Understanding Rick Perry
Something struck me while watching yesterday’s interview with Texas governor Rick Perry (in three convenient parts) on yesterday’s Daily Show. I’m using this post to work out the specifics of this idea, so bear with me, but it seems to me that the dichotomy Perry asserts — as evidenced in the subtitle of his book Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington, a “federal government vs. We The People” distinction — is inherently false.
Now, okay, that’s not a new realization; Jon Stewart even challenges Perry on it early in the interview when he asks what Perry thinks happens to these well-meaning people once they enter D.C. But challenging the dichotomy isn’t really what I’m interested in. I guess what I really want is to understand where it comes from, because I don’t see it. And it’s a new step to that understanding that struck me during the interview.
Perry’s perspective, as I understand it, suggests a model of governmental power that takes the FEDERAL–STATE–LOCAL governing spectrum and pulls (obviously) to the right, with the focal point being the STATE part of the equation. And insofar as that goes, that’s fine. It stands to reason that a politician will view his/her part of the spectrum as the focal point, and will desire a pull rightward or leftward based on the typical right/left conservative/liberal divide. So a Democratic mayor will see the local as the focal point, with a pull towards the left end of the spectrum, and a Republican senator will see the federal as the focal point with a pull to the right. (A Republican on the LOCAL level would pull towards the invisible fourth tier, INDIVIDUAL, I suppose.) This is all well and good; we elect federal officials to focus on federal issues, state officials to focus on state issues, and local officials to focus on local issues.
And that’s the key: it should be each of those levels’ jobs to focus on working that level. Federal officials shouldn’t be spending their time on individual states’ or localities’ interests, state officials shouldn’t be spending their time on national or local interests, and so on. Of course, the problem with what essentially comes down to three different (yet related) power structures all trying to assert their dominance is, well, sometimes there’s going to be conflict where their interests overlap (or are perceived to). Take an example Rick Perry offered up: gay marriage. Is that a federal issue? A state issue? A local issue? Fortunately, our system has a built-in means of resolving these conflicts: the courts. Any interest on any of those levels — federal, state, local, or individual — can turn to the courts to referee the conflict and set an objective boundary to resolve the conflict.
That all is, as I see it, the model of how our government is designed to work. But, judging by what he presented in this interview (as well as by things he and others who seem to share his general outlook have said in other venues), I don’t think Perry sees that as how it all works. I get the impression that Perry’s perception of government calcified at the state-focal, pulls-right point, and that he further thinks everyone else — regardless of their level — should be state-focal, pulls-right, too; to Perry’s point of view, that’s the alpha and omega of what government in America is. So senators, House members, the president, even judges…all of them should be focused first and foremost on making sure the states are the focal point of government, with any ancillary power going towards the local and individual levels. The federal government, as Perry sees it, should focus more on things like delivering mail, building roads, and “protecting our freedoms.” (I’m not entirely clear what-all is contained in that for Perry, but it sure sounds good, don’t it?) Any government official that doesn’t hew to that state-centric, right-pulling model, therefore, is in some way against America (“real America”, as Sarah Palin would call it).
Things get further complicated because this viewpoint isn’t just limited to government officials; Perry seems to apply it to the judicial system, too. This is what the whole “activist judges” thing is about — to his view, judges aren’t supposed to be referees between different levels and models of government, but enforcers who should be maintaining his model of government; when judges don’t make rulings that adhere to that model, they’re clearly trying to change what government in America is, and so are being activists.
…and I think that’s where I’m going to wrap up this post. I had more places to go with this, but I’m getting tired, and I think I need to wrap my brain around any additional conclusions this line of thinking might bring me to before I try to articulate them.
If you think I’ve over-simplified or misrepresented any views in the above, let me know in comments and there could well be a follow-up to this post.
Tags: daily show, government, rick perry, understanding
November 10th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Maybe I’m just cynical but I don’t know that there is a coherent philosophy to be found. It’s all boring vague vanilla populism with the nasty aftertaste of old Confederate views of federalism and civil right. And I have the feeling it would all be dropped in a second if it were convenient. Say, in 2012, a Republican president begins pushing a national law to outlaw gay marriage. I’ll look for Rick leading the opposition but won’t hold my breath.
November 10th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
I hear you, and I don’t disagree, but…
To me, it all comes down to linguistics. One of the core tenets of descriptive linguistics is that everyone’s grammar is internally consistent. Even if someone appears to be breaking the rules, or is speaking an undefined creole, there’s an underlying and consistent framework that our brains naturally create. I don’t know of any research to support this supposition, but I operate under the assumption that a person’s politics work pretty much the same way: that he or she may appear to act contradictory or opportunistic or what-have-you, but internally, there’s a consistent framework that the brain has written to keep it all together.
When I look at people who I don’t agree with, or whose politics just leave me confused, then my main goal is to understand their political grammar, because otherwise it’s pointless trying to communicate with them using my political grammar.
Does that make sense?
November 11th, 2010 at 11:01 am
It does make sense. In fact, I think it’s a very noble endeavor.