominee. Regarding point (2), it must be said that, in the name of collegiality, the RPE pundits have occasionally allowed for the possibility that he might have a rival in the process. Early on, it was the specter of Palin, although they made it clear they would have preferred Daffy Duck. For a short time, it was Bachmann--although just long enough for George Will to tie a couple of insignificant gaffes around her neck as though they were an anchor, and then throw her overboard. Then, briefly, came Perry, the neo-conservatives' Bush redux moment. 'Poor debate performances' (euphemism) quickly dissolved his hopes. Then came Cain, whose staying power in the polls has been troublesome for the RPE crowd. Two days after Herman Cain surprised everyone by winning the Florida straw poll, Christiane Amanpour, Will, and the rest of the gang on This Week engaged in a roundtable discussion of the primary race which began and ended with the premise that the whole story was whether Perry's flagging campaign could do anything now to stall Romney's meteoric rise. Cain was never even mentioned. In other words, the commentators stuck to the script. To bookend this dismissal, on the November 13th edition of the same program, Will peremptorily tossed Cain out the window with the remark that "where there are four women, there may be twenty-four," followed by a backhand at Cain's conservative supporters. In a nutshell, he challenged them to put their money where their mouths are regarding character, and do to him what they would have wanted the Democrats to do to Clinton. This strikes me as the most cynical form of opportunism, on two fronts. First of all, "where there are four women" presumes there are four women. With one exception, the allegations against Cain seem frivolous in the mode of modern, post-feminist sensitivity politics: Cain said something that made someone "uncomfortable" in some ominous but unspecified manner. As for the one accuser who has something genuinely disturbing to report, her motives and credibility have been questioned, and not in tangential, character-assassination-style ways, but by way of legitimate doubts about the veracity of her claims. Will's condemnation should be conditional: If there are four, there may be twenty-four. No one could argue with that, and no one has argued against that. But first it must be established that there really are four, or even one. And this leads us to the second half of Will's latest remarks, the swipe at conservatives who continue to support Cain. In fact, all the conservative voices I have heard defending Cain have qualified their defence by saying that if he is lying, then he must be cast out. In other words, they have remained consistent on the question of character. They are merely demanding that we all (including the RPE opportunists) show enough character ourselves not to assume Cain is guilty simply because it would suit his opponents' purposes if he were. (The sober voice on this issue belongs to Thomas Sowell, in his November 10th article "The Real Scandal.") All in all, by offhandedly dismissing each of his opponents, the RPE commentators conveniently ignore the glaring evidence that the real story of the campaign, at least with regard to Romney, is the question of how, in spite of all his money, organization, and campaign experience, he has managed to gain so little momentum. Of course, the answer to this latter question is clear to anyone who understands the dynamic of this year's Republican primary process. RPE-types have tried to pin it on the old standbys, such as Romney's flip-flops on some issues, or to isolate just one issue, 'Romneycare,' when of course the real explanation is that the Tea Party has become the dominant voice in the process, and they do not regard Romney as a kindred spirit. This accounts for Romney's peculiar kind of stagnation in the polls; always prominent in the upper ranks, but never able to pull away from his nearest rivals, whoever they might be at any given moment. One might be tempted to see this last phrase, "whoever they might be," as evidence of his strength: new contenders keep getting sent in to challenge him, only to end up leaving on a stretcher. And this explanation might be reasonable if his problem were indeed some careless words, or a changed position. In truth, however, his problem is more deep-seated. When he speaks about the economy--which is clearly going to be the driving issue of the next presidential election--he speaks, to put it simply, 'like a Republican.' That is to say, he sounds reasonable, competent, and like a man who believes in free enterprise, broadly speaking. He wants 'to put more money in the hands of consumers'; he knows that 'jobs are created by the private sector'; he believes in 'American exceptionalism' and intends to maintain America's position as 'the world's leading economy.' The RPE, upon hearing Romney espouse these kinds of views, keeps figuratively turning to the Tea Party in exasperation, as if to say, "Now do you believe in him?" Or, "What more does he have to do to convince you?" But the truth is that, however much one may agree with what Romney is saying, he is not saying anything, in principle, that would not be said--or that has not actually been said--by any and every other candidate in this race. In other words, his positions, however eloquently he propounds them, are merely baseline Republican positions. And while, upon hearing him express these views, the RPE says, "There you go, he says the right things and he looks good saying them," the Tea Party voters are apparently thinking, "Well of course he believes that--he's a Republican. But what else does he have to offer?"
View Comments
Daren Jonescu has a Ph.D. in Philosophy from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. He currently teaches English language and philosophy at Changwon National University in South Korea.