Some examples,
1. Reagan was pretty reticent personally but I think this selection from his 1980 debate with Carter works very well:
I don’t know what the differences might be, because I don’t know what Mr. Carter’s policies are. I do know what he has said about mine. And I’m only here to tell you that I believe with all my heart that our first priority must be world peace, and that use of force is always and only a last resort, when everything else has failed, and then only with regard to our national security. Now, I believe, also, that this meeting this mission, this responsibility for preserving the peace, which I believe is a responsibility peculiar to our country, and that we cannot shirk our responsibility as a leader of the free world because we’re the only ones that can do it. Therefore, the burden of maintaining the peace falls on us. And to maintain that peace requires strength. America has never gotten in a war because we were too strong. We can get into a war by letting events get out of hand, as they have in the last three and a half years under the foreign policies of this Administration of Mr. Carter’s, until we’re faced each time with a crisis. And good management in preserving the peace requires that we control the events and try to intercept before they become a crisis. I have seen four wars in my lifetime. I’m a father of sons; I have a grandson. I don’t ever want to see another generation of young Americans bleed their lives into sandy beachheads in the Pacific, or rice paddies and jungles in the in Asia or the muddy battlefields of Europe.
People were afraid that Reagan might be reckless with the military as president. Regan’s use of personal experience indicated that he had a sense of the costs and risks of war and that he a policy of firmness would also be one of reasonableness. It humanized him in the sense of showing he wasn’t a warmonger, but instead a father and grandfather who had lived in a century of mass conscription and war.
2. This is Paul Ryan talking about his mother and grandmother and Medicare:
In Congress, when they take out the heavy books and wall charts about Medicare, my thoughts go back to a house on Garfield Street in Janesville. My wonderful grandma, Janet, had Alzheimer’s and moved in with Mom and me. Though she felt lost at times, we did all the little things that made her feel loved.
We had help from Medicare, and it was there, just like it’s there for my Mom today. Medicare is a promise, and we will honor it. A Romney-Ryan administration will protect and strengthen Medicare, for my Mom’s generation, for my generation, and for my kids and yours.
I don’t think I need to explain how this humanizes Ryan’s approach to Medicare.
3. Ann Romney on her husband:
But let me say this to every American who is thinking about who should be our next president: No one will work harder. No one will care more. No one will move heaven and earth like Mitt Romney to make this country a better place to live! It’s true that Mitt has been successful at each new challenge he has taken on. It amazes me to see his history of success actually being attacked. Are those really the values that made our country great? As a mom of five boys, do we want to raise our children to be afraid of success? Do we send our children out in the world with the advice, “Try to do… okay?” And let’s be honest. If the last four years had been more successful, do we really think there would be this attack on Mitt Romney’s success? Of course not. Mitt will be the first to tell you that he is the most fortunate man in the world. He had two loving parents who gave him strong values and taught him the value of work. He had the chance to get the education his father never had. But as his partner on this amazing journey, I can tell you Mitt Romney was not handed success. He built it…
He stayed in Massachusetts after graduate school and got a job. I saw the long hours that started with that first job. I was there when he and a small group of friends talked about starting a new company. I was there when they struggled and wondered if the whole idea just wasn’t going to work. Mitt’s reaction was to work harder and press on. Today that company has become another great American success story. Has it made those who started the company successful beyond their dreams? Yes, it has. It allowed us to give our sons the chance at good educations and made all those long hours of book reports and homework worth every minute. It’s given us the deep satisfaction of being able to help others in ways that we could never have imagined. Mitt doesn’t like to talk about how he has helped others because he sees it as a privilege, not a political talking point. And we’re no different than the millions of Americans who quietly help their neighbors, their churches and their communities. They don’t do it so that others will think more of them. They do it because there IS no greater joy. “Give and it shall be given unto you.” But because this is America, that small company which grew has helped so many others lead better lives. The jobs that grew from the risks they took have become college educations, first homes. That success has helped fund scholarships, pensions, and retirement funds. This is the genius of America: dreams fulfilled help others launch new dreams. At every turn in his life, this man I met at a high school dance, has helped lift up others. He did it with the Olympics, when many wanted to give up…
This is the man who will wake up every day with the determination to solve the problems that others say can’t be solved, to fix what others say is beyond repair. This is the man who will work harder than anyone so that we can work a little less hard.
This connecting of her husband’s work ethic, talent, drive and (to put it charitably) pragmatism in service to policies that would encourage broadly rising living standards is a pretty decent argument for Romney as president. You can see how his personal qualities can be put to work for the rest of us.
