Erica Grieder is frustrated by some of the discussion surrounding Rick Perry
Ironically I was penning a post on how I was excited about Perry’s entrance into the race when he came out with his anti-Bernanke statement. Lets leave that aside for the moment. What had me feeling up was one of Erica’s posts
The key lines
I was inclined to give some credence to the critics, and to see Perry as a guy who had fluked his way into the governor’s mansion and stayed there.
I soon came to see that I was wrong. And I think a lot of people, even in Texas and certainly around the country, continue to be wrong about Perry in just the same way. The governor himself is largely responsible for that; he hasn’t needed a majority of Texans to like him to get re-elected, and in a way, it suits his purposes when people discount him. But having watched Perry closely for four and a half years now, and interviewed him on several occasions, I am convinced that he’s actually quite smart about politics and that he’s not much of a far-right ideologue.
Right now, Obama is in the high-30s/low-40s on approval. There is a reasonable chance the economy will take a leg down in the next 12 months. Thus, there is a fair likelihood that we will have a new president come 2013.
My primary concern as always, is that this President be able to govern. It would be nice if the President’s hopes and dreams for the country coincided with mine, but I don’t think it necessary.
What is necessary is that the Global Financial system is stable; that the geopolitical realm is as calm as can be managed; that both the Enlightenment and Global Capitalism continue to thrive. And, as a bonus that the First Republic of the United States still stands.
If we can have all that, I am going to call it a win.
Sadly, however, only three GOP candidates gave me confidence that they could contribute to this result. Those were Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman. Tim Pawlenty dropped out. Jon Huntsman is going nowhere fast. That pretty much just left Mitt Romney.
That’s a lot riding on one man. A man who – despite his mannerisms – is a flesh and blood human being and subject to human weakness. He could have a heart attack. He could get hit by a bus. He could say something really really dumb. Then where would be?
Not in place I would be comfortable with.
So enter Rick Perry. A man who also seemed like he could meet the basic criteria. A man who also seemed like he could win the GOP nomination. This is great news.
Then of course, he goes and threatens the Fed Chairman and shakes my confidence in his ability to hold together the global financial system. He was already sketchy if tolerable on geopolitics, so this is not good. Not good at all.
Dave Wiegel tells me its all bluster and not to worry. If this is true I need more people telling me this. Another post from Erica Grieder might help.
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ August 17th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Josh
I don’t think Rick Perry is going to lynch the members of the Fed any more than I thought Obama was going to withdraw the US from NAFTA (remember that one?).
Wednesday ~ August 17th, 2011 at 11:57 am
A Low Bar to Clear « Crazy Pills
[...] Smith is not enthusiastic about the current crop of GOP candidates. What is necessary is that the Global Financial system is [...]
Wednesday ~ August 17th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
mn
“smart about politics ” and a complete moron on all other issues. He’s now saying global warming is a conspiracy of data manipulation by scientists. He’s a head stuck in the sand right wing nut. Keep praying for rain Rick and asking for Fed assistance to battle fires. We’ll keep tallying those record high temps and conserving our drinking water you want to waste for natural gas recovery.
Wednesday ~ August 17th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Curt Doolittle
The purpose of a political rhetoric in our system is to rally the base, so that they can raise money and obtain a nomination. On the right, any criticism of the government is good criticism.
And, you aren’t the audience. Any pollster or campaign advisor (which I have been) will advise a candidate that anyone that is economically savvy enough to make the judgements that you (Karl) do, is statistically insignificant. We just figure that you’ll make precisely the judgments you have made.
The only people that determine the outcome of an election are the people in the middle who are uncommitted and who make their decisions late in the game largely by whether they ‘like’ someone, and by testing the thoughts and feelings of those around them.
Hence why it’s our job as public intellectuals to influence as many of the people who are as conceptually near to us as possible so that those in the middle have wise counsel to choose from.
Wednesday ~ August 17th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Curt Doolittle
Karl,
BTW: I realize which generation that you’re part of, but it might be worth considering the fact that current political behavior is being driven by the fact that people place greater value on their social status than money or the financial system.
**If the left is willing to drag down an economy in order to obtain its political ends, then why would the right not be similarly willing?**
So take your proposition for financial stability with a grain of salt. That is the ambition of a minority of people. Social status is more important than money. People demonstrate higher loss aversion to status than to money. Because it is not money they fear losing, it is the status that money provides them.
And they are not necessarily wrong to think this.
Curt
Wednesday ~ August 17th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Lord
In my experience, people that say nutty things usually are nutty, and Perry says a lot of nutty things.
Thursday ~ August 18th, 2011 at 9:58 am
Craig
I don’t think it quite correct to refer to our government as the “First Republic of the United States,” at least not if you are riffing on the French predeliction for numbering such things. The American First Republic would have run from 1776 to 1789, under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Though weak by modern standards, the Confederation was plainly a national government under any theory of statehood, and its achievements included winning the war for American independence. It deserves pride of place.
The ratification of the Constitution of 1787 should be understood as initiating the American Second Republic, which endures to this day.