POLITICS SEPTEMBER 13, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
This year’s presidential election is proving to be a mystery. If you look at the polls, you find voters saying that the most important issue is the economy—by far. And at least up to the conventions, voters have thought that Mitt Romney would be better able than Barack Obama to handle the economy—by 53 to 42 percent in a Gallup poll right before the Republican convention. That would suggest that Romney should have been ahead in the polls by a comparable margin. But he has almost never been ahead in any polls, and now seems to be falling behind the President.
There are some obvious reasons why: Romney’s association with Bain Capital, which seems to be hurting him in the industrial Midwest, his identification with the rightwing Republican stands on abortion and immigration, and, perhaps, the ineptitude of his campaign. But in public opinion surveys, what has jumped out for months is the large advantage that Obama enjoys over Romney on questions related to character and personality.
In the same poll that Gallup found voters preferring Romney on the economy, it found that Obama enjoyed a 23 percentage-point edge on who is more “likeable,” a 16 point advantage in “who cares about the needs of people like you,” and a 12-point edge in who is more “honest and trustworthy.” Other polls show similar results. In four polls conducted from April 8 through September 9, The Washington Post and ABC found that voters by over two-to-one margins thought that Obama “seems the more friendly and likeable person.”
Civics teachers may wring their hands about it—all these voters who supposedly make up their minds based on imaginary beers with people they’ll never personally meet—but these kind of considerations can prove decisive. If the 2000 election had been decided entirely on specific policy grounds, Vice President Al Gore probably would have won fairly easily. But George W. Bush enjoyed a consistent edge on character questions. According to Gallup polls in October 2000, voters found Bush more likeable by 60 to 31 percent and more honest and trustworthy by 47 to 33 percent. In the 2004 election, Bush enjoyed a similar edge over challenger John Kerry. After the October 13 debate, CNN/Gallup found voters preferring Kerry on every measure except one: who was “more likeable.” Bush, not Kerry, went on to win the election.
Personal popularity isn’t based on whether a candidate would balance the budget or promise to bomb Iran, but that doesn’t mean it’s superficial. In voters’ minds, questions about character can relate to what a president would do, but not necessarily to what he would do about specific policies. In 2000 and 2004, voters preferred Bush because they trusted him to take their concerns into account when he had to decide what to do about a particular issue. They didn’t necessarily believe that Gore or Kerry would ignore them; but they didn’t know what these candidates would do. That was reflected, especially, in answers to questions about whether a candidate “cares about people like you,” and whether the candidate is “honest and trustworthy,” but also in answers to questions about who is the more “likeable.” Being more likeable is being more like them; and being more like-able. Voters found Gore and Kerry—in contrast to Bush—to be distant and to distant from them.
What about Romney? Certainly, his reputation as a cut-throat business consultant, which the Obama campaign has sought to reinforce, has convinced voters that he does not care about them. But Romney’s greatest disability lies elsewhere. The term voters most often use to describe him is “phony.” Last January, conservative Louis Woodhill, who writes a column for Forbes, discovered that when he googled “Mitt Romney is a phony,” he got 102,000 hits. And that was during the Republican primary.
The term “phony” is usually applied to persons who put on airs – who try to appear more important or of a higher social standing than they are. But with politicians, the term often works in reverse. It applies to wealthy or patrician politicians who try to appear to be average Joes or Janes. During the 1988 New Hampshire primary, George H.W. Bush tried to appear to be an everyday guy by driving an 18-wheeler around a truck stop parking lot. Campaigning during the New Hampshire primary, Romney claimed to have purchased his children’s Christmas presidents at Wal-Mart’s.
But voters don’t just perceive Romney as doing phony things, but as being a phony. He is seen as a person whose very identity—his gestures, his choice of vacation home, and his whole range of political positions—is determined by a desire to impress voters. He is how he appears; yet how he appears is not determined by inner conviction, but by a desire to impress and to ingratiate.
Many voters have gotten this impression from Romney’s own political history. When he ran for Senate in 1994, he was pro-choice, in favor of gay rights (gay marriage was not yet on the table) and of mandated national health insurance, and skeptical about overseas intervention. Seven years ago, when he began running for president, he jettisoned these convictions for a diametrically opposite set of beliefs. As he began changing his views, there is no record of a Road to Damascus experience in his biography. Instead, what appears to have motivated him was a desire to impress Republican primary voters.
