1. The USA TODAY today’s front page article, based on its poll, is all about Republicans being evenly divided on Perry. Those who believe that Social Security is unconstitutional and all that are for him, while those who don’t aren’t. And there’s plenty of worry that seeming to be for deconstructing the basic entitlements would be fatal in November.
2. The argument for Perry winning is based on the proposition that any Republican could win now, especially one who energizes the base. But as Pete and I keep trying to tell you, the election will almost surely be close. Obama’s numbers aren’t as bad as they might be expected given the depth of our persistent economic swoon, and there are reasons to believe that our president could readily energize his base against a redneck, gun-toting, hyper-evangelical crony capitalist who’s gunning for Social Security and Medicare. The election will be close, even if we ended up being graced by another Bush.
3. Please don’t think I’m going all Porcher on you: But the argument that America has in some ways become too oligarchic is nontrivial (even THE WALL STREET JOURNAL is starting to notice a bit), and it’s not that clear that smaller government or lower taxes by themselves will grow jobs for our increasingly pathological middle/lower middle class. So prudence is needed along these lines. Perry does seem too one-dimensionally oligarchic or crony capitalist at times, and we already see, for example, in mainstream papers that his connections with Merck are much more extensive than 5K.
4. And so our entitlements have to be mended, not ended. That’s necessary not because we’ve been languishing in soft despotism as much as because of the demographic crisis that can be traced, most of all, to good and bad features of our individualism. The successful candidate will present this change as more necessary than choiceworthy—and certainly not as a constitutional mandate. You can’t expect most voters to actually like the move from DEFINED BENEFITS to DEFINED CONTRIBUTIONS.
5. My own impressionistic conclusion is that one kind of swing voter—the pseudo-sophisticated, fairly prosperous soft libertarian—is especially repulsed (in a sort of Palinesque way) by Perry’s distinctive Texas baggage. And that’s even before the Democrats have started in on him.
6. The people who read this blog think worse of Obama than the swing guy does—and studies back me up on this.The real charge against Obama that’s sticking like glue is that he’s CLUELESS—not that he’s an EVILDOER. People still LIKE him, and I think he’s much easier to like for the crucial voters than Perry is.
7. I know I’ve opened myself up to withering attack here. Hit me with your best shot. But don’t shoot the messenger.
