For your New Year's weekend amusement, the a Keith Principle
It was probably my comments with Pik about Romney, Jeb Bush, and other Republican presidential contenders that got me thinking about this. Anyway, feel free to beat up on or refine this however you want:
- The less qualified as a chief executive officer the President is (e.g., the more dependent on an ersatz-mommy like Valerie Jarrett), the larger and more bureaucratically self-governing the federal government must necessarily grow to be to continue functioning coherently at all.
- The smaller we make our government, the more skilled our chief executive officer must be at actually running it, i.e., making it go and, even more importantly, making it not go when and where it shouldn't.
- Presidents who are more ideologically qualified than CEO skill set-qualified will inevitably bend their ears to the guidance of some type of grand vizier more skill set-qualified in something than they are, someone, by definition, you didn't elect. Therefore, the best way to elect your federal team is to put the strongest CEO you feel is sufficiently ideologically qualified at President and your strongest ideological leaders in active legislative roles, i.e., where ideology gets translated into the reality of law or non-law.
Okay, there you go, have at it.
Well for starters, I don't think that CEO skills are mutually exclusive with "right" ideology. So of course, better management skills are always a plus -- and as you pose, would allow for less reliance on an underlying bureaucracy (and its self-preservation instinct).
ReplyDeleteMy problem is that I'm not convinced that Romney and Jeb (Jeb, especially) are inclined to reduce the size of the federal gov't. So while their management skills may be better than, say, Ted Cruz, those skills aren't necessarily pointed in the right direction AFAIAC.
This makes Rick Perry the better choice. Texas has done well on his watch, and he's got the right ideology on reining in the federal gov't. Works for me.
Well for starters, I don't think that CEO skills are mutually exclusive with "right" ideology.
DeleteNor I. Being able to be elected on a national level is obviously a prerequisite too, although I failed to list it explicitly. Romney (whether he runs this time or not) and Jeb both qualify on that account. Perry? How far does he play outside of Texas? Say, with independents in Oregon or Vermont? I just don't know.
Romney lost by double digits in both those states last time (VT was 2:1), so I'm not sure I'd settle for him because of his electability there . . .
DeleteWell, here's how things stand right now as I see it. Republicans have two core candidates splitting the establishment money, Romney (if he runs) and Bush, wrapped in a fragmentation blanket of 28 or so other candidates - what others are referring to as a deep bench.
DeleteThe Democrats have 1 core establishment candidate, Hillary, and a strong horse anti-Wall Street protest candidate, Warren.
As of right now, the Republican package automatically splits about 35% of the electorate across its 30-odd candidates. The Democrats automatically split about 35% across Hillary plus Warren.
The trick is for each team to get at least 16% of the remaining 30% to vote for whomever on its side corrals the majority of its gimme 35%, and to get there each side has to consolidate as close to 100% of its gimme 35% around a candidate that can land that 16% no-man's-land vote.
The patterns in Republican nomination donnybrooks are as follows:
Delete1. Rapid winnowing to 1 or 2 ambitious pols and 1 or 2 constituency candidates. (You had two of each in 2008 and 2012).
2. A strong bias toward the candidate who placed during the most recent competitive contest, or to an approximation thereof (e.g. the place-holder in the penultimate competitive contest or the son of the most recent Republican president, as happened in 1996 and 2000, respectively).
Pretty much every competitive contest after 1964 has had these patterns. You have some potential to break pattern this time as...
1. The candidate who placed in 2012 was a constituency candidate. Only one such has been nominated by Republicans in the last 50 years (Ronald Reagan) and this man is as yet undeclared and running in the low single digits in the polls.
2. The Bush brand is damaged.
3. Since the foundation of popular elections, losing presidential candidates are not typically given another turn at the wheel. The half-dozen or so who have generally fell into one of 4 categories: they won the popular vote while losing the electoral vote (A. Jackson, G. Cleveland), they ran on a 3d party line (M. van Buren), they lost to a colossus (Dewey, Stevenson), or they lost by a paper-thin and disputed margin (Nixon). As far as I can recall, the only precedent for a Romney candidacy would be Wm. Jennings Bryan in 1900 and 1908. Ironic.
