Mitt Romney versus Newt Gingrich: Might it be a Rorschach test, of sorts, for conservatives?
Where you come down on the two front runners probably reflects your level of optimism about America.
To be sure, Romney has often employed positive “Reaganesque” rhetoric. But those who see austerity as an inevitable part of our future probably trust Romney more to manage it. This is not an absurd conclusion for voters worried about the economy to reach. Aside from demonstrating faith in Romney’s technocratic managerial competence, it also hearkens back to an older brand of conservatism which was inherently pessimistic.
Here’s an example of what I mean. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. notes,
Our world that’s coming is a world of narrowing, not widening, choices. It’s a world that suits Mr. Romney’s skills and history, his knack for operating within constraints and making choices based on data, data, data.
This is not a new phenomenon. William F. Buckley founded National Review to “stand athwart history yelling Stop.” Upon leaving Communism, Whittaker Chambers said: “I know that I am leaving the winning side for the losing side…”
Most conservatives were traditionally negative.
Polling, of course, shows Americans are largely pessimistic these days — and for good reason. What I’m interested in, though, are the people who believe America can turn things around, if only the right policies are put in place. Anecdotally speaking, the more worried a person is, the less likely he would probably be to take a chance on Gingrich. (Romney is typically viewed as the “safer” choice — the question is whether or not safety is the attribute you value the most.)
If you’re optimistic about the future — if you have that American spirit of growth and exploration — then Gingrich probably pushes the right buttons for you. This is a newer phenomenon in conservatism — but it has a very important father.
Much to the consternation of old-school conservatives, candidate Ronald Reagan frequently quoted Thomas Paine’s revolutionary notion that: “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.” (One could imagine Gingrich saying the same sort of utopian thing.)
Upon receiving his party’s nomination for president, Reagan said,
They say that the United States has had its day in the sun, that our nation has passed its zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities. My fellow citizens, I utterly reject that view.
This is certainly a long way from Jenkins’ notion that, “Our world that’s coming is a world of narrowing, not widening, choices”
Gingrich, of course, has been recently mocked for his quixotic notions about space exploration. No doubt, green eyeshade conservatives view this as a waste of money during good times, and a ridiculous waste today. But consider this from Reagan’s “Challenger” tragedy speech: “It’s all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It’s all part of taking a chance and expanding man’s horizons. The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave.”
To be sure, there are various reasons we favor certain candidates. Some people might like Romney because he’s tall — or hate him because of his faith. Still, my guess is that ones level of optimism or pessimism about the nation’s future is an underrated predictor this year.
We’ve wasted so much time arguing over whether Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich is more conservative — or over who has committed the worst apostasy. Going forward, it might be useful to simply accept the fact that these two men offer differing conservative visions.
Each represents a different brand of conservatism…