Two More Months
It’s a dead heat between the aggressive liberal and the decisive manager.
Sep 17, 2012, Vol. 18, No. 01 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
And while the conventions gave us little indication who will win in November, they offered some insights into how the campaigns think they can achieve victory. Mitt Romney is running as a decisive but largely nonideological manager. Barack Obama is running as a proud, even aggressive, liberal whose policies just need more time.
In his address to the Democratic National Convention on September 6, Obama offered the country a full-throated, unapologetic embrace of government. Solving our challenges, he said, will “require common effort, shared responsibility, and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one.” The speech was the apotheosis of a campaign that has glorified government at every turn. There was the bizarre website featuring a fictional “Julia” who relies on government assistance to get ahead at every stage of her life, and there was Obama’s “you didn’t build that” riff—both the comment and the context—diminishing individual accomplishment and celebrating government good works.
On the final night of the convention, shortly before Obama spoke, Barney Frank departed from his prepared remarks to offer the progressive view of self-government, a view that all too often ignores the crucial institutions between the individual and the state that make up civil society. “There are things that a civilized society needs that we can only do when we do them together,” Frank declared. “And when we do them together, that’s called government.” And the gathering in Charlotte opened with a video that declared: “Government is the only thing we all belong to.” Even Bill Clinton—who once famously declared an end to the era of big government—went all in to defend the sprawling and expanding government of Obama’s liberalism.
In Tampa, the Republicans emphasized competence over ideology. Their critiques of President Obama, particularly in the 10 p.m. hour when most people were watching, focused on his mismanagement of the economy and not his misguided views. And the tone was one of disappointment, not anger. “I wish President Obama had succeeded,” Romney said, “because I want America to succeed.” Although Obama has expanded the government more than any president since Lyndon Johnson, and arguably since Franklin Roosevelt, none of the prime-time speakers at the Republican convention labeled him “liberal.”
More voters identify themselves as conservatives than liberals—one reason conservatives are usually happy to apply that label to themselves and liberals often prefer euphemisms like “progressive.” The latest Gallup survey on ideology finds 41 percent of Americans consider themselves “conservative” and just 23 percent “liberal” (with 33 percent preferring “moderate”).
The same poll finds that conservatives do even better when the question concerns the economy. Some 46 percent of Americans consider themselves “conservative” on economic issues, while just 20 percent describe themselves as “liberal” on economics (and 32 percent say “moderate”). Shouldn’t Romney be using these labels at every opportunity?
There is some grumbling from conservatives that this is the latest example of the Romney campaign playing it too safe for fear of alienating the suburban housewives in Ohio and elsewhere they believe will decide the election. Many conservatives expected the campaign to change dramatically when Paul Ryan was added to the ticket. The campaign, they thought, would broaden its message from an almost exclusive focus on Obama’s short-term economic record to a larger critique of his leadership. And for the first week or so, with a strong offensive on Medicare and a sustained attack on Obama’s worldview, it looked as though the direction of the campaign had indeed changed. But since then, the critiques have felt smaller.
In an interview on September 6, I asked Paul Ryan whether he believes the campaign is still offering a big, bold choice on the direction of the country or whether the campaign is consciously shifting its emphasis back to the critique of Obama’s stewardship.