You are here: Home / Archives for michelle bachmann

Jon Huntsman – A Case of Style Obscuring the Substance?

November 22, 2011 by 3 Comments
John Huntsman Announces Bid For Presidency At NJ's Liberty State Park

Thus far, in the continual carousel of GOP frontrunners, we’ve had Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and, of course, the fixture, Mitt Romney.  Tim Pawlenty ran out of money and dropped out too early to have his day in the sun, Ron Paul is the guy a few people love and the rest of us like from a distance, and Rick Santorum has fallen victim to “fighting the last second-to-last war” syndrome — everything out of his mouth seems tailor made for 2004.

But what about Jon Huntsman?  When is it his turn as King of the Mountain?  Indeed, a Chicago Tribune article came out last week asking this very question:  ”Why Not Jon Huntsman?”  Here’s a guy with a great domestic governing record, consistent fiscal conservative credentials, no health care reform baggage (he was a market solutions guy in Utah), and the only significant foreign policy experience of *any* GOP candidate or wannabe candidate (Christie, Ryan, Daniels, Jindal, and Barbour included).  So what’s taking so long for the GOP to embrace him?

Well, he did have that moment on climate change.  And he supports civil unions for same-sex couples.  Oh, and there was that bit about being Obama’s ambassador to China.  These are the conventional reasons people disqualify him.  But I don’t buy any of them.  I mean, remember, Rick Perry mandates vaccines and opposes “heartless” immigration policy, Newt wants to send your children to work as janitors, Mitt passed Obamacare lite in Massachusetts — and they’ve all been embraced by voters for a time.  Indeed, Huntsman’s break with the orthodoxy are really pretty minor.

No, there’s something more at play here, and I read an article a few days ago that I think hits it right on the head:  ”Huntsman:  The Candidate Killed by Style.”  Here’s a quote:

Huntsman seems to muster more animosity toward his fellow candidates than Obama, making him seem like an outsider to many conservatives.   But again, chastising Rick Perry and Mitt Romney for bickering, is not an issue of substance…it is an issue of style.

But let me be clear about this…Jon Huntsman has contributed to the stylistic cross upon which his campaign has been crucified.  From his overly thought out “H” logo…to his hipster motorcycle ads…to his snarky jokes on the debate stage…to his daughters’ SNL-style spoof of Herman Cain’s smoking ad…Jon Huntsman is playing the presidential version of a mean girl.  Everything is calculated for effect.  Everything filtered through “cool”.  And it comes off as condescending.

Some, like my friend SE Cupp, would say that Huntsman stands to the left of the Republican Party on many big issues such as civil unions and foreign policy. And I would say, first that there is a great debate taking place on the right about both of these issues. But…I truthfully don’t think many conservative voters have judged the merits of Jon Huntsman’s positions.  I think they see a condescending man who worked for Obama and immediately dismiss him. And in a way, I don’t blame them.

The lesson for Huntsman, though, is…don’t do this.  The lesson for conservative voters is, in the words of Barry Goldwater (yes, again), “to disagree, one doesn’t have to be disagreeable.”  We should judge these candidates on their substance, not their style, because in the words of Jon Huntsman: voters “should not confuse a moderate temperament with a moderate record.”

Is Jon Huntsman’s problem that he goes around acting like he thinks knows he’s better than everyone he’s running against?  And when I say “better,” I don’t mean the typical “I’m the guy you need to do the job — not him” type of better.  I’m talking about the “you’re stupid and I’m not” type of better.  I think this is definitely part of it.

But I believe there’s even more to it than this.  After all, Huntsman didn’t start out his campaign attacking every other conservative in sight.  In fact, ironically, he started out with a pledge of civility.  He went into attack mode because he couldn’t get any traction.

No, Jon Huntsman, despite being a solid conservative, often acts a bit like the liberal elite that conservatives distrust.  Everything about him says “intellectual”–and more the Obama type of intellectual than the Gingrich type of intellectual.  And when you combine that with the fact that, during his campaign, Huntsman has run around like he’s trying to save the Republican Party from itself — you don’t have to stretch far to see why conservative primary voters may have been reluctant to embrace him.

No matter what his record, Jon Huntsman just doesn’t seem like a conservative to many of the voters that matter.  And I worry that until he adjusts his style a little bit that reality may not change, which will be too bad for those Republicans, like me, who really like the guy and honestly believe the Republican Party needs a bit of a course correction.

I, for one, am still hoping that Huntsman gets his chance.  Because I think Republicans who take a hard look at him will really like what they see.

For example, take a listen to this:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Filed Under: Election 2012, News, Opinion, Slider Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Election 2012 – The Mormon Question . . . Again

October 10, 2011 by Leave a Comment
sl-temple-spires-slider

Here we go.  For Mitt Romney, it’ deja vu all over again — except this time, he’s out front.

It’s not surprising that, despite Mitt’s efforts over the last four years to put religion and flip-flopping behind him — indeed, he’s been absolutely laser-like in staying on the “unite against Obama” message — the Mormon issue has arisen again in Election 2012.

In the 2008 campaign, it surfaced most prominently after remarks made by the guitar-strumming Mike Huckabee, who innocently asked reporters, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?”

This time around, Mormonism has, up till now, been mostly a latent issue, the domain of the curious (rather than the critical), who are just wondering how in the world they’ve all of a sudden got two Mormon contenders (that may, unfortunately, be a generous word in Jon Huntsman’s case — thought I retain some optimism) in the small Republican field.  There was some hope that voters had moved past the religious question in the fervor to oust Obama.

[adsenseyu2]

But it appears that evangelicals were really just keeping their powder dry.  As Mitt approaches consensus front-runner status over more conventional (?) Tea Party, social conservative favorites like Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman, Mormonism as disqualifying theology is now back in the spotlight, thanks to these remarks from Robert Jeffress, a Texas pastor from a Dallas megachurch who introduced Rick Perry at the recent Values Voters Summit:

Rick Perry’s a Christian. He’s an evangelical Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ. Mitt Romney’s a good moral person, but he’s not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity, it has always been considered a cult by the mainstream of Christianity . . . .

. . .

When I’m talking about a cult, I’m not talking about a sociological cult, but a theological cult. . . . Mormonism was invented 1,800 years after Jesus Christ and the founding of Christianity. It has its own founder, Joseph Smith, its own set of doctrines and even its own book, the Book of Mormon, in addition to the Bible. That by definition is a theological cult.

Ultimately, it’s not surprising that we see this again.

But there has been, in my view, a bit of a surprise in the candidates’ responses to Jeffress remarks.  Some of the remaining Republican candidates were asked to respond to Jeffress and whether they believed that Mormonism was a non-Christian cult, and I’ve collected their responses below, which are striking in their tepidity:

Rick Perry

The governor does not believe Mormonism is a cult. He is not in the business of judging people. That’s God’s job…The conference picked someone to introduce the governor, not us.

Herman Cain

I am not gonna do an analysis of Mormonism versus Christianity for the sake of answering that. I’m not getting into that.

Michelle Bachman

I think what the real focus is here, is on religious tolerance. That’s really what this is about . . . .  To make this a big issue is ridiculous right now, because every day I’m on the street talking to people. This is not what people are talking about.

Ron Paul

Texas Congressman and GOP candidate Ron Paul came to Romney’s defense over Jeffress’ comments about Mormonism. Speaking to Fox News, Paul argued that Jeffress’ remark was “unnecessary.” Paul went one step further and argued that negative campaigning shouldn’t be the focus of the GOP race. “This whole idea that the most important thing between two candidates right now is the definition of cult, trying to make it sound negative for one person to get the edge over the other – and they are encouraged by others to keep this thing going,” Paul professed.

Paul also suggested that whether Mormonism is a “cult” or not isn’t the issue that voters care about in the GOP race. “I think liberty is the issue of the day. Our Constitution is the issue of the day. And too much government – that is the issue of the day. It’s not the definition of a cult.”

Rick Santorum

“I don’t believe it is,” Santorum said of the introduction given by Dr. Robert Jeffress, who contended Moromonism is a cult. “He’s allowed to believe what he wants to believe, I don’t believe that it is.”

Newt Gingrich

When we ran into Newt Gingrich, he declined to weigh in. “I didn’t hear it, I’m not going to comment,” Gingrich said.

Jon Huntsman

Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman has finally addressed the Rev. Robert Jeffress’ declaration that Mormonism “has always been considered a cult,” telling a New London, N.H., town hall crowd today that it is “the most ridiculous sideshow in recent politics.”

