I’ve been watching Mitch Daniels’s career as governor of Indiana with great interest for the last few years. I was impressed by his election in 2004 and then his 18-point margin of victory in 2008, a very tough year to have an “R” next to your name. Daniels is a true fiscal conservative and effective decision-maker. Andrew Ferguson recently wrote a terrific profile of Daniels in the latest issues of The Weekly Standard. His achievements in Indiana have been impressive:
When Daniels took office, in 2004, the state faced a $200 million deficit and hadn’t balanced its budget in seven years. Four years later, all outstanding debts had been paid off; after four balanced budgets, the state was running a surplus of $1.3 billion, which has cushioned the blows from a steady decline in revenues caused by the recession. “That’s what saved us when the recession hit,” one official said. “If we didn’t have the cash reserves and the debts paid off, we would have been toast.” The state today is spending roughly the same amount that it was when Daniels took office, largely because he resisted the budget increases other states were indulging in the past decade.
No other state in the Midwest—all of them, like Indiana, dependent on a declining manufacturing sector—can match this record. Venture capital investment in Indiana had lagged at $39 million annually in the first years of this decade. By 2009 it was averaging $94 million. Even now the state has continued to add jobs—7 percent of new U.S. employment has been in Indiana this year, a state with 2 percent of the country’s population. For the first time in 40 years more people are moving into the state than leaving it. Indiana earned its first triple-A bond rating from Standard and Poor’s in 2008; the other two major bond rating agencies concurred in April 2010, making it one of only nine states with this distinction, and one of only two in the Midwest.
We could use some of Daniels’s discipline in Washington. Daniels is taking some heat, however, for telling Ferguson that the next president “…will have to call a truce on the so-called social issues.” Mike Huckabee sent members of his HUCKPAC list a fundraising e-mail criticizing Daniels over the “truce” comment. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council also took Daniels to task for his comments. I’m a dedicated pro-lifer and I hope that some day Roe v. Wade is overturned, but I think some folks are getting too wrapped around the axle over his comments. (Here’s something to get bent out of shape over.) I have no doubt that, if elected president, he would support pro-life policies. His comment was merely a question of emphasis. Fiscal conservatism is a sexier message these days than social conservatism. This does not mean that he’s not dedicated to advancing socially conservative policies. Let’s give Mitch a shot. I mean it’s only June 2010, and you want to disqualify a very strong candidate over what seems to be a rather benign remark?
Let’s shift gears to foreign policy. Jennifer Rubin of Commentary wrote a separate piece on Daniels following a meeting with conservative journalists earlier this week. She asked him about U.S. foreign policy and, as Reihan Salam noted at The Agenda, found his answer “wanting.” I found his answer satisfying and thought-provoking.
I asked him the sole question on foreign policy — in what fundamental ways Obama had erred? He did not address any of the basic concerns conservatives have been discussing (e.g., engagement with despots, indifference on human rights, animus toward Israel). Instead, he gave a platitude, “Peace through strength has totally been vindicated.” And then he immediately asserted that we have to “ask questions about the extent of our commitments.” He said, “If we go broke, no one will follow a pauper.” At least temporarily, he said, we can’t maintain all our commitments. But if our foes don’t take a break, what do we do? Should we pull up stakes in Iraq and Afghanistan and hack away at the defense budget? It’s not clear whether he has thought these issues through, or whether he views foreign policy as anything more than a cost-control issue.
The bottom line is that we’re going bankrupt, both at home and abroad. To acknowledge this fact does not mean that you’re an “appeaser” or “American declinist,” rather, I would argue, a conservative. I think he raised some very thoughtful points on the sustainability of our current foreign policy. Many conservatives think that the defense budget is sacrosanct but the fact of the matter is that there’s significant waste and if we can’t secure this country with half a trillion dollars then we’re just not doing something right. We need to scale back our government commitments domestically–and abroad. Big government, liberal internationalism is not a conservative foreign policy. Daniels will encounter some resistance from the Washington foreign policy establishment over these views, especially as his national profile grows. Some will lobby him to adopt a more activist foreign policy stance. That would be a mistake. We’ll see what happens, though I’m encouraged by his thoughtful remarks.
The Conservative Mitch Daniels
We could use some of Daniels’s discipline in Washington. Daniels is taking some heat, however, for telling Ferguson that the next president “…will have to call a truce on the so-called social issues.” Mike Huckabee sent members of his HUCKPAC list a fundraising e-mail criticizing Daniels over the “truce” comment. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council also took Daniels to task for his comments. I’m a dedicated pro-lifer and I hope that some day Roe v. Wade is overturned, but I think some folks are getting too wrapped around the axle over his comments. (Here’s something to get bent out of shape over.) I have no doubt that, if elected president, he would support pro-life policies. His comment was merely a question of emphasis. Fiscal conservatism is a sexier message these days than social conservatism. This does not mean that he’s not dedicated to advancing socially conservative policies. Let’s give Mitch a shot. I mean it’s only June 2010, and you want to disqualify a very strong candidate over what seems to be a rather benign remark?
Let’s shift gears to foreign policy. Jennifer Rubin of Commentary wrote a separate piece on Daniels following a meeting with conservative journalists earlier this week. She asked him about U.S. foreign policy and, as Reihan Salam noted at The Agenda, found his answer “wanting.” I found his answer satisfying and thought-provoking.
The bottom line is that we’re going bankrupt, both at home and abroad. To acknowledge this fact does not mean that you’re an “appeaser” or “American declinist,” rather, I would argue, a conservative. I think he raised some very thoughtful points on the sustainability of our current foreign policy. Many conservatives think that the defense budget is sacrosanct but the fact of the matter is that there’s significant waste and if we can’t secure this country with half a trillion dollars then we’re just not doing something right. We need to scale back our government commitments domestically–and abroad. Big government, liberal internationalism is not a conservative foreign policy. Daniels will encounter some resistance from the Washington foreign policy establishment over these views, especially as his national profile grows. Some will lobby him to adopt a more activist foreign policy stance. That would be a mistake. We’ll see what happens, though I’m encouraged by his thoughtful remarks.