Political Commentary

Blind Ambition

22 Comments

No one who wants badly to be president should be allowed to have the office.

This is my big problem with Romney. It’s long been said that there are two kinds of people — those who want to do something, and those who want to be something. Like Al Gore, Mitt Romney has been bred since childhood to be president, and that’s what he wants to be. But he has no discernable unmalleable political principles, and the Republican electorate know this, explicitly if not instinctively, which is why there is so much ongoing resistance to him. They think that this election is too important to squander on someone who doesn’t seem to take seriously the fundamental issues facing the country, or know how to deal with them — by returning to Constitutional principles.

22 thoughts on “Blind Ambition”

  1. This is the basic problem with all forms of “representative” government: they represent only those with a hunger for power. I mean, who of all people should be kept as far as possible from the reins of power? The man who actively seeks power.

    Voting automatically selects for the sort of person who craves power. And yet we act surprised when elected politicians turn out to be power-mad. Bizarre.

    Just one more reason I’m a monarchist.

  2. “This is the basic problem with all forms of “representative” government: they represent only those with a hunger for power.”

    Remove the word “representative” and you have it right. Dictators hunger for power; bureaucrats hunger for power. Monarchs hunger for power, too. They are not exempt. Why you would think monarchs are somehow exempt from the thirst for power is beyond me.

    A very brief and surface look at British or French history makes that abundantly clear.

      1. Like a jury? That would work only if the government concerned itself with prohibiting and punishing things no decent person would do. It would be wholly unsuitable for government as it exists today.

      2. Monarchy essentially *is* a draft for leaders, with draft occuring at birth. This gives you the better part of a lifetime to train the draftee for the job, which is better than picking some random adult off the street. It also gives the draftee the better part of a lifetime to develop a sense of entitlement, which is not.

        Most real (non-ceremonial) monarchies tend to be partially elective or otherwise discretionary; if the previous king’s firstborn son turns is not suited for the job there’s a way to pass him over in favor of someone else – usually someone from the very small pool of people who have known from birth that all the top-level government jobs would be divided amongst them.
        This seems to have worked fairly well for the most part, though as Titus notes it works best if you have a minimalist government and we mostly don’t have those any more.

        Better still if you make the king (or whatever) lead the army personally in battle; the biggest mistake the leader of a minimalist government can usually make is to get involved in an unnecessary war, so enhanced attrition for militaristic monarchs could be a useful feature.

          1. Most pre-19th century European governments were fairly minimalist by modern standards. They might have claimed the King’s divine right to govern every aspect of every subject’s life, but the actual scope of their power was limited to collecting what by modern standards are pathetically low taxes, punishing the most blatant criminal conduct, supporting a small decadent aristocracy, and maintaining very limited common infrastructure. And, as noted, the occasional war, usually but not always small and pointless.

            And don’t be afraid to look to England for an example of how to do it right. Remember, the American colonists did not revolt for the sake of any great new ideas they’d thought up, but to maintain the rights, freedoms, and general prosperity they had always enjoyed under the Crown until one particularly clueless King tried to roll back that status. Note also that England’s monarchial quality-control system then reduced that King to figurehead status. Over the next century or so, as the government grew in power it gradually and peacefully transitioned to a democratic form better suited to safely handling such great power, and eventually rolled back the Empire in a similarly peaceful manner. Also historically managed to kill ~0.01% of the English population per year in revolutions and civil wars, compared to ~0.02% for the United States in its history.

            Neither we nor the British can go back, nor should we try, but let’s do respect what our ancestors accomplished in their time.

  3. Ancient Greek Democracies tried a jury system. Iffy results.

    Romney strikes me as the meh candidate. I’ll vote for him if I have to. No great expectations, but he should be able to submit budgets on time, and probably knows some competent people to appoint to major positions. Stability at the top is a good thing for the economy, so we might get the recovery we have been waiting for. If his budgets are balanced, so much the better.

  4. This has been driving me a little nuts, and I don’t mean with you, specifically, Rand. What do you mean the Republican resisitance? I (finally) found a site that had the delegation count (and it was surprisingly difficult to find) and it said that Santorum had about 45 or 48, Gingrich had about the same, and Romney had 125! And Romney has over double Santorum’s popular vote, and about half-again what Gingrich has. It’s still early (like 5% of the necessary delegates), but as a percentage of the votes cast so far, it’s a significant lead.

    And who are “the establishment” that is pushing Romney on the public? Ann Coulter is the only public commentator I know that’s supporting him (I don’t read David Brooks, so maybe he is). Almost nobody else likes him. (I realize you didn’t bring this up, but this is my question that is driving me so nuts). The ratios I cited above are consistent without the “superdelegates” included.

