Not like other politicians
I used to teach a course at the Lyndon B. Johnson school of Public Affairs, for first-year students, called “Policy Development.” The metaphor for the course was a cauldron of soup, into which all the issues of the day were dumped. Sometimes these issues floated to the top; sometimes they sank to the bottom, but together they formed the principal concerns of government. Academics, bureaucrats, and elected officials studied these issues looking for indicators–numbers that suggested that this issue or that one was undergoing change. The unstated premise was that the bureaucracy was the real government–that they knew what was going on, more than the elected officials did, because they knew the numbers. Once the numbers were known–that, say, illegal immigration was increasing, or the number of homeless people–government would address the problem, or, at the very least, make the public aware of it. Together, these issues created a policy agenda on which, presumably, politicians would take action.
I bring this up to make the point that Rick Perry is just plain different from other politicians. He never lived in the world of policy agendas as it was described in “Policy Development.” In that world, politicians identify problems and seek solutions. I can’t recall Perry once urging legislators to improve education and health care, the state’s two main services. In the middle of a crippling drought, his policy response was to ask Texans to pray for rain, rather than to support funding for the state’s water plan. He has never been the kind of politician who tackles problems, unless an issue gets under his skin, such as the rising cost and lackluster graduation rates of higher education have done recently. Texas government is full of indicators that are blinking red–danger! danger!–from dropout rates to families without health insurance, and year after year they go unaddressed. That’s not the way it was supposed to happen, according to Policy Development 101.
The point is, Rick Perry is not like other politicians. He doesn’t think about politics in terms of problems and solutions. He thinks about politics in terms of ideology and power. Perry is saying things in this campaign that no presidential candidate has said in decades, not the least of which is an unrelenting attack on social security. Far from avoiding the third rail of American politics, he is jumping onto it. He wants to do away with Medicaid. He wants to repeal the income tax. He opposes the direct election of U.S. senators and wants to return their election to state legislatures. When was the last time you heard a politician advocate taking away the right of the people to vote?
This seems to me like an enormous–and unnecessary–gamble. Perry already has the best talking point of any candidate, which is his record of job creation in Texas, certified by the Dallas Fed. I would say that he is running a risk of becoming a caricature of himself, except that it’s not much of a risk when he has a double-digit lead over his rivals.
Tagged: ideology and power, politics, rick perry
Blue says:
Paul, I’m not sure I agree with your characterization of the policy process–there is nothing neutral about the search for solutions using governmental action. This is as intensely ideological in its own way as anything Perry has done–it is not a simple neutral problem solving exercise.
The reality is that there is always a community of activists ready to push nearly any policy proposal and data that supports some kind of change. From time to time, however, events or general political circumstances open up “policy windows” that enable significant change to occur (generally change is on the incremental). When these windows open, any only then, can revolutionary change occur. The best advocates and subject matter experts understand this dynamic and either store their powder for the opening or work to try and get the window moving.
I think Perry has two true political gifts. First, he understands how a an Republican executive must act to impose his or her will on the Democratic bureaucracy and prevent it from subverting his policy preferences. Second, and directly on point with my comments above, is that he intuitively senses when policy windows are opening. He sees this for example in higher education, where tuitions and costs are rising at an unsustainable rate, and he sees this on entitlements, where every projection shows clearly that the current Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security structure cannot be sustained into the long term.
Reply »
Hilife Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
“clearly that the current Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security structure cannot be sustained”
Actually, all Social Security needs is to expand the tax base a bit to cover the same percentage of all wages as it did 30 years ago, when J.J. Pickle solved the last crisis.
Medicare/Medicaid are just a symptom of the larger issue of health-care costs across the board. The original aim of Health Care Reform was to do something about this.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Thirty years ago the SS tax was expanded and the excess revenues were spent on current expendtures–the problem wasn’t “fixed” 30 years ago, it was kicked down the road. Because of this for Boomer SS recipients we’ll need to both increase payroll contributions among the working population AND cut other government expendtures to redeem the bonds in the “Trust Fund.”
Oh, and those other government expenditures include Medicare.
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 8:46 am
Blue> Thirty years ago the SS tax was expanded and the excess revenues were spent on current expenditures …
This is not a problem with Social Security benefit payments, the trust fund, or the payroll tax which feeds Social Security.
This is a problem with the federal government running a deficit in other areas.
The big mistake y’all make with Social Security is to somehow combine the entire federal balance sheet, show problems with discretionary spending, and accuse Social Security of being the problem.
TJC1957 Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 7:37 am
Expanding the base is the way to save any Ponzi game….
Reply »
Crazy Uncle Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Great post Blue. Nice to have some one who thinks like I do and can write.
My forty years of experience is that the two worst places for the initiation of legislation is academia or the bureaucracy.
