He may hold it against me, but I played a small role in shoving Gov. Mitch Daniels, R-Ind., onto the national stage.
Last June, I wrote a cover story for National Review on Daniels. I took a close look at his gubernatorial record and came away impressed enough to think he might make a good presidential candidate.
The presidential chatter hasn’t ceased since then, but it’s far from certain Daniels is running. CBS News has suggested an “orchestrated rollout” of a presidential campaign is under way, but the governor’s allies in Indiana seem content that the national attention is helping his legislative agenda back home.
Daniels ran for reelection on a promise he wouldn’t run for office ever again. I pressed him and his confidants on the issue last year. I don’t think he was lying, though many people Daniels respects are now trying to persuade him to run.
Which helps explain why Daniels, either unprepared or unwilling to embrace the media crucible that comes with a presidential run, stepped on something of a land mine this week.
In the pages of Weekly Standard last week, Daniels told Andrew Ferguson the next president “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues.”
Then, at a meeting with reporters I attended last Tuesday, John McCormack — also of the Weekly Standard — asked Daniels whether he would reinstate Reagan’s “Mexico City Policy,” which bans federally funded nongovernmental organizations from providing or promoting abortion services. Daniels was noncommittal.
Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins said that this ” ‘truce’ was nothing more than surrender.” Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, no doubt wanting to take a formidable opponent down a peg, called his comment “heartbreaking” and used it as the basis for a fundraising appeal.
Of course, this all might be a tempest in a teacup. Curt Smith of the Indiana Family Institute has since noted his governor is “pro-family, pro-faith, pro-life guy” who supports both the Mexico City Policy and the Hyde Amendment. As governor, he has actively implemented pro-life legislation.
So what was Daniels thinking? In remarks given to me by the governor’s office, Daniels says the truce was “just a suggestion. It was an expression of urgency I think that all Americans should feel about certain other questions like the debt burden.”
Daniels continued, “I chose the word truce because no one has to change their point and no one has to surrender. Simply, we have to come together to address what I believe are the most urgent problems of the country.”
The governor’s broader concern about the limits and priorities of government is certainly warranted. Our government hides behind infighting to ignore looming existential crises, and yet is currently micromanaging your salt intake and making sure employers don’t have unpaid interns.
However inartfully he has explained himself, it seems unlikely Daniels will ever abandon principle. Refreshingly, chatter of a Daniels presidential run has been driven more by facts than personal ambition.
Aside from a solid record of defending traditional values, Daniels brought Indiana out of its significant debt to a $1.3 billion surplus and effectively reformed everything in the state government from child welfare services to the DMV. So far this year, Indiana has experienced more job growth than any other state, and Daniels’ popularity with Hoosiers is undeniable.
To the extent his idea of a “truce” was a rhetorical misstep, it was a rare occurrence for an uncommonly detail-oriented politician. If Daniels decides to run for president I’m confident he won’t lack for answers.
Until then, it’s Daniels’ record as a principled and competent leader, not his rhetoric, that speaks volumes.
Mark Hemingway is a editorial page staff writer for The Washington Examiner. He can be reached at [email protected].
