The Occasional Observer

Here's a copy of a comment I made over at Race 4 2012. It captures my current thinking on 2012, as well as the current race over the RNC chair. And let's be honest, it's extremely important that everyone be up on MY thinking. ;)

This debate over Palin takes me back a few years to when ConfirmThem was in its heyday. We’d argue about who would make the best justice if W got another appointment, and most folks (myself included) typically wanted the judges who seemed to check off the most “right” boxes ideologically. In the case of the supreme court, that typically meant the most outspoken opponents of Roe and the most strident supporters of originalism. Thus, possibles like Edith Jones, William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Michael Luttig got the most approving comments.

Meanwhile, there was a smaller group of contributors that wanted ideological consistency, but also insisted on proven excellence. For them, while Luttig, Pryor, Brown and Jones were all solid jurists with good idelogical instincts, they did not feel they “measured up” to men like Roberts, Alito, McConnell and Frank Easterbrook. All of these men were much less definitive in their written case record w/r/t Roe (except McConnell), but were known to have a conservative outlook, and more importantly, a track record of excellence. They were known by their fellow judges to be the most accomplished legal thinkers, and all had come from the most prestigious schools (both as students and professors).

I came to realize that while folks like Kristofer Lorelli diminish “elite institutions” and pine for “middle class” voices, there is a strong argument in favor of those who have cut their teeth fighting against the most capable (and often most liberal) opponents. In the case of the Supreme Court, the need for such excellence is easily seen. It’s because the case record lives on. The arguments and conclusions that justices render do not only need to have the support of a majority of their fellow justices today. They must withstand the review of judges for decades, if not centuries to come. And many of those justices will be incredibly capable, incisive and liberal people. They will use all of their persuasive powers to undo any legacy of judicial restraint.

The same situation applies to Presidential politics. Reagan is the best example. Don’t be fooled by the fact he could connect to the common man. While he shared their heart, President Reagan was an exceptional intellect. And that was a known fact, not merely a guess, when he ran for office. Reagan had spent decades arguing the liberal estalishment/intelligentia about the power of personal responsibility, economic incentives, and free markets. He was fearless, cogent, and had a set of policy initiatives that rolled seamlessly out of his ideology.

By the time he became President, he was ready to win the argument with his political opponents, even as they still controlled Congress. He was ready to lay the groundwork for what would become 25 years of economic progress. Even as we now cower in fear at the “end of the financial world,” unemployment is at 6.5%. We’re not even at early ’90’s levels, no less 1970’s or 1930’s levels. Our economy has enjoyed some of the strongest and longest-lasting growth in our nation’s history, thanks to Reagan’s exceptional intellect and powers of persuasion. He could take counter-intuitive ideas (e.g., lower tax rates = higher tax revenues) and sear them into the consciousness of his countrymen. Even now, as Scott Rasmussen recently pointed out, Obama did not dare not run as an unabashed tax hiker. He had to win the tax issue to get elected, and that’s due to the intellectual power of Presdient Reagan, who completely changed the landscape.

We can’t afford to settle for a candidate who professes conservative beliefs, but seems unable to articulate an integrated conservative worldview. That was one of the problems that felled McCain, and it handicapped the presidency of Bush 43. We need a candidate who has an established track record of a conservative ideology that is integrated, heartfelt, and coupled with an intellect that can apply it to today’s problems. The best way to find such vibrant minds is to look for those who have achieved excellence, real results, at every stop along way in their careers. We need to find leaders who are excellent, and don’t merely check off our pre-conceived notions of which boxes need checking.

I don’t want to start naming ‘12 possibles, but you could probably guess, based on the above criteria, which candidates most intrigue me.

As far as RNC chair goes, it had better be Newt. Steele’s a nice guy with decent instincts and a compelling backstory. But a true, creme de la creme intellect and persuader? He simply doesn’t stand up to Newt. In a position where ideas and organization are paramount, and you don’t need to win votes for your own personality, Newt’s a perfect fit.