Hope & change is won’t sell this season. Cut taxes,spending,regulations,litigation and decentralize government will. Every time this was done it produced prosperity.
I can’t believe that so many people are still holding on to Keynesian economics. which has always brought a decrease in prosperity.
Reply »
donuthin Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
And I can’t believe that so many or holding onto trickle down economics. They certainly work for the very wealthy but not for the middle class over the long haul. True, the immediate result is an economic boost, but always, the piper shows up to be paid which results in a slow down. If you want it, pay for it and if the boost in the economy isn’t enough, either increase the taxes or do away with the expense.
Reply »
Crazy Uncle Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
We don’t have a class system in the US. The left would like us to so they could turn one against the other. We have different income groups
Every time, tax rate were decreased, revenue to the gov increased.
Always Free market Capitalist countries are prosperous.
Never do central planned, high taxed, high spending countries prosper
The poor are more poor under Carter-Obama policies than Reagan-Bush Clinton-Bush policies.
Last census shows that Americans’ low income have a higher standard of living than socialist countries’ middle class.
A very high % of those on welfare are addicts,have or sired a child before the age of 19, have not finished high school.
Those are behavioral problems not economic.
paulburka Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Re Blue, above:
The policy process is neutral. Numbers are neutral. The only way that the policy process can be said to be ideological is if someone says, “Government must do this,” or, “government must not do this.” That isn’t the fault of the process. All the policy process does is identify the problem(s). It is up to the politicians to decide whether to take action. Everyone knows we have a water problem in Texas, but no one wants to push for funding new reservoirs. The problem isn’t the policy process. It is the lack of will of politicians to address serious problems.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Paul, how can you possibly argue the policy process is neutral? Subjective decisions have to be made throughout it as to what is measured, what time frames are important, what change rises to the level of importance, etc. In addition, those calculating these numbers aren’t disinterested technocrats–they are human beings with opinions about what is important. The Weberian model of bureaucracy is dead, buried, exhumed, burned, scattered upon the land, and said land driven into the core of the Earth through plate tectonics.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 9:07 am
Every decision is a subjective decision to some degree. But a subjective decision can have an objective core. We choose to study, say, illegal immigration because the numbers tell us that something unusual is happening. Numbers are neutral. What people do with numbers is not.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Perry’s goal seems to be to suck all the oxygen out of the room for Michelle Bachmann’s campaign with his statements, in the same way he really pandered to social conservatives in 2008-09 to make sure he had them on his side for the primary against Kay Bailey in 2010 after his Gardasil deebacle in ’07.
The strategy seems to be that Romney is likely to win New Hampshire, so Team Rick has to win Iowa or face going into the South Carolina primary on a two-game losing streak. It’s a risky strategy for the general election, because, unlike after last year’s win over KBH, Perry can’t just put it in cruise control and rely on the current weakness of the Texas Democratic Party and state voters’ general dislike of the Obama Administration’s actions to keep voters from going over to the other side, as those negatives really hamstrung White’s campaign.
Saying all these things is betting the farm that not only will it win Rick the nomination, but that the country’s economy will be in as bad or worse shape 12 months from now, so those inflammatory statements won’t anger voters as much as the lack of economic results from the current administration. If the economy’s improving, Perry might win the nomination, but these continued statements are going to hang him out to dry with the swing voters.
(Also Paul, I was wondering what you thought of Jonathan Martin’s article in Politico on Monday — “Is Rick Perry Dumb?” To me it seems like a lazy and facile way of writing off Perry as just George W. Bush v2.0, because they don’t want to be bothered to really work at looking at Perry’s ability to modify his ideological positions in pursuit of power. Perry’s trying to win the same group of voters Bachmann is, but only because he thinks that’s the base he needs to battle Romney. He’s not a true believer in the same way Bachmann is — he’s a generally conservative opportunist, as his actions after the 2006 election showed, when he believed the results showed Texas voters wanted a more activist government.)
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 12:49 pm
I don’t think Rick Perry is dumb. I think he is a person of limited interests. He is extremely shrewd and intuitive when it comes to politics. He knows what he is doing when it comes to policy, too. Don’t confuse shooting off his mouth with being dumb.
Reply »
Dune Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 7:53 am
Really disappointed to see drivel like this make it onto RCP.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Classic liberal thought process.
‘I lie so everyone must lie.
I cheat so everyone must cheat.
How do I know this? Because all my liberal friends tell me that’s how it is.’
Lesson for democrats stop listening to the liberal left. Stop comparing Guv Perry to liberal candidates. Stop, back up and LEARN, get informed about Guv Perry then make up your own mind. Stop acting like “useful idiots”.
I know, you’ve proudly earned the title, but do you want to wear it forever?
I mean how badly does it feel to be fooled by a campaign slogan like “hope and change”?
Just thought I’d give the lemmings something to think about today. After watching moveon.org and the democrat party try to trash a townhall meeting last night, it stuck me just how out of touch democrats are with the majority of America.
