There is little excitement about the current field of GOP presidential aspirants (with the possible exception of the always entertaining and quickly marginalized Ron Paul). What is somewhat striking is the extent to which Perry and Gingrich have framed the core debate, playing right into the hands of Obama’s 2012 campaign.
I think Charles Krauthammer (todays WaPo) has correctly diagnosed the current state of affairs. He notes that the President’s efforts to frame the debate as an issue of economic inequality seemed to get little traction.
Then came the twist. Then came the most remarkable political surprise since the 2010 midterm: The struggling Democratic class-war narrative is suddenly given life and legitimacy by . . . Republicans! Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry make the case that private equity as practiced by Romney’s Bain Capital is nothing more than vulture capitalism looting companies and sucking them dry while casually destroying the lives of workers.
Now, economic inequality is an important issue…in a stroke, the Republicans have succeeded in turning a Democratic talking point — a last-ditch attempt to salvage reelection by distracting from their record — into a central focus of the nation’s political discourse.
The end result of “the GOP maneuvering itself right onto Obama terrain”:
The president is a very smart man. But if he wins in November, that won’t be the reason. It will be luck. He could not have chosen more self-destructive adversaries.
Given the way the GOP presidential aspirants have framed the debate, can they make any principled argument against expanded efforts at redistributing income and regulating business post 2012?
Can they make principled arguments at all?