The back and forth over Mitch Daniels’ proposed “truce” on social issues seems very strange to me. Everyone treats the “truce” proposal as something very significant for one reason or another. The “truce” is not an example of “only Nixon can go to China” cunning, and there is no great political advantage to be gained in provoking core constituencies for no discernible purpose. It isn’t a brilliant, McKinleyesque plan to abandon culture war politics. If this were the idea, it isn’t a very good one as far as winning elections is concerned: culture war politics isn’t a net loser for the GOP, and it may be the only thing that keeps it competitive. Neither is the “truce” proposal really the unmitigated disaster that so many people claim. As far as I can tell, it was an unfortunate rhetorical feint that doesn’t mean very much, except to emphasize the importance of fiscal responsibility.

Daniels is a solid social conservative (as one would expect of most reasonably successful Republican politicians in Indiana), but social conservative activists seem intent on ignoring this important detail. That is their mistake. They can be saddled with another flattering panderer who will ignore them once he is in office, they can rally around a social conservative who also offers a credible governing agenda, or they can indulge in emotionally satisfying identity politics that will take them nowhere. I understand that social conservatives want to make sure that their issues are not ignored, but it is their own reliable support for a party that hardly ever delivers for them that has made them as easy to ignore as they have been. Throughout the entire Bush debacle, social conservatives largely remained supportive of the administration and the GOP when millions of people were running away from them. That showed that there was nothing that Republicans could ever do (or fail to do) that would alienate them. Because their support is so easily won and retained, social conservatives have been contributors to their own marginalization. It also showed that the political priority for Republicans was to win back those that fled rather than reassure those that stayed.

Social conservatives aren’t the only ones reacting foolishly to Daniels. On foreign policy and national security, Daniels has received criticism from hawks for no apparent reason. There is no evidence that Daniels is opposed to what national security hawks want, but some of them insist on treating him as if he were an outspoken critic of the warfare state. It would be welcome news if Daniels turned out to be such a critic, but there is no reason to assume that he is. Instead, hawks are reduced to making arguments from silence and hinting darkly that Daniels might be just like Obama:

Daniels’s other problem, as I have written before, is that he shows no interest in or willingness to become proficient in foreign policy. We have a president who is a “reluctant” commander in chief, at best, and who has trailed international events rather than lead. He has disregarded human rights and democracy promotion, which has been a moral and geopolitical failing. And he’s begun to slash defense [bold mine-DL]. Do we think Daniels would be any different? From what I know at this point, the answer is no. He’s not a fan of democracy promotion, and his natural inclination when presented with a national security issue is to rely on worn out clichés (“peace through strength”) and suggest we should be rolling back our commitments in the world. (In the Middle East? In Asia?) That’s not a formula that is going to appeal to many in the Republican electorate beyond the Ron Paulites.

Rubin is hardly the most reliable observer if she thinks that the Obama administration is “slashing defense” when his budget request includes a meager $13 billion reduction from this year’s budget. This tiny reduction is part of Gates’ phony “cuts” that aren’t cuts at all. All Republican governors resort to worn out cliches when presented with national security issues. It’s just that Daniels, unlike Romney, has chosen not to make demagoguing foreign policy into the main focus of his public statements.

Daniels may be no more proficient in foreign policy than Romney, but he doesn’t make a point of flaunting ignorance. Based on what I have seen from Daniels, he isn’t going to offer up specific positions until he is well-versed on the subject. Until he is actually a presidential candidate, it is a bit absurd to expect the governor of Indiana to have substantive foreign policy positions. He probably could make some of the same ill-informed attacks on supposed administration failures, but then he would be playing the part of an unscrupulous demagogue. One of the appealing things about Daniels so far is that he seems to be something else.

Rubin has no way of knowing whether Daniels is or isn’t a fan of democracy promotion. Opposition to democracy promotion is something she attributes to him because she believes it would discredit him by making him seem more like Obama. I would hope that he isn’t a democratist, but as far as I can tell he hasn’t stated a view on the record either way. She seems to be annoyed that he didn’t take the bait to engage in rote Obama-bashing she offered him last June.