Lion's Den

The commentators expecting Mitch Daniels to make a strong outsider run for the 2012 GOP nomination as a fiscal conservative underestimate the impact of Daniels' intentional snubbing of social conservatives via a "truce" on social issues. The idea is ill thought out in every respect. It took a couple weeks before Daniels clarified that the truce was with liberals -- who are not interested in any such thing. No explanation has been given why a legislature cannot act on economic and social issues both. Most importantly, socons know that people who think that way would always find a reason why urgent concerns of some other kind demand a "temporary" putting aside of social issues. If the economy was hot, the suddenly urgent issues might be inflation and infrastructure.
Socons cannot elect a nominee, but they can defeat one. By taking them on, Daniels has put a target on his back -- metaphorically speaking only, of course.
Now Jennifer Rubin has identified two other significant groups of Republican conservatives that Daniels is alienating. "National security hawks are concerned that he is sounding more Robert Taft (Midwest isolationist) than Ronald Reagan internationalist." Worse than that, although the whole rationale for his candidacy is his economic expertise, Daniels is not a tax cutter, as are the great majority of GOP fiscal conservatives. Says the Cato Institute:

"He's kind of a more of a 'trains run on time' kind of guy, like a balanced budget kind of guy. He wants the government to be efficient but he doesn't necessarily want it to be smaller. Other than his property tax cut, he hasn't cut state level taxes at all. He hasn't really even proposed to cut them. Indiana has an above-average business tax."

What's going on here? Is Daniels setting himself up to run a brave-speaker-of-truth maverick campaign, Daniels as the prophet challenging the established wisdom of his party and warning of the danger to come? This kind of campaign wins disproportionately large coverage and editorial raves from the New York Times and Washington Post but doesn't win nominations even in the Democratic Party (Paul Tsongas; Gary Hart) where their seal of approval is valued. Or by snubbing social conservatives does Daniels hope to become the Establishment candidate, taking over as frontrunner if Romney implodes? But while the GOP Establishment might silently cheer as Daniels disses social conservatives, they will not make him their candidate, because they do not support candidates who intentionally divide the party.

"Who is ‘We", Paleface?"

Generous as I am, I was inclined to give Colin Powell a pass when he broke ranks in September and endorsed Barack Obama for President. Sure it was a little disappointing to have to suspect that Gen. Powell was just another "race man" whose race is more important to him than his principles and loyalties. But considering the special circumstances of the race I was willing to cut him a break. Besides he had a genuine, even legitimate beef with the way he had been treated as a front man for the Bush Administration's Iraq policies, and John McCain had been even more bellicose than Bush.

But this liberality was implicitly conditioned on Powell's recognizing what conservatives had but discreetly avoided saying: that Powell's betrayal was understandable because he has always been a social liberal, in domestic matters a natural Democrat. On every social issue important to conservatives, Powell has been on the wrong side: abortion, immigration, same-sex marriage, criminal justice, and of course affirmative action, of which he has been such a conspicuous beneficiary. The tacit deal with Powell was: we'll be fairly quiet about this betrayal, so long as you stop representing yourself as a conservative and Republican, and especially stop lecturing us on our faults in a tone suggesting that you are a brother and colleague. You aren't.

Well General Powell didn't get the memo. He's out there pontificating again about what we Republicans did wrong and what we Republicans need to do to win elections in the future. As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, "Who is ‘We', paleface?"

What's striking about Powell's analysis is its utter vacuity. He accuses the GOP of attempting to "use polarization for political advantage" in the last campaign. This after a campaign ostentatious in its avoidance of anything that could be remotely considered as racially polarizing, to the extent of declaring Barack Obama's protégé-mentor relationship with the racialist firebrand the Rev. Jeremiah Wright off limits. While Obama used class war rhetoric as an instrument of polarization, ot was only late in the campaign that the GOP seriously tried to divide people even on the issues, something that should be permissible even "for political advantage".

Why is it no surprise that in the GOP's ongoing ideological Wrestlemania Powell wants to play the role of hero of ethnic minorities:

"...if the party wants to have a future in this country, it has to face some realities. In another 20 years, the majority in this country will be the minority."

Powell ... said the GOP must see what is in the "hearts and minds" of African-American, Hispanic and Asian voters "and not just try to influence them by… the principles and dogma."

This after an Administration which had made wooing Hispanics one of its main political goals, whose encouragement of mortgage lending to Hispanics to buy houses they couldn't afford was a major contributor to the subprime mortgage crisis. After the party nominated John McCain, whose one-time pro-amnesty stand was supposed to make him the Republican most acceptable to Hispanics. Does Powell really think that anything the GOP could do would have made significant inroads on the Democratic black block vote? Powell might have been more specific in advising the GOP how to read minority hearts and minds so as to appeal to them without enunciating any political principles and dogma. Perhaps the idea is to nominate candidates who appear leaderly and charismatic while being devoid of substance -- people like General Powell himself?

The interviewer should have asked General Powell if he would have taken strategic advice from someone who betrayed his comrades and went over to the other side during a battle. Here's my first official piece of advice to the Republican Party: do not take the advice of people like Colin Powell. If you find yourself doing anything they have recommended, check and double check your premises.