4. Now let us look at Mitt Romney on his parents:
My mom and dad were married for 64 years . And if you wondered what their secret was, you could have asked the local florist. Because every day, dad gave mom a Rose, which he put on the bedside table. That is how she found that the day my father died. She went looking for him because, that morning, there was no rose.
And Romney on his sons:
Those weren’t the easiest of days. Many long hours, and weekends working. Five young sons who seemed to have a need to reenact a different world war every night. (LAUGHTER) But if you ask Ann and I, what we’d give to break up just one more fight between the boys, or wake up in the morning and discover a pile of kids asleep in a room — well every mom and dad knows the answer to that.
Those are a couple of affecting stories (they hit me harder than the stuff from Reagan, Ryan, or Ann Romney), but where do they go? They don’t constitute arguments for Romney. We already have a president who seems like perfectly decent husband and father. It also doesn’t address public concerns about Romney. To the extent that concerns about Romney revolve around the idea that his agenda is bad for the middle-class, all of these stories are beside the point. There is no obvious contradiction between Romney loving his children and being willing to cut Medicare or raise taxes on the middle-class. If there is such a contradiction, Romney did nothing to point it out. The big problem with the “humanizing” approach in Romney’s speech is that it focused too much on answering questions that people weren’t asking. These were questions like “How much did George Romney love his wife?” The result was that Romney’s speech gave little idea of why a Romney agenda would be good for the public and even less to inoculate him from the attacks that are coming this week and all Fall.
I don’t doubt that Romney and his speechwriters thought they were being clever by sidestepping issues. Don’t take risks by saying anything anybody might disagree with. Humanize Romney with total non sequiturs. How can you believe he will cut Medicare? Didn’t you hear the hitch in his voice when he talked about missing his kids? He is so human.
The problem is that Romney not talking about his policies won’t stop Obama and his team from talking about Romney’s policies and anecdotal non sequiturs won’t convince people that Romney must be on their side. Romney chose a “humanizing” strategy that was more cynical than the truth and it appears viewers noticed.
September 3rd, 2012 | 4:02 pm
Agree with the above analysis. Mitt is taking the bait, going down the rabbit hole, letting Obama set the agenda. Obama says Mitt is a rich business man who doesn’t know how to relate to the average Joe, and on top of it all is waging a war a women. So Mitt comes back to answer all these questions. Not so great for a campaign that was supposed to be remarkably disciplined and focused like a laser on the economy and criticized other campaigns for chasing media canards down rabbit holes.
I wonder what his answer will be when Obama thanks him during a public debate for providing him with a blueprint for Obamacare.
For so many reasons I hope Romney wins this election, but unfortunately he is the Republican candidate largely because the establishment decided he can raise money and has infrastructure. And I suspect that some in the establishment were thinking of jobs for themselves in the campaign.
Lets see how this all goes.
September 3rd, 2012 | 5:58 pm
So close the quote in the last sentence. I’m afraid that sentence is perfectly true. This is one brilliant post.
September 3rd, 2012 | 6:01 pm
Peter, thanks, and for the edit too!
John, well you have to look at the actual alternatives that were in the race. How many times would Santorum have blown his stack in the pressure of a general election campaign? The signs from when he faced real scrutiny in the primaries are not encouraging. Don’t even get me started on Gingrich. For some reason Perry thought he could skate by without mastering national-level policy or the dynamics of popular opinion at the national level. Pawlenty quit top early and bet way too much on the Ames Straw Poll and tried to get away from what made him an appealing politician in the first place. Cain was a joke. Huntsman chose to run as the Republican candidate for people who hate Republicans. Bachmann was looking to become the Jesse Jackson of social conservatives. Ron Paul was a protest candidate. There are several Republicans I far prefer to Mitt Romney, but none of them ran for president this year.
September 3rd, 2012 | 7:28 pm
I understand your point but I do not agree. Anyone paying the slightest attention knows Mitt is running as the practical businessman fix-it guy who is going to bring the US back from the brink of economic disaster. I’m sick to death of hearing about it. Mitt has put forward veritable reams of policy plans and statements; especially compared with anything concrete presented by Obama, but that doesn’t stop the liberal media from lying about everything from raising taxes to Mitt’s character.
I want to know who Mitt Romney is. I want to know what motivates him and why I should trust him. To this end the GOP and Team Romney accomplished much this last week. The more I learn about Romney, the more I believe that he really is the right man for the job, not just the consolation prize. I don’t think any of the speeches should have been more political; there is plenty of time for that when the election season gets into full swing after the end of the Democrat convention.
The fact is that people are very tired of the hyper-partisan atmosphere fomented by the current administration. The want to get a look at Romney and Ryan, and see if they are really the devils that the media and democratic operatives make them out to be. The overall answer for anyone that watched the speeches with genuine curiosity and open-mindedness is “no.” That is enough for the moment.