That's a remarkable analysis, Art, but what interests me is this: which Republican candidate that the largest number of Republicans, Democrats and Independents combined will hate less than Hillary or Warren on election day has the best current skill set to be a national CEO?
DeleteFor example, elfin Rand Paul will make a number of Democrats and Independents swoon over his non-interventionist rhetoric, but I'm not convinced he has the depth of skill at anything to be our leader this time around. As Pik said, Perry has impeccable conservative credentials and has long presided as governor over weak-governor Texas which, as a result of its combined governance, is pretty much the envy of the nation as a bastion of liberty and good jobs. To my eyes, though, he would have to sell his soul to the Devil to overcome his "Ooops" moment; tedious explanations of the lingering effects of powerful painkillers post-back surgery this long after the fact will be worse than powerless against autotuned sound bites.
It's really only going to be Jeb Bush vs. someone else or two as final candidates, and if conservatives want a more conservatively-weighted CEO, they'll need someone other than joyful Bush.
Let me reiterate again that the least valuable place to stack your ideological chips is on the national CEO/quarterback slot while the most valuable places are your state executives and legislatures, party leadership, but particularly your national legislative offensive and defensive lines.
Electing some ideological or other sort of visionary ideal of ourselves as President only really serves to make us feel good. We're far better putting those energies into the people who actually run the ball, at all levels.
Electing some ideological or other sort of visionary ideal of ourselves as President only really serves to make us feel good.
DeleteOh, come on, Keith. Painting the desire for a conservative flag-bearer as self-indulgent (and "only" that, to the exclusion of all other reasons) is almost insulting.
Let's put it this way: how about a president who:
1) Will competently and efficiently serve the constitutional role of "executive", namely faithfully executing the laws enacted by Congress;
2) While vetoing attempts by Congress to increase the size and power of the federal government (as is their wont, no matter what most of them say);
3) Without aggrandizing his own power and that of the executive into matters that are no business of the federal government or that states can do better.
There. That's as non-red-meat-ideological as I can be. But it assumes that Congress is pointed in the right direction -- which the trend seems to bear out. An executive that would back up that trend would be helpful, especially if the current leadership is still in place.
The problem is that I don't see Jeb or Romney doing things 2) and 3), even though they may have the most skill at 1).
Pik, my emphasis - the subject of my sentence - was "Electing some ideological or other sort of visionary ideal of ourselves as President". OTOH, that's exactly what one's representative should be/do.
DeleteOf course we have to have a conservative as President. The instructive value of Obama, however, is that our worst fate would be electing a conservative Republican version of liberal Democrat incompetent* Obama, who was elected precisely for the reasons I'm arguing against and who has wreaked far more damage on his own party and cause than on anyone else: name one liberal issue with any juice left. But he made a whole lot of Democrats and Independents feel wonderful about themselves for the longest time.
*My doubts about Perry are not at all about his executive competence, only about what I perceive to be his parochial limitations, a problem Jeb Bush, unfortunately, is able to leap over like a gazelle. I'm pushing Romney because I think he's the only nationally electable vaccine against Bush with a strong proven track record of not only running large organizations but of turning them around. Plus, he stinks of entitlement.
Plus, Bush stinks of entitlement.
DeleteHow does he 'stink' of 'entitlement' more than any other candidate who is contemplating a run?
DeleteBush's preparation for the office is as proximate as anyone to a schematic you might derive from our more able chief executives. He has had a considerable run (over 10 years) in executive positions; politics was his second career; he had 22 years in banking and real estate before being elected to public office; he's old; he's had an orderly domestic life (his daughter's issues notwithstanding). What would be missing would be some time put in in a consequential federal position, a stint in Congress (long enough to locate the restrooms but not long enough to be infected with its culture), and a stint in the military. He is not a textbook presidential candidate, but he is as proximate as any Republican who has run for the office in the post-Eisenhower era bar perhaps his father and Nelson Rockefeller.
I think it is exceedingly imprudent to make any categorical statements about the identity of the nominee on either side, much less about the identity of the eventual victor.
