Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats won big in the 2008 elections. Republicans won big in 2010. Pundits and prognosticators are trying to determine what this recent history means for 2012. Stephen Hayes, senior writer at The Weekly Standard and Fox News contributor, discussed the electoral picture with Mitch Kokai for Carolina Journal Radio. (Head to http://www.carolinajournal.com/cjradio/ to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)
Kokai: We have seen some wild politics in recent years, based on what happened in 2008 and what happened last year in the big Republican sweep. Can we tell anything about what’s going to happen in 2012 at this point?
Hayes: Well, you know, I think you framed that exactly the right way. I would argue that 2008 was in some ways an anomalous election. I think that the circumstances that led to the 2008 victory for Barack Obama was the war fatigue, No. 1, and, primarily, the recession, the beginning of the recession — the near collapse of the U.S. economy. I think Obama came into that election, or to that cycle, with an advantage in the polls. Then once the bottom fell out of the economy, he glided to victory.
I think what we’ve seen since is the Obama administration misreading that electoral victory as a mandate for far-left policies. We saw that almost immediately with the $814 billion stimulus package. Successively, we’ve seen that with health care and a number of the things he’s done on the domestic side.
I think the 2010 election, then, was a reaction to that. This is still a center-right country. I think people looked at what the government was doing, saw that it was both ineffective and increasing our debt and deficits in ways that people had not previously imagined or taken account of. And that gave us the 2010 election.
I think these are the same issues, broadly understood, that will help decide the 2012 presidential election. The good news for conservatives, I think, about this election, is that it will be likely a debate about the size and scope of government — the big questions, the big issues — and conservatives generally do well when those are the issues that are in the debate.
Kokai: We have seen, at the state level, here in North Carolina and in other states, especially in the Midwest, and also at the federal level, a lot of pushback among those who have relied on government, saying, “Wait a minute, you’re talking about slashing our programs.” And we’ve seen lots of rallies, lots of really heated debate. Is this going to be picking up in the months ahead?
Hayes: I think it could be. The question is whether President Obama decides that it’s smart for him, electorally, to side with those interest groups, with these sort of interest groups that derive their power and their money from the government. He has dipped a toe in those waters. He did so in Wisconsin when he came out rhetorically and supported what the unions were doing there. But he didn’t go as far as he might have. I think if he had, he would have strongly risked the support of independents. We’ve since seen in places like Wisconsin and Ohio the support for the governors there — Scott Walker in Wisconsin, John Kasich in Ohio — rebound a little bit, and they’re now enacting their agenda. You’re seeing some progress on this.
Whatever sort of white-hot anger was there in the midst of trying to pass these budget reforms has dissipated a little bit, and I think you’re starting to see people take a second look at it. If these governors are able to produce budgets that are in balance, which it seems that they’ll be able to do, I think you’ll have people really taking another look. This again will help drive, in two very important states in the Midwest to the 2012 election, drive the debate.
Kokai: Beyond the day-to-day [developments], what are the things that you’re sort of keeping on your radar screen in the months ahead, that you want to see how X and Y turn out to help you determine what’s going to happen in the next election?
Hayes: Well, I think, you know, consistent with the things that we’ve been discussing, I mean I think the coming negotiations on the debt ceiling, this is likely to last for a long time. Timothy Geithner, secretary of Treasury, has now said that the United States won’t reach sort of its final limit until August 2, which provides a little more breathing room for these negotiations to continue. I think Republicans in Congress are heading in with a very serious set of policy proposals that they want to extract in exchange for voting to raise the debt limit, and I think they’re very serious about it. I don’t think this is necessarily just a bluff. That, depending on how those negotiations turn out, what kinds of statutory restrictions are placed on spending — potentially the tackling of mandatory spending programs like Medicaid in these negotiations — will go a long way to determining who has the upper hand heading into the 2012 elections.
Republicans can point back and say, “Look, we made these reforms. We are the ones who forced the president’s hand to get serious about debt and deficits.” Then I think they can rightly go to the voters and say, “We are the party to lead us out of this coming crisis. We all know it’s coming. We are the ones to do this.” President Obama, by the same token, if he is able to position Republicans as too radical, which is certainly the aim of the Democratic Party right now, I think he may be able to demagogue this in a way that will obviously redound to his benefit in 2012.
Kokai: How about the standard bearers? At this point, it looks like President Obama will be the person leading the Democrats again. What are you looking for in terms of the people who want to be the Republican presidential nominee?
Hayes: Well, I had a theory — now this is a year-and-a-half old — that the Republican nominating process would separate itself, the candidates would separate themselves into two camps: one group that was serious about debt and deficits and talking about entitlement reform, engaging the voters in sort of the adult way, and the responsible way, and talking about the big things in a way that might potentially cost them votes, might be politically risky; and then another group that wasn’t willing to do that. Much to my chagrin, I think we have seen that separation. It’s just that nobody is in the [serious] group. There aren’t many people who seem to be willing to talk about entitlement reform with any level of specificity, in any detail.
I think the field, as it sits right now, is open for that kind of a candidate. And we’ve, you know, heard rumblings that Mitch Daniels might run, and if he ran he would run that kind of a campaign, I believe. [Editor’s note: Daniels announced after this interview that he would not run for president in 2012.] I think if Mitch Daniels didn’t run, somebody like a Paul Ryan, who’s put out this budget proposal, could be talked into running if there’s nobody making the arguments that he’s making. If you take him seriously when he says that the country is sort of on the precipice of economic collapse — economic ruin — I think there’s a strong case to be made for him running.
I’m also hopeful that these other candidates will understand that, you know, whether it’s politically smart or not, they need to be making this case because the country requires it.
Kokai: You mentioned Paul Ryan and whether he became a presidential contender or not. How important is it for the cause of limited government to have a Paul Ryan actually putting out a document that sort of spells out smaller government, rather than just sort of talking about it and hinting at it?
Hayes: I think it’s absolutely crucial. I mean, there was a big debate about this among, you know, conservatives in Washington and people who said, “We can’t possibly put out specifics like this. It’s only inviting political attacks and will mean sort of permanent minority status for conservatives and/or the Republican Party.” I strongly disagree with that. I mean, you have to have this kind of a governing blueprint, this kind of a document that tells voters where you’re going to go, how you’re going to get from point A to point B.
If you believe as I do, and as Paul Ryan does, that we could be facing a debt crisis within the next two to five years, you have to put that kind of plan up. If you don’t — and Republicans are elected because they play it safe, and they’re vague about their promises, and they talk in general terms about the coming economic calamity — what is the likelihood that they will then find the courage, after having been elected, to do the tough things that the country needs them to do? I have very little faith.