Mitt Romney continues to follow his campaign strategy based on emulating Mr. Collins by once again saying the very worst thing you can say. It’s like watching ten or twenty years of hard-won progress in teaching the people who understand economics how not to talk about poverty go right down the drain in front of your eyes.
This is not really about substance, this is about language. But language matters. A lot! People use stories to organize their lives. One of their stories is that good people care about the poor and bad people don’t. It’s a good story! (In fact, you can read about it in a good book.)
So you have to show people that you’re part of that story. Once you’ve shown them that, you can then move on and show them that there are a few chapters of the story that they haven’t read yet – the ones about what really works and what doesn’t in actually helping the poor.
As NRO’s Jim Geraghty points out, except for that one really, really tremendously bad choice of words, Romney can basically be defended on the substance:
Perhaps the most dispiriting point in all of this is that Romney alludes to a whole bunch of defensible points in this cavalcade of trouble. He could point out that decades of the welfare state have shown us the limits of government efforts to lift up the “very poor.” He could echo Rick Santorum’s points that the most effective way to end poverty is to ensure the poor work, graduate high school, and get married before they have children. He could point out that the Great Recession has impacted middle-income Americans most severely because they had the most to lose; life under the poverty line in 2006 is not terribly different from under the poverty line in 2012. (How many “very poor” face foreclosure? How many “very poor” have lost their retirement savings? How many “very poor” have seen their small businesses fail?) He could point out that Obama has particularly failed to create opportunities for upward mobility, and that endlessly extending unemployment benefits and expanding the eligibility for food stamps is a band-aid solution at best, and only increases dependency on government assistance. He could point out that the entire philosophy of the welfare state tends to focus government efforts and resources on the poorest, most troubled, and most needing of help, and often neglects the concerns and needs of those who work hard and play by the rules.
But of course, our Mr. Collins can be relied upon never to even begin articulating any of those positions.
Eric Teetsel over at Values and Capitalism schools the hapless clergyman on faith and care for the poor:
Mittens—listen up. You claim to be a man of faith. You donate a lot of money to your church. I think you even gave a poor lady like $50 at a rope line. Caring for a group some might call “the least of these” ought to come naturally to you.
Since it doesn’t, in the name of not making my work harder, do me a solid and try the following:
Don’t say, “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” Instead try, “I’m very concerned about the poor.”
Don’t say, “We have a safety net there.” Instead argue, “History has proven that the key to prosperity is free enterprise. I want to unleash the entrepreneurial talent of the poor, the middle class and everyone else by enacting policies that incentivize innovation and reward hard work.”
Don’t say, “You can focus on the poor, that’s not my focus.” Do say, “It’s time Republicans took back the mantle of concern for the poor. We are the party that ended slavery. We are the party that enacted welfare reform that turned millions of Americans from takers to makers.”
In a just world, Eric would be one of those guys making six figures to tell Mr. Collins how the world works. But don’t get any ideas, Eric – it’s not a just world! (Full disclosure: Eric’s employer is a grantee of my employer.)
That brokered convention can’t come soon enough.
February 1st, 2012 | 3:41 pm
And this man was a bishop for his religion?
February 1st, 2012 | 3:59 pm
Mitt’s most plausible apology: “Look, folks, you all know that, when it comes to political talk, I never mean what I actually say. Please ignore anything I say that doesn’t please you, because I don’t mean it.”
February 1st, 2012 | 4:21 pm
The remark is somewhat less shocking when not taken out of context.
February 1st, 2012 | 5:06 pm
[...] you shouldn’t say things like, “I don’t care about the very poor.” Greg Forster: Mitt Romney continues to follow his campaign strategy based on emulating Mr. Collins by once [...]
February 1st, 2012 | 5:42 pm
Why should be be surprised that someone who has no regard to the revealed truths of the faith of almost all those he want to lead , even involved in misleading them , by making a claim to a Name they should not use , if they respect Christians !
And , sort of indirectly curse , by believing that any one other than Mormons do not deserve heaven , still want to ‘do good’ , to these same people !
Why are the so called ‘conservatives ‘ not able to see the elephant – what are they trying to conserve , if they vote for a man who has nothing conservative , in the deepest core of his beliefs and has spent time and money , to promote any thing but ‘conservative ‘ in this regard !
What right does he have , to bring any accusations of wrong doing – even against Obama , let alone Gingrich , whose failures , having been personal , are nothing compared !
February 1st, 2012 | 11:00 pm
“The remark is somewhat less shocking when not taken out of context.”
