Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
It might sound counter-intuitive but National Review editor Rich Lowry offers some solid advice to Romney should he win the nomination: Don't worry about trying to connect with voters.
He says that "voters will first decide if they are inclined to retire President Obama. Then, they will ask whether Romney is acceptable." And he's perfectly acceptable as a politician, even if many people are having to work there way into grudging acceptance.
Lowry says that it's just as well that the Romney campaign doesn't rely on the messianic model of the 2008 Obama campaign. His promises are more realistic. Here's more:
If Romney is the Republican nominee, he would be wise to resist all the advice he’ll get on how to forge the kind of connection with voters that has heretofore escaped him. He should play by different rules: Don’t go out of your way to empathize. Don’t tell anyone about your passions. Don’t share endearing personal stories.
Romney needn’t dazzle with his personality or move people with his struggles. The standard he has to meet is the one Barack Obama famously established for Hillary Clinton back in their 2008 campaign — “likable enough.” People have to like Romney the way they like their accountant. They have to consider him trustworthy and capable, full stop.
Romney is a fundamentally decent man who has been true to his family and his faith. He’s even-tempered to a fault and personally polite (if politically ruthless). But he won’t win the “Would you want to have a beer with him?” contest with Obama, and not even the “Would you want to have a chocolate milk with him?” contest. Kids will never faint at his rallies, and journalists will never fall over themselves praising his eloquence. The country will always be blissfully free of “Mitt-mania.”
Romney is a workmanlike politician. His pitch for himself should be that he’ll be an equally workmanlike president. Although it hasn’t set the GOP on fire, his truest, most natural message is that he’s a turnaround artist — the guy who can rationally evaluate a situation, come up with a plan and execute it. Romney can’t fall back simply on the dreaded Michael Dukakis buzzword of “competence.” His case has to include a vision of a better America. But his implicit slogan should be “No one ever regretted hiring Mitt Romney to do a job.”
That sounds about right to me. But what do you all think?
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '11
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
If you want a pointless presidency to do a whole bunch of not much, sure.
Jun '10
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
Wonk math?
Dec '11
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
That's kind of what we have here in Canada with Prime Minister Harper.
Nov '10
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
Agree. In people's minds, this election will be more about Obama than about who the Republican is. In general, having someone who I can count on but would be less of a messiah, less of a rock star, less of an in your face all the time, would be a welcomed relief. It really is important now who is the President, but it would be fantastic to move to a point in the political landscape where who occupies the Oval Office is not such a dominating pressure in our lives.
Mar '11
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
I think Lowry is right. You don't need or want to like your dentist. You do have to trust him. Obama's successor will have a very difficult job. A candidate who relies on likeability probably wouldn't be able to do the job.
Nov '10
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
Was Reagan an dominating, messiah like presence when he was in office? I was alive but was busy playing with GI Joes and Transformers.
Oct '10
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
I guess the only good thing about a lack of "Mitt-Mania" is that he would have to out-mania Obama, which would be unlikely for any candidate, especially without the media and Hollywood.
I also think it's possible to have "mania" surrounding a candidate's ideas without the candidate being a rock star. It's a lot easier to like your accountant when you trust him. Romney may be decent and trustworthy on a personal level, but he comes across as a political charlatan. (or is that an oxymoron)?
Jan '11
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
I don't see Romney as a leader. He's not going to lead a charge up a hill. Then again, given a choice between a stall and a plummet to our death, I'll take the stall.
Keep the focus on Obama, and we win. Take it off Obama, and allow Obama to throw mud from offstage, and we lose.
Feb '11
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
Well of course.
The personal connection Ronald Reagan had with the voters never mattered, and the lack of that connection never hurt Bush 41 either.
Right?
Seriously. This strikes me as just whistling past the GOP graveyard. Romney has his good points, but one of them surely is not that the voting public generally has no enthusiasm for his candidacy.
Jan '11
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
I was actually tinkering with this idea earlier in the week, thought "that might be a good post for Ricochet," and was wondering how fast I could read Gene Healy's The Cult of the Presidency.
I don't want to fall in love with politicians; I want them to get jobs done and to not sell out too much on the important stuff. Though I'd prefer if Romney could better connect with voters (it'd sure help in November), I think we'll be better served by emphasizing any president's status as the government's Chief Executive over his status as the nation's Head of State.
Edited on March 9, 2012 at 6:35pmDec '10
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
I think Mitt Romney should embrace the rich guy role. Instead of trying to connect with voters as a "regular guy" ("I've been out of a job recently, ha, ha"), he ought to pitch himself as a Napoleon Hill/Tony Robbins motivational speaker: "I got rich, here's how, and here's how I am going to make it possible for you to get rich too."
The one thing that the class warfare brigades have failed to do in all their decades of trying is make Americans stop wanting to be rich. From "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" to "MTV's Cribs" to "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," we - almost all of us - want to experience our concept of what wealth will buy for us (or for people we care about).
So rather than flail about trying to relate to regular folks, opening himself up to charges of making gaffes when he mentions his wealth, he should make his wealth a feature of his pitch and use it to draw a stark contrast with President Obama's "most people have a very modest idea of the American Dream."
May '10
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
Agree, especially because the Obama mania-cult was followed by mega-failure. No, Romney isn't as unlikable as your dentist; he's simply not trading on BS, the way Obama, and many politicians do.
If you find Romney not sufficiently "exciting," I would suggest you need to examine the person you see in the mirror, not Mitt Romney.
That said, I'm sure Romney's VP pick will satisfy your excitement needs somewhat.
Mar '11
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
ParisParamus:
That said, I'm sure Romney's VP pick will satisfy your excitement needs somewhat. · 6 minutes ago
If he is named Marco Rubio.
Nov '10
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
iWc
ParisParamus:
That said, I'm sure Romney's VP pick will satisfy your excitement needs somewhat. · 6 minutes ago
If he is named Marco Rubio. · 1 minute ago
Would Chris Christie have the same effect?
May '10
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
I think Romney is doing his best to win the GOP nomination without losing the indys. It's calculated.
He knows he has to defeat Obama AND the media.
Meanwhile, Jim Pethokoukis thinks the Pubbie nominee might have the wind at his back.
Nov '10
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
their way...
May '10
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
Lowry is clearly not swooning and dreaming over Jeffrey Anderson math. He's moved on to the general.
Nov '10
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
The operative word in Chief Executive is "Executive". Romney is the antithesis of Obama. Obama is a stellar campaigner who creates a rockstar kind of presence, is comfortable playing fast and loose with the "facts", and touches all the right politically correct buttons (African American, doesn't come from money, ultra-liberal, etc.), BUT, he's a horribly inadequate executive. Romney is an OK campaigner who creates a serious, adult presence, is serious about policy (excepting that 10th Amendment Romneycare explanation), and is politically incorrect (rich, conservative, religious white guy who comes from money and made a lot more), BUT, he's a stellar executive. He did actually cut spending in his term as MA Governor, he made a pile of money directing and investing in businesses, and he straightened out the Olympics when it was mired in bureaucracy and controversy. The guy knows how to run an organization. I fear that theme is not being trumpeted enough. Not only is it his advantage over Obama, but it is his primary advantage over every other GOP candidate.
Is he boring? Yes. But after Obama, shouldn't a boring, capable Chief Executive be a welcome change?
Thanks Mollie.
Apr '11
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
How utterly depressing and defeatist.
Anybody but Romney or BO, please. If the GOP can't do better, then why should I bother voting?
Feb '12
Re: Lowry: The Lack Of Mitt-mania Is A Good Thing
I keep saying, it is time to coalesce around Mitt Romney. He is the obvious winner and as Rich Lowery writes, he has been a success at all of his endeavors. Let's also not be drawn in on any more Democratic straw men. Let's focus on Obama's record and we will win this thing.