George Will on Romney and Santorum
From the coda of George Will's column today:
Romney is right about the futility of many current policies, but being offended by irrationality is insufficient. Santorum is right to be alarmed by many cultural trends but implies that religion must be the nexus between politics and cultural reform. Romney is not attracting people who want rationality leavened by romance. Santorum is repelling people who want politics unmediated by theology.
My admiration for Dr. Will is second to none, but I think him slightly off the mark here.
Romney's style problem (that he doesn't have one) is a secondary consideration. Indeed, if conservatives really are averse to a buttoned-down technocrat, it's hard to explain why Mitch Daniels sent so many of them to their fainting couches at this time last year.
Rather, Romney's primary shortcoming is dispositional. We've seen it on display recently in his support for increasing the minimum wage and retaining the progressivity of the tax code, as well as in his warning that cutting federal spending will slow the economy. It's not, as some of his more adamant detractors allege, that Romney is a liberal; it's that he's a conventional wisdom Republican -- the sort of person whose ideas are shaped more directly (and more regularly) by the editorials of the Washington Post than by the work of Milton Friedman; the sort of person who prefaces every political conversation at a cocktail party with "I'm not that kind of Republican." The corresponding fear for conservatives is that all they'll get out of a Romney Administration is whatever right-leaning real estate is still available after conceding a liberal premise.
As for Santorum, Will's criticism was a lot more salient prior to last night's debate (in fairness, I assume it was written prior to the forum). Santorum has actually proven himself surprisingly capable of consistently making his religious views -- and their effect on his policy stances -- seem utterly within the American mainstream (although the media frenzy that accompanies his every pronouncement that even grazes the issue will continue to dog him).
After last night, it seems that Santorum's biggest problem may turn out to be the fact that he is a pathological senator: prone to self-reference and Washington jargon, long-winded at the expense of clarity, occasionally "nuanced" to the point of parody (his 'I voted for bills that I didn't support' moment last night summoned the ghost of the John Kerry campaign).
Fortunately for Santorum, he seems able to escape these tics at times. In the right setting, on the right topic, he can be forceful and clear. He ought now to redouble his efforts to marshal that tone. If he doesn't, this will turn into a race between the guy who thinks like Bob Dole and the guy who talks like Bob Dole.
- Comment (35)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
Friday and Saturday are still to come, but who cares? Troy has already gotten off the line of the week:
Gorgeous. Just gorgeous.
May '10
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
Agree through and through. Every line. Every word. You are right and Will is wrong. Or rather, you are on the mark and he is off.
Edited on February 23, 2012 at 7:24pmSep '10
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
Peter Robinson: Friday and Saturday are still to come, but who cares? Troy has already gotten off the line of the week:
Gorgeous. Just gorgeous. · 1 minute ago
I'd like to break my self imposed online sequester to echo that sentiment: that was the line of the primary season, Troy.
May '10
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
Peter Robinson: Friday and Saturday are still to come, but who cares? Troy has already gotten off the line of the week:
Gorgeous. Just gorgeous. · 1 minute ago
This morning I was remembering the debate where all the pundits said Gore trounced Bush. But Bush went up in the polls, because what the public saw in Bush was a sincere, decent man, while what they saw in Gore was a jerk.
I am wondering whether time will show that what voters saw last night in Santorum was a rarely honest politician who believes he owes the public an explanation for bad votes--one that relates them to his positions and to his plans for the future—but who lacks nimbleness.
If they do, they may say, "We'll take him."
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
Only one quibble, Troy. "Conventional wisdom" Republicans are liberals. They are managerial progressives; and, as such, preferable to utopian progressives.
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
Peter Robinson: Friday and Saturday are still to come, but who cares? Troy has already gotten off the line of the week:
Gorgeous. Just gorgeous. · 17 minutes ago
Yes, it captures our dilemma wonderfully.
May '10
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
Bob Dole would today be better than Obama. In fact, I remember in the 1970's when he was considered a bright light of conservatism (compared with, e.g., Hugh Scott and Mac Mathias; our side has gotten better, gang).
