Pete Spiliakos has been complaining about Romney’s performance at the Republican convention and about the lack of definition and specification of policy in convention speakers as a whole . It didn’t bother me. I figured that the next week and all through the fall, Romney, Ryan and friends would pound the republican Republican message. Apparently they are not going to do that. I begin to wonder if they will actually engage with reality in the debates, or if all will be soft-focused, smudged lens imagery about Republican intentions. What are they going to do? I am of the faithful and I am no longer sure what they are going to do. I thought the choice of Paul Ryan meant a bold turn. Why take him on if policy talk, which he does so well, was not going to define the campaign going forward?
Kin Strassel today in “Mr. Romney, Trust Your Pants” says that Mr. Romney is slipping in the polls because he will not articulate his intentions.
As for how he would create “more jobs” and “higher income,” Mr. Romney wasn’t saying. His references to his “tax policy” served mainly to explain what it doesn’t do. He vowed to replace ObamaCare with his “own plan”—which is? He explained he had “big policy differences” with the president on Afghanistan. Those differences are “important.” So important that he moved to the next question.
Credit for this fog goes to that inner circle of Romney advisers who never liked the Ryan pick and have reasserted their will over a candidate who is naturally cautious. In the la-la land where adviser Stuart Stevens presides, Mr. Romney wins by never saying a single thing, ever, that might rock a single boat, ever. Just keep the focus on Mr. Obama. After all, no president has ever won with an economy like this.
And it is not working. As awful as everything is, Mr. Obama is up in the polls. How can that be? I suppose there are many reasons, but among them is that when everything is awful, America, conservatively, will not change leadership unless it sees more strength in the new guy than in the old guy. That’s the Carter/Reagan equation. It had been the Ford/Carter equation, as well, and Americans were even more upset at Carter because he had seemed to fool them into thinking he was what he was not.
Here we are with Romney/Obama and if Romney either is not the strong character we want or will not express his strength, then he will not be a good choice for the American people. That seems simple. Demonstrating strong character may not be simple. Especially if you haven’t got one. I hope Mr. Romney does, but he is not demonstrating it effectively if that is true. He does have policies. He could showcase those. I don’t understand why he doesn’t. “The tragedy is that Mr. Romney isn’t a blank; he has a hearty reform agenda. Yet his decision to go “safe”—to be Crouching Romney, Hidden Mitt—keeps him from harnessing the American hunger for political change.” Maybe that is just a political decision, but I begin to worry that is pusillanimity.
Mind, I think Mr. Obama has fully demonstrated that he is weak in character, as well. I cannot stand his political principles or policies either. Yet, I think I would rather have a weak character in office who I am free to loathe than have one I am forced to defend. I’ve been through that recently enough and I didn’t like many of that Republican’s policies, either, as they seemed to abrogate his stated principles. I get it when men say they don’t want to see that again. Expressing solid policies should be easy; Mr. Romney can just ask his vice-presidential running mate how it is done if he is not sure. “Americans respond well to A-B-C explanations of valuable reform. (Here is what is wrong. Here is my policy to fix it. Here is how it works, with three examples. Here is the good that comes of it.) Were Mr. Romney to apply this formula to health care, entitlements, food stamps and college loans, he’d be winning.” He would, too, because there are, or ought to be, clear differences between the way those problems have been handled and the effective and efficient way they could be handled. Americans are divided on what those answers are, but that”s politics. A case can be made and that is what people want and need to hear to believe a candidate strong.
That’s why I didn’t have a problem with Mr. Romney speaking out this week, saying what he thought we ought to do about Libya and attacks on our embassies. I agree with Ms. Strassel here as well,
The press embarrassed itself this week by flaying Mr. Romney’s criticism of the State Department while giving a pass to the policies of a president who, after announcing the death of four diplomats, flew to a campaign event in Las Vegas. The press doesn’t care. Its goal was to let Mr. Romney know what’s in store for him should he consider mounting more than a mediocre campaign. If he gets spooked by that, he’s done.
Character counts, like culture counts, Mr. Romney. If we don’t take such things seriously or cannot take them seriously, then America is in trouble. We don’t want to put ourselves in a position of having a strong country in the world with a weak man in charge of its management. If Mr. Romney is a man of strong character, he’d better let us know and let us believe it. He cannot just tell us or have his wife tell us or have his friends tell us. We have to see it. If he doesn’t have such a character or cannot show it, then we’d be better off with four more years of loathsome leadership that we are free to despise and resist.
September 14th, 2012 | 9:41 am
Kate, it’s impossible to even begin to understand a person or his/her character without some personal experience. Thus, the folly of the ‘democratic’ process. It’s Mitt’s past practices you wanna examine. Let me know how that goes for you, should be an interesting blog.
