Initially, the title of blog was going to be “Will the 2012 Nominee be Bold?” but somehow that didn’t seem to fit the tone very well……

One theme I keep returning to in my mind regarding the dynamics of the upcoming 2012 primary is the role that boldness and specificity might play.  Politicians are of course famous for telling sweet little lies and whispering sweet nothings into the ears of voters.  Even their “outrage” tends to be well calculated and focus group tested.  We routinely hear promises of cutting spending and maybe even reforming entitlements, somehow, maybe with a commission that will study the matter, after the election.  That kind of “courage” has gotten us $13 trillion in debt now, and voters may be starting to wake up to the fact that when they let their candidates promise something for nothing, with only the vaguest calls for sacrifice (usually borne by someone else), things go badly after a while, sort of like a weight loss plan centered on lots of sodium and processed meat.

2010 has been so historic in part because many new faces with less than stellar resumes are toppling their more pedigreed opponents in large part because they are speaking in a  bolder fashion.  Indeed, the well documented flaws of candidates like Angle, Paul, O’Donnell, etc…, could only be compensated by an earnestness, sincerity, and conviction that convinced voters that these people “get it” and might actually change things in Washington.

So might this theme spill over in 2012?  Could 2012 also favor the bold and punish the timid?  Chris Christie has quickly transformed himself from boring, fat, establishment moderate to Richard the Lionheart and an icon of both Tea Partiers and concerned independents.  There are myriad ways that a candidate might throw caution to the wind in 2012 and lay it out there for voters; a detailed plan to overhaul entitlements (like Ryan’s Roadmap), calls for specific cuts in education and defense, a VAT tax or the elimination of favored deductions, etc…

But will any of our first or second tier candidates respond with the sort of moral courage that our perilous times demand?  Huck has spoken passionately and unapologetically for the right to life, and has gone out on a limb with the Fair Tax, but he still hasn’t served up any widely unpopular or easily demonized specifics in regard to spending or entitlements.  Palin’s gusto is usually limited to vague themes of “socialism” or “corruption,” but for all her reputation as a straight shootin’ mama grizzly, she hasn’t shown an appetite for the more bitter vegetables our country requires.  Gingrich is erratic, and for all his “wonkishness” still can’t name any meaningful programs or entitlements he’d cut.  Mitt Romney?  He didn’t invent the pander, but he’s worked long and hard to perfect it.

So perhaps a growing yearning for the unvarnished truth will be an opening- maybe THE opening- for second tier candidates like Pawlenty, Daniels, Barbour, or Thune to break through.  After all, they don’t have much to risk and quite possibly have much to gain.  Ideally, this sort of moral courage is the product of virtue, but failing that (we are talking about politicians here) perhaps the cost/benefit analysis of boldness will entice someone to take the plunge.  Every politician has their own schtick and their own assets; Huck has SoCons and a loyal “army,” Palin is mavericky and adored by conservatives who want the opposite of “Washington elites,”  Romney has great hair and a lot of money.  Maybe one of the second tier will make brutal, unvarnished honesty their identify?

In this environment, it just might work…