Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
That's Kathleen Parker's diagnosis in the Washington Post of why the former Governor of Massachusetts is still facing resistance from a substantial chunk of the Republican electorate:
Handsome, rich and successful, he is happily married to a beautiful wife, father to five strapping sons and grandfather to many. At the end of a long day of campaigning, his hair hasn't moved. His shirt is still unwrinkled and neatly tucked into pressed jeans. He goes to bed the same way he woke up — sober, uncaffeinated, seamless and smiling in spite of the invectives hurled in his direction.
What’s wrong with this guy? Nada. Which is precisely the problem. Romney could use a limp.
This is the sort of punditry one would expect out of the bullpen at TMZ. Let me go out on a limb and submit the notion that opposition to Romney from within the GOP doesn't owe to the fact that voters have never seen him under the vivifying influence of a Pepsi.
Nor is it a matter of Romney's empathy deficit, a second line of argument Parker employs later in the piece. She's right to note that Romney's analytical gifts would likely be of more value in the White House than the sort of insatiable compassion we saw perfected by Bill Clinton. But count me skeptical that the most conservative wing of the party looks askance at Romney because they find him insufficiently therapeutic.
Speaking as someone who's long been skeptical of Romney, but who (especially as his nomination looks increasingly likely) would be happy to be disabused of his misgivings, here's the problem: he's attempted to earn my vote without first earning my trust.
He possesses a past littered with disregard for conservatism, whether in the form of disowning the Reagan legacy or constructing a health care plan in Massachusetts that provide the intellectual architecture for Obamacare. He now would have us believe that he has converted to the side of the angels on nearly every issue, yet the fact that he has never done so except when it happened to be politically expedient calls his motivations into question. And his campaign is pockmarked with little tells of his less-than-conservative instincts: proposing what amounts to a trade war with China and telling Rick Santorum on the debate stage that individual liberty is "not worth getting angry about", for instance.
Parker and her ilk think that those of us who haven't been converted have placed a premium on style over substance. They're wrong. Rather, we think style tells you something about substance. Thus, we don't distrust Romney because of his mechanical delivery on the stump. We distrust him because that robotic nature -- considered in the context of his political record -- seems indicative of someone who sees this as a game to be won, rather than a cause to be advanced. We don't, I assure you, give a second thought to whether or not his jeans have been pressed.
- Comment (45)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
DrewInWisconsin: "He's too perfect, and we're not worthy to lick his boots!" Where have I heard that sort of nonsense before? Oh yeah . . . it's how the left talks about Obama.
No more cults! · 1 hour ago
No more cults! Great double entendre
May '10
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
Correction: He attempted to BUY your vote without first earning your trust. And that is exactly my own major misgiving. The focus is OBAMA not Newt. The focus is Conservative values, not Newt. The focus is on why you're the best, not why the other guy is the worst.
Oct '11
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
Nope. You're right. We have nothing else. But that doesn't mean we have to be happy about it.
It makes a lot of sense at this point to assess the likely nominee's strengths and weaknesses in terms of how his Presidency - if he is elected, which I tend to think unlikely - will affect the country, and what we can and should be doing to make the effect as benign as possible (no, I don't trust him, either). Maybe this post isn't squarely on that topic, but a lot of today's Romney-centric posts are.
Jan '12
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
I take the point that Romney has been more conservative in his personal life, but Newt as a legislator was more conservative than Romney as a governor. None of that, however, may matter now.
Feb '11
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
Well, I for one feel my only option is to support Santorum, even though I find his tone and voice often off putting, and I fear he is only slightly to the right of Romney on some things, and is certainly to the left on others, a very mixed bag. His social conservatism is fine by me, but I know he has a very poor history of presenting it, and will likely be a whipping boy for gay rights advocates, among other issues.
The "A" team is sitting this one out, and the field is what it is - but by constantly pushing against Romney my hope is some how the word will reach his ears that he must cement the base if he wants to win, and sometimes he doesn't seem to care if he does or not.
Also, I don't think he is "selling out" he just has a vision of the country and the future that I do not and can not endorse. His right, but don't tell me it's conservative or even likely to best Obama, and if I'm wrong and it does, it will not right the listing ship o'state.
