It's Hard Out There For Conservatives

Containing political panic over the economy is hard for professional conservatives in Washington -- those who spend their days thinking about, writing about, debating conservatism, especially when there's a presidential race on the candidates are facing real voters in town hall meetings.

The Pro-Cons will caution patience. And the candidates will be on hastily-called telephonic conferences with policy advisers asking for help: "What can I say that won't anger the Pro-Cons? Are there are any arrows left to fire?"

When economic crises intervene, politicians are expected to do something or say something, and Democrats, because they can keep increasing the tab on their stimulus packages, often have more to say. Though Republicans are running to head the government, their antipathy to government intervention and regulation, based in part on philosophy and principle, in part on the need to psychically separately themselves from the other party and in part on the need to pander to their donors -- closes off many avenues for amelioration. (Indeed, there's even an interesting and non-academic debate about whether crises ought to be ameliorated -- most stimulus plans tend to kick in too late -- and the preference for monetary intervention over fiscal policy is hard to explain on the stump.

For the most part, Republican presidential candidates are not addressing wealthy voters on the stump; they are not addressing professional conservatives; they are not addressing upper-income voters who've spent time assimilating the intellectual case for a conservative
economic response.

Compounding maters, the Republican brand is no longer synonymous with fiscal discipline -- no brand is, really -- and attempts to make that attribute paramount are, again, probably more likely to please the Pro-Cons than satiate the concerns of the real-life cons(ervatives) who can read Stephen Moore with one hand and feel tremors with the other because they can't afford the mortgage.

Responses vary. Mitt Romney is optimistic. "**Every time i see things get scary, I put aside fear and say, aha is this a buying opportunity." Along with the usual corporate rate cuts, he has not ruled out additional government spending. He seems to have an inner force that directs him to assess problems and solve them. With health care in Massachusetts, he seems to have come to terms with a balance between pragmatism and political ideology, and he has sacrificed the former for the latter -- arguably a good thing. (He also wants to reduce taxation on investment, which would arguably increase savings, which is kind of the opposite of a stimulus package.)

Whipping out a tax cut, as Rudy Giuliani does, measuring it, and then bragging about it could easily be seen as cartoonish and one-dimensional. As in -- he's a guy who doesn't hang around with people who can't afford their mortgages; moreover, his instinct is to punish and instruct, rather than to help; and I'm kind of looking for a way out of this mess, right now, and not at the person who'll wave the biggest tax cut in front of my face and proclaim that an economic plan. There is more to Giuliani's economic vision than this, but he has a tough time communicating it.

Fred Thompson exemplified conservative toughness, and his economic policy was roundly praised by those who professionally test economic policies for their conservativeness, but, alas, he is out of the race.

John McCain communicates well on national security and is hit-or-miss on economic policy. He hhas admittedly, plainly, that he doesn't know as much about it as do the other candidates.

Who gets the better of the day?