I’m looking forward to the debates.
September 3rd, 2012 | 7:48 pm
Meanwhile in other news, Romney has tied up with Obama in the Real Clear Politics Average for the first time since October 2011. I’m beginning to think this blog is run by the French.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
September 3rd, 2012 | 8:38 pm
Elaine, “Mitt has put forward veritable reams of policy plans and statements; especially compared with anything concrete presented by Obama, but that doesn’t stop the liberal media from lying about everything from raising taxes to Mitt’s character.” And if all they hear about Romney’s policies is what they hear from the other side, then that is a problem for Romney. I don’t think that the median voter was waiting for Romney to tell us that he loved his mom, dad, and kids to vote for Romney. For the sake of all of us, I hope I’m wrong.
Pseudoplotinus, that Romney is tied in the RCP average on the Monday after the Republican convention isn’t encouraging. It is a gain of 1.4% since this time last week, but we’ll see how it shakes out as new polls are added. It moved the numbers in Rasmussen but not in Gallup. Since Obama’s job approval average is still below 50% it isn’t doom either. It does look like an opportunity that Romney didn’t make the most of.
September 3rd, 2012 | 10:05 pm
not much of a bump.
September 4th, 2012 | 12:49 am
Pete,
Renewing a conversation from earlier this year, I would again argue that had he won Michigan or Ohio, and consequently received more than grassroots support, Santorum would have been a formidable candidate. One on one, fair playing field he is simply more capable than Romney. One argument for Romney this spring was that he has a war-chest, ability to raise even more money and infrastructure. Much infrastructure and money would have rolled into Santorum’s campaign had one or two states turned out differently. I believe the occasional slip-up or “blown stack” would have significantly receeded with more recources. At least he would take the fight to Obama and not duck interviews. It remains interesting that Reagan and GW ran the Repubs won, but with GHWB, Bob Dole and John McCain (more moderates) ran the Repubs lost. There’s no historical necessity in that or any other trend continuing but again interesting. There may be better conservatives than Santorum to run for president but they, as you mentioned, didn’t bother to show up. For all his infrastructure, money, connections etc. Romney seems to be too clever for his own good, banking fully on the notion that a businessman who loves his family and helps others will appeal to undecided moderates. Now, when those voters might want to hear his plan, he takes the bait from Obama and dives in to counter arguments about his niceness/goodness/likeability with women voters. What he needs to do is give the undecideds a plan and remember that getting out conservatives to vote cannot be taken for granted. That might be very important in Ohio, Virginia, Florida. Anyway, I hope all these criticisms, mine and others, are wrong and Romney really does know what he’s doing.
September 4th, 2012 | 4:40 pm
John, Santorum had a chance to win MI and OH, but he kept making unforced errors. When the pressure was off, he wasn’t getting attacked from all sides, and the media wasn’t paying him intense attention he did fine. When the spotlight moved to him he kept getting in trouble. I don’t see any reason to expect this pattern to have changed if he had won a couple of more states. Santorum winning MI and OH might well have put us on the road to a late entrant and a contested convention. One of the themes of the primary contest was just how much the institutional Republican party (even its more conservative elements) just didn’t want Santorum. And I don’t think it was his opinion on abortion, or gay marriage, or gay anything. Some of Santorum’s problem was being tired no doubt. Part of it is that he just can’t help himself. He wants to win every argument within sight even if it isn’t the argument he shouldn’t be having at the moment. Santorum’s behavior is an indicator of why GOP office holders and donors held aloof.
“One on one, fair playing field he is simply more capable than Romney.”
Fundraising, building a campaign infrastructure, making filing deadlines, staying on message, and recruiting party elites are all part of being capable. Ignoring all that is like saying that on a fair playing field, Spud Webb was a more capable NBA center than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
I think Romney’s flaws are serious (though the Bureau of Labor Statistics might pull him across), but Santorum might well have presented us with a more dramatic and possibly more serious set of flaws. Since the primaries I have been leaning toward that conclusion even though I don’t forget all that is wrong with Romney.
September 4th, 2012 | 11:09 pm
Pete,
First, thanks for your comments. I enjoy your analysis.
Second, the primaries are over, and I don’t want to give the impression of perpetuating a cult of one candidate the way supporters of Ron Paul in my opinion tend to do. And I concede he (Paul) makes some good points.
Having said that, I think what disturbed me about these primaries is the way a grass roots movement that came so close was so clearly shut down by establishment and money.
You are correct that fundraising, building infrastructure…staying on message and recruiting party elites is part of of being capable.
