Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Ideology vs. Governance

By

The latest parade of ideological purity involves GOP governors refusing stimulus money.  

Jindal is one of a small group of Republican governors, which includes South Carolina’s Mark Sanford and Mississippi’s Haley Barbour, who have said they might refuse some or all of the stimulus money targeted to their states.

There are, of course, questions as to how this best represents their constituents, but more interestingly it can be seen as the triumph of ideology over governance.  Ezra elaborates:

Jindal and Sanford, of course, are running for president. But this is a very particular theory of the Republican primaries. They don’t expect to be judged on whether they’re successful governors. They expect to be judged on ideological purity. And the point they’re making is that when the two conflict, they will side with ideology. The fact that rejecting the funds is obviously bad for the state is also why it’s such a good political move: It shows they are ideologues rather than pragmatists. When you’re dealing with a party that still thinks tax cuts raise revenues, that’s an important point to prove.

One wonders how this will play out in 2012.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Say this works the way it is supposed to in terms of stimulating the economy.  Having three states not take money provides a good control variable to determine if the stimulus was the cause of a better economy by 2012 (not to mention leaving more for the rest of us!).  Suppose in 2012, the economy is doing much better in the 47 states that took the money while the three that didn’t are still struggling.  If one of their Governors gets the GOP nomination using the strategy you suggest he would now have to answer to Obama and the voters in the general.  I’d like to see Obama aggressively campaign in the nominee’s home state with the message of, “I offered you a way out of the economic mess, but your Governor was more interested in running for President than looking out for you.”  If the voters of that state agree with Obama, it would be quite the embarrassment to the GOP nominee to lose his own state, along with several others that will have benefited from Obama’s leadership.

    • It’s a campaign strategy that amounts to a twin bet on the failure of the broader economy and the relentless anti-pragmatism of the GOP base.

      <

      p>That being said, it still might be the estimation of some that even if the popularity overall of the move tanks, the reaction of the base is still more important to their overall chances.  That is, they might be more afraid of making a move unpopular with the base than with the electorate overall, because approval of the base is the first hurdle and gatekeeper.  

      • Doesn’t even the base want somebody electable?  Having an ideology doesn’t mean much if you can’t get elected with it.  Certainly they don’t think the base alone can carry them in the general election, because that’s all they will have!

        • Ideology vs. electability is the central conflict facing any group.  That being said, the willingness of a group to compromise ideology for electability or vice versa varies with the group, and probably tracks with what that group thinks it can push for an agenda sucessfully.  How the base actually will react is a separate question from Jindal’s actions.  The question is, given the conflict you point out, what does Jindal’s rhetoric tell you about how he thinks they will react.

        • Thinkprogress has a post up about the GOP’s latest helmsman Michael Steele.

          <

          p>

          … On his radio show, Mike Gallagher slammed Penn for ignoring “the majority of Americans” by supporting gay marriage rights, saying it went against America’s “fundamental values.

          Gallagher asked guest Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican Party, if he thought the party “ought to consider” something like civil unions. Steel”

          <

          p>Of course this could be more a case of changing your story to please your audience:

          <

          p>

          In fact, just days after winning election to head the GOP, he told ABC’s George Stehanopolous that his party would seek to include those who support gay rights

          <

          p>He’s made a big deal about reaching out to new constituencies.  Still, I can’t think of anywhere except Bizarro world where you can speak to “those who support gay rights” while simultaneously wanting to deny them marriage, civil unions, hate crime protection, or legal discrimination protection.  

          <

          p>The. Base. Must. Be. Fed.

    • It’s a campaign strategy that amounts to a twin bet on the failure of the broader economy and the relentless anti-pragmatism of the GOP base.

      <

      p>That being said, it still might be the estimation of some that even if the popularity overall of the move tanks, the reaction of the base is still more important to their overall chances.  That is, they might be more afraid of making a move unpopular with the base than with the electorate overall, because approval of the base is the first hurdle and gatekeeper.  

  2. Jindal, Sanford, & Co. certainly don’t want to be too successful in governing their states.  Their best hope is that Obama is unable to completely clean up the mess which he was given, and people will “throw the bum out”.  Hence, it becomes  a lot more powerful if these governors can point to the desperation around the nation and at home, even if they helped cause it.

  3. Governors’ consent is not required to get these funds to the states and the people in them.

    <

    p>So [Your Name here] ’12 can have its cake and eat it too.

    <

    p>It’s fake.

    <

    p>You’re surprised?

Archives