Politicians can often be two-faced, and can voice opinions they don’t really believe in. No one believes that Barack Obama opposed gay marriage until this May when he suddenly decided to support it. Privately, we assume, he supported it all along. And for all we know, Mitt Romney might privately tell his wife Anne that he still backs a women’s right to choose. But that is not what appears to have happened. Instead, Romney appears to be a man who has no private self—who has actually embraced the views that he initially adopted for purely opportunistic reasons.
And yet, that doesn’t mean he entirely believes these positions. If Romney’s political belief is generated by a desire to impress and ingratiate, one can imagine him, faced with a public alienated from conservative Republican positions, changing back to what he believed in 1994. Indeed, with his polls numbers stagnant, Romney recently abandoned his promise to fully repeal Obamacare. Of course, challenged by National Review, he subsequently denied he did.
Voters who don’t know Romney’s political life story can still pick up subliminal cues of Romney’s bad faith. Last May, James Lipton, a writer, actor, and director who is the host of Bravo’s Inside the Actor’s Studio, did a video trying to explain why Romney did not “come across as authentic.” Lipton noted that Romney’s laugh was “mirthless” and “doesn’t come across as genuine.” Lipton advised viewers to freeze a frame of Romney’s face when he was laughing and to put their hand over the lower half of Romney’s face. They would discover that while Romney mouth was expressing the sound of laughter, but that his eyes displayed “no pleasure.”
This perception that Romney is not genuine is at heart of his political difficulties. It is why voters don’t trust him. At the convention, Romney’s handlers tried to humanize him by making the case that he is a good father and husband and a caring boss and religious leader. These efforts may have spoken to the perception of Romney as an ice-cold business consultant, but they didn’t get to voters’ basic question about who Romney really cares about and stands for.
In the end, Romney’s personal popularity may not determine the election’s outcome. In 1968, voters put aside their doubts about Richard Nixon’s character because they thought he could deal better with the nation’s problems than his opponents. If the economy worsens, and if Romney does well in the debates, voters may decide that they want a businessman in charge even if he is one they don’t fully trust. But if the election continues on its present course, voters’ preference for Obama’s character over Romney’s is likely to prove decisive.
40 comments
Perhaps after the election, Obama can find a cabinet position for Romney. What? Say Secretary of Empty Suits?.
- skahn
September 14, 2012 at 12:43am
I remember Joanna Brooks, author of The Book of Mormon Girl, saying on Jon Stewart that what she perceived from Romney was fear: he's afraid of giving his genuine views, he's afraid of not giving his genuine views and being regarded as inauthentic, and he's afraid that people sense his fears.
- ironyroad
September 14, 2012 at 2:47am
Well-written article. Good portrait of the Hollow Man. I can't believe voters thought G.W. Bush was honest and trustworthy. He lied like he breathed. It was obvious when he addressed the nation, especially about the war in Iraq. Romney has the same compulsion to lie. He reminds me of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. Whenever one of his ministers consulted privately with him, the minister would leave the palace thinking that he had converted the Tsar to his point of view. This happened with all his ministers, even if all of their opinions were different. The Hollow Man is a chameleon. His opinions are skin deep, adjusted to blend with the political needs of the moment. For example, he doesn't really believe that Obama sympathizes with the murderers of the U.S. Ambassador in Libya. If he's asked about it in the debates, he will deny that he meant to say any such thing. And he won't really believe that either. In short, he's a sociopath, at least in his political life. And probably in his business life, too.
- magboy47.
September 14, 2012 at 2:49am
"The Hollow Man is a chameleon. His opinions are skin deep, adjusted to blend with the political needs of the moment. " It always stupefies me to see how people who write this kind of thing about one candidate do not realize that their own candidate measures up perfectly to this kind of standard. Obama's 2008 campaign was all about chameleoning.
- noga1
September 14, 2012 at 7:05am
Of course when Romney does is he is a liar. when Obama does it He displays his intricate understanding of what diplomacy and politics really mean. It's like, when you gossip. Some would say you are just a gossip and not to trust you with their secrets. Others would congratulate you on being very engaged and caring about the problems of your friends.
- noga1
September 14, 2012 at 7:09am
It's true the pre-convention NYT/CBS poll found that by a wide margin voters have more confidence in Romney than in Obama to handle the economy, but that same poll found that about half of voters believe the current economic plight stems from GWB's policies and most voters believe Romney would return to GWB's policies. My point is that voters believe in non-sense, whether relating to a candidate's ability to handle the economy or likability. As to whether Romney is a "phony", it reminds me of the distinction made by O.J. Berman between a "phony" and a "real phony", the latter being one who "honestly believes all this phony junk she believes in". Romney is not a real phony.
