The writer of the winsomely named The Snug of the Pub blog offers his thoughts on the conservative media’s framing of Romney’s VP selection. A lot of commentators want a choice, like Paul Ryan, that “would force this election to be about ‘a big choice’ or ‘generational decision on the philosophy of government’.” But, he continues,
the key matter is the framing of the choice and the ideas that animate that framing. This framing really demonstrates how disconnected the conservative media is from the actual world of people trying to make ends meet, or even truly understanding the challenges facing the Romney campaign.
The people who will decide this election are concerned about finding a job, preserving their job, stretching their paychecks which have shrunk, and long term economic security. They think Obama has done a poor job but are concerned that Romney is not interested in their problems and will only serve the interests of the affluent.
The problem, he goes on to argue, is as a sociologist might put it the social location of the commentators and the campaign staff, and of course the candidate himself. A long history of Republican cluelessness should leave no conservative confident that the commentators and the people who run campaigns have any idea what the voters they need to move actually need and want.
August 11th, 2012 | 12:26 pm
“…actually need and want.” He seems to miss the point that these are not at all the same thing, and part of the Ryan choice is to make this clear to the American voter.
August 11th, 2012 | 3:47 pm
This shows that Romney is a “uniter not a divider.” Both Republican and Democratic pundits seem to be thrilled at Romney’s choice of Ryan.
August 11th, 2012 | 8:20 pm
Except that a Congressman like Paul Ryan who is more in tune with his local constituencies, can “frame” the bread and butter issues into this grand transformational moment narrative. Even The Weekly Standard Blog noticed Ryan’s “ability to sound a genuine conservative populist note.”
August 11th, 2012 | 8:37 pm
I don’t think the author of this post is quite right. Romney and the campaign are not out of tune with the needs of the common man and his economic woes. A healthy economy is most relevant to those needs, and that is precisely what Romney is best capable of delivering–and what his choice of Paul Ryan confirms.
There is always the problem of communicating that vision, especially through the fog of media which start with the presumption that all problems are for the government to solve by ever larger direction of funds (ie, “throwing money at them.”) But I think the electorate demonstrated that they understand the real problem with this economy, by choices they made in the 2010 election–choices that are being echoed now in the primaries, eg, the nominating of Ted Cruz for Senator from Texas.
August 12th, 2012 | 6:58 am
The contempt – much of it well merited – in which the people hold the political class in most Western countries is the result, not so much of their venality and incompetence, but, rather, of a general sense that government is no longer the consummated result of the people’s own organized wishes.
The slogan of the Argentinean protestors, ¡Que Se Vayan Todos! [They must all go] finds a resonance in many voters
August 12th, 2012 | 4:42 pm
What a sophomoric piece … Class determines one’s worldview and blinds you to the truth. That’s a new one.
August 13th, 2012 | 9:53 am
I agree with blogger’s assessment of the temptation to which some conservative punditerati are prone.
But…1) I agree with Josh’s point: Ryan has repeatedly won re-election in a strongly Democratic and working class district. The intriguing connection is that “Ryan Plan” and his proposals more generally arise precisely from the fact that he IS connected with pressing and practical concerns of voters.
2) Ryan is no shrinking violet, from what I can see. Romney seems to have chosen someone who can and will and presumably expects to contribute to the campaign — precisely on the “framing” question, which was the blogger’s starting point. I’m intrigued by that in Romney’s decision.
Finally, re Publius’ criticism: I don’t think “social location” means “class.”
August 13th, 2012 | 10:22 am
J.W.,
Yes, you’re right, it’s a much less offensive euphemism for class.
August 13th, 2012 | 10:54 am
Conservatives should hope that Josh323 and J. W. Cox are right. Romney has shown no gift for connecting any broader or higher understanding of the economy with the actual concerns of people who can’t find jobs or worry about losing the ones they have — assuming he has a higher view of economic life — who are the voters he needs to attract to win states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
August 13th, 2012 | 12:17 pm
“Romney has shown no gift for connecting” to the actual concerns of the unemployed or those worried about losing their jobs partly because he’s been accused of killing the wife of a laid-off steel worker and not paying his taxes for ten years, as the Senate Majority Leader informs us. No amount of personal “gifts” can overcome lies propagated by those with no regard for decency, aided and abetted by a media determined to keep the incumbent president in office.
August 13th, 2012 | 2:05 pm
Publius: we can’t both be right. You’re saying that “social location” is merely a substitute term for “class.” That is, the former means the latter.
I’m saying it does not.
August 13th, 2012 | 6:48 pm
J.W.,
Yes, we can’t both be right, which means you are wrong.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact