|
Larry LaRocco, Rex Rammell and Jim Risch debating in Lewiston |
The Republican nominee for the Senate in Idaho, Lieutenant Governor Jim Risch, looked – to judge from the expression he wore – at the Lewiston three-way debate as if he was unhappy about being there. He may have calculated that if he showed up at the debates organized by his two main opponents, he would be the main target, attacked from left and right. If so, he was right. But the Lewiston rounds also left us with a much more nuanced sense of Risch, and what he’s about.
It has put him in, strangely enough, the political middle. Or maybe, at times, outside the spectrum – not a bad place to be.
This was hammered in most strongly at one point, toward the end of the debate, when Lewiston Tribune editorialist Jim Fisher asked him if he was a far right conservative. Risch replied that “I am pro life, I’m a strong second amendment supporter – you weave all those together and … I don’t know that labels are something that works very well. On a given issue, I may have a feeling one way and on another I have a strong feeling that way … I’ve had people classify me as a far right-winger and others classify me as leaning left …”
That makes the first occasion in our recollection that Risch, given an opportunity (especially if given an invitation), failed to describe himself simply as a conservative. But then, what is conservatism nowadays? Democratic nominee Larry LaRocco described himself as a “moderate,” and independent (and formerly a Republican candidate) Rex Rammell as a “down the line conservative.” In 2008, Risch may actually be the hardest of the three to define.
Asked about the recent congressional bailout (the $700 billion effort), the one backed by the Bush Administration and Republican congressional leadership, Risch said he would have voted against it (just like Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden). LaRocco said he would have voted for it (as Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig did). Risch said it didn’t include enough protection for taxpayers and also that it didn’t provide enough regulatory reform to keep the disaster from recurring – in all, a view at least as in line with Democratic as Republican opposition to the bill.
Asked where the financial mess came from, Rammell said that “I believe it was caused by overregulation . . . Why don’t we go back to the free market principles that made this country great?” A distinctly minority view (to put it delicately), of course, but one probably shared by some significant slice of the Idaho Republican electorate.
Risch’s take (reflecting something close to actual recent history): “It was bad lending practices: We all know where it went from there, and it spread throughout the economy.” A regulatory structure in place for decades has become outmoded, and “those [financial] institutions have grown up without the regulation they need. They need oversight. They need federal oversight.” Which sounds here centrist and pragmatic, but little of the ideology that excites so many Idaho Republican activists – Rammell seemed to be barking more directly up their tree.
More than in earlier debates, Rammell’s rigid ideology seemed to emerge almost everywhere, maybe brought out by Risch’s appearance. The trillions of dollars in federal debt? “All we have to do is follow the federal constitution and a lot of this debt will go away.” Social Security? “Government shouldn’t be in Social Security . . . It’s a busted system and we need to get out of that thing as fast as we can.”
After LaRocco said that Risch didn’t believe in human-developed global warming, Rammell said that “Larry, you’re wrong, Jim does believe in global warming.” (Rammell himself said that “I do not support this myth” that humans have anything to do with global warming. If it exists.) Risch himself said that “there is clear evidence the earth is warming,” and while there’s some disagreement about the degree humans are responsible for it, “we do need to get serious about [reducing] putting carbon into the air.”
Toward the end of the debate, when Rammell said to Risch, “I think you’re in the wrong party: You’re going to have to find another home for yourself,” his meaning wasn’t hard to discern.
But if there’s any single connecting thread through Risch’s political career more durable than conservatism, it might be pragmatism. And if Risch wins the Senate race, that could be a coming thing.
If Republican John McCain is substantially defeated for president next month – as looks increasingly likely – then Republicans and conservatives are going to have to redefine their basic, core ideas, if they’re going to retain their appeal to a country that overwhelmingly does blame bad business practices for the current crisis, that does think people have a lot to do with global warming and that does want Social Security protected (as both LaRocco and Risch said they would do). And it’s not hard to imagine instinctive pragmatists like Risch, more than the ideology-reliant Rammells, having a good deal to say about that.
NOTE The link at the top of this post goes to a UTube video of the debate, and the whole thing is worth watching. It was posted through the LaRocco campaign web site.
Share on Facebook