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Does anything you wrote acutally apply to the posting, or is is just a “Deep Thought” for today? I share Paul’s general view that Perry has shown little interest in governance-as-problem-solving, governance-as-leadership.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
the whole post does. I’ll explain, the left is so busy trying to tell each other “how dumb Rick Perry is” that Paul wanted to hitch a ride. Perry is so dumb “I can’t recall Perry once urging legislators to improve education and health care, the state’s two main services. In the middle of a crippling drought, his policy response was to ask Texans to pray for rain, rather than to support funding for the state’s water plan. He has never been the kind of politician who tackles problems, unless an issue gets under his skin, such as the rising cost and lackluster graduation rates of higher education have done recently”
Are you democrats so stupid you actually believe that? If you are then 2012 is going to be another Raegan/Carter landslide.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 1:02 pm
JBB — I’m going to send this post to trash. You are going to have to raise, or at least vary, the level of your comments if you want them published. You are disrespectful to readers, and you engage in assumptions about me that have no basis in fact. I didn’t comment on the “Is Perry Dumb?” article in Politico, because I don’t think Perry is dumb. He isn’t a fount of knowledge, but he is plenty shrewd when it comes to politics, and he knows enough about policy to hold his own; his comment about Bernanke reveals that much. My comment about the drought was not to say that he was dumb; it was to say that he doesn’t tackle serious problems, and that is what makes him different from other politicians.
AzErick Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 8:14 pm
What else are you suggesting for a drought cure? Oh, I am sure you could think of a better response than to pray… Like, call the psychic hot-line. You cut your own legs off.
Anonymous says:
Policy soup? Must have been reading John Kindgon…
Reply »
South Texan says:
You keep making me sad, sad, sad, with your postings about RP.
Reply »
Crazy Uncle Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
No one is making you sad. You choose to be sad. That attitude is consistent with liberal thought.
Reply »
Dune Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 8:03 am
Sending the post to the trash is certainly consistent with liberal thought. Silence and/or eliminate the opposition.
Reply »
Pat says:
There are two things going on here. The first is what Phil Gramm told Perry in the ’80s: never let an opponent get to your right. The second is the continuing radicalization of the Republican Party.
If the numbers show that Perry has a very long leash on the right, its because he does. Whether he remains a viable general election candidate is another matter. But I have a feeling he’ll make it a close race regardless.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
“Look, I have no idea whether Rick Perry is the kind of guy who would get confused if you invited him into the Oval Office and told him to sit in the corner. I do know that he’s been a C-130 pilot, has made a fortune in real estate, and has been elected governor of Texas three times. And unless your name is Rick Perry, you haven’t done that, or at least all of that. So if all of that stuff is so easy that a caveman could do it, why haven’t you done it?”
Does anyone expect the lefty media coverage to be fair?
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
What if Perry decides NOT to live in the White House, choosing to stay at Blair House or a VA suburban neighborhood if he’s elected President ?
The Governor’s Mansion in Austin won’t be fully done with renovations until next year, and the Perrys moved out of the mansion during the summer of 2007 I believe.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Will someone please explain to me why some folks get so exercised over Perry renting a place to live while the Mansion is being rennovated (and now restored, of course)?
Reply »
anita Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Because it demonstrates his adherence to his demands of others, his principles and ultimately his integrity: He demands all agencies cut their budgets, yet he won’t tighten his own belt. He could have easily moved into Cambridge Tower like Clements did during the last renovation. He could have easily moved a triple-wide onto the grounds of the Mansion and moved in there while renovations took place, like Gov. Huckabe did in Arkansas. He did neither, then he tried to hide behind DPS and say they made him move to the $10K/month spread.
Seriously — he claims things are so bad that we can’t dip into ESF or rainy day fund because it may get worse, but he won’t give up his $10K/month rent-a-mansion? That’s just bizarre, tone-deaf stuff. It’s not that he’s renting, it’s the extravagence of the rental that we are paying for that is so worthy of being exercised over. It’s beans for everyone else, but caviar for him.
paulburka Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
I have written before that there is nothing wrong with Perry living in a nice house. He is the chief executive of the state. He should have living quarters where he can entertain visitors. There are many reasons to lament Perry’s governorship of the state, but his living quarters are not one of them.
anita Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 11:53 am
Paul, no one is suggesting he live in a rat-trap off East Riverside. And he’s not just any chief executive — this governor has spared no level of rhetoric about the evils of government spending, day-in and day-out. Yet he seems to have no problem spending “the people’s money” on housing that is more oppulent than the pre-restoration mansion. We’ve all been told to do more with less — but he’s exempted himself from that edict. That says something to me about his character.
Blue Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Anita, Perry is the head executive of a state with a population and economy the size of Australia. It’s ridiculous to argue he should live in a triple-wide on the Capitol grounds.