    My question is not why “I don’t like Romney” or “I like this guy”; I’m trying to figure out where this narrative is coming from.

    1. Looks like Senator Santorum’s bubble has burst with Gov. Romney’s double win yesterday. Which means it looks like Dr. Griffin will be taking over NASA again. I wonder what NASA will look like after eight years of Dr. Griffin as administrator.

      1. I wonder what NASA will look like after eight years of Dr. Griffin as administrator.

        After another few years of Griffin’s pet projects, NASA would be completely, totally irrelevant.

  5. B Lewis, to state what is obvious to most, the founding fathers understood that government, of any sort, will trend towards tyranny. That’s why we have checks and balances written into the Constitution. Washington understood this and resisted the Monarchy option with faith in his fellow founders to get it right. For the most part they did!

  6. Hi Rand —
    May I take a moment to say that I know we are allies in what we want for our country. A return to Constitutional principles. From where I sit, I see NEwt all ready to help us make that happen. You don’t, I guess. Ok. Fair enough. We all have our own process and must make our own choices. But one citizen to another, may I give you a sincere word of appreciation that you want that for our country. Thank you. Me, too. So much. that’s what this is all about for me. Thanks, Rand.

    Rand — you said :
    But he [Romney] has no discernable unmalleable political principles, and the Republican electorate know this, explicitly if not instinctively, which is why there is so much ongoing resistance to him.

    They think that this election is too important to squander on someone who doesn’t seem to take seriously the fundamental issues facing the country, or know how to deal with them — by returning to Constitutional principles. [end Rand Simberg quote]

    THAT’S RIGHT. BY RETURNING TO CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES. Newt understands this better than any candidate. Newt has a clear plan for how we’re going to do it.

    Listen to the plan. Think for yourself. Find out for yourself.
    http://newtgingrich360.com/profiles/blogs/newt-2012-cpac-2012-american-campaign-newt-man-with-the-plan
(I put a loose transcript there so you can skim through it if you want.)

    Steve A
    February 29, 2012 at 11:25 am | # | Reply
    B Lewis, to state what is obvious to most, the founding fathers understood that government, of any sort, will trend towards tyranny. That’s why we have checks and balances written into the Constitution. Washington understood this and resisted the Monarchy option with faith in his fellow founders to get it right. For the most part they did! [end Steve A comment]

    Yes Steve A!! BY RETURNING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT FROM OUR FOUNDING.

    Dingdingdingdingding — we have another winner:
    Newt gave a SPECTACULAR talk to The Citadel cadets in a class led by Professor Mallory Factor, called The Conservative Intellectual Tradition in America.

    http://conservatives4newt.blogspot.com/2012/02/speaker-gingrich-on-conservative.html

    What the Founding generation had was a general sense of direction, practicality, the desire to conserve the past 160 years of actually living in freedom and self-government. It took time and lots of work to get something that worked. They really worked at it.

    Freedom is our birthright as Americans. FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF. THINK FOR YOURSELF. Be mentally tough. Let’s live up to our birthright.

  7. Newt would maybe make a good VP since they generally speak out more on issues. As far as Romney I think it’s put up or shut up time. He’s going to be the nominee and its time to stop with the tearing down and start talking about what he brings to the table that Obama lacks. One thing is his track record of turning around organizations in dire economic straits. If anything that’s exactly the person we need to be in office right now who can get us back onto the surge in growth that normally accompanies a recovery from a recession.

  8. Yeah, I said it before and I’m leaning more this way: I would prefer a big Tea Party win in both houses of Congress & 4 more years of Obama, to more tarnishing of the conservative/classical liberal brand with 4 more years of a squish with carte blanche. Republicans don’t deserve another sweep after how badly they screwed it up last time. Let them learn the hard way, let the debt crisis get even more obvious, let the economy stagnate for more years than the media can claim “Bush did it.”

    You don’t get Reagan without Nixon 6 years earlier. It looks like 4 years wasn’t enough time for the RNC to get the memo.

    1. As I said before, Governor Romneycare moves the Overton window to the Left. A second term for Obama does not. I’m not sure what the Long Marchers hope to gain (legislation?!? SCOTUS appointments, I guess…) tactically that isn’t overhsadowed by that strategic win. If, by some accidnet at the Large Hadron Collider involving a parallel dimension, the Dems ran a non-Leftist, I’d peronsally canvas the fracking district state for that guy!

      1. Titus,

        [[[the Dems ran a non-Leftist, I’d peronsally canvas the fracking district state for that guy!]]]

        Any examples? I thought in the new world of Republicans all Democrats are left by definition…

Comments are closed.