- rayward
September 14, 2012 at 7:26am
It's still , "the economy, stupid".. or more accurately... "the current direction of the economy, stupid".. If no economic crisis occurs befoire Nov, BHO is Prez--- If a crisis occurs, that will almost-certainly sway enough voters to elect Mittens with all his incincerities. If that crisis occurs with BHO as Prez next year, all the here-vaunted BHO sincerity will matter little in 2014 and for many years thereafter as the Repubs paint BHO as the Dem's Hoover.
- drofnats1
September 14, 2012 at 7:39am
I talked to O.J. Berman about the NYT/CBS poll, and Berman disagrees with Judis. Berman believes the economy will decide the election, and that he would advise the Obama campaign to remind voters (again, and again, and again) that the current economic plight stems from GWB's policies and that Romney would return to those same policies. Berman also believes Romney is a phony, not a real phony.
- rayward
September 14, 2012 at 7:40am
My own personal feelings agree with this assessment of the Romney personality, and his tax plan stinks too.
- Nusholtz
September 14, 2012 at 7:57am
It should be about policies. And Romney's policies double-down on Bush-II's policies, which led us to the greatest Recession since the Big One. What in that equation says "Romney could handle the economy better than Obama"? Damn, you Main Stream Media guys spend 1/2 your time bemoaning that everyone treats it like a popularity contest/horse race and ignores the policies. Way to be part of the problem, Mr. Judis. Just because Obama is briefly popular, doesn't mean it should be a popularity contest.
- AllanL5
September 14, 2012 at 8:20am
The article misses the point entirely. This is not about a Hollow Man syndrome - that is, Romney's chameleon-like shifts. Noga is right to some extent - all candidates have to demonstrate a capacity to serve as a receptable for the hopes and fears of a broad range of their followers, and the better they do it, the more successful they are likely to be. (The downside is post-coital disappointment, as happened with a lot of Obama supporters. I do think many had not really listened to the candidate too closely - but that is a whole separate discussion.) Romney does shapeshift more often than most, but on some stuff he has been very consistent: Israel, Russia, taxes, etc. One might say that he is wrong, but it is impossible to argue that in his support of Israel or in wishing to engage the United States in another war in the Middle East he has been anything other than astonishingly consistent and, well, solid. To figure out what is going on, you do need to go to the other side. That is, to those who oppose Obama on a range of issues, not out of blind hatred or partisan politics, but based on policy disagreements. Again, to the Pat Buchanan outfit, The American Conservative, and this time Rod Dreher, an Orthodox Christian writer who really does not like Obama's policies. At all. In his latest piece, he refers to the latest Romnattack on Obama and yet another, yawn, comparison with Carter. Here is his take:
Note that Dreher is not some sort of namby pamby Mooslim-supporting liberal. His first post on the embassy tweet referred to it as "shameful and pathetic". He is strongly critical of Obama on Muslim issues and freedom of religion matters - and many of his posts, in my year of exile from TNR, reminded me of Noga's on that score. The criticism he has is not that Romney shapeshifts, but that he lies, lies and lies again, without shame. So, give the American people a bit of credit. They don't like where they are economically. And they have reservations about Obama on that score. I don't think they necessarily dislike phonies, but they do not like being taken for a ride. I see Romney, and I think of A Face in the Crowd. Romney's meltdown on the Libya issue was his open-mike moment.- icarus-r
September 14, 2012 at 8:34am
Drof: you remind me of Abraracourcix, you know, the Asterix chieftain, who is forever in fear that the sky will fall on his head. Yes, if there is a meltdown between now and November, it is more likely than not that Obama might lose. And that says what? And if you are right - and that whole "it's the economy, stupid" is getting really tiresome - then why is Romney not concentrating on the economy? Why insert himself into a developing crisis like a drunken hippo marching into an Easter-egg hunt? Is it possible that the Romney campaign knows something that you don't - that, perhaps, attacking Obama on the economy is not having traction, because by and large people 1) understand that the meltdown was not his doing, and 2) have discounted the current lackluster performance of the economy and still want Obama over Romney, for a variety of other reasons? And, please, stop talking about 2014 or 2016. In 2004, Rove was talking about a permanent Republican majority, and they got drubbed in 2006. In 2008, equally stupid Democratic strategists were talking about a permanent Democratic majority, and they got creamed in 2010. You don't know and I don't know what will happen in 2014, and trying to strategise between now and then when there is an actual election happening in 2012 is just plain silly. I am more than ever convinced that you are one of the fake Fox Democrats who purport to give counsel to Obama, only that everything they advise would lead the Democrats to certain defeat. Now that I see you have stopped defending Romney the Plutocrat, and now that we know your views on the economy, you might want to demonstrate a bit of variety in your analysis.
