American politics
Rick Perry's memory
The oops that changed history
Nov 10th 2011, 13:48 by Lexington
HERE'S a piece of speculation. Rick Perry's horrible moment of forgetfulness (when he couldn't remember the third government department he meant to close down) in last night's GOP debate could change the history of the world.
To agree with this proposition you have only to believe the following.
(a) The Texas governor was the only serious obstacle to the nomination of Mitt Romney.
(b) Romney will beat Barack Obama next November but Obama would have beaten Perry.
(c) From 2013 and for perhaps eight more years Romney will be America's president.
(d) The character and beliefs of American presidents change the path of human history.
QED
In this blog, our Lexington columnist enters America’s political fray and shares the many opinions that don't make it into his column each week. The column and blog are named after Lexington, Massachusetts, where the first shots were fired in the American war of independence.
Advertisement
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Elysée | France’s presidential election
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Russia and NATO: Rethink the reset
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- Nationalism online: Backfired
- Politics and private equity: Bringing the Bain
- Turkey’s cultural ambitions: Of marbles and men
- India-China relations and the media: Blame the messenger
- Greece and the euro: Exodus, chapter 1
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- The euro crisis: Going, going, gone?
- Jacob Zuma: Portrait of a president
- Rival versions of capitalism: The endangered public company
- Bo Xilai v Chen Guangcheng: Who is the mightier?
- Facebook goes public: Not top of the pops
- France and Germany: The Frangela show
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
I think Lexington got enough opportunities.
It's time for change.He got intellectually lazy, obviously limited to
the company of so-called "elites" in Washington and New York, missing so many opportunities to see and explain new historical movements in American political life.What is behind them and why ?
Instead, he looks scared, sticking to old book,and the worst is when he accepts cliches and demonize some of the new players in inability to cover them honestly.
Just compare Lexington and Charlemagne, who completely covered EU crisis, without picking winners and losers.
Anyway, US section of the "Economist" is your weakest link.
This comes from the former journalist and diplomat,an I can assure you I am not the only one with complain.
Nightscroft is right.
Don't count Cain out yet.
He's the Sarah Palin of this race. Media investigations into his past and current behaviors make him STRONGER if they turn up allegations of wrongdoing.
Unlike Perry, Cain is good in debates, so he's unlikely to sink himself by talking in them.
I still put the odds of Cain taking the nomination as low, but they're certainly not 0.
Oh, and (a) needs to be "The Texas governor would have beaten Romney but for his lapse" to get you to QED.
e) The American electorate wants a president who looks like he's imitating George W. Bush.
Wait a minute, that's what the "brain freeze" on Perry's part was all about!
Okay, NOW I get it.
That Perry's a sly devil...
e) That mistake cost Perry the nomination.
http://dannyojnreconomics.blogspot.com/ Barrack most likely a second term
I keep thinking that I might really hate Romney. I just have no idea what he would actually do in office. If he might actually follow through on some of what he says - no cuts in defense spending, start a trade war with China, gay marry Israel - then he scares me. My main hope is that he is just pandering. But if he's pandering now, why would that stop during his first term? He'd still have 2016 to worry about. So a vote for Romney is a vote for the possibility that he will settle down and become a good national manager in 2017?
Why is Romney's pandering an issue? They're all just saying what it takes to get nominated/elected.
Obama is pandering now to get re-elected with his "can't wait" jingle. One can make the argument that by ignoring the overall economy for two years to get healthcare passed Obama was pandering to get re-elected. Wouldn't fulfilling a campaign promise be considered pandering to the folks who elected you in the first place for another "aye" vote in the next election?
What is the "pander" difference Romney v Obama? Just saying what the hotheads in the base want to hear? (Other than party affiliation of the bases?)
Nah. It could happen, but by now it's becoming obvious to even the Truest Believers that Mr. Romney believes in absolutely nothing but "I want to be president". This is not a sentiment that increases voter turnout on the American right, which lately picks principles over pragmatism every time. Fear and loathing of Obama will only carry one so far.
Are you suggesting that a bottom pinched in an office of the National Restaurant Association has already ruined still front runner Herman cain's chances? It seems like TE is incapable of understanding that a lack of worldly knowledge in today's America does not make one an implausible candidate.
@jouris
Mostly agree with your assessment, but can't fathom how the Republican base would embrace and elect Huntsman over Romney.
Nope, but Huntsman would likely have my vote in the general which Romney likely won't. Of course, the whole right-sized banks thing has me sort of mystified.
There is a chance (possibly only an outside chance, but still...) merely because Huntsman doesn't have the flip-flopper reputation that Romney does.
Romney will beat Obama? How so? He won't scare off as many independents, but the disapointed lunatic fringe will stay at home.
Those who can suffer a presidential candidate not being an illiterate moron, will prefer Obama. The only Republican candidate with foreign policy credentials is Huntsman, and with Republican voters, that is not an asset but a liability.
The "lunatic fringe" won't stay home (House & Senate elections), whoever becomes President may get there with a "lunatic fringe" backed majority in both houses of Congress.
I am not sure Romney can beat Obama, but who knows. I live in MA and never liked him much, but at least he is not completely insane. That isn't much of an endorsement, I suppose.
I really wish Huntsman would be taken seriously.
Perry was already flaming out before this debate. All that his Opps moment has done is ensure that he will never recover. It may have heightened the embarrassment of those who initially supported him, but he was already working at that.
I'm also dubious of your assumptions, especially the first two. The majority of Republicans seem to be looking hard for an alternative to Romney. So there is at least a chance that they will stumble onto someone (e.g. Huntsman) who has a better chance of victory than Romney. But even then, the primary campaign looks to be doing a fine job of providing talking points for Obama's campaign -- and seems likely to continue to do so for anybody who rises, however briefly, to the top of the field.
If a butterfly flapping its wings in Brasil can someday change the weather in Europe, maybe, just maybe, the President of the United States can hope to also have an impact... Really, what's the point of writing about politics if you don't people can influence events?