Tom Barry says:
Another way to put it is that Perry has no strong political (or religious) beliefs. He positions himself where he thinks it is most likely to enable him to continue his life’s career on the public teat. Nothing else matters.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 9:12 am
I do not speculate on the sincerity of another person’s religious beliefs.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
It is easy to make a fortune in real estate if your cronies are selling you land at $150,000 UNDER fair market value and then buying it back from you at $350,000 ABOVE fair market value based on comparable sales.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20100725-murky-land-deals-mark-gov.-rick-perry_s-past.ece
As for Perry’s crazy right wing ideas that he is spitting out like watermelon seeds … if I thought he believed 1/4 of those things I would be for him. But he obviously does not.
With Perry the welfare/warfare state will keep rolling along until financial destruction. People ask, could Perry really be WORSE than Obama? Damn straight he could, especially with his militaristic foreign policy and religious authoritarism at home pushed by this hypocrite.
From Obama to Perry would be out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Reply »
never trust a comboverer Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
In the name of Ayn Rand, Go to the desert and eat bugs and rend your garments.
Libertarians are trying to better this great country by promoting rational thought and objectiveness.
You are hurting this cause. Of course we get a little goofy some of the time. But either on purpose or from some “disorder” you are not doing anyone any good and making a fool of yourself.
I’m sorry but it needs to be said.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 8:23 am
I’m a libertarian too and I agree.
Reply »
Julie says:
Perry has never been a policy wonk or a deep thinker. Consider what he did in 2004. He, along with campaign contributors and others, went to the Bahamas for an education policy retreat to figure out how to provide more funding for public schools. After lengthy talks, Perry returned to Austin and proposed a $5 strip club tax to funnel more funding to schools. The fee would produce $25 million in revenue annually, which divided by the 1,265 districts in the state, would have give each district a whopping $19,000 in funding. Perry’s idea was rejected by the Legislature as a ridiculous path for funding schools. His proposal shows he is not an effective policy wonk.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Perry is so dumb “Perry has never been a policy wonk or a deep thinker”
More liberal left group think.
Reply »
Nick Manning Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
evidence of the opposite please? everything youve posted on this thread has been rhetoric.
Reply »
Red Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 12:25 am
or posted ever
Nomo says:
I wouldn’t put so much stock in “certified by the Dallas Fed.” Richard Fisher is playing a little loose by pointing to job growth in high-paying job sectors, rather than high-paying occupations. In other words, you’ve got to distinguish between doctors and hospital orderlies.
Reply »
Blue Dogs says:
The states will continue to ELECT their Senators from all 50 states forever, so Perry is an idiot on this issue.
Reply »
Nick Manning says:
hey paul, since it was a class of first year students at UT, what % would you say were stoned?
Reply »
Blue Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Policy Development is a grad class at the LBJ School.
Reply »
Robert says:
“The point is, Rick Perry is not like other politicians. He doesn’t think about politics in terms of problems and solutions. He thinks about politics in terms of ideology and power.”
An example of how blind you are Burka. This is generally what even the most thoughtful on the Right have long thought of almost all Leftists!
Leftists hide behind a veneer of problems and solutions but what do they ever solve? Little to nothing, it’s about amassing political power.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
It’s just plain silly to say that leftists hide behind a veneer of problems and solutions. What is government if not an endless succession of recognizing problems and seeking solutions, whether you are on the left or the right? The alternative is … what? Eternal gridlock? Or do we just do what the Texas Legislature does and say, oh, too bad, we’re just going to ignore the indicators?
Reply »
Rog says:
What do Leftists solve?
FDR
Reply »
Rog says:
FDR
Reply »
donuthin says:
Robert, some examples please of problems and solutions,
Reply »
Julie says:
Let’s eliminate the special interest tax breaks in the federal tax code, to keep the right happy. Get rid of all those breaks.
Reply »
Nortel says:
Let’s get rid of the mortgage interest exemptions. That’s a good first step, right? right? Hello? Bueller….?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
If you get rid of the mortgage interest deduction (it’s not an exemption), you drive up the cost of housing. Housing starts are one of the key indicators of economic health. Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and you immediate cripple the housing industry. If builders stop building houses, and people stop buying them, one of the fundamental building blocks of the economy is going to be under pressure.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Not that much, Paul, certainly not as much as the real estate lobby would have you believe. For most people in most parts of the country buying a median-priced house the interest deduction is only advantageous if the itemize.
Reply »
Nortel Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 10:56 am
I think you missed my sarcasm–my point to Julie is many of these “special interest tax deductions” generally have a legitimate purpose–like the mortgage tax deduction. Not all of them of course, but one person’s special interest is another’s vital interest. Thus the quandry–kind of a reverse NIMBY.