Less shocking in terms of its intent, to be sure. Pretty shocking in terms of a Presidential candidate being dumb enough to utter that sentence *in any context.*
February 2nd, 2012 | 2:47 am
Certainly what Romney said, concerning the poor, could have and should have, been worded more skillfully. But what he said, properly interpreted, is in no way incongruent with what Republicans believe.
Another way of looking at this is, instead of Romney being “dumb” for wording this awkwardly, maybe those who criticize him for it, are dumb for not interpreting it in the way that it was intended.
Gingrich has criticized Romney, for this comment. But, Romney’s comment, properly interpreted, is no different from what Gingrich believes. Gingrich’s disingenuousness is pretty amazing. As well as his hypocrisy in calling romney a “liar.” Gingrich lies and exploits, if it serves him politically.
And, before anyone starts making completely unwarranted extrapolations about the Mormon Church, from Romney’s “poor” comments, the Mormon Church has a profoundly generous welfare program, that is remarkably helpful for poor people.
February 2nd, 2012 | 7:58 am
It makes him sound like Ebenezer Scrooge: “Are there no workhouses? Are there no gaols?”. His vast wealth only reinforces the comparison. I agree that it has been taken out of context, but it was a bone-headed mistake and his critics have predictably run with it.
February 2nd, 2012 | 9:09 am
Another way of looking at this is, instead of Romney being “dumb” for wording this awkwardly, maybe those who criticize him for it, are dumb for not interpreting it in the way that it was intended.
Yep. That will play out exactly as it should in a campaign season, with Democratic super PACs playing it round the clock.
I still don’t get the “electable” tag people have affixed to this guy. What, exactly, makes him “electable”? The fact that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth?
For those of you to young to catch the reference, read up on the 1992 presidential campaign. Seriously, it’s like Republicans enjoy losing.
February 2nd, 2012 | 9:16 am
Romney is being defended on the substance of his remark, since he couldn’t possibly mean that he’s heartless about the plight of the poorest. And I don’t think it means that.
In fact what he means is that the policies he touts are completely poll-driven. He can let slip that he doesn’t “care” about the very poor in the election because he’s thinking that they don’t have enough votes to matter. He purports to focus on what only a centimillionaire would call the “middle” 94 per cent because that’s where the votes are.
February 2nd, 2012 | 10:20 am
“Yep. That will play out exactly as it should in a campaign season, with Democratic super PACs playing it round the clock.”
Precisely. What he meant, and how reasonable people could interpret it, *does not matter at all.* And it’s really inexcusable that he didn’t realize that. Not in a moral sense, but in the sense that anyone in that position really should know that, and if they don’t, there’s a serious competence question.
February 2nd, 2012 | 10:23 am
Impolitic, maybe; wrong, no.
This is what Romney said: “I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor–we have a safety net there,” he said Wednesday. “If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich–they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”
[Soledad] O’Brien jumped in, asking him to clarify his statement that he’s not concerned with the very poor. “I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, ‘That sounds odd,’” she said.
“Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad,” Romney replied. “I said, I’m not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, then I will repair it.”
“But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans,” he added. “My campaign–you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus.”
Whether Romney meant it or not, this message is going to resonate positively with the taxpaying, working, middle class.
February 2nd, 2012 | 10:23 am
“For those of you to young to catch the reference, read up on the 1992 presidential campaign. ”
At the risk of a quibble, ” born with a silver spoon in his mouth” is a very old expression. In 1992, it got turned into a quip about GHW Bush, whom Ann Richards said was “born with a silver FOOT in his mouth.”
And that’s probably what you meant to reference, since it applies perfectly to Romney in this instance.
February 2nd, 2012 | 11:28 am
“Whether Romney meant it or not, this message is going to resonate positively with the taxpaying, working, middle class.”
Only if the taxpaying, working, middle class ever hears it.
And they won’t. Because the only way they will is if the Romney campaign repeats it. And they don’t dare repeat it, because it will only remind people of the part the DNC will be playing every 30 minutes around the clock in their commercials, the part about “I don’t care about the very poor.” You don’t remind people of a real or apparent gaffe if your opponent is using it against you.
February 2nd, 2012 | 12:25 pm
In 1992, it got turned into a quip about GHW Bush, whom Ann Richards said was “born with a silver FOOT in his mouth.” And that’s probably what you meant to reference, since it applies perfectly to Romney in this instance.
Yeah, I was born with a lead foot in my mouth. ;-)
February 2nd, 2012 | 5:11 pm
“The remark is somewhat less shocking when not taken out of context.”
