Chris Christie seems to have evolved from being a potentially formidable presidential candidate when his prospects were first mentioned a few years ago to a vanity candidate today.
The only reason for the New Jersey governor to run for the Republican nomination now is to gratify his outsized ego — assuming that ego doesn’t mind a few swift drubbings at the polls.
Christie solidified his long-shot status this week with a couple of numbskull moves, from both a political and policy standpoint.
One of his pratfalls has direct bearing on Colorado. As president, Christie told radio host Hugh Hewitt, he “would crack down and not permit it” — “it” being the retail sale of marijuana in any state.
It’s one thing to oppose legalization of marijuana and deplore its retail sale. Most Republicans, polls show, agree with Christie on that point. But many Republicans also espouse a principled commitment to federalism — and it shows in their attitude toward a possible federal crackdown against outlier states like Colorado and Washington.
According to a Pew Research Center poll this month, a majority of Republicans say the federal government “should not” enforce its marijuana laws in states that allow its use. Indeed, Republican opposition to a federal crackdown, at 54 percent, was only slightly less than the percentage of Democrats holding that view, which was 58 percent.
So Christie’s hardline stance is a political loser in his own party. And it’s a loser from a policy point of view, too, since the federal government can’t force a state to criminalize possession of a drug. All it could do is shut down marijuana stores and grow centers and drive sales of a drug that is legal to possess under state law into the black market. Brilliant.
Christie’s approach to Social Security is too complex to dissect here in detail. And he deserves credit for offering a specific proposal to solve its long-term funding shortfall rather than resort to the sort of platitudes many candidates espouse.
Suffice it to say, however, that his proposal is ham-handed, and could be political poison.
Most prudent reform proposals have sought to slow the inflation-adjusted growth of benefits in a way that protects low-income earners — thus making the benefits system more progressive than today — while raising the earnings cap a bit and kicking the retirement age up a year.
But Christie wants to transform the system into a form of social welfare by cutting the well-to-do off completely, which could erode support for the program itself. And he not only would advance the full retirement age by two years, to 69, but also move early retirement — when reduced benefits are available — from 62 to 64.
We worry about the impact of the early retirement proposal on people who do physical labor all their lives and who sometimes need an option for leaving the workforce early. And these blue-collar workers are the sort of voters that should be among Republican targets.
On both marijuana and Social Security, Christie apparently wants to appear forceful and decisive. Well, he does. And also way out of step.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