September 14th, 2012 | 11:23 am
I think very important and not easilly recognized Ron Paul arguments have started to erode the Republican power structure.
“We’d be better off with four more years of loathsome leadership that we are free to despise and resist.”
If that isn’t the eternal argument of Ron Paul supporters and Libertarians in general (especially post-Bush)! It is also an eternal argument of movement Progressives, or folks disapointed with the centrist compromising that Obama didn’t close Gitmo, didn’t enact single payer…et al. (It also sort of sounds like a table pound or a negotiation position).
It also makes sense, because if you are going to bother being Libertarian, or progressive, or perhaps bother being professionally progressive or Libertarian….then defending what you are not selling is sort of pointless, and even counterproductive if you do believe in the “exceptionalism” of your policy/product, and dislike the substitute. So in some sense Kudos to the true progressives and the true libertarians, but appart from Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinich, not much has been done to enable and implement these policy views and positions.
Do Partisans of Rebook, defend Nike sales simply because it is a tennis shoe?
“He vowed to replace ObamaCare with his “own plan”—which is?”
Well obviously his plan is RomneyCare. Technically if he vowed to replace the PPACA with his own plan, then it would probably end up being some sort of acronym. Say PHA for Patriot Health Act!
But “ObamaCare/RomneyCare” vs. PPACA vs. PHA is just a debate over branding. If you call it the official acronym instead of the slang, it is generally accepted that you are “closer” to actual policy, but these issues of “word choice” and clear writting are certainly the domain of English professors. It is still floating in copyright and trademark land. The “policy” hasn’t done anything to advance towards Patent. It hasn’t shown its mechanical self. (It isn’t enabled.) On the other hand it is possible that Romney is enabling what he is saying to Phosita. (Persons Having Ordinary Skill In the Art). Of course since Patent is actually the primary source of progressivism, the only thing which actually advances the economy, the issue of knowledge/understanding not trickling down to the middle class is reflective of a massive fact in our political economy and a chief reason/vector for income inequality. So a theoretical danger in Romney explaining himself is that it stirs up a sense of inequality especially if he talks at a phosita level pay grade.
As some lawyers might say the issue of ObamaCare wasn’t even fully ripe, agreeing in a sort of slang/populist way with Pelosi. So in a sense because of how the Intellectual Property Political Economy works, you sort of are stuck with not being able to engage with reality in the debates, or all of it being soft-focused, smudged lens imagery about Republican intentions.
My way of saying it is that the debates are themselves a form of Intellectual Property, essentially Copyright. Copyright gives a sort of feel, but within the nature of the beast, there is a sort of legally required modicum of creativity, and that modicum of creativity engages with reality in a non-mechanical fashion. (especially if you are not plain spoken, or have not established firm Trademark/reputation.) (The derided Democratic strategist was urging linguistic purity, to capture mechanical aptitude…in some sense even signaling that Obama’s music had to die.)
Of course this is all Capitalism, baby! Interesting fair-use on the line by Kin Strassel: “Yet his decision to go “safe”—to be Crouching Romney, Hidden Mitt—” (The first time I read this as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.) followed by the mechanical claim “keeps him from harnessing the American hunger for political change.”
First off, it isn’t clear that Romney is playing it “safe”, and there is no unambiguous American hunger for political change. (hunger for political change is really aggregate demand for politics, for more or different legal services, which may or may not involve government, but typically involve lawyers)…In truth in terms of political economy there is less demand for lawyers and there is a supply glut of lawyers. (this is the cause of a lot of political “problems”, or sales pitches for political change…lawyers are trying to convince you to be hungry for political change.) In any case Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is not a movie or a trademark/association of ideas that conjures up anything remotely dealing with playing it safe.
In fact in a sort of quasi-west coast Straussian way, the plot of Crouching Tiger Hidden dragon could easily cast the idealistic Libertarian/progressive electorate as the young Jen destined for a political marriage to one of two boring legal Harvard Aristocrats (Romney or Obama).
Yearning for adventure Chen is enticed by Shu Liens warrior/ideological purity honor code. (Or something like Ron Paul’s purity of ideas (copyright) and consistency of trademark/history/reputation.) regardless of if it mechanically works in the the society of which she is a part.
In other words Ron Paul needs to enter this race to spice things up.
September 14th, 2012 | 11:36 am
So everyone who knows him well speaks well of him. By your measure, those with personal experience of Mr. Romney who might understand his character like it. His politics in the past, as Republican governor of a Democratic state, had to mean compromises. I think that is pretty good as a credential for the presidency of America as it stands now.
