is the title of this Washington Post op ed by Fareed Zakaria., who begins:
As President Obama has surged in the polls, Republicans have been quick to identify the problem: Mitt Romney. Peggy Noonan eloquently voiced what many conservatives believe when she said that Romney’s campaign has been a “rolling calamity.” Others have been equally critical of his candidacy. And yet, shouldn’t it puzzle us that Romney is so “incompetent” (also from Noonan), given his deserved reputation for, well, competence?
From that he pivots quickly and offers this:
In fact, the problem is not Romney but the new Republican Party. Given the direction in which it has moved and the pressures from its most extreme — yet most powerful — elements, any nominee would face the same challenge: Can you be a serious candidate for the general election while not outraging the Republican base?
The answer to that question should be obvious to any denizen of this website - of course not.
There is more.
The inmates have taken over the asylum. It is the likes of Grover Norquist, famous for his desire to shrink government to the size where it can drowned in a bathtub. It is the logical outcome of the attitude of the likes of Ronald Reagan saying the most frightening words are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." Of course government helps us, as anyone on Social Security and Medicare - as I am - clearly knows. It is the Republican ideology that raising taxes always equals bad - except apparently when taxes fall upon the less fortunate in regressive fashions, like sales taxes.
Zakaria rightly points out that both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush raised taxes. But if he wants to fully explain how the ideology of the Republican party is so destructive, he needs to remind readers that the latter in his acceptance speech in 1988 had forcefully said - three times, with the last a shout - "Read my lips: no new taxes!!" so he was considered by the base to have betrayed a key promise.
It is not just taxes, It is also xenophobia. He notes that Nicole Wallace has raised how Romney could have reached out to Hispanics by pointing out weakness in Obama's record on immigration issues . Of course, Romney signed on to the Arizona "show me your papers" bill. He has talked about "self-deportation." On this topic, as well as on taxes, Romney has failed to give specifics even when talking to audiences that might be sympathetic to a new vision. As Zakaria writes,
There’s no point in letting the country — or his party — know it before Election Day.
Zakaria's concluding paragraph lays out the problem for Romney quite clearly and concisely:
The Republican Party has imposed a new kind of political correctness on its leaders. They cannot speak certain words (taxes) or speculate about certain ideas (immigration amnesty) because these are forbidden. Romney has tried to run a campaign while not running afoul of his party’s strictures. As a result, he has twisted himself into a pretzel, speaking vacuously, avoiding specifics and refusing to provide any serious plans for the most important issues of the day. That’s a straitjacket that even Peggy Noonan’s eloquence cannot get him out of.
We now will have debates. Romney can choose to simply attack Obama. That will probably not help him. He can offer sweeping statements of how he would be different, but not offer specifics - I suspect he will find that from both the moderators and from the President he will get pushback on his lack of details that will not help him with the voters or in the polls.
The Republican base really does not want government to work. That is a real problem.
However, what Zakaria misses, at least on Romney's economic plans, that any details would kill his chances even more, because his economic plans do not make mathematical sense, unless he is willing to savage the deductions upon which most middle class Americans depend, especially the home mortgage interest deduction. Yesterday Romney telegraphed this when he told middle class people not to expect any major reduction in the taxes they pay because he was going to lower deductions at the same time he lowers tax rates.
I suspect that if Americans understand that Romney's approach to cutting taxes - a 20% cut in rates - shifts even more financial benefits to the very wealthy, they will, in the aftermath fo the 47% statement, be even more appalled. After all, a 20% cut from a 35% rate is a cut of 7% of income on a much higher income than a 5% cut from a 25% rate on a middle class income (which is NOT 200,000-250,000) and represents a huge disparity when compared to a 3% cut from a 15% rate on a lower middle class income.
The Republican party has been able to win some elections by riling up people's fears. The Tea Party still is willing to paint Obama as "other." Too many of Romney's surrogates, and even Romney himself, are attempting to swing voters with code words about birth certificates, being "American" and the like. That makes it almost impossible for Romney to offer sensible government policies and hold the base.
What Zakaria does not say, however, is that it is not clear that Romney has sensible policies to offer. He may have run as a moderate against Ted Kennedy in 1994 and to a lesser degree for governor in 2002, but his record in the Massachusetts governorship was, despite his passage of health care, not all that moderate. By the middle of his term he was already more focused on running for the nomination for President of a party that was not interested in moderation.
Zakaria is correct that the problem is largely with the party. America needs to have political parties that debate policy differences. Unfortunately both parties have been too dependent upon money, too accepting of parts of a foreign policy consensus that means we still do not punish wrong doing in the CIA, spend far too much on the military, make obscene use of drones while accepting "collateral damage," and have an unwillingness to have their leaders challenged on flawed vision. We don't.
That said, there is enough of a difference between the two parties that the choice for thinking people who look beyond the narrowest definition of self-interest is clear. The vision of the Republican party is destructive - of democracy, of the broad-based economy, of the American dream. For all its flaws, the Democratic party offers far more hope for far more people.
There are problems with the Republican party. There are, however, as many problems with their presidential candidate on a personal level.
Still, the column is worth reading and considering, which is why I offer this post.
Peace.