Then, as Senate Majority Leader, Dole had to manage a whole caucus against a left wing administration and a fractious minority, and had to compromise now and then. That made him a pariah to the Right. Mitch McConnell was once a respected conservative senator, until having to actually lead in the real world turned him into a conservative-pundit-scorned pariah. Ditto Bill Frist.
We'll see how long it takes to shoot Marco Rubio.
Mar '11
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
Paul A. Rahe
Peter Robinson: Friday and Saturday are still to come, but who cares? Troy has already gotten off the line of the week:
Gorgeous. Just gorgeous. · 17 minutes ago
Yes, it captures our dilemma wonderfully. · 30 minutes ago
Let's just say first one to fall off the stage loses.
Dec '10
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
Troy Senik, Ed.
It's not, as some of his more adamant detractors allege, that Romney is a liberal; it's that he's a conventional wisdom Republican -- the sort of person whose ideas are shaped more directly (and more regularly) by the editorials of the Washington Postthan by the work of Milton Friedman; the sort of person who prefaces every political conversation at a cocktail party with "I'm not thatkind of Republican."
Plenty of conservative Republicans whose ideas are shaped by Friedman quail at the thought of their friends and neighbors finding out that they ARE "that kind of Republican." They assume that general election voters hate and fear that kind of Republican and cannot be persuaded that those kinds of ideas have merit and relevance to them.
Thus these conservative Republicans support the guy they think the general election voters will go for. They fail to realize that American voters don't like mush: they like someone who projects strength of ideas. In each election from 1976 on, the more forthright and ideological candidate (Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama) beat the more mushy, moderate one (Ford, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Bush, Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain).
Aug '10
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
While I agree with you Troy that Santorum handled himself well on the religiosity front in last night's debate, I think he is a long way from reinventing himself as less petulant, less of a scold, and less of a preachy politician.
He got right up to the ragged edge of another Footloose-Dad self immolation before locking it down nicely, and while impressive, that is a luxury he cannot afford. And he insists on using religious words (theology, Satan) loosely, this is a bad call. He is batting with a full count and a microscopic strike zone on this rhetoric, he needs to tighten up that mess yesterday.
And he did not help himself on the self pity front last night either, yes he was more senatorial than self pitying, but he managed to get in a good whine toward the end.
Certainly after listening to Rob's take in the most recent podcast on Santorum's religiosity as a politician, and VDH's epic, earthy, and emphatic take-down of Santorum's petulance in the previous podcast, I believe I am not alone in saying Santorum remains a candidate with some serious work ahead of him.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 3:38amJun '10
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
Troy Senik, Ed.
occasionally "nuanced" to the point of parody (his 'I voted for bills that I didn't support' moment last night summoned the ghost of the John Kerry campaign).
I agree this is a problem for him in the primary, where many voters are looking for the type of firebrand who would shut down the government rather than vote for a bill with $1 of funding for Planned Parenthood.
I'm not so sure it would hurt him against Obama. Many of the moderate swing voters who will decide the election say they are fed up with hyper-partisan politics and the "do-nothing" Congress. They might see the fact that he set aside his personal objections to one small part of the bill to vote for a larger compromise as evidence that he's moderate and reasonable rather than the far-right hardliner of press caricature.
Jul '10
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
That's easy to explain: he never ran. How did Pawlenty do?
Don't get me wrong, I may well have preferred Daniels to Romney, I did at the time. But Mitch would have taken plenty of beatings from folks on the right if he had entered.
Indexing the minimum wage is a legitimate gripe.
The other two seem like manufactured complaints.
Anybody think that a remotely serious candidate would pitch a flat tax this year?
Anybody think cutting spending only is the way to growth?
That means, for instance, keeping Obamacare which is a tax this week.
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
The problem with George Will is that he throws so many competing thoughts into one senctence the average reader is lost before the first punctuation mark.
I usually keep pen and pad at the ready when I read him so I can make a thought tree out of every paragraph.
Feb '12
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
Kudos, Editor Senic.
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
Palaeo,
Completely agree on the point that Daniels would have taken his beatings like anyone else -- but I doubt they would have been on the same grounds as Romney. And Pawlenty as technocrat is a hard sell. He seems to have been an estimable governor of Minnesota, but, best I can tell, he didn't have the intricate problem-solver reputation that both Romney and Daniels possess. Buttoned-down? Yes. Technocrat? No.
Palaeologus
That's easy to explain: he never ran. How did Pawlenty do?
Don't get me wrong, I may well have preferred Daniels to Romney, I did at the time. But Mitch would have taken plenty of beatings from folks on the right if he had entered.
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
We can debate the political prudence of trying to advance the flat tax this cycle (though both Perry and Gingrich pushed it and it didn't seem to be a source of trouble for either of them). And certainly more than spending cuts is needed to grow the economy. But we're not knocking Romney for failing to advance more conservative policies; we're knocking him for making unforced concessions to liberal dogma.
Why, in response to a question about the debt commission, parrot the Keynesian line on spending? Why, in introducing a tax cut package, go out of your way to tout the virtues of progressivity? Probably because you actually believe it.
Palaeologus
Indexing the minimum wage is a legitimate gripe.
The other two seem like manufactured complaints.
Anybody think that a remotely serious candidate would pitch a flat tax this year?
Anybody think cutting spendingonlyis the way to growth?
Nov '11
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
If Pawlenty had 1) gone after Romneycare rather than backing off, 2) not let Bachmann get to him, and 3) ignored the polls, he might be up there today.
May '10
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
Joseph Stanko
Troy Senik, Ed.
occasionally "nuanced" to the point of parody (his 'I voted for bills that I didn't support' moment last night summoned the ghost of the John Kerry campaign).
I agree this is a problem for him in the primary, where many voters are looking for the type of firebrand who would shut down the government rather than vote for a bill with $1 of funding for Planned Parenthood.
I'm not so sure it would hurt him against Obama. Many of the moderate swing voters who will decide the election say they are fed up with hyper-partisan politics and the "do-nothing" Congress. They might see the fact that he set aside his personal objections to one small part of the bill to vote for a larger compromise as evidence that he's moderate and reasonable rather than the far-right hardliner of press caricature. · 1 hour ago
Hey, now even Ricochet's most true are embracing moderate and reasonable bipartisanship! Unless this is just a ruse to try to fool everyone?
"Moderate and reasonable"= Santorum.
"RINO progressive"= Romney.
Don't let facts and data interfere with the narrative, guys.
May '10
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
Troy Senik, Ed.: ...... But we're not knocking Romney for failing to advance more conservative policies; we're knocking him for making unforced concessions to liberal dogma.
Why, in response to a question about the debt commission, parrot the Keynesian line on spending? Why, in introducing a tax cut package, go out of your way to tout the virtues of progressivity? Probably because you actually believe it.
40 minutes ago
Or one may be thinking strategically about running against Mr. Class Warfare in the general election, perhaps? And not trashing conservative principles in the process of battling other primary candidates, for the same reason?
Absolutely everything here is manichaean, isn't it? Up or down, no exceptions ever allowed away from Goldwater. If Romney came out today with the 1980 Reagan platform, he'd be accused of not meaning it.
The "Keynesian line" was not a Keynesian line, the comment was conditional and tied to combination policy and mainstream NCE theory. And we've already dealt ad nauseum with the sound political reasons for the statement on progressivity on Peter's thread.
Jul '10
Re: George Will on Romney and Santorum
Troy Senik, Ed.: We can debate the political prudence of trying to advance the flat tax this cycle (though both Perry and Gingrich pushed it and it didn't seem to be a source of trouble for either of them).
Palaeologus:
Anybody think that a remotely serious candidate would pitch a flat tax this year?
Anybody think cutting spendingonlyis the way to growth?
Gingrich on taxes:
1.Stop the 2013 tax increases to promote stability in the economy. Job creation improved after Congress extended tax relief for two years in December. We should make the rates permanent.
3.Move toward an optional flat tax of 15%
Hand-waving of that magnitude was last seen in a Rowling novel. That isn't a plan, it's a wish. If Romney put that up he'd get creamed here. Heck, he gets attacked for straight up marginal cuts.
Perry's fly-by-night, casual campaign pitched a flat tax, yes. It was criticized, and if it didn't hurt him... well he didn't give it chance.