Because Obama’s message depends so heavily on voters’ unhappy memories of the Bush era, Romney can do himself an enormous amount of good just by exploding the premise that he’ll govern as “Dubya, Part II.”
Serious question: Is there any reason to think that a Romney presidency will be different from George W. Bush’s presidency? If so, why? In what ways?
OK, so those were three questions. But I’m serious about them.
B. Minich says: There’s only one serious difference I can think of: Romney will be MORE bank and business friendly. That’s his world in a way it was never Bush’s world.
Well, he’ll also have to fend off the criticisms about his governing philosophy in Massachusetts, something Bush never had to do. But I don’t see that actually translating into policy differences with Bush, Part the Third.
Don Quijote says: Let me help you:
Is there any reason to think that any Republican presidency will be different from George W. Bush’s presidency?
Answer: NO
Charles Cosimano says: It would seem Obama is taking a serious gamble thinking that enough voters really did dislike Bush enough to vote against Romney. Voters don’t have memories that long.
The truth is we have no idea what Romney is likely to do if elected, other than have green jello at state dinners.
CounterRev says: No! Not applicable! None; identical!
Funny thing here is that Douthat brings up the correct idea that if conservatives could produce a candidate that rejects the worst policies of the Bush years, that candidate likely gets elected. . . but can’t see the obvious that Romney is NOT that guy.
Tyro says: Mitt Romney’s best bet is to run a “Back to Normalcy” campaign in 2016 where he promises to guide the ship of state with a steady hand based on his experience as a moderate consensus-builder in MA.
But it is completely impossible for that to happen, so he’s stuck with what he has.
Obama is taking a gamble with trying to depend on long voter memories to blame Bush and the Republicans for our economic problems, but Romney, too, is taking a gamble on the mere act of trying to unseat an incumbent president when his last campaign for president in 2008 was effectively, “I was a loyal, conservative Bush Republican in the 00s. Support me now to stay the course.”
My guess is that a Romney presidency would be similarly neoconservative in foreign policy to the Bush administration, but significantly less evangelical-supported when it came to domestic policy. It won’t have the same stacking of the executive branch with Regent law school grads and leveraging of faith-based initiatives to give grants to favored groups.
Tax policies will be the same as Bush’s. I suspect that a lot of extra money will be spent in state aid for Romney to keep the economies of states with Republican governors afloat in time for their 2014 re-elections.
Coldstream says: Although, honestly, how different is the Obama presidency from George W Bush? Still spending way more money than we take in (but even more so), still fighting wars (now with expanded drone killings!), still have Gitmo open, still bailing out banks and big business (and failed solar companies) etc…etc…
I suppose with a Romney presidency, we won’t hear about “Compassionate Conservatism”, for whatever that’s worth. Maybe some difference there at least.
Doug W says: Is there any reason to believe that Obama has not been the third Dubya term. Maybe slightly more competent but not all that different, still the Bush tax cuts (which to be fair should now be the Obama cuts since he extended them), unfunded healthcare expansion, another war in the Middle East, increased deficits, Gitmo still open, increased drone strikes, etc.
William Dalton says: Well, Don Quijote and CounterRev, the answer to your question, in both instances, is that Ron Paul is “that guy”. And if more Republicans begin to see Mitt Romney in the way that TAC sees him, there is still time for the Republicans going to Tampa to nominate Ron Paul, saving both the country and the Republican Party from impending disaster. I know I’ll be there to do just that.
Dual Degree says: A better question would be “how would a Romney presidency differ from the Bush and Obama presidencies?”
The only difference will be that – thanks to Bush and Obama’s wars, bailouts and general incompetence – Romney won’t have as much money to squander. Trouble of the kind that can’t be papered over by Ben Bernanke is headed our way.
Oengus says: Why bother asking? The Obamatron is undefeatable.
Seriously, Rod, how can anyone guess the future, or, back in the year 2008, how could they have guessed how Obama would have governed? How would they have guessed that he would keep Tim Geitner of all people, for example?
Still can’t figure why Romney really wants to be President. It’s not to help the less fortunate, obviously, nor because he has some deeply held core beliefs he wishes to enact. Fear that it’s really about becoming the first Mormon in the Oval Office. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but if the man can’t admit to his own dream, how inspiring or trustworthy can he be?
Rod Dreher says: Still can’t figure why Romney really wants to be President.
Me neither. I think he wants to be president because that seems to him like the sort of thing he thinks he’d be good at. I don’t get the idea that it goes any deeper than that.
Lord Karth says: Mr. Dreher writes: “Serious question: Is there any reason to think that a Romney presidency will be different from George W. Bush’s presidency? If so, why? In what ways?
A Mitt Romney Presidency will be a little more button-down than BTY’s was; more technocratic, and by necessity more conciliatory to the Senate Democrats than Obama was to Senate Republicans.
Not that stylistic differences are going to make that much (if any) difference, policy-wise.
Foreign policy: Romney will talk tough towards Iran, but he will not be in a position to actually do anything about Iran. The American people have no stomach whatsoever for another Middle Eastern war, regardless of what the neocons might think. His foreign economic policy will be primarily focussed on dealing with a steadily-deteriorating international banking system, and a probable new global recession.
Domestically: A President Romney will be just about hamstrung in his ability to do anything about the economy. Jobs will be the top priority for his Administration, and he will not be able to do much of anything to spur job creation, as the deleveraging process (which is necessary to permit new capital and human-resource reallocation) will still have another 5 or so years to run. He will talk a good game about repealing Obamacare, but he will not have the votes in the Senate to do it. The one thing he might do differently from Obama—persuade the Fed chairman to raise interest rates—stands no chance whatsoever of coming to pass, as that would raise the borrowing costs to the Treasury and drive the deficit higher than it already is.
So we’ll get more of the same; massive deficits, unemployment in the 8-9 % range, steadily eroding levels of workforce participation and economic malaise that will just not seem to go away. Instead of a new Great Depression, we’re going to get a slow-moving Nagging Depression.
If Romney is elected, he’s a one-termer. Assuming he’s not impeached over a (very possibly losing) war with Iran. Demographics and an intellectually bankrupt Fed will see to that.
And the Countdown to the Meltdown continues…..
Your servant,
Lord Karth
donnypaycheck says: And how does that attitude differ from Obama’s in 2008? Pray tell…
Lord Karth says: Bottom line: the necessary economic cure—letting the New Depression run its course and allowing deleveraging and resource reallocation to proceed—will almost certainly not happen. The voters will not stand for that much pain, even for a few months.
Neither candidate will have a successful term, regardless of whom is actually elected. The American people have, by virtue of their total unwillingness to put up with actual and serious cuts to central- and provincial-government spending, have already seen to that.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
L617 says: As a follow up to Kit Stolz’s and Rod’s early morning posts (sheesh, get some sleep!), I still have no understanding of what motivates Romney to run other than his need to add the highest job to his resume. Sadly, when I voted for his in the gubernatorial race here in MA, I knew he was only using the office as a stepping stone for national office.
He never articulated a vision while governor. Nor has he exhibited any passion for the presidency in the current race. I can only conclude, then, that his running is borne out of vanity.
Don Quijote says: William Dalton,
A) Ron Paul is not going to get nominated.(to sane for the party)
B) If Ron Paul got nominated, he would then have to go staff his administration, at which point he would do what every presidency does: retread the people from the previous republican administration. Other than on Foreign policy, I wouldn’t expect a Ron Paul Administration to be all that different than any other Republican Administration, and even that is not a given especially after Sheldon Adelson drops a couple hundred million into the Paul campaign coffers.
While you may think that you will be electing a President in November, you are not; you are electing an administration, the President is just the face of it.
Mont D. Law says: [Is there any reason to believe that Obama has not been the third Dubya term.]
