American presidential elections tend to resemble a lunchtime saunter through a grocery store. Most presidential elections since 1968 saw voters looking to satisfy a craving. The craving that voters might have in 2012 seems to help and hurt some potential Republican nominees. One nominee it might help is Mitch Daniels.
Richard Nixon won in 1968 largely because Americans were hungry for some law and order — cops willing to beat down the unruly who were torching American cities and disrupting political discourse. The excesses of the year lead to a craving across the country for some peace and quiet.
Of course, Carter was the most obvious example of my theory of political cravings. Voters craved anything that wasn’t crooked, and Carter satisfied. They were hungry for integrity in government, or so they thought.
Sick of four years of inept integrity, voters in 1980 craved something new. The American economy was in the dumps and America’s strategic standing was ebbing. Hostages in Iran and Soviets in Kabul led to Americans craving, well, someone who would stand up for America. Enter Ronald Reagan.
Only Cheech and Chong in a 7-Eleven at midnight have bigger cravings than voters did in 2008. Like that hazy pair, voters would eat anything.
What sort of politician might America crave in the diminishing age of Obama? I believe an emphasis on fiscal sanity and the central importance of the rule of law may be what Americans will hunger for in 2012. They also will want something new. If so, this helps candidates like Mitch Daniels and hurts potential candidates like Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney.
As a National Journal Insiders Poll shows, right now Daniels is surging.
Daniels has shown a commitment to and, more importantly, an understanding of the importance of the rule of law. Voters may have a big craving for a president who respects the rules and the Constitutional norms of the nation. The Obama presidency has served up a steady menu of lawlessness. From passing unconstitutional health care plans to encouraging lawlessness at American polling places to tossing aside ancient contract guarantees of security, this president has tolerated an erosion of the rules which have sustained our civilization for centuries.
Take the plight of the secured Chrysler bondholders. Governor Daniels, as ultimate overseer of the Indiana state retirement system which held secured Chrysler notes, fought back against the Obama administration’s lawlessness when they sought to reprioritize their place.
The bonds were purchased at a premium because they were secured against factory equipment. Bond markets that rely on established rules ensure that businesses can obtain capital to buy equipment, or even make payroll. These rules helped build cities, factories, and feed families. But to the Obama administration, they were a nuisance during the auto company takeovers.
Daniels ordered lawyers representing Indiana to fight back against Obama — the whole way to the Supreme Court — to defend the ancient principle of security in a note.