Delete1. What you can say is that any Democrat will be facing a headwind; the political parties are 1 for 6 in the post-war era in contests where they were seeking a third turn at the executive wheel.
2. You can also say that Mrs. Clinton would be a nominee of a character without precedent. The only occasion on which the parties have nominated someone who has been such an obtrusive public presence for so long would be Richard Nixon in 1968. Mr. Nixon was nowhere near as tainted, mendacious, or generically pathological as Mrs. Clinton and he was in 1968 a decade and a half younger than the ol' bitch will be next year.
3. You can say in addition that it would be quite out of the ordinary for the Republicans to nominate a constituency candidate - Gov. Huckabee, Sen. Santorum, or whomever.
While we're at it, given the right context, just about anyone presentable will do. 'Not presentable' would be Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich or one of the opinion mongers who did so well in Republican presidential contests between 1987 and 2001. Some inventory you just cannot sell.
DeleteArt, his "stink of entitlement" is my personal subjective perception that he feels entitled to the presidency by virtue of being Jeb Bush alone, prior to any objective or policy considerations, prior to any effort, because he is the anointed one we have been waiting for who will lead us all, but especially the Republicans, out of our foolish and conflicted Dark Ages. IOW, he is the Republicans' #ReadyForHillary. Again, purely my subjective bias in that regard.
DeleteWhat did he say that gave you that idea?
DeleteThere is nothing particularly irregular about his candidacy (as there was re John Edwards and Barack Obama, undistinguished one-term Senators both and spam in a can the latter). Large-state governors are who you expect to run.
Lol, Art, are you seriously trying to rationally argue me out of my personal subjective bias against his dynastic sense of entitlement? But even if that irrational prejudice did not exist, his immigration and common core positions rule him out for me.
DeleteThis is why I would rather see Romney snatch the establishment money out from under him, because in addition to being wrong imo on common core & immigration, Bush not only brings the same, if not greater, blue blood/Wall Street negatives Romney will have to overcome, he brings them in a uniquely negative dynastic package.
If only Republicans could vote for President, our choices could be so much purer, couldn't they. But we have to field someone ultimately acceptable to enough people ranging from petulant Republicans threatening to sit one out to seducible Democrats and every possible Independent in between while ultimately ending up with an effective CEO/CinC in a world where friggin Norks can takeout Sony with impunity.
Lol, Art, are you seriously trying to rationally argue me out of my personal subjective bias against his dynastic sense of entitlement?
DeleteI asked you a question, which you will not answer.
I asked you a question, which you will not answer.
DeleteSorry, Art, you seem to have confused yourself with someone in a position to command response from me. Let me see if I can clarify:
- I don't give a flying f*ck whether or not you ask me anything
- I don't give a flying f*ck about your opinion unless it happens to interest me
HTH, and thanks for commenting.
Here are my 2 picks for President at this point: 1) Scott Walker, 2) Bobby Jindal.
ReplyDeleteI'm okay with either of those two at this point.
Deletehttp://thefederalist.com/2015/01/05/welcome-to-thunderdome-2016/
DeleteThat was choice. Thanks, Keith. Ben Domenech is awesome.
DeleteWell. I guess I'm pulling for Kirkland Farms. Or Q. (Really?)
And I guess I'm with this guy.
DeleteKeith, since your guy wasn't mentioned, I'll suggest Hoover for him.
Hahahahaha!
DeleteHmm...wasn't Hoover President of the Deltas?
Touche. But maybe we could use the Animal House cast as a comparison of the potential candidates:
DeleteBluto : Perry
D-Day : Cruz
The insufferable Boone : Jeb Bush
The insufferable Katy : Carly Fiorina
Otter : Rubio
Flounder : Christie
Larry : Jindal
Stork : Rand Paul
Chip (the Kevin Bacon character) : Walker
Niedermeyer : Huckabee
If the Perry that shows up in this interview (sans tac vest & weapon-stroking, so as not to spook the squeamish)
Deletehttp://insider.foxnews.com/2015/01/08/presidential-contenders-2016-rick-perry
can get his voice out, you might have something, Pik. He seems more serious, as in "I'm doing my homework and eating my vegetables first"-serious, this time out. Best of luck to him.