- icarus-r
September 14, 2012 at 8:44am
I find this article terribly unpersuasive, actually. There is some good use of polling data, but there needs to be more to truly highlight the connection between popularity and winning the election. And, you mention 2000 but Bush lost the popular vote that year (hurray for packing the SCOTUS with activist conservative judges?). Icarus, I think we're more likely to obtain world peace than have drof stop beating his dead hobby horse. And, the more I read his posts, the more convinced I become that there will be a financial meltdown and it will somehow work out in Obama's favor.
- GSpinks
September 14, 2012 at 9:32am
noga misses the point. Of course Obama trimmed. Everybody does. But Obama changed his convictions within what one might call the acceptable limits of adaptability. No one ever doubted that Obama wanted to pass universal health care, even if he went back and forth on the public option and the individual mandate. Romney's contortions go well outside the acceptable limits, and this time around there is no Clinton-exhaustion or faux southern accent or "compassionate conservatism" to give either voters or the media cover for favoring Bush or believing nonsense about Gore the Serial Exaggerator. Couple that not with political opportunism--every politician takes advantage of opportunities--but with incompetent political opportunism and you get a problem that gets expressed in being less "likeable." As for the economy, read Greg Sargent.
- timteeter
September 14, 2012 at 10:24am
GSpinks, I am not sure how you missed the Fed's announcement of an openended QE3 which will certainly goose the economy the rest of this year and into next year and the more time passes the more people will have a chance to pay down debt, and inflation will nudge higher which means people will go back to buying homes as they increase in value and as housing prices increase the consumer market will rebound, 70% of which is the US economy. In a second term Obamacare will begin to really kick in which will also lessen the fears of millions of Americans who do not have insurance leading to another boost in domestic consumer spending. I simply don't see where any financial meltdown will occur outside of Europe but what is in it for Germany to push one right now especially since the Fed will increase the money supply? Drofnats is in fairy tale land, he has been pushing for a meltdown all year and it hasn't happened As to Romney, magboy and ick are right, the guy is a sociopath. His lies are borderline insane, he repeatedly states that Obama has not signed any trade agreements, yet Obama signed 4. Why lie about this when anyone remotely educated knows it is a senseless lie (does he really think that this would be a tipping point in an election???)
- blackton
September 14, 2012 at 10:34am
Tim: "Romney's contortions go well outside the acceptable limits," And with laserlike precision, Romney obliges with another contortion. Having denounced as disgraceful the embassy tweet, issued under threat of attack, denouncing the movie, and having got the Chair of the RNC accusing Obama of siding with terrorists, here is Romney, himself, denouncing the movie:
It is not just the contortions, it is that he behaves like a douche when he contorts.- icarus-r
September 14, 2012 at 10:36am
here is a nice excerpt from a Guardian article: n his 2005 bestseller, On Bullshit, the Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt made a crucial distinction between lies and bullshit. To lie is to intentionally deceive, by saying what you know (or believe) isn't the truth. Romney does this all the time. To bullshit, though, is to talk without regard for the truth, one way or the other. The liar and the truth-teller, writes Frankfurt, "are playing on opposite sides, so to speak, in the same game"; the bullshitter, by contrast, refuses to play. "He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all." Frankfurt has much more to say – I'm shamelessly ripping his concept out of its context here – but applying it to recent pronouncements is illuminating. Does anyone really believe, for instance, that Romney has a sinister reason for telling two stories about 9/11? Or that Paul Ryan decided to tell a calculated lie about his marathon times? Or that he was consciously telling the truth or lying about his mysterious mountaineering record, pored over by James Fallows? Or that Romney was lying, in the Frankfurtian sense, when he denied having seen Super Pac ads made in support of him, then said he'd seen them? Or, to disinter an old classic, when he idly spoke of having been a hunter all his life, but turned out not to have been? Is it because of "lies" that we'll never know whether Seamus the Roofrack Dog, of celebrated legend, was in "an air-tight container", or that his excrement spilled down the side of the car, both of which presumably couldn't be true at the same time? (Also: who even thinks about putting a dog in an air-tight container?)