“Discussion of Mormonism doesn’t create additional jobs … doesn’t expand our economic base,” Huntsman said, according to CBS News. “It doesn’t secure our position in the world. I have no idea why people are wasting so much political-capital bandwidth on this issue. It’s nonsense. … There are a lot of folks who believe different things, and that’s the tradition that we respect in this country.”

While Huntsman’s children were taught both Mormon and Episcopalian ideals, he says he still identifies with his LDS roots, telling ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos  in May, “I believe in God. I’m a good Christian. I’m very proud of my Mormon heritage.”

“I am Mormon. Today, there are 13 million Mormons,” he continued. “It’s a very diverse and heterogeneous cross section of people. “And you’re going to find a lot of different attitudes and a lot of different opinions in that 13 million.”

God will judge Mitt, not me (really, Governor???), Mormonism v. Christianity, denunciations of negative campaigning, takes the focus off of the real issues . . . but no candidate willing to take a stand for Mormons as Christians, no candidate willing to say, simply, “Jeffress is wrong.”  The responses may charitably be described as dodges.  Ironically, it’s Perry and Santorum who probably get the highest marks.  Huntsman’s general non-response is somewhat surprising, though I’ll give him a pass as a self-identifying Mormon.

[adsenseyu2]

Should any of this really surprise us?  After all, why should Mitt’s competitors fight his battles for him?

Well, perhaps because public outcry demands it?  That’s often the case with these kinds of comments.  But, apparently, Mormonism is one of the remaining exceptions.  What still surprises me a bit about the whole thing is that it is, apparently, OK for Republican candidates to tacitly endorse the “Mormonism is a cult” and “Mormons aren’t Christians” narratives.  No one of consequence is demanding a denunciation.

Jeffress’s comments remind Mormons that, as far as we’ve come in mainstreaming ourselves, we’ve still got quite a ways to go.  And you wonder if we’ll ever get there.  Apparently, Mormons are well-meaning, convenient allies, useful because of their willingness to serve as lightning rods when it comes to culture war crusades, but not worth a bit of political heat once they’ve served their purpose.  Apparently, we haven’t quite made it into the “club,” yet — the “I’m a Mormon” campaign notwithstanding.  Maybe we should ask ourselves if we really want to get there . . . .

So, returning to politics — can religion be what finally derails the Romney Express (maybe Romney Freight is more accurate)?  I don’t think so.  But the “Mormon Question” apparently isn’t going away any time soon.  And its persistence reminds us that there are good and bad sides to the LDS Church’s so-called “Mormon Moment.”

Filed Under: Election 2012, News, Slider Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Bachmann — Federal Constitution Prohibits State Insurance Mandates

September 5, 2011 by 9 Comments
bachmann-palmetto-crop2

At today’s Palmetto Freedom Forum debate, sponsored by the good Constitutional Reverend Senator Jim DeMint, Republican Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann ratcheted up the constitutional political rhetoric with a claim that, not only does the federal Constitution preclude Congress from enacting a health insurance mandate, it precludes state governments from mandating health coverage as well:

I believe it is also unconstitutional for states to mandate as a … condition of citizenship, that an individual would have to purchase a product or service even at the state government’s behest.

When pressed about the constitutional authority for her statement, Bachmann said only that she believed it was “inherent in the Constitution.”

As Mitt Romney has discovered, Republican voters aren’t just upset about Obamacare because it was done by the wrong entity — though they employ this argument freely — they hate the idea of a mandate, period.  Yet, up till today, all of the major Republican contenders have been content to fight the state-level battle on old-fashioned policy grounds , without invoking all the constitutional rhetoric.

There are good reasons for this, as the two potential grounds for Bachmann’s position are fraught with some uncomfortable logical and ideological consequences.

[adsenseyu2]

Option 1:  The Dormant Commerce Clause

First, by claiming that a state health insurance mandate was “inherently” prohibited by the federal Constitution, Bachmann could be arguing that state laws mandating health insurance coverage violate the Constitution’s so-called Dormant Commerce Clause.  The Dormant Commerce Clause is a wholly-judicial creation designed to be a mirror image of the affirmative authority granted to Congress over interstate commerce (per Wikipedia):

The Commerce Clause expressly grants Congress the power to regulate commerce “among the several states.” The idea behind the Dormant Commerce Clause is that this grant of power implies a negative converse — a restriction prohibiting a state from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce. The restriction is self-executing and applies even in the absence of a conflicting federal statute.