Reply »
anita says:
The only policy initiative that I’ve ever seen come from Perry was the Trans Texas Corridor, which was something someone hatched for a re-election bid. He’s carried the typical GOP water, taken care of Toomey, Perry (Bob), and assorted others. But innovative policy, none.
Reply »
Julie says:
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says eliminating the mortgage tax deduction is not on the GOP agenda, because the deduction is extremely popular. So you can forget about repealing it.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
It’s not just popular. It is essential to the health of the housing industry.
Reply »
Anon. says:
Blue:
The Social Security Trust Fund currently has a surplus which won’t be exhausted until 2037 (26 years from now).
So if by “kick the can down the road,” you mean “solved the problem for the next half century,” then yes, Congress kicked the can down the road.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
August 30th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
The “Trust Fund” is US government bonds. As they are redeemed by the Trust Fund they either have to be paid out of current revenue or new borrowing has to occur. That’s why the “solution” was really just kicking the can down the road.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The mortgage tax deduction is something I can live with as it helps my bottom line each year. Quite frankly, that is politics – its all about self interst. One day the poor whites will wake up and elect another FDR, until then the business of america is business. And I am just fine with that…keeps my tax bills low.
Reply »
Alan says:
There are two main kinds of politicians: visionaries and managers. Visionaries come into office with a “Big Idea” that they want to accomplish – some specific policy agenda. At their best, they can produce transformative results (FDR, Reagan); at their worst, they allow ideology and rhetoric to get in the way of facts and solutions (GWB). Managers are reactive – they come into office with a general desire to “serve” and simply want to solve problems as they appear in the most prudent way they can. At their best, they are the pragmatists who achieve concrete results (GHW Bush, Clinton); at their worst, they are craven and unable to lead (Carter).
Perry is a visionary. He is not intellectually curious and he is not a details man. He has a very specific vision of the way the world ought to be and he has stayed in office because the people who share that vision continue to give him their votes and their dollars. America has been introduced to and charmed by Perry the man. He’s a natural on the stump, a back-slapping glad-hander who can fire up a crowd decades after his yell leader days at A&M. It’s when Americans are introduced to PerryWorld – a place with no Social Security or Medicare, where Biblical creation stories belong in middle school science class, where Ron Paul of all people ends up defending the Federal Reserve against Perry’s scorn – that the trouble starts.
Reply »
anita Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 12:13 pm
“Perry is a visionary.”
At best, he’s a secondary visionary — he’ll promote what others will come up with, and delegate. That’s about all you’ll get. So we’ll get another GWB, but even more subject to influence from the John Yoo’s of the world, without the balancing effect of GHWB’s moderating network. I don’t see how this is good for America.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 9:21 am
You have to give Perry credit for having a vision. Like it or not, he has written a book that lays out that vision. It’s there for everyone to read, and it is not complicated. Perry has made a career out of creating jobs and preventing tax increases.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 10:37 am
Look, perry has done nothing but complain about medicare, medicaid and the health care act. He says health csre should be left to the states but as guv for 10 years he has done nothing to lower costs and increase availability. So the idea that republicans want to solve problems IS NOT based in reality. He just wants to use it as a club to excite his base, the low information voter.
Helen Wheels says:
Perry’s “policy” initiatives in state government are based on actions that will produce big bucks for the corporations and people who generously give to him. It has never been about the public good. Texas media have paid little attention to his unscrupulous actions. I wonder if the national media will bother.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Helen Wheels – no one cares about the public good any more…that is so 1960′s.
Reply »
Ike's lawyer says:
Mr. Burka, you say: “Perry is saying things in this campaign that no presidential candidate has said in decades, not the least of which is an unrelenting attack on social security. Far from avoiding the third rail of American politics, he is jumping onto it. He wants to do away with Medicaid. He wants to repeal the income tax. He opposes the direct election of U.S. senators … This seems to me like an enormous–and unnecessary–gamble.”
I’ll grant that the bit about electing U.S. Senators is an enormous and unnecessary gamble for the reason you pointed out, and my guess is that he won’t spend much time campaigning on that issue.
But as to the rest, isn’t it an enormous gamble only if there are reasonably high odds that the Democratic Party as an institution can find its voice on these issues? And by finding its voice I mean connecting with the average voter by weaving these issues into a narrative where social security, the progressive income tax, some sustainable level of health care subsidy for the poor and aged, and intelligently designed health and safety regulations are part and parcel of the 20th century American way towards a prosperous and just and secure country that need not be abandoned today.
And I’ll repeat that I mean the Democratic Party as an institution. During the legislative session I saw comments on this blog where center-left Texans weaved parts of that narrative into their comments. I’m confident that Sylvester Turner, Royce West, Kirk Watson, Senfronia Thompson, Pete Gallego, Mike Villareal, or Garnet Coleman could take thought and go connect with a roomful of people or write on on these issues.
But in my view the occasional thoughtful op-ed response, well-crafted and well-delivered political speech, or campaign spot won’t be enough. It would be necessary for many rank and file Democrats and Democratic donors and political consultants to buy in to that sort of narrative, and necessary for the Democratic Party as an institution to put a sustained and persistent effort into communicating that sort of narrative to the voters and to be ready to respond rather than to fold at the first signs of return fire from the opposition.
The voters have to know what the Democratic Party stands for.
What does it stand for? I’m pretty sure I know what each of the legislators I mentioned above stands for and I admire them even when they get to my left on any given issue.
But there’s nothing about the performance of the national Democrats between the 2008 and 2010 elections that makes me confident they have a heartfelt and well-grounded belief in such a narrative. And I think that a heartfelt and well-grounded belief in such a narrative that has been effectively communicated to the voters is the very foundation of the Policy Development 101 process that you described.
When the Democrats passed health care they did so without effectively engaging the country, without responding effectively to the Republican attacks, without getting buy-in from the electorate. And the response of many rank and file Democrats to abandoning single-payer was to lose interest in the process and to cease defending their guys. In 2000 many rank and file Democrats whined about Al Gore’s charisma rather than defend him against attack. By contrast millions of Republicans were highly motivated to defend George W. Bush against attack. And the response of much of the American left to an Al Gore candidacy was to launch and get behind Ralph Nader’s candidacy.
Not long ago I visited New York for the second time in my life. The Museum of Modern Art had an exhibit on political art. Most of the art was from the political left and I was struck by how childish much of it seemed to me even when I was disposed to agree with the sentiments being communicated. Almost 40 years ago the gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson, moved to frustration and rage by as I recall the 1972 Democratic primary campaign of Hubert Humphrey for president, predicted that the Democratic Party would suddenly vanish like the Whigs.
I’m confident there are many individual Democrats who have the viewpoint and talent necessary to chart a course that if followed with persistence and determination would indeed make Governor Perry’s recent campaign direction an enormous gamble. I’m just not sure the modern national Democratic Party as an institution (including its donors and consultants and rank and file and ways and means) has what it takes to do that.
Reply »
Indi says:
Burka, you are smoking crack. No way Perry gets the nomination. The nation is not going to elect another Texan on the heels of Bush and the GOP knows it. They want a winner, and Perry is not it. He is a joke.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 10:51 am
And America will never elect a guy named Obama in the wake of a terrorist attack by a guy named Osama. Remember where you live. Perry’s path to the White House is blocked by a Mormon and an unpopular African-American president. Take him lightly at your (and the entire country’s) peril.
Reply »
Mr. Smith says:
Paul,
I think that its a bit more than that Perry is not a problem solver, but an idealogue. Its that he is riding what can only be called the “Flat Earth Wave.” Its that there are a significant number of people who have become completely detached from reality. The contempt for science, for intellectuals, really, for discussing anything in a thoughtful manner instead of saying something stupid and “from the hip” has supposedly come into fashion. But I think that its always been there. The Democratic party’s inability to truly acknowledge that the growing national debt is a bad thing is also a disconnect. And the majority of American’s wanting their Medicare without any cuts, but wanting the budget balanced, is a complete disconnect with reality. But its nothing new. And Perry is nothing new. Just the latest Emperor candidate throwing bread and circuses to the crowd. Solutions, we don’t need no stinkin solutions.
Reply »
MRH Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 7:53 am
Perhaps the contempt isn’t for science or intellectuals, but rather for science and intellectuals that have a particular point of view and refuse to acknowledge that they have a point of view, just like everyone else. The problem with your argument is that the “intellectual” left has made it too easy to attack them by taking almost religious positions on issues such as health care and the environment. And, I would add, they vilify and lie about their opponents. Truly show me someone that doesn’t want clean water, clean air, or some sort of access to health care or food. There isn’t anyone, Republican or Democrat that would take that position. Yet those are lies cooked up by “intellectual” liberals that refuse to listen to anyone else except other “intellectual” liberals. The reality may not be that Republicans don’t want those problems solved, the reality may be that they believe there are other solutions to those problems. And is it possible that perhaps people like Mr. Perry believe that in many cases, Government can’t solve those problems, or has spent 30 plus years trying to solve those problems but to no avail?
Perhaps if fewer of you on the left would stop calling the other side stupid, or flat earthers or anti-science or racist and acknowledge perhaps that there might be another legitimate point of view, we might get somewhere.
Reply »
Ike's lawyer Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 10:26 am
That’s very well put MRH, particularly your first two sentences and last sentence.
I’ve tried to make these points in a different way and gotten very little traction that I can see.
