(Note: This article was originally published in Wisconsin Interest Magazine.)
Three years into his tumultuous first term, as he prepares to run for re-election and perhaps position himself for a presidential run in 2016, Scott Walker remains a puzzle even to some of his closest observers. He is, after all, a hard-edged conservative who talks about being a "champion to the vulnerable"; a fiscal conservative who disdains the politics of austerity; as well as a master communicator who sometimes fails to make his case.
His new book is unlikely to satisfy his critics or dispel all of the mystery behind the man we should know so much better. But it is a start.
Unintimidated: A Governor’s Story And A Nation’s Challenge, is an attempt not merely to tell the story of his battle over Act 10, but to define "Walkerism" and to sharply differentiate its style and philosophy from those of other leading Republicans, especially failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
Along the way, the book highlights the paradoxes of the man at the center of the storm. Let's take a look at those paradoxes one by one and how they might play on the national stage.
Walker is a fiscal conservative who disdains the politics of austerity.
After nine years as Milwaukee county executive and three years as governor, Walker’s image (at least among progressives) is that of a relentless budget cutter. In a scathing attack in 2011, historian John Gurda accused him of "dismantling government one line item at a time, regardless of the consequences."
But in his book, Walker is sharply critical of what he calls the "sour politics of austerity."
"Too often, conservatives present themselves as the bearers of sour medicine, when we should be offering a positive, optimistic agenda instead.
His budget could have laid off tens of thousands of middle class workers, slashed Medicaid, and cut billions from schools and local governments, he writes. "But," Walker asks, "where is the optimism in that?"
Instead, Walker champions what he calls a "hopeful, optimistic alternative to austerity."
The key, he writes, is rejecting the "false choice" of spending cuts versus tax hikes and opting instead for changing the fundamental rules of the game. "We found a way to make government not just smaller, but also more responsive, more efficient, and more effective. And because we did, we were able to cut government spending, while still improving education and public services."
Walker is a hard-edged conservative who talks about being a "champion to the vulnerable."
It is safe to say that this is how the left sees Walker. Early in the fight over Act 10, a liberal critic referred to Walker’s "icy ideology." But his argument for championing the less fortunate is central to Walkerism (and to his scathing critique of the failure of Mitt Romney to connect with voters.)
"Republicans need to reclaim their position as the party of upward mobility and opportunity for al," he argues. Walker places heavy emphasis on the need to reform entitlement programs not by emphasizing green eyeshade critiques, but by stressing the importance of moving people from dependence to independence.
When the left accuses him of "hating" the poor, Walker responds: "I love the people of my state so much that I don't want them to be permanently dependent on the government. I don't want to make it harder for them to get government assistance; I want to make it easier for them to get a job. "
But Walker is also prepared to go further, embracing a more activist and inclusive agenda:
"We need to champion immigrants who come here seeking a better life. We need to champion those born here in poverty who want nothing more than to escape it…That requires more than saying the right things. It requires showing up in inner city schools and talking about expanding school choice, reading initiatives and our plans to reform education, so that everyone among us will have the mental tools to build a better life.
In the book, Walker is scathing in his critique of Romney’s 47 percent comment; says that he "cringed" when he heard Romney say 'I’m not concerned about the very poor," and labels Romney’s use of the phrase "self-deportation" as "disastrous."
"You can't win the presidency when nearly two-thirds of the country thinks you don't care about their struggles," he writes.
Walker is a policy wonk who emphasizes the need to tell stories about "fairness."
He comes from the Paul Ryan/Ron Johnson "I-have-a-chart-for-that" School of Fiscal Conservatism. So, it’s striking to see Walker quote the American Enterprise Institute's Arthur Brooks, who argues that human beings by their nature respond to moral, rather than empirical, arguments
"Conservatives spend far too much time trying to move minds, without moving hearts as well. We gather tons of empirical data to back up our arguments, only to see the liberals respond with heartbreaking stories about how our policies will supposedly hurt children, the elderly and the destitute. The heartbreaking stories win.
"If we counter the left’s arguments simply with logic, reason, and data alone, we will lose the debate over the future of our country. But if we counter them with logic, reason, data and an appeal to the American people’s innate sense of fairness, we can prevail.
He is a radical reformer who talks about appealing to the center:
To his critics, of course, Walker is a figure of extraordinary divisiveness. But polls suggest that something like 11% of the state’s electorate supports both Walker and his ideological nemesis, Barack Obama.
Walker repeatedly emphasizes the importance of "boldness" and tackling major issues with sweeping reforms. "I governed as conservative reformer and didn’t flinch,’ he writes. But Walker argues that the key to understanding the Walker-Obama voter phenomenon is recognizing the bloc of "independent, reform-minded voters" who are attracted to "a reform agenda that is hopeful and optimistic."
