Thoughts on Pawlenty and the Making of a Conservative VP
I received an interesting email this morning from Bob Schroeder, Governor Pawlenty's former Deputy Chief of Staff. Schroeder's email addressed the points made in Michael Tanner's post on Cato's blog yesterday, "A Big-Government Running Mate for McCain," which I linked to.
Schroeder makes some valid points and some invalid points, and I would like to address some of the specifics. I would also like to talk about a general model for how conservatives should approach the veepstakes discussion.
I believe Schroeder is correct that Pawlenty has never staked out a position on Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill or how the bill should be funded. But Pawlenty did support renewing SCHIP, and was part of a bipartisan coalition of governors urging Congress to pass the bill, which included increases in government spending and government-run healthcare. His silence on the tax increase in the bill is not all that comforting. I am also doubtful that Pawlenty would have opposed the tax increase since he imposed a cigarette tax increase of his own in Minnesota in 2004.
Schroeder goes on to argue that Pawlenty did not support price controls on drugs offered through Medicare but a proposal to "allow common-sense market-based practices that would permit government to negotiate bulk drug prices through Medicare." What Schroeder doesn't mention is that this "common-sense" practice is tantamount to government-imposed price controls since the government has enormous leverage given the amount of drugs it purchases and the amount of power it yields. It is not that hard to imagine the government saying, "We'll buy the drugs at that price, but next time one of your drugs is up for a trial at the FDA, you might find it a little tough going," or "have fun trying to get a patent for your new drug." A Weekly Standard piece by Robert M. Goldberg describes what happens when the Veterans Administration "negotiates" prescription drug prices: "Far from negotiating drug prices, the VA imposes them. Federal law requires companies to sell to the VA at 24 percent below wholesale price. If they won't they are banned from selling medicines to Medicaid, Medicare, and the public health service." The rest of the article is well worth reading.
Schroeder also says that "Just a month ago, Pawlenty erased a $935 million state budget deficit, without raising taxes." But the estimated $1 billion budget deficit was not erased so much as it was patched up with scraps of paper and Elmer's glue. Total spending cuts amounted to a meager $136 million out of a $36 billion biennial budget (that's about one-third of 1%). The rest of the deficit was filled with $500 million from the state's budget reserve and $109 billion in what amounts to a tax increase on Minnesota businesses. This means that there were no major structural changes to Minnesota's growing budget (the biennial budget grew by 10%) and the Legislature will have to deal with the same problems in the next session.
Finally, Schroeder doesn't mention several other aspects of Pawlenty's record that conservatives find troubling: His tax increase in 2004 in violation of his pledge not to raise taxes, his aggressive energy mandates, his participation in and support for a regional cap-and-trade program, his support for the bloated Farm Bill, and his expansion of government-run health care.
The point of this is not that Pawlenty is a liberal Democrat, but that he not a conservative superstar. As far as vice-presidential candidates go, are there worse possibilities from the conservative perspective than Tim Pawlenty? Absolutely. Has Pawlenty achieved some admirable things? Yes. His first budget earned him the praise of many conservatives, and rightfully so. He has also vetoed some big pork projects. But the follow-up question is this: Is Pawlenty a staunch advocate and leader for limited-government, free-market policies? I certainly wouldn't go that far. Is he a leader in the mold of Mark Sanford, Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, Jeff Flake, Mike Pence, and others? No.
I have been accused of adhering to an ideological purity test so strict that only few politicians can meet the sky-high standards. I will be the first to admit that I have higher conservative standards than most, but in this stage of the game, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Right now, conservatives should be telling the McCain campaign what kind of vice-president they want and what kind they don't. It may be that we will have to settle for something less than wonderful, but there is no reason to thrown in the towel from the get go. Now is the time for conservatives to be influencing McCain's decision in the VP department. In two months, it will be too late.
The VP debate has a tendency to confuse political arguments with ideological ones. Conservatives may argue that we must sacrifice ideology for the sake of politics, but it is important that we distinguish one from the other. Arguing that Tim Pawlenty can carry Minnesota for McCain and clinch the presidency is a legitimate (albeit a misguided) argument, but it is another thing to argue that he is a conservative leader and the base should embrace him with open arms. The political/pragmatic arguments are certainly important. But there is something to be said for arguing for an ideologically conservative VP as well.
From an ideological standpoint, the VP slot is important in two respects. One, conservatives are not exactly in love with McCain. Many have come around to the idea that he is our nominee, for better or for worse, but every time he touts cap-and-trade or unleashes another class-warfare assault, we grumble under our breath and wonder how much more we can take. In 1976, Reagan, whose conservative credentials were untouchable, had the luxury of picking a moderate for his VP, and even that caused a stir. McCain does not have that luxury.
Second, there is the future of the conservative movement to think of. Whether McCain wins or not, his VP nominee will be boosted automatically to a new national profile that may give him or her an advantage in 2012 or 2016. This is not always the case-see Joe Lieberman for example. But McCain's pick could have long lasting effects on the direction of the Party. Do we really want to say right now that the GOP's heir will be the kind of politician who supports the Farm Bill, SCHIP, cap-and-trade, and energy mandates? This goes for governors like Bobby Jindal and Charlie Crist as well. They are not without some admirable accomplishments. Jindal has passed an ethics reform package and a small, but important school choice program in New Orleans. Crist has refused all tax increases pretty much throughout his career and has lived within his budget's means as governor. But their attitude towards government is not the picture of a politician who believes in small government as an ideal. Rather, they seem to buy into a new Republican philosophy that has taken hold of the Party over the past six years-one that believes in big government, just not as big as the Democrats.
To some this may seem like a witch hunt of sorts, and I have been accused of trying to Huckabee Bobby Jindal (alert Merriam Webster--Huckabee is now a verb), but I have merely been trying to advocate that the conservative movement shouldn't settle if we don't have to. Settling over the past six years has not won the GOP any great rewards to boast of. Today, the GOP is a dwindling minority, clinging desperately to a filibuster-safe caucus. We can and should do better when it comes to picking our second-in-command.