People who tell tell themselves this are like the Nadarites that convinced themselves there wasn’t a lick of difference between Bush and Gore in 2000. Due for some rue.
Except, according to Nate Silver at 538, Romney is going to lose. So the real question is how many more years you can survive a government too paralyzed to do anything.
Fred says: Let’s see. Romney’s plan is…what? Oh yeah – lower taxes on the wealthy (“job creators”), deregulate industry, and put John Bolton in charge of foreign policy.
Sounds like a totally different ballgame.
Seriously, though, isn’t Romney’s campaign the most content-free, secretive one you’ve ever seen? The guy almost never talks to the press (except FOX) and his speeches are utterly devoid of any detail, as is his website. He’s a cipher, running entirely on the anger, fear, and resentment the Republican base has for the president.
Sheldon says: I think a Romney presidency would actually be worse than Bush’s: Even higher tax cuts for the rich, with a larger deficit; even more aggessive abroad, especially vis-a-vis Iran and China; Tea Party hostility to Democrats and to social programs in general; and absolutely none of whatever appealing personality Bush had. The country’s divisions would become irrevocable.
Uncle Vanya says: Still can’t figure why Romney really wants to be President.
Why did Bush the lesser want to be president? He couldn’t explain that when he first ran in 2000. I should have paid attention to that nagging sense of unease I always got watching him smirk back during that first campaign. Simple intuition is sometimes correct.
Johan says: Romney could have been a good, moderate president, taking a rational businessman’s approach to the economic problems (reducing spending, raising revenue). But as it is, he is so beholden to the extremist GOP, to whom raising taxes is heretical, that he would not accomplish anything positive, just like GWB didn’t. So yes, GWB III.
Tyro says: Why did Bush the lesser want to be president? He couldn’t explain that when he first ran in 2000.
The same reason as Romney– to resolve their daddy issues.
jparker says: I pretty much agree w/Karth. The 2010s are fated to be the long, nasty hangover for the 1990s and 2000s–there’s nothing really that can be done until the poison gets out of the system.
There could be a slight boom if Romney is elected—if the corporatists shelling out millions to support Romney want their man to not entirely flame out, they need to start hiring and making capital investments again. with less fear of new regulations that could happen, but if Europe craters there’s only so much recovery they can push.
One thing GWB had was that he didn’t have to prove himself to the base: he was “one of them” deep down, he didn’t feel the need to constantly cater to them. Romney will spend his entire term fearful of becoming Bush the First (part II) and being primaried for not being conservative enough. So expect wild, ridiculous panders–supporting a flag-burning amendment, that sort of thing.
Oengus says: Lord Karth: “the Countdown to the Meltdown continues”
Well, being a miserabilist, if I had to pick prognostications, I’ll go with Lord Karth’s. His guess is about as good as any.
JonF says: Re: Voters don’t have memories that long.
Don’t be too sure. The Republicans were still running against Jimmy Carter in 1988, and the Democrats got away with running against Herbert Hoover all the way into the 60s. George W Bush is at least a Jimmy Carter in his level of awfulness in voters’ memories. His administration will be a gift that keeps giving for a while.
Re: Ron Paul is not going to get nominated.(to sane for the party)
You may well be right, though not as you mean it. It’s actually rather scary that Ron Paul, tinfoil hat and all, racist memos and all, is now the voice of sanity in the GOP.
L617 says: “The Republicans were still running against Jimmy Carter in 1988…”
The GOP has never stopped running against Jimmy Carter. The poor man remains the favorite GOP punching bag to this day. Say his name in front of any Republican and watch his head explode.
mk says: No, I think the parallels are eerily similar. Were Romney to get elected, he’ll supersize the government to make his military and law enforcement friends happy, blow the budget in the way that only “small government” republicans seem able (and willing) to do, and then the whole right wing will continue to live under the delusion that they are the small government, fiscally responsible party, if only they could get the right guy in office.
Ed says: Rod, seriously what are you look for in a candidate.
cecelia says: Romney cannot claim he won’t govern as Dubaya II – his advisors are the same people who gave us the invasion of Iraq. Neo cons the lot of them -
Noah172 says: Romney is (as if this were possible) even more of a groveling lackey for Zionism than Bush. Netanyahu is a personal friend of Romney’s; Romney is even more beholden to Jewish fat cats (e.g. Adelson); Romney still needs to cement loyalty from Pharisee “Christian” Zionists (who usually dislike Mormons, and distrust Romney as a blue-blood closet liberal); Romney’s foreign policy advisors are neocon to a man, and he has no foreign policy experience of his own against which to measure his advisors’ counsel.
People who claim that Romney would not start a war with Iran because the country is against it are underestimating: the power of propaganda (who in the MSM says that Iran is NOT a dire threat to the US, or that Israel is NOT a vital US interest?); the impotence of the broad American public (as opposed to well-funded, well-organized factions) in influencing US foreign policy (remember, even the 60s antiwar movement, massive as it was, failed to extricate the country from Vietnam, and we are unlikely to see that kind of outpouring absent a reinstatement of conscription); and the persistence of the mistaken belief that war is good for the economy.
J the second says: Still can’t figure why Romney really wants to be President.
Because it’s The Extremely Wealthys’ Turn. Because it’s The Mormons’ Turn. Because it isn’t fair that only establishment Texas Republicans (and before them, Californian ones) get to joyride the country and crash it into a ditch.
It’s scary to admit this, but Karth has a pretty realistic picture of what is going to happen. On the whole it does look like Republicans will push the remaining elements of their domestic agenda for the present generation, elements which became overt and without shame during the Bush Presidency. And in so doing the Party will burn out its credibility.
There isn’t a coherent Republican foreign affairs agenda. The Iraq invasion began the destruction of the status quo and established order in the Middle East. It’s all about managing its collapse now and helping a new, more democratic, order arise in the region.
One reason I don’t worry that much about a Romney Presidency is that it will probably be over fast. All the damage Obama is doing to Romney now doesn’t matter for this November. But when the few things Romney will have mandate to do are implemented, mostly within the first couple of months, the collapse should be spectacular and exceed Bush Jr.’s in August/September 2005. They’ll be putting a picture of Romney in the Encyclopedia Britannica in the “Pyrrhic victory” entry.
Public_Defender says: To be W Part II, Romney would have to have some convictions. You can criticize W for a lot of things, but the total lack of conviction is not one of them.
Domestically, Romney has basically no policy (except on Obamama car, which he enacted before he opposed). Bush had “compassionate conservatism” which often came close to Bill Clinton’s policies.
Romney explained a few foreign policy positions, but they are jingos, not policy. Does ANYONE believe that Romney believes what he is saying? He’d do a 180 on Israel in a heartbeat if he thought it would get him another couple points in the polls. I disagreed with a lot of what W did, but at least he appeared to put SOME thought into his international positions. (I never bought the liberal meme that W was stupid. That “misunderestimate” line was brilliant political rhetoric.)
Mark Brown says: Agree with an earlier commenter, how has Obama been significantly different than Bush 3? When he was elected I said at least we will get out of the wars and maybe some civil rights will be restored. Instead we are still in Afghanistan and talking about drones over the US, not to mention the escalation of drone warfare. Domestically the tax cuts have remained. (Positive, but unexpected). The only thing you can really point at different is Obamacare and then you remind yourself of Medicare part D and No Child left behind. Obama = Bush 3.