September 14th, 2012 | 2:16 pm
Actually Kate, I hope we find out, I don’t want four more years of our Kenyan-Indonesian malefactor. However, I wouldn’t place a lot of significance in the fact that Mitt’s lovely and gracious wife, his family, and some friends have come out hurtling kudos his way. All I’m saying is the ‘democratic’ system isn’t going to necessarily reveal a candidate’s character. In fact given our fallen nature the democratic system may serve only to attract the mentally and spiritually derailed as well as the occasional good guy/gal. And no, Mitt’s record as governor of the People’s Republic of Mass. isn’t something to be proud of, at least not in republican terms. It is the record of a typical statist, albeit a GOP statist.
September 14th, 2012 | 6:57 pm
Kate, let’s look at it on the level of character from the position of someone who hasn’t bought into either side’s policy views and is willing to be convinced on those merits. Policy views aside (and that is big), I don’t see a major case for preferring Romney to Obama on “character.”
Obama and Romney both seem like fine family men. The both seem to be of upstanding character in that respect. It does strike me that lots of people would gladly go back to the days when the less upstanding Clinton and Gingrich were sharing power.
Obama does seem to be a man who has some durable policy preferences and takes a pragmatic approach to advancing those preferences as far and as fast as the political culture will let him without going too far. He really is in favor of a more government-run health care system and he really, really is for abortion. He tends to dissemble and that is a mark against him. On the other hand, Romney has left no sign of what his durable policy preferences might be (on those issues that are at controversy) in the 18 years since he first ran for the Senate. His approach to public policy during campaigns seems to be rooted almost entirely in self advancement. In this sense, Romney’s whole political career can be seen as an exercise in dissembling. Pour a few drinks into Rick Santorum and he’ll probably tell you that Romney’s debate style isn’t the most honest either.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t support Romney on the grounds that Romney isn’t a social democratic-leaning social liberal while Obama really is one of those, and that the partisan structure of our politics and the Republican Party would push Romney toward better policy. That’s my reason for voting for Romney. I’m just done trying to believe that he will, on policy, do the right thing for the right reason. I also accept that he will stab the likes of me in the back the first time there is a political profit in doing so. I hope I’m selling him short, but the soft bigotry of low expectations seems like the right way to go here.
September 15th, 2012 | 12:26 am
“Obama does seem to be a man who has some durable policy preferences..”
Unfortunately, they aren’t productive, effective, efficient or affordable.
September 15th, 2012 | 7:47 am
Pete, as I’ve mentioned, I’m tired of voting for the lesser of two evils and Obama is evil. Consequently, I’ll happily and righteously vote my principles. The benefit is I’ll feel clean coming out of the voting booth.
September 15th, 2012 | 7:53 am
Bob, yes, that is a problem with democracy, but maybe it is just a problem with humanity and needing government and people to run government. There are so few truly fine persons and not even all of those are capable of governing. I know or know of many truly fine people perfectly capable of managing themselves and only some of them are capable of running a school or small business or charitable organization and far fewer are capable of doing much more then that truly well. For that reason, we don’t want to be ruled. Right?
September 15th, 2012 | 9:11 am
“Pete, don’t we find a political man’s character expressed in his policies, on his principles, which are rooted in his character?
Kate, applying that standard to the public career of Romney would undermine any confidence that a man’s policies are “surely based on his principles, which are rooted in his character”.
September 15th, 2012 | 10:17 am
Kate, I like your style because rooted in your contemporary analysis of the problem is some element or aspect pointing back to the ancients. Your comment “..capable of governing,” I find pregnant with potential.
The reason I’m a ‘republican’ is because it is that form of governance best suited to permit the actuality of the metalepsis (the communion with God) by opening the door to God’s desire to actuate relationality. This is why I’m pro-Confederate and support any effort to rise up a republican polity or two, or three, within the United States.
You see, I think it is imperative that we understand what “..capable of governing” truly means, and select those people who eschew the libido dominandil, and seek the love of God. I fear they will never be ‘electable’ in this consolidated regime.
April 6th, 2013 | 9:50 pm
[...] Republicans: Character CountsFirst Things (blog)“The tragedy is that Mr. Romney isn't a blank; he has a hearty reform agenda. Yet his decision to go “safe”—to be Crouching Romney, Hidden Mitt—keeps him from harnessing the American hunger for political change.” Maybe that is just a political …The Election: Agonizing ChoicesHuffington PostMiddle East Spirals Out of ControlPatriot PostHow Mitt Romney can win the electionThe Hill (blog)all 8,384 news articles » [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact