In lieu of a substantive blog post here today, I have an op-ed on the conservative Daily Caller website in which I argue that Rick Santorum has performed consistently poorly among young voters–including young Republicans–and that nominating him would risk writing off an entire generation.
National candidates typically depict their differences as epic battles about the very essence of our society. For example, Mitt Romney’s victory speech on the night of the New Hampshire Primary:
President Obama wants to “fundamentally transform” America. We want to restore America to the founding principles that made this country great.
He wants to turn America into a European-style entitlement society. We want to ensure that we remain a free and prosperous land of opportunity.
This President takes his inspiration from the capitals of Europe; we look to the cities and small towns of America.
This President puts his faith in government. We put our faith in the American people.
This is pretty much nonsense. The election will make a difference–it matters who wins–but it is not a battle between European socialism and a return to the Republic as it stood in 1788. Neither option is on the table. Ezra Klein has, I think, a pretty accurate summary:
It matters that Obama’s proposed tax cuts amount to $3 trillion and benefit taxpayers making less than $250,000 while Romney’s would cost more than $6 trillion and are tilted toward the top 1 percent. It matters that Obama would implement the Affordable Care Act and Romney would try to repeal it. It matters that Obama is inclined to strengthen the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau while Republicans want to weaken it.
But the 2012 election is not an epochal clash of irreconcilable worldviews. Judging from their respective records, Obama and Romney would have little trouble coming to agreement if locked in a room together. That’s a very different conclusion than you would draw from listening to their rhetoric, which implies a Thunderdomish battle to the death.
I would not claim that both sides exaggerate their differences to the same degree. “Movement” conservatives are especially likely to regard their debate with Democrats as fundamental and existential. This is not all pretense or rhetoric; I suspect they are genuinely disappointed when they discover that winning the House means a shift in the federal budget of just a couple of percent. Running for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney has every reason to depict himself as a scourge of anti-American socialists. Democrats, meanwhile, are more aware that liberalism is a minority position and are therefore more likely to try to position themselves as consensus candidates.
That said, you get no points on either side for depicting the partisan debate realistically. No candidate says, “We’re all for a mixed economy with a regulated capitalist market, federal provision of pensions and health care for the elderly, a vast military that projects power globally in our economic interests, huge prisons, sharply limited federal aid to poor people, and tax cuts whenever we think we can afford them. We just disagree about how much to spend on all that.”
A new study finds that “Strongly identified Republicans or Democrats perceive and exaggerate polarization more than weakly identified Republicans or Democrats or political independents.” They also vote at higher rates, presumably motivated by the sense that we face an epic battle between good and evil. Although Independents have grown in number, their turnout has fallen. Maybe some of them are turned off because they can’t believe the prevailing claim that elections are existential choices. That just doesn’t ring true.
I think we’d be better off if Americans saw through the exaggerations and recognized that politics is played within the 40 yard lines. Then they could tell when someone (such as Ron Paul) really proposes to move outside that range and could decide whether he has a realistic chance of doing so. They would also be more aware of genuinely radical ideas, from authentic socialism to authentic libertarianism–not to mention real environmentalism and real pacifism–which are conspicuous by their absence. Finally, they could make a more judicious choice among the available options. If you’re looking for Kenyan socialists or the Founding Fathers, the 2012 general election will not offer what you want (or what you fear). But we are going to spend the next few years implementing and improving Obamacare or gutting it; closing the budget gap with new taxes or not; and strengthening environmental and labor laws or trimming them. We may end up at the Republicans’ 40 or the Democrats’ 40, and it will make a difference.
(Washington, DC) Newt Gingrich released his contract with Fannie Mae just in time to argue about it with Mitt Romney. At the Florida debate, Romney said, “This contract proves you were not a historian. You were a consultant …. And you were hired by the chief lobbyist of Freddie Mac.” Gingrich replied, “Gov. Romney has done consulting work for years … I’ve never suggested his consulting work was lobbying.”
