Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wis., was speaking to Iowa farmers over the weekend and, as the Washington Examiner‘s Rebecca Berg reported, he shifted his position on ending the mandate that requires gasoline to be blended with ethanol.
Though he previously indicated opposition to the mandate, now visiting Iowa as a likely presidential candidate, Walker said, “It’s something I’m willing to go forward on, continuing the Renewable Fuel Standard.” The fact that he later floated the possibility of phasing it out didn’t help the damage that was done to his reputation.
The ethanol mandate has little rationale beyond being a big government regulatory handout to corn farmers, many of whom happen to reside in a state with the first presidential nominating contest.
Walker’s move not only was a deep disappointment to economic conservatives who, based on his record in Wisconsin, see him as a principled supporter of limited government, it also undermines one of the central rationales of his candidacy.
The governor vaulted to the top of Republican presidential pack based on his record of fighting special interests, particularly public sector unions. The logic of his candidacy is if he was willing to stand up for what he thinks is right — in the face of an organized campaign to destroy him by the national Left — then he can do so on a larger stage.
The concept of “political courage” was a theme of his 2012 recall election in Wisconsin, and this time around, he’s trying to highlight this character trait as a way to make up for his lack of experience with national and foreign policy issues.
“If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world,” Walker said at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month in response to a question about the Islamic State.
Though it was clumsily worded, the message he was attempting to send was that even though it may take him some time to get better up to speed on international affairs, he’s demonstrated the character to be commander in chief.
Along these lines, my colleague Byron York also quoted Walker at a Club for Growth conference last month as saying, “Foreign policy is something that’s not just about having a Ph.D or talking to Ph.Ds. It’s about leadership.”
Despite his well-deserved reputation for bold leadership in Wisconsin, on the campaign trail so far, Walker has started to become more defined by his pandering.
The comments to Iowa farmers come in the wake of his reversal on immigration and his muddled answers on the Export-Import Bank, Department of Homeland Security funding and other issues. His goal seems to be to avoid offending anybody. True, this, to some extent, is to be expected in any presidential campaign.
But if one of the arguments Walker is going to make to those who say he isn’t ready for the international stage is that, like Ronald Reagan before him, he’s a governor with strong convictions, he’s going to have to take stands that are unpopular among some audiences. And the fuel standard seems like an easy one.Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, spoke at the same conference, but he came out against the standard. “There are a lot of politicians who are going to tell you whatever you want to hear,” Cruz said. “I’m willing to bet I’m not the only person here who’s been disappointed with politicians in Washington, who’s tired of people blowing smoke.”
Whatever support Walker may have lost among the Iowa agricultural community by taking a similar line, he would have gained respect among economic conservatives and reinforced his Image of somebody willing to fight special interests.
To turn his own argument against him: If Walker can’t stand up to Iowans, how will he stand up to the Islamic State?
UPDATE: Walker spokespersonKirsten Kukowski emails: “He didn’t shift his position – he’s been against mandates and is still against mandates. What he’s saying is he isn’t going to get rid of it on day one because there’s a level of certainty that these people depend on and we need to factor that in when phasing it out.”Kukowski also sent along a full transcript of the exchange, which my colleague Tim Carney posted here.
But I don’t think the broader context changes things. Walker wasn’t asked, “Will you pledge on day one of your presidency to get rid of the renewable fuel standard immediately?” The actual question was pretty open ended:”I’m going to ask you about the RFS. Where do you stand on that?” After some throat clearing about his general opposition to government interference, Walker responded that, “I do believe—and we’ve talked about this before—it’s an access issue and so it’s something I’m willing to go forward on continuing the Renewable Fuel Standard…”
Though he said that long-term, “my goal would be to get to a point where we directly address those market access issues and I think that’s a part of the challenge. So that eventually you didn’t need to have a standard just like you no longer need in the industry to have the subsidies that were there before to help insure we had a strong system.” As Carney noted, the nation isn’t likely to reach this theoretical universe anytime soon given the problems with ethanol as a fuel. Walker’s argument is the same argument used to justify all sorts of crony capitalism — that if government helps a given industry in its infancy, eventually it can exist on its own and then we can remove government help.
This is an argument that Walker himself seemed to get back in 2006, when he said,”Central planning will not help our family farmers, protect our environment or provide jobs. The free-enterprise system must drive innovation to relieve our dependence on foreign oil, not mandates from the state or federal government.”