How would Romney be different? The biggest way would just seem to be Romney’s temperament. He has trouble lying (bad trait in the politician) and so he either doesn’t say anything or talks facts and figures. He seems to have little patience for crap arguments (outside of the ones that his team tells him he has to spout to get elected and which come off exactly like that – “mom said I had to say this”.) So, I think actually elected Romney actually tries to advance helpful policies. Part of that is even with his fortune and past, Romney I’m pretty sure thinks of himself as the outsider. Private equity is high risk/high reward vs. the corporate world. His mormonism is bedrock in his understanding and another “little guy” stone. Both of those in his personal understanding lead to less crony-capitalism and government-private “synergy” and more real capitalism and a fair normalized regulatory state. (Obama never put any wall streeters in prison, I have no problem seeing Romney doing that if given the opportunity. He just doesn’t share that my kind of people vibe if you can get beyond the money and look at the basic personality.)
Of course I could just be smoking too much.
Mont D. Law says: [But when the few things Romney will have mandate to do are implemented, mostly within the first couple of months, the collapse should be spectacular and exceed Bush Jr.’s in August/September 2005.]
I believe this to be true as well, so much so I wish he would win.
Derek Benjamin says: So are we really going to act like Obama doesn’t have daddy issues? Why did Obama want to be president, other than because it was the black man’s turn. The man’s unofficial slogan was we are the change we are waiting for. But Coolidge is the tautological idiot right. And yea I know tu quoque so spare me.
Public_Defender says: Both are also religious men, but there’s one thing that puzzles me about Romney–how can someone with such a deep, sincere faith end up believing in pretty much nothing?
Rod Dreher says: Rod, seriously what are you look for in a candidate.
I would like the Republican nominee to be someone who indicates that he has learned something about the failures of the standard GOP positions since the failure of the Bush administration. Specifically, I would like Romney to offer foreign policy ideas as if the Iraq and Afghanistan failures had been real, and as if he understood that America has limits. I would like a GOP nominee who seemed to understand that standard Republican rhetoric on the economy sounds hollow after events of the last four to five years.
Lord Karth says: The heck of it is, if Romney ran against Bush, instead of against Obama, Obama would be dog food. Instead, Barry the Slickster may well squeak this one out.
And I still maintain foreign policy isn’t going to matter a whit this fall. If the unemployment rate is above 8 % by Labor Day, Obama’s got trouble. If gas prices are rising in October, strike two ! And if Europe goes into the tank, it’s time for the Crazy Morning Crew at the People’s House to pack their stuff, write their memoirs, and start looking for book contracts.
And the Countdown….to the Meltdown…rolls on. Party on, troops !
Your servant,
Lord Karth
JonF says: It took the Democrats a while to realize that the failure of the Carter administration was not just a case of personal incompetence and bad luck. And they really didn’t learn that lesson until the election of 1992. That’s twelve years. Maybe look for recovery and rethinking in the GOP by 2020? Of course it would help immensely if they would suffer a huge electoral drubbing along the way.
Liam says: I would like someone to understand that trickle-down has manifestly failed since 2001 – and has failed as clearly as communism failed – and that the savings glut in the top 1-2% is no longer primarily geared towards investment in productive companies but more towards chasing successive asset bubbles and arbitraging/day-trading for improved marginal returns. The Economist – no socialist mag that – has been pointing this out for many years.
Oh, and that the neocon vision of foreign policy has likewise been a manifest failure.
James says: One major difference that immediately comes to mind: the favorability gap.
Bush’s personal favorability polling was often much higher than job approval ratings (same with Obama, even many who think he’s done terribly like him as a person). Bush was a guy that people could see themselves hanging out with and actually liking the guy. On the right, the personal connection and affability led to support beyond what was reasonable as things worsened. Many felt like they knew him, liked him, had been through 9/11 “with” him, and defended him to the end.
Romney doesn’t have that at all, and the right, therefore, is as likely to abandon him as the left.
I’d say it’s most likely that a Romney presidency would more closely resemble George W. Bush’s second term than his first. As I recall, Bush went in to his first term with a fair amount of good will from moderates who may have voted for Gore, which only solidified after 9/11. Considering the heated rhetoric for the past 10 years, though, I expect Romney would immediately face bitter resistance to the enacting of any policies with the Democrats able to shut him down in the Senate.