Bobby Jindal's Response
As is so often the case, Ramesh says it best:
I thought his delivery was weak. The content will play well with the party base but seems unlikely to expand it. . . . That said, it is hard for anybody to come out well from responding to a presidential speech to a joint session of Congress.
At a forum in Philadelphia, I interviewed Ramesh on the Republican future. He noted that we were part of the tiny conspiracy of non-Hindu South Asian conservatives, and I believe is literally the only other member. During that same forum, Ramesh made a very astute observation about the source of Republican vulnerabilities over the last two decades. Not everyone will agree with his analysis, but I think it was spot on.
- Foreign policy has been a strength for Republicans. It is now a weakness.
- Social issues have been a strength for Republicans, and they remain a strength. There is room for debate on whether or not this will continue to be true.
- Economic issues have been a serious weakness for Republicans, whether the party is winning or losing. At a basic level, working and middle class Americans — particularly those who are nonwhite and those who live in large metropolitan areas — don’t believe that Republicans understand their economic anxieties.
An interesting finding from the 2008 exit polls: When asked, “Who Is In Touch With People Like You?,” 44 percent said “only Obama” and 26 percent said “only McCain,” while 13 percent said “both” and 16 percent — my favorite — said “neither.” Obama started out much closer to 50 percent simply by virtue of passing that gut-level test.
Did Jindal’s speech pass that bar — will it strike the (small handful) of viewers as reflecting a basic understanding of the economic anxieties Americans are dealing with? I’m a firm believer that our leaders should project optimism. A realistic, non-crazy optimism, but optimism all the same. And I liked Jindal’s emphasis on what Americans can achieve: it appealed to my sensibilities. Yet while Democrats need to ramp up their optimism, I think Republicans need to ramp up the sense that they appreciate the gravity of the downturn. Can-do spirit: very good. Emphasis on pragmatism: also good. But a word or two about how we — Democrats and Republicans — have gotten ourselves into a massive mess? Also good.
And was Jindal right about a maglev train from Los Angeles to Las Vegas? I don’t think he was, and that’s frustrating. My understanding is that this is a mischaracterization of the legislation. The effort to find “pork” in the bill strikes me as misconceived: better to emphasize that it represents a comprehensively wrongheaded (arguendo) approach, and to offer an attractive alternative.
PS Unfortunately, this Ezra Klein post rings true.
Beyond that, it’s a speech that Boehner could have given in 2007 and that Frist could have given in 2005 and that Lott could have given in 1998 and that Gingrich could have given in 1993. Jindal made a mistake accepting the GOP’s invitation to give this response. Yesterday, he seemed like a different kind of Republican. Today, he doesn’t.
That, however, can change. It’s a long way to 2016.
Every Democrat wins on the “who cares more about you” question, every time. Mondale, Dukakis—all of ‘em.
— Gabriel Winant · Feb 25, 05:43 AM · #
I tried to post this below but it disappeared and meanwhile a more appropriate venue materialized.
I just watched as much of his State of the Nation response speech as I could stand. That dude needs to go on walkabout. He needs to hitch hike around, live by his wits and work with his hands. He shouldn’t come home until he’s done some stuff: got an std from a teenaged runaway, swam across the missisippi, shot a cop, lived in a cave, had anal sex in a Manhatten alley, had one of those 2 week disater marriages, performed an exorcism, ramrodded a shipment of dope across the canadian boarder, befriended an injured wolf or bear, etc…. just the everyday american experiences that shape all of us in our youth.
— cw · Feb 25, 06:10 AM · #
Reihan, I loved your book and always learn from your arguments. And in this specific post, I don’t know if there’s really anything I substantially disagree with you about. However — and this has lurked in the mind since reading Grand New Party — when you mentioned the exit poll data about being “in touch,” combined with the problem of “economic anxieties,” a question came to mind: will it ever be possible to outbid the Democrats in terms of buying people off? Being “in touch” seems to translate into giving people things they want. The Left will always promise to give more.
I realize GNP is an attempt to answer this question. But a real worry I have about all the various iterations of reform conservatism is this: once you grant that certain issues are real problems (say, health care in this country) that the government should be in the business of ameliorating, why would anyone choose a “market-friendly” reform or tax credits or anything other than simply being given (to continue the example) “free” health care? I don’t see how conservatives and/or Republicans ever really win on the economics issue. Again, I hope Republicans can talk about these issues more persuasively, and I’m sympathetic to reform conservatism. Its just that in my heart of hearts I don’t know how it win.
— Matt S. · Feb 25, 07:16 AM · #
Social issues have been a strength for Republicans, and they remain a strength.
Not with the youth demographic.
Either evolve that or die off already.
cw,I bet Jindal’s paper on his participation in a demonic exorcism will be the Wright moment of his campaign, should he run.
And he simply doesn’t have the mad oratory skillz to talk teh crazy away like Obama did.
— matoko_chan · Feb 25, 02:52 PM · #
If people like issues that impact them immediately, they shouldn’t have liked Obama’s speech. It referenced the economic situation and made boilerplate from SOTUs going back to the 70s and 80s (alt. energy, education spending) tangentially related, but it was really built around the Democratic understanding of American nationalism, in which response to crisis leads to ennobling government action (railroads, GI Bill, etc.)
That nationalism does not see government action as a necessary evil, but as desirable in itself. If Jindal’s speech hadn’t been an equally aspirational conservative nationalism, it would have been non-responsive. One mistake Jindal made was not referencing Sully in his list of American achievements, especially since Obama snubbed him in his everyday American heroes section in favor of more statist-friendly models.
— Aaron · Feb 25, 03:41 PM · #
In point of fact, Bobby Jindal actually has performed an exorcism.
— Chet · Feb 25, 06:28 PM · #
umm….chet….that was why cw put it in there.
— matoko_chan · Feb 26, 01:17 AM · #
Yes, but has he ever eaten a bluejay?
— cw · Feb 26, 01:29 AM · #
“He noted that we were part of the tiny conspiracy of non-Hindu South Asian conservatives, and I believe is literally the only other member.” What about Dinesh D’Souza?
— JT · Mar 1, 06:02 AM · #