The problem is not whether Newt Gingrich “consulted.” Consulting could mean anything, including historical research. The contract is fairly remarkable for not saying what his consultancy will entail. There are no deliverables, no scope of work, no deadlines, no metrics. I don’t know how common such vagueness is on K Street, but no organization I have ever dealt with would tolerate it. I can think of only two explanations:
If Gingrich was selling the influence he had obtained as a public official, I think that’s fundamentally unethical. At a minimum, it should be disclosed. If he was selling something of intrinsic value, such as history or strategy, then I don’t see why it would be left unmentioned in the contract.
My substantive post for the day is over at Politico:
I begin, “Young voters have played a crucial role in the 2012 Republican primaries, but in South Carolina, their role is due to change.
The big story so far has been their strong support for Ron Paul. Without younger voters, he would have been an also-ran in Iowa and New Hampshire.
But in South Carolina, there are many more potential young voters in a far larger voting pool. …”
[Jan. 22: CIRCLE’s analysis of the actual South Carolina primary is here. Youth turnout was 8% (par for the course). Paul won the youth vote and quintupled his support over 2008, but Obama still got three times as many South Carolina primary voters in ’08 than Paul drew in 2012.]
In Libby Copeland’s Slate article about Ron Paul’s appeal to young men, I say that this demographic group tends to be “interested in simpler, more abstract and pure philosophies.” I am sure I did say that, but I am not sure I like what I said.
But I have observed all my life that Ayn Rand-style libertarianism appeals to a subset of young men. Thus Ron Paul’s 8,800 young voters in Iowa may not reflect a historical change or a growth of libertarianism. Rather, a subculture that I remember vividly from the 1980s recently had an opportunity to make a splash in a low-turnout, multi-candidate election.
Also, to my very core, I am a moral pluralist, in the tradition of Isaiah Berlin. I believe that human foxes are more mature than human hedgehogs–that every situation requires a different response. Thus I am willing to say that some versions of libertarianism (just like some versions of liberalism and socialism) are more mature than others, the measure being how many valid but conflicting principles they can accommodate and how sensitive they are to context.
So one can become a libertarian because, like Hayek, one doubts that central planners can accumulate enough information to govern wisely; and because, like James C. Scott, one has observed horrible results when even idealistic leaders “see like a state”; and because, like Milton Friedman, one recognizes that human freedom is implicit in reciprocal exchange; and because, like Ronald Coase and many others, one believes that markets are maximally efficient, and efficiency yields human goods. One might look with real anger at cases like democratic India and Tanzania before they embraced market freedoms and draw the conclusion that liberalization is good for human flourishing.
But these are not the only valid or relevant insights. Even if states and planners can never see or know everything important, neither can markets. Even if freedom is implicit in exchanges, it does not merely lie there, for people are not only producers, traders, and consumers. Besides, even if freedom is infinitely precious, so is happiness, and that is more likely to come from belonging to a community than from having myriad choices. Even if markets are maximally productive, they also destroy people and nature.
So without sacrificing fundamental libertarian insights, one can develop a theory that encompasses a personal ethic of philanthropy, a positive stance toward communities and their norms, and policy proposals that direct their benefits at poor communities (such as government-funded vouchers for education, microfinance loans, or giving slum-dwellers land titles). And if these policy proposals don’t work out, one can adjust. In that case, a sophisticated, nuanced libertarianism emerges. Although it is not my view, I would never disparage its proponents’ personalities.
In contrast, there is a view that sees all obligations to assist or care for other people (other than honoring contracts) as burdens and threats to liberty. It opposes not only central planning but also ethical and emotional entanglements. To me, that is an immature theory, much as socialism is immature when it ignores the need for incentives and limits on power. I do not think that embracing the simplest version of libertarianism is typical of young people, but I do suspect that a certain type of young man who is hyper-confident about his own capacities and alienated by human entanglements is drawn to the simplest version. And I am willing to say that that is immature.