- blackton
September 14, 2012 at 10:41am
Judis's last paragraph is key. Likability is important, but not all-important. In fact, Romney's problems do not stem from his public persona, but from how his poor campaign has helped create and reinforce a bad public persona. Obviously there were all the gaffes about liking to fire people and regarding corporations as people; there were the major flip-flops and continuing mini-somersaults. But beginning with the convention, Romney has refused to present a more detailed, clear-cut economic plan within a cogent narrative. If he had done so, he could have started to convince people that he does care and he knows what to do. Instead, we're treated to bromides and hand-waving that appear not just inauthentic but untrustworthy. And that's why I disagree with icarus's well-written argument. It really doesn't matter to most people that Bush got us into this mess--nor are people sufficiently aware of policy stances that they can easily equate Romney's ideas with Bush's. What matters is if Romney can make a convincing argument that he can do better than Obama. But Romney's vagueness and literally reactionary language ("we built it" and the Middle East muddle, to take two examples) indicates he's less of a leader and more of a weather-vane.
- polcereal
September 14, 2012 at 10:51am
So, you're saying that Bush was more likeable than Gore, so Bush won. And that's okay? I don't think that was okay. Perhaps that is the reality of the situation, that popularity matters more than policies. But as Bush v. Gore demonstrates, that's not always okay. Regarding Romney's economic policies -- repealing the cost-controlling Obamacare, cutting taxes EVEN FURTHER in a time of trillion dollar deficits, raising Military Spending (who are we at war with again?), doubling down on Bush-II Supply-Side strategies when they've already demonstrated they've failed miserably -- the more detail he puts into promoting that, the more idiotic and uncaring for America he appears.
- AllanL5
September 14, 2012 at 11:31am
If folks want to see a closer and probably more accurate picture of where the nation, as a whole stands when comparing Obama to Romney take a look a the state by state breakout at this website. www.isidewith.com 3.2million and counting voters/likely voters have gone through this quiz process to see where they line up with candidates based on the voter's position on particular issues and importance to them. No questions about likability, if you'd share a beer with the guy/gal, if you think he's being genuine when he laughs or if he's a phony. The purpose of the quiz takes you through a series of questions that cover domestic & foreign policy, healthcare issues, taxes, jobs, immigration and surprisingly, a good majority of the people who participated find they have little to like about Romney beyond his simple "personality and likability" issues. Scroll through the results by states for each of the 6 Presidential candidates and more people show stronger support for Obama and Gary Johnson than they do Mitt Romney. What does that tell you? That the GOP's swing to the far right is seriously hurting them. More people I know with a conservative bent are planning to vote Libertarian not because they cannot stand Mittens but because the GOP has lurched so far right AND the GOP nominates a guy like Mittens. It also confirms the conventional wisdoms that the Country as a whole is centrist. I took the quiz/poll and found myself splitting my vote between Obama and Johnson with heavier leanings towards Obama. Which confirmed my left-leaning libertarianism. But hey...it's only a quiz right? The website does an excellent job of laying out critical questions allowing you to answer yes/no or a more nuanced answer and with no liberal/conservative bias to the question where as most polls tend to slant partisan. And I think it does an excellent job of giving the voter an understanding on where they themselves stand on particular issues, where the candidate stands and where they converge.
- singlspeed
September 14, 2012 at 11:36am
The only think I can't explain about Romney is how he was as successful as he was as Governor of Massachusetts. Other than that episode, he's spent most of his adult life as Chief Executive of something more or less in the business world. And here's the thing: in that world, executives don't have to lead or inspire. Some do approach the problem that way, but a lot of them - including very successful ones like Larry Ellison (to take an obvious example), are just really smart, ruthless, assholes. That works because you can force people to do what you want when you're CEO - they either comply or lose their job - and, you can change direction as often as you want. As long as you succeed on the bottom line, you'll keep your job. Being President is nothing like that. Running for President is nothing like that. You can't fire the electorate - they get to hold you accountable with their vote. Either you inspire them to do so, or YOU lose your job. It's pretty hard to generate that inspiration if you treat the electorate like idiots (trust me, I was all fair and legal on my taxes) with no memory (this has been my position all along - just ignore those old clips of me saying the exact opposite) and no aspirations (he exudes "I'm successful because I'm smart," so what does the unemployed worker conclude from that). Hard, but not impossible. Half the country are idiots with no memory. He could still pull this out.
- IowaBeauty
September 14, 2012 at 11:47am
- icarus-r
September 14, 2012 at 11:50am
"Romney claimed to have purchased his children’s Christmas presidents at Wal-Mart’s." There's a Freudian slip.
- MarkWGross
September 14, 2012 at 12:33pm
"I took the quiz/poll and found myself splitting my vote between Obama and Johnson with heavier leanings towards Obama. Which confirmed my left-leaning libertarianism. But hey...it's only a quiz right?" Funny you say that, single, I took it and had exactly the same result.
- ironyroad
September 14, 2012 at 1:52pm
"Obama's 2008 campaign was all about chameleoning." Noga, I agree that Obama was in the very strange position of being the first non-white presidential candidate with a serious shot at the White House, and that he seemed to e.g. shift mode when speaking to black-majority audiences as opposed to mixed or white audiences. To that extent there was a kind of tactical color change as he moved from context to context (but, as icarus says, that's national politics). At the same time, however, there were striking moments in that campaign I'd never seen in my life before. Would you say "chameleoning" about the March 2008 Philadelphia speech on race in America too? That always seemed to me a beautiful but risk-filled moment in which Obama put issues on the table that had always remained hidden in presidential politics. To read the speech now is, I think, to be struck by how much it was a distillation of the man himself. I haven't seen anything like that from Romney (and he's had opportunities).
- ironyroad
September 14, 2012 at 2:00pm
Irony... Thumbs up. It's nice to know there are more of us liberal libertarians out there! It's amazing when the electorate are asked serious questions and allowed to give nuanced answers to difficult questions beyond the binary words of yes/no. It's funny because in my conversations with my conservative friends and family, they seem surprised at my stances but once explained, it's like watching a light bulb go on behind their eyes. That quiz illustrates why we need a more open system than the two party version we have now. I've always been a proponent of having open debates by the candidates from all of the parties.
- singlspeed
September 14, 2012 at 2:30pm
On the whole issue of trustworthiness: Yes, Romney has changed positions. He's done it more often than I'm comforatable with. But Obama hardly wins gold stars for consistency. He "flip flops" too, for example, his sudden and unconvincing conversion to the cause of gay marriage. On the issue of who can better handle the economy, I'd have to say Romney. And given the rioting against US embassies in Egypt, Libya and Yemen, I'd have to say Romney is looking like the better choice on foreign policy, too.
- Spengler47
September 14, 2012 at 3:17pm
"He "flip flops" too, for example, his sudden and unconvincing conversion to the cause of gay marriage. It's hard to be very forgiving of Obama for that "flip-flop," but - and it's an important reservation - I don't know of anyone who actually believed his original position. And for the most part, Obama managed to convey the notion that he didn't think the country was ready for same-sex marriage, not that he thought it was fundamentally wrong. Everyone I know, left and right, figured he was dissembling on the topic because he didn't figure coming out and saying what he thought would be palatable. Romney, on the other hand is repudiating basically the entire identity he crafted for himself as Governor of Massachusetts, including major legislative initiatives he used to list at the top of his credentials. The difference between Obama abandoning a position that it never made sense he held, and for which he made no particular fight to uphold, and Romney abandoning an entire political identity and set of governing accomplishments for one which no one really believes he now holds sincerely, couldn't be starker.
- IowaBeauty
September 14, 2012 at 3:43pm
The original use and form of rhetoric was to make a pointed argument towards another person to persuade them that your opponent's position was wrong and the you are right. In the US that form of rhetoric has all but disappeared, where now the meaning & use of rhetoric is to make specious statements about your opponent contrary to any particular position but to simply paint your opponent in the least flattering light possible. Short of slander and libel. So when a politician, honestly changes their minds, it is now 'flip flopping' such that a person cannot take a nuanced, informed position and be persuaded by the facts to change his/her mind. Where Obama came to the conclusion that supporting gay marriage as a person was, for him, the correct position and had been persuaded to change his position. Obama had little to gain for changing his mind other than resolving his own internal debate and conflicts about gay rights and gay marriage. Romney on the other hand, has been neither persuaded or convinced that any of his previous, moderate positions were correct or defensible but instead disposable which is very different and actually represents 'flip flopping'. It shows a certain level of crassness and lack of convictions. It's one thing to temper one's earlier moderate positions of being fully throated 'pro choice' and then over time saying "I'm pro-choice...but only on certain conditions" and quite the other to go from being 'pro-choice' to suddenly supporting Constitutional amendments to ban abortion regardless of circumstance without any explanation except political expediency.
- singlspeed
September 14, 2012 at 4:03pm
"And given the rioting against US embassies in Egypt, Libya and Yemen, I'd have to say Romney is looking like the better choice on foreign policy, too." Spengler, if there was some way in which a President Romney would be able to either (a) prevent movies insultiing Islam going up on YouTube or (b) deflect potential attacks on US missions in Muslim countries by aggressively reading them the moviemakers' First Amendment rights, or both, then you'd have a reasonable point. As I don't believe that Romney or indeed any other president can achieve either on a normal day, and even if some version of (b) were put into operation, it's rather difficult to imagine it working. So how, exactly, would Romney's approach be better? Indeed, the nature of Romney's recent response to these events (don't wait for the facts, attack the president, and double down on a lie) raises some doubts about his acumen in this area, surely?
- ironyroad
September 14, 2012 at 4:29pm
The difference between people is not what they do, but the extent to which they do it. Obama, being a successful politician, has some of the same phony, lying characteristics as Romney does, but nowhere near to the same degree. Romney's core is so hollow that he can change his position in mid-sentence. As president, he would rule by panic. Considering the economic crisis that he inherited and the ferocious GOP opposition that he has encountered, Obama is the very picture of a grounded leader. At any rate, good news. Americans said in an NBC poll today that they trust Obama more on foreign policy than they do Romney, which is remarkable, considering the events in the Middle East. And some Republican politicians are criticizing Romney without reservations. They know that he would be a disaster as president. Of course, there are many on the Rabid Right who see Obama as a total disaster. The problem with that is that, if Obama were a total disaster, the people declaring it would be standing in soup lines--by the tens of millions.
- magboy47.
September 14, 2012 at 4:50pm
Irony, it is the "weakness is provocative" argument: that if you demonstrate strength, for example by carpet bombing Cairo because they dared elect a terrorist-hugging Muslim Brotherhood prez, then no one in the Muslim world would dare raise a peep against the Awesomeness that is the United States. I'm simplifying, but I think I have the gist of it right. The argument is a corruption of Morgenthau's Realist Paradigm. The corruption is twofold - and we have seen it here in the pages of TNR in the unlamented blatherings of a certain M Peretz. First, it conflates state action on the part of the targets with local populations. Unlike the situation in Iran in '79, there is no reason to think that the attacks in Tunisia and Libya were orchestrated or sanctioned by the local government - if anything, to the contrary. (Egypt, who knows.) Accordingly, a demonstration of strength (and I will get to that below), which is generally against the government, is unlikely to have an impact on the populations. Well, unless you bomb the populations. But I suspect that is not what Romney means. Necessarily. The second has to do with the nature of 'strength' itself. Morgenthau makes a crucial distinction between power and force: if you have to use force, it means you don't have power. Neither has anything at all to do with rhetoric, public or otherwise. That is to say, the exercise of power (as against a state, not its population, which you cannot control) is independent of - and sometimes, entirely disconnected from - the public rhetoric you might adopt in any given situation. Extrapolating, I would argue that the sort of rhetorical muscularity demanded of Obama demonstrates a perception of lack of power rather than its abundance. What the sources of this conceptual corruption are, who knows. What we do know is this: despite its still overwhelming military superiority - the force it can muster on the ground - US power has been on the wane since ... 2003, if not 2001. The sheer magnitude of the incompetence that was Bush II, on every level but especially starting from failing to kill Osama in Tora Bora and then proceeding to a half-assed occupation of Iraq, has reduced US standing in ways large and small, in capitals and the street alike. Because it is impossible for Republicans to admit that, and because the lack of power and its source are so glaring as to be blinding, Republicans have to resort to mythmaking to 'splain it away. The Realist corruption is merely the theoretical outcome of the bigger malaise.
- icarus-r
September 14, 2012 at 4:51pm
Quite apart from the recent ME crisis, I get the impression that Romney wants the rest of the world to tip its cap deferentially whenever American passes it in its carriage. Sort of Romney's social attitudes writ large for foreign policy. We are the country with the awesome house with the car elevator, and to question us is just pure envy.
- ironyroad
September 14, 2012 at 4:59pm
"In the end, Romney’s personal popularity may not determine the election’s outcome. In 1968, voters put aside their doubts about Richard Nixon’s character because they thought he could deal better with the nation’s problems than his opponents. If the economy worsens, and if Romney does well in the debates, voters may decide that they want a businessman in charge even if he is one they don’t fully trust." Why does every such article talking about Romney's problems have to end with such an it-isn't-over-'til-it's-over disclaimer? 1) We all understand that the future is open and that elections aren't decided until election day. 2) It's OVER already. Romney's cactus. Put a fork in him. You know it, and I know it. Why mince words?
- AaronW
September 14, 2012 at 5:04pm
Then again ... McCain is turning on Fox News. On Libya. This is news. Big news.
- icarus-r
September 14, 2012 at 5:58pm
I am amazed at the enmity toward WMR. Moreover, the many of the comments show a lack of control. WMR is intelligent, hard working, steady, a good father and husband, and successful. He knows how markets work. Why does Obama always get a pass from everyone? He has never had a private sector job, and he governed nothing, before he became president. He is not a leader. He is too cautious. He is subject to influence by pressure groups. Obama's comment about Egypt not being an ally was ignorant: the State Department contradicted him a few hours later. Be fair. If GWB, the idiot, had made this comment, the media would have been all over him with scorn. However, BHO received a pass. It is nice to have toadies like Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow in your corner.
- john336
September 14, 2012 at 8:35pm
Nobody here is giving Obama a pass in the general sense you mean it, john. Most people have specific criticisms of his policies and actions (generally from left-of-center, of course). In this particular context, however, the nationwide results indicate -- again, maybe this will change -- that Romney is seen as an out-of-touch rich guy who made at least some of his money shipping jobs overseas, wants his taxes to stay secret, and switches from position to position with the sinuous moves of a snake-dancer depending on who he's talking to. Romney has had months to do something about this but has consistently backed away from the problem.
- ironyroad
September 14, 2012 at 9:47pm
"Romney claimed to have purchased his children’s Christmas presidents ..." Great typo, John. Doesn't anybody at TNR read the copy before it goes up?
- tj_emerson
September 14, 2012 at 10:24pm
John, Two simple points. First, I don't know Romney and nothing I write is an indictment of him as a father or husband or Mormon Bishop. One can be a fine family man and be a lousy politician at the same time. Second, there is a difference when a generally inarticulate and incurious man makes a statement that is inarticulate and incurious, and an otherwise intelligent and articulate man makes a statement that is, or appears, "ignorant". As to the first, here again is Daniel Larison, who writes for The American Conservative. This is a magazine founded by Pat Buchanan. It is safe to assume that the magazine is not a fan of Obama. Neither is Larison, who is generally a "realist" and does not agree with much of Obama's foreign policy. And yet, he is not partisan; he is a sober analyst of foreign relations. And this is what he says about Romney:
I will concede that he is a hard working fine family man; let us agree that as a politician, Romney has not demonstrated sterling qualities of either thought or of honesty. This is regardless of how good or bad Obama is - as I said, Larison does not even like Obama's foreign policy ... As to your "ignorant" comment, I think it is safe to assume that given how much Egypt has been crossing his desk in the last year, Obama has a clear idea whether Egypt is an ally or not. Egypt as a state, yes; Morsi as head of government, not likely. Let us keep in mind that at the time he made the statement, it was still not clear who had attacked the embassy, and Morsi had certainly not said anything. At that point, it is not sound for him to declare eternal friendship; in any event, had he said anything about Egypt being an ally, he would have been crucified by the Right. Finally, it does not strike me that you have been on these boards for long. Throughout the last four years, the strongest critics of Obama - not the rabid ones, but substantive critics - have been among the disappointed liberals here.- icarus-r
September 15, 2012 at 1:06am
John, I don't find your overall depiction of Romney particularly compelling, but I find your critique of Obama's lack of leadership pretty on-target. I will still vote for him for lack of a better alternative (which, for me, would be a Theodore Roosevelt or maybe an FDR), but...yeah. There's better out there. At least I hope so. I do take issue, though, with your assumption that private sector experience is an important part of training for office. All things equal, I'd recommend it, but history doesn't strike me as showing this is most important. Right now we need some one with a short and long term macroeconomic vision, and the political skills to get us there. Romney's style of cost-cutting and value-extraction does not strike me as useful private sector experience. I'd prefer, say, an economist with experience in manufacturing and high-tech services, and a sense of how we might provide seed money to nudge US markets along toward creating new industries for the 21st century (Obama appears to be wanting in interest in this, as well as in the knowledge/skill set to make it happen), but his platform of public investment in higher education seems closer to the mark of what we need to do than....Romney's completely unspecified proposals (tax-neutral tax code adjustments may shift around revenue, but what will they do for the long-term economy! We tried free-marketism from 2000-2008, including tax cuts, and it just hasn't worked out so well. We need a return to the public investment of the era of the 5th party system ( 1932-1978, say). Interstate highways! Rockets! Microchips! Long distance air travel! Technology and industry for a new century that causes record productivity growth!
- Curran1
September 15, 2012 at 3:05am