First, let me say that I very much liked the format — and my wife, whom I made watch it with me (SEXUAL HARASSMENT!) said after that she learned a whole lot more than she thought she would. The format was far more useful for vetting a potential President than is the soundbite format the mainstream media prefers — the end result of the latter being that an activist press gets to shape both the debate and the field by way of their “moderation” and their control over the length and breadth of answers, and as a result, it has become more important for a candidate to learn 30-second canned answers and fend off gotcha questions than it is that he or she can offer and then defend ideas that require more time to explain.
The Rick Perry supporters this morning are beside themselves because Cain deferred to Gingrich on one question. I wasn’t bothered by that at all, frankly, because I’m not of the school that believes that when we’re electing a President, what we’re supposed to be looking for is someone who can appear to know everything about everything; instead, I’m looking for people who know what to do with information that is presented them, and can put in place the kinds of strategies that address and hopefully fix very real problems.
From what I saw last night, both men on that stage can do that. Gingrich clearly does have a firm grasp of many of the political particulars, having spent time both in government and in the private sector — a grasp further explained by his academic training. Cain, alternately, clearly has a grasp on executive methodology: identify the problem, look at it in context, gather information that will allow you to understand the problem and how to fix it, put that strategy in place.
What most impressed me — and perhaps this is merely because it is something I’ve been writing on for years — was that the entire debate exposed a truly conservative / classical liberal governing strategy for the long term: solutions offered were not only practical, from the standpoint of economics and fiscal sanity, but as importantly they outlined in broad strokes a plan to change the political and civil culture, creating in the aggregate a paradigm shift away from statism and back toward individual ownership and autonomy, self-reliance, and limited government as an inevitable result of the rebirth of personal responsibility and economic accountability.
That is is to say, what Gingrich and Cain both posited repeatedly last evening were solutions that empowered the individual to make choices, to see clearly the flow of money for services and goods, and to feel the effects of big government by allowing them to recognize how the government’s centralized administration of programs through the bureaucracies is a poorly-run, wasteful, and largely unaccountable middle stage that, in addition to being ineffectual, is also completely unnecessary.
Cain should be lauded for bringing tax code reform front and center in this election cycle. Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann — all have addressed this issue as well (which means Romney has to pretend to move right there, too) and in so doing, they are able to blunt one of Obama’s biggest points of attack, namely, the suggestion that there are too many “loopholes in the tax code” and that everybody needs to pay “their fair share.” Both a flat and fair tax answer that charge. And better still, they have the effect, when juxtaposed with Obama’s class warfare rhetoric, of forcing Obama to define his terms: what is “fair share,” who has to pay it vs. who doesn’t, and why?
So while others take away from last night’s debate yet another supposed gotcha moment — which of course plays into old paradigms and explains why election cycle after election cycle we in the GOP nominate polished career politicians whose most impressive attributes are that they can remain largely gaffe free and can effectively pander — what I took away is that, finally, we are seeing what conservatism means and how it can and should be applied to thinking through problems to their solutions, and how its reintroduction into the culture can, as a function of sheer momentum, turn back the tide of statism that threatens to turn the US into a post-Constitutional soft tyranny.
I don’t care how much a particular candidate has memorized to meet the demands of a thirty-second answer to a loaded question from Anderson Cooper or Chris Wallace; we give the media far too much power by allowing them to shape our political culture. Instead, I want to see a set of core convictions — adherence to the Declaration and Constitution and the unalienable rights of the individual — and an overarching strategy for its implementation.
Last night, I was greatly pleased with what I saw.
I’ve been largely critical of Newt Gingrich in the past. His political pragmatism has always struck me as being too clever by half — leading him to support things like ethanol subsidies in Iowa, or convincing him it would be a good idea to sit on a couch with Nancy Pelosi and tell America about its carbon emission problems. But as an idea man with an intricate knowledge of the political process, he’s very very good, and if he can simply put his mind to problem solving, he’s a great asset to conservatism — provided he’s dedicated to it. Because the truth is, Gingrich would also be a great asset to expanding government, if he put his mind to that.
Cain continues to impress me with his business sense and with his unconventional and un-self-conscious presentation. Whatever gaffes he makes are the result of speaking through problems in a way that suggests he is actually thinking through them, not that he has been coached about how to answer and where to position himself.
This is antithetical to what we’ve come to expect from political candidates. Which is precisely why I think it resonates.
Frankly, I’d like to see other candidates in these kinds of debates. Michele Bachmann’s supposed wild-eyed religious zealotry would likely reveal itself to be rather nuanced. Santorum’s whinyness obviated. Rick Perry has strong bona fides as a 9th and 10th amendment advocate, and his pro-growth strategies seem quite sound, from what I know of them — and it seems to me he might benefit from having more than 30 seconds to expand on some of his thinking, which I assume goes far beyond concerns over Mitt Romney’s landscaping service.
Bottom line: Were I a serious candidate, I’d be working to set up more of these kinds of debates.
Sorta feel that I’m gypping a good post here by simply saying that I agree but you really did cover all the bases here.
So, agreed.
Early on watching the conversation last night, I thought: “I wonder whether either of these two men want the office so intensely that they’d be unsatisfied or envious to see the other man earn it?”, and concluded that no, neither Gingrich nor Cain puts himself above the good of the country; so it is each can cheerily, contentedly share a stage with the other, risking personal gain for the nation’s benefit.
By the way, I see it as Newt’s undeserved misfortune that some of the establishment types have decided to alight on him to serve up for the time being as their Romney shield or their Cain bludgeon, whichever the case may be, so consequently don’t hold them against him. His difficulty, from my point of view, is to reassure me as to his tethers, which concerns wouldn’t have troubled me in the first place but for Newt’s own inexplicably wandering political behaviors.
Bingo!
It’s the executive branch each is running for, not withstanding Obama’s “Congress? The courts? PFFFFT!” style of unilateral governing. The best executives know what they don’t know and look to employ the best talent in the areas that need tending. They are the big picture people – they formulate the mission statement and direct all energy and talent in support of it.
The executives that get caught up in either micro-managing (don’t trust anyone but themselves to get it done cuz no one is as smart as they are) or eschewing the overseeing and management of the whole (and are vulnerable to manipulative sycophants because, of course, they are so smart no one would dare have their own agenda) are the ones that cause businesses to crash and burn.
Seen it TOO many times.
I’m very happy, with the candidates, the debate format, this post, and particularly the establishment and organization of the Texas TEA Party PAC.
It’s like Jeff said, he’s too smart for his own good, thinks because he’s smart about a lot of things, he must be smart about eveything, and trips himself up over some political pander that’s too clever by half (e.g. Nancy Pelosi & Hillary Clinton co-appearances).
Yep.
Let’s think about the kind of smarts it would take to remove the doubt he himself has planted?
I’d say the kind that can reflect on itself, discern where the problems are within itself, where that is, he has gone jarringly out of alignment with his own professed principles, voluntarily acknowledge these problems, (belching them up against apparent interest as it were), to then account honestly for the slippage, explaining why and what the measly objectives were that were the cause of that slippage. It wouldn’t necessarily be the kind of smarts which thinks it can get away without direct and fulsome acknowledgment through some hand-waving vague references and indistinct promises of future good behavior.
“[…shift away from statism and back toward individual ownership and autonomy, self-reliance, and limited government…]”
– Which, in one concise turn of phrase you utter a complex, burning, flashing, crashing, thunderbolt hurtling sound, that destroys legions of Zombie Leftists.
– When the tide finally turns, and it will turn, it will be like watching a vast fleet of rudderless ships leaving a drowning rat.
He’s done that when he’s appeared on Rush (and elsewhere), as for example, with the Nancy P. Global warming thing, where he’s argued opinion polls show people believe this crap so we’d better bend lest we break, that is, we’d better start writing legislation we can live with before they write legislation that will ruin us. How well that argument holds up in the aftermath of Obamacare (it’s the same as Frum’s stupid tea-baggers coulda got something instead of nothing if only they’d compromised argument) remains to be determined.
No one is going to want to read this two comment back to back.
Youtube video of the entire debate here.
more about Newt here
rick moran wrote today
November 6, 2011
Spring forward, fall back: Daylight Savings Time is in effect
Rick Moran
i’m sure he’s a really good political pundit too
How do people remember to change their clocks in the Southern Hemisphere?
oh here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time_by_country#South_America
Whatever gaffes he makes are the result of speaking through problems in a way that suggests he is actually thinking through them, not that he has been coached about how to answer and where to position himself.
Weren’t we assured that Obama was a deep thinker and that Clinton liked policy debates. Weren’t we also assured that transparent government is the ne plus ultra for governing.
Isn’t it refreshing to see Cain put both those practices in action? Like publicly?
BTW, for anyone who asked about the Cain/Gingrich residency issue, I believe that Gingrich is now domiciled in Virginia and as such, there should not be any issue (until Obama invents one and takes it to the courts). Which he would.
“Weren’t we assured that Obama was a deep thinker ”
go play golf baracky
@11.: The staff responded with gallows humor: “He’s a sociopath, but he’s our sociopath.”
Yep.
Fall forward, spring back.
Kim Peterson used that for a gag back when he was on the air in Atlanta.
Somebody was supposed to flame me for asking a trick question. I’m just not very good at this stirring up shit thing, am I?
I get it. In the southern hemisphere it’s called a typhoon.
The Clockioris effect?
You guys are easily gulled. I know, because a Perry supporter on Twitter who says that he won’t vote for Cain should he win the nomination, told me so.
Because Cain deferred to Gingrich. Marking him as a charismatic moron and no more. He can see through Cain’s clever ruse.
Humility. What a novel trait in a President.
What the hell, it’s this guy.
so dan riehl is an ace dude or erik erik fatty?
In the southern hemisphere their clocks go counter-clockwise. Duh!
dan riehl the jen rube of the breitbart set(big stupid). go team.
And they’re called lorries.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100115731/american-way-a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-the-herman-cain-lynching/ A few misrepresentationus/mistakes on the facts, but a fairer shake than Cain is getting from some conservatives.
Still, I much rather hear about these debates.
That guy is killing me Jeff.
Twitter is a tin can connected to a crazy person by a high tech string.
And also a place where I say funny shit a couple times a week so you should follow me and also Jeff because he’s a mensch.
Amen.
Dude called me a shallow thinker. I begged to differ.
Also, he never. stops. writing. responses. ever.
Remind you of anyone?
It was completely surreal when we were talking about his unintentional misquote of Cain and he couldn’t figure out or admit to understanding your lying liar response.
Yeah, I had a few flashbacks.
Rudyard Kipling would only be surprised we haven’t had more earthquakes….
I know, I know: DENOUNCED!
[…] no hostility veiled with feigned collegiality, no sound bites — just honest discussion. For a good review, see Jeff Goldstein’s take. And for that, I have to give the lion’s share of the credit to Herman Cain. Yes, […]
“Cain now leads in Iowa by 15 points over Mitt Romney, who finds himself just a margin of error ahead of a third-place Newt Gingrich:”
Walt thinks someone on the Internet is wrong.
If you’re lurking, Walt, why not sign in and have some discussions longer than 140 characters? Makes for mo’better helpful exchange of ideas. Hey, that kinda ties back into the theme of the post!
It does seem familiar. Can’t remember the dude’s name, though.
Evidently Gloria Allred has figured out an angle to make some money with the one of the Cain accusers (the one who never alleged anything contemporaneous to the events? Looks like).
Gloria Allred is a deeply racist person
Scares the fuck out of them doesn’t he.
Seems like it geoffb. The ones he scares to most are already convinced and trumpeting he’s a dead letter politically speaking. I imagine the telling stills their worse anxieties, though doesn’t think ahead to what to do if they’re wrong.
Well now that Gloria Allred is involved we can count on blowing through the hype and only discussing objective facts.
scares the most
The radio report just now says this Allred client is altogether new, a fourth accuser not heard from at all before, so I was wrong to assume it the third accuser above.
Hang a left at Hispaniola, thence seventy-five miles across Mona Passage and you’ve arrived at your lovely Caribbean prevarication destination.
this new Allred slut doesn’t seem to have alleged anything contemporaneous to the events either
I noticed an ad here yesterday for Rob Cornilles running to replace David Wu in Oregon’s 1st Congressional district. A few other Republican potential candidates are shown here and I’m not sure who’s the staunchest, but one thing for sure Rob has going for him: he’s smart enough to advertise on protein wisdom.
Unfortunately, I’ve noticed the chant-rhythm of “this is what democracy looks like” perfectly fits “we will choose your candidates for you.” fucking earwigs.
Gloria went trolling, catch to be displayed at 1:30 Eastern. Credentialed press only.
The prize.
It is curious that every claim comes out of the 3-4 years he spent as President of the National Restaurant Association. Is there something peculiar about the Washington DC work environment or perhaps who self selects to work there?
I have figured the Clinton White House milieu played more than a small part in the behavior of the times geoffb, though none of that is attached to evidence.
At least we know Gloria All Red is no pinko.
Again, I really liked the format, but it wasn’t a “debate”: it was a shared Q&A.
Which, the network-sponsored soundbite-fests are not properly called “debates,” even when the candidates berate each other.
Long interviews of this sort, whether in pairs, trios, or alone, are better formats for seeing how the candidates actually think.
How do people remember to change their clocks in the Southern Hemisphere?
Colombia tried DST? What the heck for? The country straddles the equator! There’s barely a lick of difference between the summer and winter solstices.
I remember relating an anecdote in Colombia, and I mentioned something about the days being longer in the summer, and they had no idea what I was talking about.
And then another time I was in Popayán (the closest I got to the equator) and noticed out loud that my shadow was directly below me. My companion was startled to see that she cast a shadow. (Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but to be fair, she came from extreme poverty and was a wonderful person otherwise.)
Couple of OT:
New York Times backs Sen. Feinstein saying that lax gun control laws caused the problem of “Operation Fast & Furious”, and conflates “Operation Wide Receiver” with F&F.
And
Death Panel found in HHS.
In other news, I talked to some immigrants yesterday who saw snow for the first time. Their kids can’t get enough of it. The parents, on the other hand, very much can.
[…] G. from Protein Wisdom: First, let me say that I very much liked the format — and my wife, whom I made watch it with me […]
[…] lubricate it with bourbon], but Jeff Goldstein, a man I have enormous respect for, watched it and offers his crackerjack review over at Protein […]
To get an idea what Gingrich is talking about, watch “MICHIGAN MUST CHANGE OR DIE,” a speech from June, 2010. it’s on YouTube.
Government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people is rare and precious. WE are the people.
Fair play, equality before the law, a chance to shape your own life according to your dreams: these are the ideals of our heritage. Just because we don’t do it perfectly is no reason to abandon the effort. The siren song of the Left is bait. It’s a trap. Talk to anyone who has lived through communism.
Gingrich is proposing that we use the new tools of technology to make the government smaller, more efficient and transparent in its spending. He’s proposing we be smart about bring American manufacturing home, educating our kids and enhancing our chances for a better, more prosperous, more dynamic life.
He talked at The College Board on Oct. 27, 2011 about “The Future of American Education.” If you care about education, it’s inspiring. The learners of the future are not going to sit in classrooms all day. It’s instantaneous. The kids are faster. Why slow them down?
Also, see the forum on manufacturing — NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS FORUM at VERMEER COPRPORATION headquarters, on IOWA PUBLIC TV – 18:04 minutes – aired on Iowa Public Television on November 1, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv_F2MBW_OI
Bring manufacturing home through improved regulation and tax policy. It isn’t even hard. We just have to get serious about self-government and STOP PAYING THE CROOKS.
Look and decide for yourself.
[…] On Saturday night, though, we saw two highly-intelligent men, unencumbered by “moderators” out to make headlines, have a very serious (but occasionally whimsical) discussion about actual policy. There was no attempt to cut each other’s throats while smiling, no gotcha questions, no hostility veiled with feigned collegiality, no sound bites — just honest discussion. For a good review, see Jeff Goldstein’s take. […]