Albuquerque Journal

Mitt Must Run Against Obama’s Ideas

- CHARLES KRAUTHAMME­R Syndicated Columnist

WASHINGTON — There are two ways to run against Barack Obama: stewardshi­p or ideology. You can run against his record or you can run against his ideas.

The stewardshi­p case is pretty straightfo­rward: the worst recovery in U.S. history, 42 consecutiv­e months of 8-plus percent unemployme­nt, declining economic growth — all achieved at a price of another $5 trillion of accumulate­d debt.

The ideologica­l case is also simple. Just play in toto (and therefore in context) Obama’s Roanoke riff telling small business owners: “You didn’t build that.” Real credit for your success belongs not to you — you think you did well because of your smarts and sweat? he asked mockingly — but to government that built the infrastruc­ture without which you would have nothing.

Play it. Then ask: Is that the governing philosophy you want for this nation?

Mitt Romney’s preferred argument, however, is stewardshi­p. Are you better off today than you were $5 trillion ago? Look at the wreckage around you. This presidency is a failure. I’m a successful businessma­n. I know how to fix things. Elect me, etc. etc.

Easy peasy, but highly risky. If you run against Obama’s performanc­e in contrast to your own competence, you stake your case on persona. Is that how you want to compete against an opponent who is not just more likable and immeasurab­ly cooler, but spending millions to paint you as an unfeeling, out-of-touch, jobkilling plutocrat?

The ideologica­l case, on the other hand, is not just appealing to a center-right country with twice as many conservati­ves as liberals, it is also explanator­y. It underpins the stewardshi­p argument. Obama’s ideology — and the program that followed — explains the failure of these four years.

What program? Obama laid it out boldly early in his presidency. The roots of the nation’s crisis, he declared, were systemic. Fundamenta­l change was required. Hence his signature legislatio­n:

First, the $831 billion stimulus that was going to “reinvest” in America and bring unemployme­nt below 6 percent. We know about the unemployme­nt. And the investment? Obama loves to cite great federal projects such as the Hoover Dam and the interstate highway system. Fine. Name one thing of any note created by Obama’s Niagara of borrowed money. A modernized electric grid? Ports dredged to receive the larger ships soon to traverse a widened Panama Canal? Nothing of the sort. Solyndra, anyone?

Second, radical reform of health care that would reduce its ruinously accelerati­ng cost: “Put simply,” he said, “our health care problem is our deficit problem” — a financial hemorrhage drowning us in debt.

Except that the CBO reports Obamacare will cost $1.68 trillion of new spending in its first decade. To say nothing of the price of the uncertaint­y introduced by an impossibly complex remaking of one-sixth of the economy — discouragi­ng hiring and expansion as trillions of investable private-sector dollars remain sidelined.

The third part of Obama’s promised transforma­tion was energy. His cap-and-trade federal takeover was rejected by his own Democratic Senate. So the war on fossil fuels has been conducted unilateral­ly by bureaucrat­ic fiat. Regulation­s that will kill coal. A no-brainer pipeline rejected lest Canadian oil sands be burned. (China will burn them instead.) A drilling moratorium in the Gulf a federal judge criticized as illegal.

That was the program — now so unpopular that Obama barely mentions it. Obamacare got exactly two lines in this year’s State of the Union address. Seen any ads touting the stimulus? The drilling moratorium? Keystone?

Ideas matter. The 2010 election, the most ideologica­l since 1980, saw the voters resounding­ly reject a Democratic Party that was relentless­ly expanding the power, spending and reach of government.

It’s worse now. Those who have struggled to create a family business, a corner restaurant, a medical practice won’t take kindly to being told their success is a result of government-built roads and bridges.

In 1988, Michael Dukakis famously said, “This election is not about ideology; it’s about competence.” He lost. If Republican­s want to win, Obama’s deeply revealing, teleprompt­er-free you-didn’t-build-that confession of faith needs to be hung around his neck until Election Day. The third consecutiv­e summer-of-recovery-thatnever-came is attributab­le not just to Obama being in over his head but to what’s in his head: a government-centered vision of the economy and society, and the policies that flow from it.

Four years of that and this is what you get. Make the case and you win the White House.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States