Ross Douthat blogs that the Republican Party has room for a domestic policy leader:
Indeed, the example of Gingrich — the way that he’s sought after as a wise man by Republicans, and the way that both the right-wing media and the mainstream press tend to give him more credit as a thinker than he deserves — suggests that precisely because the G.O.P. currently has a reputation for being anti-intellectual, there’s a huge upside for a Republican politician in being identified as that rarest of species — a “conservative with domestic policy ideas.”
I suppose that is accurate to a limited extent. I certainly agree that Newt Gingrich is hardly a beacon of policy knowledge and prescriptions. If anything, as Douthat notes, the former House Speaker’s popularity as a “wise man” is evidence of a dearth of high profile policy analysts.
Still, while it may help to cultivate an image of wonkishness in some quarters, the reality is that Republican politicians really don’t have that much to gain from proposing detailed policies and agendas. This has less to do with the GOP base being opposed to any serious intellectual thought and more to do with the simple nature of our politics.
Were Romney, Pawlenty or Palin to come out with a detailed white paper tomorrow explaining in intricate fashion how they would lower healthcare costs and expand insurance coverage two things would happen: 1) they’d get a short-term news bump as “people with answers” and 2) they’d get ripped apart by their potential primary opponents as well as the media/Democrats. Every error, every misinterpretation that the human mind could conceive of would be had. They wouldn’t lose support simply for having a plan – they’d lose support after other Republicans and Democrats got through with them. The same holds true for Congressional Republicans. Sure, they can put out vague agendas combating the Obama administrations legislative designs, but it is so much easier being against something.
So what then is the upside of policy detail when the risks are so great? Why not occupy the grey zone of talking points that gives you political support without any of the responsibility? As Douthat points out, a GOP candidate will likely carry the day because of his or her demeanor and “character” – not because that candidate wants to cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits at $250,000.
P.S. What’s even the point of putting out detailed proposals? Not only do Presidential candidates not adhere to them once in office (i.e. Obama campaigned against a health insurance mandate and now seems to embrace it), it’s Congress that writes the bill. I’d be fine with Presidential candidates releasing broad “statements of principle” (i.e. I will cut departments, withdraw troops from country X…) at least that’s an honest reflection of our governing process.
Fantastic post – especially the last paragraph.
I was thinking last night about the huge gap between policy-heavily candidates on the left who can’t deliver (Obama) and candidates on the right who rattle off bulletpoints that mean absolutely nothing (Palin).
If you buy the idea that our founding fathers were sufficient in their planning for this country, and only a select few consequent presidents were presented with situations that required responses of grand vision, then the presidency ought not to be a platform for sweeping revisions foreign to our founding principles. As such, I’m intrigued by the possibility of a functional gatekeeper – somebody like Michael Bloomberg who doesn’t so much alter course as he does keep the ship afloat.