Mitch Daniels, Genial Jeremiah

[Valin]

Townhall:

Michael Gerson
6/18/10

WASHINGTON -- "I would reinstate the Mexico City policy," Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels told me, removing an uncertainty of his own creation. Promoting abortion with international family planning funds is one of "a thousand things we shouldn't be spending money on."

Yet days earlier, when asked if he would return to that family planning rule as president, Daniels had responded: "I don't know." It is a measure of Daniels' standing as a possible Republican candidate in 2012 that his answer caused a considerable stir. Social conservatives criticized his idea that a "truce" on divisive, culture war controversies might be required to deal with "survival issues" such as terrorism and debt.

Daniels' clarification on Mexico City shows his realism. But his continued insistence on the idea of a truce shows his stubbornness -- a defining characteristic. "If there were a WMD attack, death would come to straights and gays, pro-life and pro-choice," he told me. "If the country goes broke, it would ruin the American dream for everyone. We are in this together. Whatever our honest disagreements on other questions, might we set them aside long enough to do some very difficult things without which we will be a different, lesser country?"

This is the paradox of Mitch Daniels: He is a uniter with an apocalyptic message, a genial Jeremiah. "I start with a premise that not everyone agrees with -- that the republic is threatened as it has not been before, if you don't count the Soviet nuclear threat. ... It is the arithmetic of debt. If unaddressed, it makes national failure a certainty. Beyond some point, you can't come back."

Daniels' appeal is not ideological; it is mathematical. The passions aroused by ideology, in his view, hamper the ability of political adults to deal rationally with disturbing budget numbers. But if Daniels de-emphasizes ideology, he elevates moral virtues such as thrift, realism and humility. The vivid contrast to President Obama's expansive, undisciplined, expensive public ambitions has elevated Daniels to prominence.

This is not a pose. I was a colleague of Daniels when he was director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). It was his job to say "no" to splendid policy proposals, which he did with good-humored enthusiasm. Raining on parades was both a profession and a hobby......(Snip)

[Valin]

Power Line: Truce or Consequences

Paul Mirengoff

6/18/10

 

Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana and former director of OMB, has been making the rounds in Washington. Work and other commitments prevented me from meeting him. That's unfortunate for me. Given the flaws of many who are mentioned as possible Republican candidates for president in 2012, Daniels seems well worth a look.

 

Daniels is pitching the notion that we may need a truce in divisive culture war controversies in order to deal with "survival issues" such as terrorism and debt. But Michael Gerson argues that Daniels is being naïve here. He asks: "Just how would avoiding fights on unrelated social issues make Democratic legislators more likely to vote for broad budget cuts and drastic entitlement reforms?"

Clearly, avoiding such fights would not produce that result. But it might well enable Republicans to become and remain more popular with moderate voters. And this, in turn, might give Republicans the majorities necessary to implement budget cuts and entitlement reforms.

 

It has also been pointed out that fights on culture war issues are not necessarily avoidable. Such battles inevitably arise, for example, when there is a Supreme Court vacancy. A Republican president must nominate someone who is pro-life or pro-abortion, or someone whose position is unknown. Republican Senators must vote up or down (and/or to filibuster or not filibuster) such nominees.

But Daniels' point, I gather, is that Republicans ought not look for these fights. And given the practice during the judicial confirmation process of nominees not answering questions about where they stand on particular issues, it should be possible, even in this context, to avoid real bloodshed over social issues if a president is careful.......(Snip)