Another way of looking at this is, instead of Romney being “dumb” for wording this awkwardly, maybe those who criticize him for it, are dumb for not interpreting it in the way that it was intended.
So, okay, when the man is deep in negotiating with hostile nations, and he inadvertently insults the guy he meant to make peace with, it won’t matter if war breaks out because that wasn’t what he meant?
I’m sorry, but all these defenses of Romney strike me as absurd when set against the things that were said about Perry and Gingrich when those two said tactless and/or stupid things. Pick one standard and apply it evenly, please.
February 2nd, 2012 | 7:36 pm
So, okay, when the man is deep in negotiating with hostile nations, and he inadvertently insults the guy he meant to make peace with, it won’t matter if war breaks out because that wasn’t what he meant?
That happens on episodes of Star Trek: the Next Generation, not elsewhere. Countries do not begin a general mobilization for frivolous reasons.
February 3rd, 2012 | 3:27 am
If one examines the substance of what Romney said, and interprets it fairly, it not only is entirely consistent with what mainstream Republicans advocate, but also what mainstream Democrats advocate. You go where the votes are, which is the middle class. Romney could have worded it better, granted, but what he said, most people agree with: poor people have a safety net, and if anything is wrong with it, it should be fixed. That is, if it’s not doing it’s job of protecting the poor properly, it should be repaired. The rich, by virtue of being rich, don’t need looking after. It’s the middle class that needs help.
It’s disingenuous, for Gingrich, or Obama, to exploit these words of Romney, because in substance, they agree. Perhaps Pres. Obama, as a Democrat believes that we should have a bigger safety net, than the Republicans, but not on the need for one.
One could argue that Romney assumed that the american public is intelligent enough to decipher what he meant, and if so, they’re not going to be fooled by the exploitation of his comments by his political opponents. In fact, the public may be insulted. Why? Because implicit in these attacks on Romney’s “poor” comments, is the assumption that the public will not see them for what they are: political cheapshots of the crudest form.
It seems that we had a couple of Presidents, of the Bush variety, who made some errors in speech, but did just fine negotiating with foreign leaders.
February 3rd, 2012 | 5:18 am
Art Deco
The Ems Dispatch and the Zimmermann Telegram spring to mind
February 3rd, 2012 | 9:20 am
“It’s disingenuous, for Gingrich, or Obama, to exploit these words of Romney, because in substance, they agree.”
Stipulated. Doesn’t matter, though. We’re talking about campaigning, which is rife with disingenuousness.
I try very hard not to be a cynical person but it’s getting to the point where campaigning just breaks all the rules. If something can possibly be used as a weapon, it will be, disingenuous or not.
February 4th, 2012 | 5:11 am
pentamom: good to talk with you. You make a good point. I think that it’s entirely legitimate to point out the flaws in other candidates, as long as it’s honest. But it’s just not honest for Romney’s opponents to exploit his words here, where they believe essentially the same thing. What they’re trying to do, is give an impression, concerning what he said, that he didn’t mean to convey. This is what partly gives politics a bad name, is politicians exploiting their opponents in this fashion. It’s a form of deception. It’s not blatant lying, but it’s deception nonetheless. This is not a criticism of so called “negative campaigning.” I believe that it’s important to point out one’s opponents flaws, as long as it’s not deceptive. If it’s technically true, but misleading, then that’s a form of lying.
February 4th, 2012 | 7:22 am
He could point out that the Great Recession has impacted middle-income Americans most severely because they had the most to lose; life under the poverty line in 2006 is not terribly different from under the poverty line in 2012. (How many “very poor” face foreclosure? How many “very poor” have lost their retirement savings? How many “very poor” have seen their small businesses fail?)
This is a very dubious argument. The whole reason we dislike recessions so much is that they can push more people into poverty. Additionally, the most vulnerable people in a recession are those with lower levels of education and less work experience.
For instance, in 2007, the unemployment rate for 25+ age adults with no high school diploma was 7.1%; by 2010, it had more than doubled to 14.9%. Among 25+ adults with a bachelor’s degree, though, unemployment was 2% in 2007 and 4.7% in 2010.
These data come from Table 7 of the CPS. Given how much lending there was to low-income people during the bubble years, I also doubt the claim that middle class people have been hurt more than the lower-income people by foreclosures.
February 6th, 2012 | 1:06 am
How many of the poor work in jobs that are very low paid so you can have cheaper meals at your favourite restaurant; do your landscaping; populate your privitized prisons? extreme income inquality is not good.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact