When the dust settles on presidential debates, they are usually remembered for one defining moment, and in this case, that was undeniably the exchange between the race’s two frontrunners on Social Security.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry refused to back down on his comments that Social Security was a “Ponzi scheme,” explaining that while it would be there for those at or near retirement, it was not sustainable for younger generations. He said politicians need to be willing to be “provocative” on the issue in acknowledging that the program was a “monstrous lie.”
Yet Mitt Romney played it safe, saying there needed to be tweaks to the program’s finances, but that it was wrong to call it a failure.
The exchange, more than any other moment in the debate, epitomized the contrast between Perry and Romney’s approaches to the campaign. Romney is the establishment candidate who is trying to win on the basis of being the most “reasonable” and electable, whereas Perry wants to come across as somebody who will stick to his conservative principles and tell it like it is.
Ultimately, I think this contrast is likely to play into the hands of Perry in the Republican primaries, because right now the base wants somebody who is willing to shake things up and challenge the status quo. And there’s good reason for them to feel this way. For anything to get done about the nation’s long-term fiscal problems, we’ll need a president who is willing to embrace real changes to our existing entitlement structure. After watching this exchange, Perry seemed willing to do that, whereas Romney seemed to be offering more of the same. His answer on Social Security tried to have it both ways. By defending the program as a great success that simply needed to be adjusted, Romney didn’t sound all that different from Obama.
So I think Perry, with the Social Security answer, his strong defense of his death penalty record, touting of Texas’s economic performance, and his willingness to attack his rivals in a way that Tim Pawlenty was not, showed us why he shot up into the lead in national polls shortly after entering the race. Yet he seemed to tire as the debate wore on, and many of his answers — such as on global warming, foreign policy, the uninsured rate in Texas, and education — were evasive, vague and unfocused. While he didn’t make any major gaffes tonight, in future GOP debates, and especially if he becomes the nominee, he’ll have to come off as a lot more polished and demonstrate a better grasp of specifics.
As for Romney, he came across as more polished than Perry, but also, as demonstrated by his Social Security answer, reinforced the view of himself as an establishment pick who wants to play it safe and who probably won’t be a dependable fighter for smaller government if elected.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., after several strong debate performances, receded this time around, and seemed like just another body on the stage. If anything, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex., had more of an impact on the debate, even drawing Perry into attacking him.
The other candidates — Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain — continued to struggle to break through.
So overall, I don’t think the debate changed much about the shape of the race. It’s basically a two-person contest with Romney as the establishment candidate who conservatives have doubts about and Perry as the more conservative choice who establishment Republicans worry lacks substance and the ability to win over independents. Everybody else, meanwhile, is struggling to find their place, and Ron Paul is doing his thing.