From what I’ve read polls fairly consistently show that the average voter is adamant that important expensive services not be cut, taxes not be raised, and that the cost of these expensive services no longer be pushed onto future generations in the form of debt. Since that is an impossibility and we can’t seem to have an honest robust discussion about how to fix things I’ve concluded our politics is broken.
My view is that social security, the progressive income tax, some sustainable level of health care subsidy for the poor and aged, and intelligently designed health and safety and environmental regulations are defensible. Theodore Roosevelt and Eisenhower and Nixon and like-minded Republicans played a role in bringing about or preserving these things. But for the most part these things are viewed as achievements of FDR and LBJ and like-minded Democrats.
If these things are defensible, then for crying out loud defend them. It seems to me that this is the job of the Democratic Party and their followers, that they need to do it in a systematic and sustained way, and that without doubt they need to keep the gist of your comment in mind when they do so.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
When liberal democrats fessup that they were responsible for the housing bust, ie Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the healing of the democrat party can begin.
Once again you can read about it in Reckless Endangerment by Pulitzer Prize winning NYTimes Author Gretchen Morgenson.
Meanwhile the left only venue of attack will continue to be “How dumb is Perry?” as they continue to lose another election. Or their favorite groupthink “we are all smarter than republicans.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Put down the crack pipe jbb
Reply »
SteveP says:
“He opposes the direct election of U.S. senators and wants to return their election to state legislatures. When was the last time you heard a politician advocate taking away the right of the people to vote?”
He isn’t advocating taking away people’s right to vote. He’s advocating restoring the balance of power.
The House of Representatives is the people’s House. It represents the people. The Senate is the states’ House. Until the ratification of the 17th Amendment it represented the states. Now the states have no representation. Senators are part of the federal government rather than advocates for the states. With the repeal of the 17th Amendment the states would regain some of their sovereignty.
Reply »
DRJ says:
Perry is doing for domestic policy and entitlements what Reagan did for foreign policy and the end of the Soviet Union.
Of course, there will always be people who won’t have the stomach for real change. What’s ironic is the people who are afraid of real change are the same people who voted for Barack “Hope-n-Change” Obama.
Reply »
S P Dudley says:
If Perry’s looking like he might self-destruct by going too far to the right, now I know why Sarah Palin is waiting so long to make her announcement to run.
See it this way:
Romney has the Centrists and the Mormon vote down, that’s about 25% of the party.
Ron Paul has the more libertarian side down plus a good chunk of the military vote (no joke there, he’s very strong in that field). That’s another 15%
This leaves the 60% that is bona fide conservative GOP up for grabs, and every other candidate including Perry and Bachmann is going to fall over each other to get that vote.
Unfortunately that forces each of the candidates to push as right as possible. The difficulty with doing that is that it will hurt you in the both the big-state primaries such as California and New York, and also in the general election.
It suites Sarah to currently stay out of that fight for the right. For starters, she really doesn’t need to try to hard to get it, her persecution at the hands of the MSM is qualification enough for many conservative voters. That gives her the flexibility to go to the centrists and present herself as Pro-Main Street/Anti-Wall Street and dig into Romney’s current base. She can also go after the Paul supporters with her more libertarian views (yes, she has a few).
By staying out of the current campaign Sarah avoids unnecessarily bruising herself before the primaries start, but by shadowing the other candidates she still gets lots of exposure. Did you see her at Iowa State Fair? No other candidate got the crowds she did, and all she did was show up!
I like Perry, but if he doesn’t find a way to improve his campaign he’s going to peak too early and then plunge when he’s hurt. Keep eyes on Palin because she is going to run and in the process completely re-define the whole primary campaign.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Holy cow, another crack pipe user
Reply »
graystroke says:
SS & Medicare need reform so why is it a 3rd rail? Is it because you want to continue giving entitlements for illegals!? Why is it that the so called educated elite shy aware from this? I’ll say it….QUIT IT!! no money to illegals quit enable law breaker I really don’t give a rats a$$ about all the attached emotions that go with justifying doing so. Next where is Perry stopping the vote??? Please stop it…. the Senators NEED to go back to the pre-Progressive era and let the STATE vote in our Senators. Just think Soros zombies outside of Texas should not fund Texas candidates period. I’m sick of both parties talking about how the real issues should never get discussed if not now when??? The 17th Amendment needs to be repealed period, it only increased the FED corruption to a greater degree….and just what is wrong with setting our Constitution? Perry a joke? compared to what a buffoon that has a complicit media and academia covering his tracks and personal history that no one knows? Where are his former class mates, his college papers, his published work if he could even write at that level….no….progressive are a disgusting bunch….for those uninformed visit the Democratic caucus and their membership to the socialist groups and their endorsement by the CPUSA….yeah no hypocrites here…There will be no perfect GOP candidate but I prefer a man with conviction and juevos not another metrosexual wuss..with a progressive repressive agenda bent on destroying this nation…
Reply »
Sol Waxtend says:
America needs no president who makes up policies, nor one who borrows without limit to implement them. The president needs to protect our borders and maintain our military to keep the peace. At present he is doing neither. Policy 101? Poppycock.