Walker flatly rejects idea that Republicans need to "moderate" their views to appeal to an increasingly left-leaning electorate. "Our principles are not the problem," he argues. "If our principles were the problem, then why are so many Republican governors winning elections by campaigning on those very principles" He points to the fact that in the Era of Obama, the GOP has gone from controlling both the legislature and governorship in eight states to controlling them in 23 states in 2013. No GOP governor, he notes, has lost a general election since 2007.
"We did not win all those races by running from our principles. We won by applying our principles in ways that are relevant to the lives of our citizens."
Walker is an intransigent politician who is willing to compromise.
During the battle of Act 10, the public perception of Walker as a my-way-or-the-highway politician, unwilling to compromise with his opponents proved a heavy drag on his image. But, in the book, he points out that he was not only willing to compromise with Democrats, he also significantly modified his own proposal in the face of GOP opposition.
"My original plan for Act 10 was to eliminate collective bargaining altogether for all government workers," he writes. "But when my staff pointed out that police and firefighters could go on strike, and the danger that would entail to public safety, I didn't hesitate to exempt them.
"Similarly, when Republican senators wanted to reform collective bargaining rather than eliminate it, we compromised again -- finding a way to accommodate their concerns while preserving the goals of our legislation." His attempts to strike a deal with the absent Democrat senators ultimately were rejected.
Walker is a master communicator who sometimes doesn't make his case.
He may be the most media-ready governor west of Chris Christie, but in the excerpt from "Unintimidated" that accompanies this article, Walker confesses that he had simply not made the case for his collective bargaining reforms before he launched Act 10. When he realized that his own wife, Tonette, had doubts about his strategy, he knew that he was in trouble.
"If my own wife didn't see why we needed to change collective bargaining, how could I expect the voters of Wisconsin to see it? I was obviously doing a lousy job of explaining our reforms." As a result, Walker has become much more disciplined in explaining his thinking.
He is a divisive political figure at the center of nastiest political brawl in state history who says that the key to success is decency.
Walker recounts at length and in graphic detail the tone and tenor of the attacks against him and members of his family, arguing that ultimately the tactics backfired on the unions. "Most people agreed with Tonette that targeting my family and disrupting the lives of our neighbors and their children was going too far. Protesting at a Special Olympics ceremony, or gluing shut the doors of a Catholic school, or disrupting a fundraiser for disabled children, was going too far. No matter what your political views, here in Wisconsin people simply don't do things like that."
But even in the newly toxified atmosphere, "It was important to me that they saw that I never responded in kind to the often vicious attacks directed against me. I was firm and did not budge -- but no matter how personal the invective became, I never made it personal."
Walker is a headstrong politician who is willing to admit he screwed up.
His critic John Gurda once described Walker as governing with "a reptilian calm, unmoved by protest and unblinking in the bright light of national scrutiny."
But the book shows a far more reflective figure, who is willing to admit his worst mistakes. Writing about the embarrassing prank phone call from an activist claiming to be billionaire David Koch, Walker admits, "I was not as mad at him as I was at myself. Listening to my voice on the recording of the call, my heart sank. I came across as pompous and full of myself.
He describes his press conference in the aftermath: "I felt like an idiot. Sure, I was upset that my staff had let the call get through to my office, making me look so silly. But ultimately, I was responsible for what I said and how I came across."
Those paradoxes will also be central to the way that Walker is trying to define himself on the national stage. And this brings us to a final paradox:
A strong supporter of Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential bid, Walker is now biting in his criticism of his campaign and its message.
Walker says flatly that Mitt Romney "did not get the message of Wisconsin."
"Two days after I won my recall election, Mitt Romney seized upon our victory to make his case against Barack Obama. The president "says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers," Romney declared. "Did he not get the message of Wisconsin?"
"Unfortunately, it was Governor Romney who did not get the message of Wisconsin… "Our reforms had protected the jobs of firemen, policemen and teachers. We had avoided the mass layoffs of public workers that local communities were facing in other states across America. We had strengthened local government and improved public services.
But the Walker saves his sharpest criticism for what he said was Romney’s failure to provide a positive alternative to President Obama. Instead, he "let the Obama campaign cast him in the role of an out-of-touch rich guy.
Walker recounts how his advice to Romney’s team "fell mostly on deaf ears," noting that when he made public suggestions, 'we learned there were a lot of screamers in Boston"
Perhaps his most biting critique is his comparison of Romney’s failed campaign with the failed recall candidacy of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.
Like Romney, Barrett failed to offer a positive alternative vision. "His entire message was 'Dump Scott Walker’ -- just as Mitt Romney's entire message in the fall campaign was "Dump Barack Obama."
"In other words, President Obama won by using the same successful message we employed in the recall election, while Mitt Romney lost by emulating the failed message of Mayor Barrett."
In conservative circles, that’s going to leave a mark.
No comments:
Post a Comment