Mr T is excellent today: Today government is sclerotic. Those who believe more government is the solution to America's problems are at best unthinking reactionaries. The Tea Partiers, having clearly identified this problem, are today's true progressives (to employ the term in its literal rather than ideological sense).
They are not, however, "good at government"--or, more precisely, at politics. Their purism cost the GOP as many as three Senate seats last year, and if a competent Democrat were in the White House, it probably would be helping him to re-election right now. The experience of 1995-96 is instructive here. Gingrich had the Tea Party's worst qualities: grandiosity and impatience. He was no match for a president who knew how to play the game.
Today's Republican House has two great strengths that Gingrich's lacked. One is the Tea Party's clarity of purpose. But the other is experienced leadership. Gingrich was highly effective in the minority--an Alinskyite community organizer, if you will, taking on entrenched power by exposing its weakness and corruption. Neither he nor any member of his caucus had ever served in the majority. Between them, Boehner and Cantor alone have 18 years in the majority.
Contrast that to Barack Obama. In addition to a left-liberal ideology that is decades out of date and a Gingrich-size ego, he came to the presidency with virtually no relevant experience. True, he has the "mainstream" media on his side, but that almost certainly hurts him more than it helps. Their flattering but false narratives--he was the "adult in the room," polls clearly showed the American people were on his side--likely encouraged him to mistake his weaknesses for strengths.
Of course, Mr Rot is nowhere to be seen. Maybe that explains that?
4 comments:
Kristol has a sinking feeling he's been had. Buyer's remorse?
Mr T is excellent today:
Today government is sclerotic. Those who believe more government is the solution to America's problems are at best unthinking reactionaries. The Tea Partiers, having clearly identified this problem, are today's true progressives (to employ the term in its literal rather than ideological sense).
They are not, however, "good at government"--or, more precisely, at politics. Their purism cost the GOP as many as three Senate seats last year, and if a competent Democrat were in the White House, it probably would be helping him to re-election right now. The experience of 1995-96 is instructive here. Gingrich had the Tea Party's worst qualities: grandiosity and impatience. He was no match for a president who knew how to play the game.
Today's Republican House has two great strengths that Gingrich's lacked. One is the Tea Party's clarity of purpose. But the other is experienced leadership. Gingrich was highly effective in the minority--an Alinskyite community organizer, if you will, taking on entrenched power by exposing its weakness and corruption. Neither he nor any member of his caucus had ever served in the majority. Between them, Boehner and Cantor alone have 18 years in the majority.
Contrast that to Barack Obama. In addition to a left-liberal ideology that is decades out of date and a Gingrich-size ego, he came to the presidency with virtually no relevant experience. True, he has the "mainstream" media on his side, but that almost certainly hurts him more than it helps. Their flattering but false narratives--he was the "adult in the room," polls clearly showed the American people were on his side--likely encouraged him to mistake his weaknesses for strengths.
Of course, Mr Rot is nowhere to be seen. Maybe that explains that?
Get out your hankie for Newt, Tecs!
Kind of sad.
Post a Comment