Reply »
Jane says:
“Perry is saying things in this campaign that no presidential candidate has said in decades, not the least of which is an unrelenting attack on social security.”
Like! Young people are cynical about it, aren’t they?
“He wants to do away with Medicaid.”
Ok! It definitely needs reform. I will bet you dollars to donuts thousands of people on Medicaid keep their car insurance up to date.
“He wants to repeal the income tax.”
Like! What’s not to like?
“He opposes the direct election of U.S. senators and wants to return their election to state legislatures. When was the last time you heard a politician advocate taking away the right of the people to vote?”
Um – huh? I thought we got to vote for our state legislatures. Maybe this would put people back in touch with their local officials, which is where the focus should be!
All likes! Thanks for sharing his platform – I’m liking him more every day.
Reply »
Russ in OR says:
“When was the last time you heard a politician advocate taking away the right of the people to vote?”
Card check (EFCA)
Reply »
Mark Crawford says:
“When was the last time you heard a politician advocate taking away the right of the people to vote?”
Such an exageration! You should go read some of the framers writings to understand exactly why this was set up. The 17th Amendment has been a disaster for this country and for the states. It attempted to solve the problem of corruption, but has led to even more corruption. The Senate is no longer the protective body of states rights, rather it is now just a mirror image of the house.
But thanks anyway for the article, you have just mmoved me further towards supporting Perry.
Reply »
Robert Cowan says:
I believe Perry and Obama are polar opposites but they have one thing in common. They are both, as Burka said, ideologically driven and both want power. Look Obama does the same thing but for his base. he passed healthcare. No one believes that healthcare prices are going to go down, and it is not revenue neutral according to the latest CBO report. Stimulus was a waste that did nothing but pay for a few road signs, no real economic punch could be seen. We don’t know how the new college format will work but it at least is different and might provide a benefit we’ll see.
Reply »
Clawhammer Jake says:
It is a mistake to believe Rick Perry does not actually believe the things he says and writes.
Reply »
daveh says:
While the author would seem to view it as a liability the thing I like best about Perry (my governor) is that he is not looking for big issues to fix. He is quietly doing the job he was elected to do; administer the State of Texas. I don’t see him on TV everyday lecturing and critizing. (nor have I ever heard him push his religous views)
The author also seems to counter his own first arguement about not taking on big issues with the personal conjecture that Perry would rewrite the US constition.
Reply »
John Papola says:
“The point is, Rick Perry is not like other politicians. He doesn’t think about politics in terms of problems and solutions. He thinks about politics in terms of ideology and power.”
This is an incredibly odd statement. I don’t support Perry as a candidate, but your model if politicians strikes me as supremely naive and untethered to reality in any sense. It is the view from policy-wonk academia. ALL politicans act based first and foremost on their own self interest, not “solutions” (as if there are any from the top down in this complex social world). Have you been exposed to the work of James Buchanan and public choice theory? Have you kept track of the actual Obama or Bush ainistrations in the real world in any sense? These guys say and do what they believe will get them elected and re-elected. Nothing more. The record of self-contradiction is vast.
Meanwhile, as you say, the unelected bueacrats actually run everything and create the real legislation in the form of rules and regs. They have an incentive to grow their budgets and spheres of influence, not “solve problems”. It should be obvious based on empirical reality that success in the bureaucracy is a vice punished by more work for no more pay and failure is a virtue rewarded by larger budgets because “we just need more money” is always the answer. Money is cynically and knowingly used in rhetoric to signal importance or concern when in reality it is all am effort to build power bases.
Your “policy development” class is a fairytale lesson on what government “should” be (again, assuming that any of these top-down plans can overcome the knowledge problem). It does your students a supreme disservice to teach of a model of politicians as philosopher kings or dispassionate technocrats. They are self-interested just like everyone else, and they get rewarded for demagoguery.
Its time to wake up from dreamland, throw back a tall black cup of coffee and ditch the “people’s romance” version of politics. Perry is just like every politican, including and especially Barack Obama.
Reply »
Jake says:
I agree with your main point Paul:
“The point is, Rick Perry is not like other politicians. He doesn’t think about politics in terms of problems and solutions. He thinks about politics in terms of ideology and power.”
Here’s my question, how are people who care about policy and good outcomes for everyone supposed to govern with ideolouges?
Reply »
Daniel Watkins says:
It may be less that Perry can’t be bothered to find solutions, and more that (like me) he doesn’t believe government is the answer to all problems.
Even so, I agree with the central premise of the article which is that Perry doesn’t operate in the way we expect a candidate to operate. I guess we will see if this is a positive or a negative for him on the national scene.
Reply »