The governor of Louisiana ... redux
Bobby Jindal: Stupid, Party of One
By Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine
The political collapse of Bobby Jindal is one of the noteworthy developments of the year. Following the 2008 elections, when waves of young, minority, and college-educated voters swept Barack Obama into the presidency, Republicans cast their eyes around and noted their young, non-white, highly educated governor and dubbed him their next big thing. They tapped him to deliver the official response to Obama’s first State of the Union address, and his performance was deemed so abysmal, and comically reminiscent of the manner of 30 Rock character and notably non-presidential figure Kenneth the Page, that Jindal fell off the national map altogether.
After Obama won reelection — once again, Republicans noticed, with the same coalition of young, non-white, and college-educated voters — Republicans remembered they still had this Jindal guy sitting around. Jindal reinflated his reputation with speeches urging Republicans not to be the “stupid party,” advice that struck some of them as potentially a good idea. But now the second Jindal bubble has popped. His approval rating in his home state — a crucial measuring post for national viability — has dipped below 40 percent.
If the first Jindal collapse was farce, the second is tragedy. And the cause of it is easy enough to identify. Jindal unveiled a sweeping plan to eliminate the state’s income taxes and corporate taxes, replacing the lost revenue with cuts to social programs and higher sales taxes. It sent the hearts of national Republicans (like The Wall Street Journal editorial page and Grover Norquist) aflutter but provoked massive opposition within the state.
Benjy Sarlin concludes an excellent rundown of the debacle by suggesting “it may be time to rethink just how popular the whole 'starve the beast' approach actually is with voters.” That misses the crucial fact that caused the backlash against Jindal, and that also differentiates him from the national Republican approach.
(More here.)
The political collapse of Bobby Jindal is one of the noteworthy developments of the year. Following the 2008 elections, when waves of young, minority, and college-educated voters swept Barack Obama into the presidency, Republicans cast their eyes around and noted their young, non-white, highly educated governor and dubbed him their next big thing. They tapped him to deliver the official response to Obama’s first State of the Union address, and his performance was deemed so abysmal, and comically reminiscent of the manner of 30 Rock character and notably non-presidential figure Kenneth the Page, that Jindal fell off the national map altogether.
After Obama won reelection — once again, Republicans noticed, with the same coalition of young, non-white, and college-educated voters — Republicans remembered they still had this Jindal guy sitting around. Jindal reinflated his reputation with speeches urging Republicans not to be the “stupid party,” advice that struck some of them as potentially a good idea. But now the second Jindal bubble has popped. His approval rating in his home state — a crucial measuring post for national viability — has dipped below 40 percent.
If the first Jindal collapse was farce, the second is tragedy. And the cause of it is easy enough to identify. Jindal unveiled a sweeping plan to eliminate the state’s income taxes and corporate taxes, replacing the lost revenue with cuts to social programs and higher sales taxes. It sent the hearts of national Republicans (like The Wall Street Journal editorial page and Grover Norquist) aflutter but provoked massive opposition within the state.
Benjy Sarlin concludes an excellent rundown of the debacle by suggesting “it may be time to rethink just how popular the whole 'starve the beast' approach actually is with voters.” That misses the crucial fact that caused the backlash against Jindal, and that also differentiates him from the national Republican approach.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
There is a difference between being principled and pandering for votes. Why the pattern of those from the left side of the aisle of quickly attacking any successful person who happens to be a bit conservative and is not a Caucasian male. I thought diversity was a good thing but am confused as I read V V. Diversity, as expressed by V V, can only be good if it adheres to liberal orthodoxy.
Post a Comment
<< Home