For you judicial types out there, the Dormant Commerce Clause is the constitutional equivalent of field preemption.  While states are ordinarily viewed to possess the authority to legislate in the absence of inconsistent federal legislation, the Dormant Commerce Clause prohibits states from legislating in certain ways even when Congress has not passed any inconsistent statutes.  Why?  I suppose it’s because the Supreme Court assumes, at least when it comes to interstate commerce, that the constitutional grant of authority to Congress is conflicting authority that says, in effect, to the states:  ”Not only can Congress legislate to correct interstate commercial messes created by inconsistent state regulations, the states lack the authority to create some of those messes to begin with.”  This is not the case with most other Article 1, Section 8 powers.

So, why haven’t Republicans embraced the Dormant Commerce Clause as a tool in the fight against state-level government-run healthcare?  I can see three good reasons:

1.  I think it’s pretty clear that the doctrine, as formulated by the Supreme Court, wouldn’t prohibit states from enacting health insurance mandates.  It’s just a losing argument.  But that hasn’t always stopped determined advocates — in both parties — from making politically palatable losing arguments part of their stump speech.

2.  The Dormant Commerce Clause is a judicial creation that appears nowhere in the Constitution.  And it’s just really sad for die-hard originalist, anti-Supreme Court types to rely on a judicially-created constitutional doctrine to make their case.  This is post 1787, after all.

3.  Reliance on the Dormant Commerce Clause creates a troubling logical corollary for those convinced of Obamacare’s unconstitutionality.  If the Constitution precludes the states from passing a health insurance mandate on the ground that the authority to do those types of things is reserved to Congress . . . then Obamacare is constitutional.  Game over.  Checkmate.

So, let’s give Bachmann the benefit of the doubt and assume she wasn’t talking about the Dormant Commerce Clause.

[adsenseyu2]

Option 2:  The Due Process Clause

It’s more likely Bachmann’s statement was based a different ground.  The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, could provide the basis for her contention that states are unable to enact a health insurance mandate.  The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit governments from depriving people of “life, liberty, or property,” without “due process of law.”

Although most straightforwardly applicable to procedural guarantees in courts of law, there is a long tradition, both in this country and England, America’s primary constitutional wellspring, of viewing the constitutional guarantee of due process as more than just an assurance of proper procedural safeguards, but also as a substantive protection of fundamental rights.  The substantive component of the guarantee of due process is called, not surprisingly, substantive due process.  Substantive due process is the basis for United States Supreme Court striking down statutes criminalizing abortion and homosexuality.

The primary benefit of the substantive due process approach to the fight against government healthcare is readily apparent — by putting a health insurance mandate outside of the legislative domain entirely, conservatives avoid the most significant problem associated with the federalism/dormant commerce approaches:  The possibility that all the constitutional battle over Obamacare gets them is 50 separate government-run healthcare schemes, instead of a single one.  But in avoiding this problem, the substantive due process approach creates some other issues.

First, it forces conservatives to make some awkward distinctions.  For example, if state health insurance mandates are prohibited by the Constitution, what about automobile insurance mandates (and please spare me the arguments about how driving a car is “optional”)?  Second, and more importantly, the substantive due process approach would require conservatives to embrace the same judicial doctrine used to justify the current constitutional right to an abortion.  Just as conservatives have argued for years that, “The Constitution says nothing about a right to an abortion,” liberals are sure to respond to Bachmann, “Where is the constitutional right to be free from economic mandates?”

In fact, this is precisely how the Roosevelt Administration responded when conservatives argued, 75 years ago, that individuals and businesses had a constitutional right to be free from troublesome social welfare legislation like maximum hour and child labor laws.  It was conservatives’ insistence in pursuing the constitutional solution to state social welfare legislation that led to the Supreme Court abandoning economic substantive due process in a string of decisions that arguably culminated with that Tea Party favorite:  Wickard v. Filburn.  Sensing a troubling pattern here?  Conservatives should (and most do).  If nothing else, history counsels trying something new this time.

So, which is it, Candidate Bachmann — dormant commerce or substantive due process — that prohibits Romneycare and other state solutions?

I predict the Bachmann team begins an orderly retraction of this statement starting in 3, 2, 1 . . . .

 

Filed Under: Election 2012, Law, News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,