What is disturbing is that I’m not sure there was any way of recruiting party elites in these primaries. The fix seemed to be in for Romney, a candidate that has flipped on many important issues, lost a senate race, and has played his cards so carefully that in combination with his flip flops its hard to know what he really stands for. That’s not to say I don”t believe he would govern in a much more conservative fashion than the current president, but it takes away from his authenticity index, likability, connectivity … what have you.
Its hard to understand how Romney’s weakness are less damaging then Santorum’s. Indeed, while it may seem paradoxical to the liberal minded, Santorum polled well with women, a group that Romney struggles with..
The particular candidates aside the Republican party needs to decide whether to be brash and conservative, packaging that in an attractive fashion, or moderate and safe.
In broad strokes…
Reagan and George W. Bush.
Or Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush and John McCain.
The first two were 4 for 4 in presidential elections. The second group 1 for 4. And that one arguably on Reagans record.
I don’t have an advanced degree in demographic analysis but it sure seems, whether its because of a “get out the conservative vote” strategy, or whether there are a bunch of closet conservatives amongst declared moderates, that running conservative favors Republican candidates.
Its acknowledged among most that the most important issue this election is the economy.
Yet a huge part of the economy is health care. And I can’t imagine an issue that Americans have been more united on than opposition to Obamacare. I know of one poll that was for Obamacare with dozens of polls showing those polled against it.
How the elites can ignore this and support a candidate who President Obama will thank during a debate for providing him with a blueprint in Obamacare…before asking him why he’s now against it, is beyond me.
I hope they know something I don’t.
Again, thanks for your comments Pete.
September 5th, 2012 | 1:52 pm
If Romney succeeded in humanizing himself, maybe he and Ryan can get on with humanizing their policies and proposals. Conservatives believe that growing the economy through the expense of restraining government will be of benefit to all people. That message doesn’t seem to have hit the population at large. Can’t that be the message?
September 5th, 2012 | 3:30 pm
Kate, I’m not sure Romney “humanized” himself in any way that would allay the concerns of people who are swing voters. I just don’t think people were leery of him because they didn’t know if he liked his kids.
John,
” Having said that, I think what disturbed me about these primaries is the way a grass roots movement that came so close was so clearly shut down by establishment and money.”
I think the problem is that the Santorum campaign wasn’t ultimately brought down by a conspiracy, or even a consensus of party elites. At the end of the day, the fatal problems of the Santorum campaign were weak organization and an undisciplined candidate.
Santorum has a problematic but potentially popular economic program but, when the pressure was on, he let himself get sucked into a fight with JFK’s Houston speech. And he lost the fight. Toward the end of the campaign, he shot his mouth off about Obama’s family visiting Mexico. It didn’t become a big deal because Santorum’s chances of getting the nomination had shrunk by then, but the longer he stayed in the spotlight, the more of this we would have gotten. He also lost the major debate with Romney when the spotlight was on their exchanges going in. Santorum did well against Romney when Romney’s attention was elsewhere, but when Romney focused on Santorum, he took the guy apart. It was sad watching Romney outsmart him because my sympathies in those exchanges was mostly with Santorum. And even when Santorum won states, his post-Iowa speeches were jumbled messes. At least Romney presents mostly coherent statements most of the time.
I think the reticence of conservative Republicans to back Santorum needs to be seen in light of the flaws that were exposed when the national spotlight shone on the guy. Jindal, Ryan, DeMint, McDonnell, Michael Lee, are all to the right of Romney, but they either endorsed Romney or someone else, or stayed out of the way. Santorum has been a Washington pol for a generation. Maybe these conservative Republican office holders saw something early on regarding Santorum’s abilities.
“It’s hard to understand how Romney’s weakness are less damaging then Santorum’s.” They were damaging enough that even the right-leaning voters who vote in Republican presidential primaries and caucuses voted for Romney over Santorum even though Santorum was probably close to them ideologically. That tells us something about the limits of Santorum’s appeal.
September 23rd, 2012 | 7:12 pm
[...] Romney’s convention speech was comparatively clumsy. Romney made it about Romney. How his parents loved each other. How he misses his kids. Please like me. But persuadable viewers would probably like him more if he focused more on how his proposed policies would make their lives better. He needed to make it about his audience. The personal stuff could still be there, but it needed a clear link to public life. Politicians have been able to do this in the (recent) past. [...]
October 4th, 2012 | 7:34 pm
[...] post-debate polls, the Romney that showed up at the debate made a much better impression than the “humanized” Romney of the Republican convention. Why did they like yesterday’s Romney? Probably for the [...]
February 13th, 2013 | 10:19 pm
[...] and then circle back to his war stories over and over again. Romney’s convention speech was even more shallow and even less effective. McCain and Romney aren’t dumb. They just think you are dumb. It turned out that the [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact