With Chris Christie’s victory in the recent gubernatorial election in New Jersey, many liberals and centrists have hailed his brand of politics as a moderate way forward for the Republican Party. In his victory speech, the governor billed himself as a pragmatic leader able to rise above “politics as usual,” offered vague platitudes about leadership and touted his ability to “get things done.”
After years of Tea Party-led trench warfare in Washington, such a message is understandably relieving for liberals looking for an opposition party willing to govern. It is Christie’s brand as a “moderate dealmaker,” however, that ultimately makes him so dangerous to everything liberals claim to value, especially to the New Deal vision of social democracy that liberals have been building for generations.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama described himself as a Rorschach test capable of meaning vastly different things to different people. Christie, like many other successful politicians, shares this attribute with Obama. To the 50 percent of Hispanics and 21 percent of African-American voters who supported him on Election Day, Christie’s willingness to cooperate with Obama during Hurricane Sandy likely signaled an inclination to move beyond the racially tinged and highly partisan debates of the past five years. While Mitt Romney dismissed 47 percent of Americans as “victims” who can never be convinced to “take personal responsibility and care for their own lives,” Christie seemed to offer a different, more inclusive way forward for minorities and the poor. In a speech to an audience at the George W. Bush Institute, however, Christie asserted that America was turning into a “paternalistic entitlement society” with a looming future of “a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for the next government check.” In the same speech, Christie proposed to “deal with” Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and alluded to plans to enact “pro-growth tax reform” (read: tax cuts for the rich) in a manner highly reminiscent of the Romney-Ryan platform.
At a private retreat with Republican donors, Christie expanded upon his plans by proposing cutting Medicare and Medicaid benefits and raising the Social Security retirement age. Thanks to Mitt Romney’s blatant elitism and Ted Cruz’s wild-eyed fanaticism, Republicans have largely been unsuccessful in implementing this agenda. Chris Christie, on the other hand, has an everyman charm that will make him far more effective in codifying the policy preferences of plutocrats.
Because Christie has made gestures of moderation on the local level on issues like the Medicaid expansion, he seems downright liberal in comparison to most other elected Republicans today like Paul Ryan, Rand Paul and Scott Walker. The only reason for this is that the conservative movement has been so successful in moving the Overton window of acceptable policy positions to the right since the rise of Ronald Reagan. Liberals like those on The New Republic editorial board called Reagan “a darling of the rabid right” and liberal columnist Mary McCrory labeled Reagan a “nuclear cowboy.” Even Republicans like Richard Nixon privately called Reagan “shallow” with “limited mental capacity,” and Gerald Ford derided him as an “extremist.”
Since Reagan’s death, however, Democrats like Barack Obama have heaped praise on Reagan’s supposed moderation and frequently compared him favorably to today’s Tea Party Republicans.
As did Reagan, Christie is benefitting from a liberal desire to find more cuddly conservatives to elevate over the fringe. Because of all his positive mainstream media coverage, it’s easy to miss that Christie holds economic policy positions to the right of or in agreement with George W. Bush on most issues. On education, where Bush favored more stringent federal standards in exchange for greater spending, Christie has called for a dramatic expansion of charter schools and even the voucherization of the public school system. On Medicare, George W. Bush expanded the program to cover prescription drugs, whereas Christie has professed a desire to cut benefits. On regulation, Bush reluctantly supported the Sarbanes-Oxley act, which sought to improve the accuracy of corporate financial disclosures, as well as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. But Christie would face no such inclination to compromise from the congressional Republican Party.
On social issues, Christie is perceived as a moderate. On abortion, however, Christie is staunchly pro-life and eliminated family planning spending from New Jersey’s state budget. The only reason he has not taken more action on the issue is because of the constraints of governing in a predominantly Democratic state, but there can be little doubt as president Christie would appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would support overturning Roe v. Wade. Christie also has close ties with the private-prison industry, opposes decriminalization of small-amounts of marijuana and vetoed a gay-marriage bill — hardly progressive views. Yes, Christie has shown some moderation on gun control and immigration. But any inclination he has to take action on those issues will be greatly constrained by a Congressional GOP that is highly captive to the NRA and nativist interests.
George W. Bush once joked at a charity dinner, “This is an impressive crowd — the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base.” While he was clearly speaking in jest, Bush nevertheless shed light on why politicians like Christie and himself can be so dangerous. They may seem folksy, charming and have gubernatorial records that suggest compromise and leadership, but when it comes to national politics, they will diligently serve the interests of a donor class that is committed to slashing taxes, regulation and the social safety net. Christie may seem like a breath of fresh air right now, but upon assuming the presidency, he’d give liberals much more angst than the Tea Party ever could.
Gray Whisnant is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. His columns run Wednesdays.
Read More
LETTER: Medical students stand in support of transgender youth
By Rachel Rezabek , Russell Hawes , Ishaan Rischie , Elianna Dunster , Kaile Maske , Zain Ahmad and Zoe Ziff | 13 hours agoAs future physicians, we cannot remain silent, especially since U.Va. Health is one of the most comprehensive gender health centers in the country.
HUYNH: The Supreme Court must support civil rights litigation in Virginia and beyond
By Viet Huynh | 18 hours agoThe Supreme Court must prioritize protecting the litigating power of the people against potentially tyrannical laws by their government.
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | YesterdayIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
