Texas Gov. Rick Perry often talks like he’s ready to refight the Alamo—this time against Washington. He rails about the stimulus and the expansion of federal power while flirting with the idea of devolving control of entitlements to the states.
So when Perry officially announced he was throwing in his 40-gallon hat for next year’s Republican presidential nomination, critics were quick to warn of his extremist, radical small-government views. But Perry’s suit-and-tie-Republican record doesn’t match up to his pistol-packing, Texas-sized rhetoric.
Many of the warnings concern Perry’s allegedly extreme federalism. After reading the governor’s book,
Fed Up: Our Fight to Save America From Washington, The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein
described the governor’s federalism as “radical in scope,” but “not thoughtless.”
Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum
wondered whether Perry might be “too radical even for the Tea Party.” After investigating Perry’s positions on entitlements,
Newsweek’s Andrew Romano
reported that the governor “hints that he would do more to limit the power of the federal government—or at least attempt to do more—than any president since Calvin Coolidge.” At the
Guardian, columnist Ana Marie Cox
warned that if Perry got his way with federal regulation, “it would be total anarchy: Mad Max meets Dr. Moreau.”
“More than any of his fellow contenders,” Cox wrote, “Perry represents a bruising roll of the dice on America's future.” Is Perry really such an outlier? Not really. While he's frequently willing to stake out heated rhetorical territory, his actual governance is relatively mild in comparison.