Jun '11
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
Sorry, she grew up and went to high school in Florida and is an FSU grad.
Dec '10
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
DrewInWisconsin
Lucy Pevensie:
One more thing: all these people who tell us that we used to dislike Romney "because he didn't get angry" and now should therefore like him because he has shown his mean streak are also on completely the wrong track.
So far, we've seen a man who thinks individual liberty "isn't worth getting angry about" but gets nasty when he feels that his inevitableness is threatened. That's not the kind of anger we're looking for. We, in fact, were never particularly looking for anger; we were looking for principle, something that those people just don't seem to understand. · 0 minutes ago
A thousand "likes". · 2 hours ago
Squared!
Dec '11
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
Well thats the thing BT, inconsistant is superior to never was. As such Newt > Romney.
Edited on Feb 1 at 12:49pmMay '10
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
You aren't paying attention to my posts, obviously, and are overgeneralizing.
If Santorum surges, I'm sure we'll suddenly be "educated" about his millions of scary flaws and radical positions by the oh-so-helpful Romney camp, and the establishment Republicans.
May '10
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
Troy Senik, Ed.: 1. This wasn't a defense of Newt, but I don't find the two comparable. Newt led one of the greatest conservative triumphs of modern times and oversaw substantive and sweeping policy changes..... if conservatism was a church, Newt would attend weekly and have plenty of lapses to confess. Romney would be there at Christmas and Easter.
2. Too reductionist..... that gives you insight into how his mind works. If something is plausible as a technocratic fix, he can't fathom why someone would object to it on grounds as abstract as "principle."
I don't think so, He was saying that the argument in that debate over the mandate wasn't worth getting angry about- if you are going to be outraged over that, then be equally outraged over public schools or auto insurance- they all restrict freedom. It wasn't a discussion of freedom.
And my point there was not about Newt's not unreasonable claim to fame in the 1990's- it was that he has passionately espoused and defended virtually every "bad" position Romney has.
The stock response these days is effectively "But Newt really means it! (This time.)"
May '10
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
Kelly B
Nope. You're right. We have nothing else. But that doesn't mean we have to be happy about it.
I disagree. Although I don't believe he'll "sell out the country" intentionally, it's clear that Romney cannot provide the strong leadership we need. This is because he doesnt stand for anything much, except whatever will get him elected at the time. His record proves that.
If you mean we don't have any other candidate-- there's still Santorum. None of the candidates really are anywhere close to ideal, but Santorum is the most consistently conservative, and seems to me to be the most principled and honest of those that remain.
Dec '11
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
Kathleen Parker (along with pal Christoper Buckley) voted for Obama in 2008.
She's lost any credibility she may have once enjoyed avec moi.
Aug '10
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
I'm sure he's a swell guy, I love the crease in his pants and applaud his family life as well as his success with Bain.
However, I believe that Romneycare is an unforgivable intrusion upon individual liberty (which, for me, trumps federalism). His failure to repudiate it as a failed experiment lost me early on.
If he is the nominee I will vote for him, however unenthusiastically.
May '10
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
Bill Waldron: I'm sure he's a swell guy, I love the crease in his pants and applaud his family life as well as his success with Bain.
However, I believe that Romneycare is an unforgivable intrusion upon individual liberty (which, for me, trumps federalism). His failure to repudiate it as a failed experiment lost me early on.
If he is the nominee I will vote for him, however unenthusiastically. · 15 minutes ago
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/newt-gingrich-supported-an-individual-mandate-as-recently-as-may-2009/252233/
"Exciting"- Newt Gingrich RE RomneyCare. What? Oh yeah, that was then, this is now. Excuse me. Today's position is....
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
When I was making calls in 2008, "too perfect" constituted a small plurality of the reasons people gave for not supporting Mitt. Things may have changed, but I can guarantee you that there's a reasonable number of voters for whom this is either the issue or a major issue. Newt has even appealed to it directly, claiming that his more colorful married life made him more normal. It's also an element in the "good hair" argument. While it may not be a big deal in your social circles, Parker's analysis here, and I do not speak as a fan of Parker, is considerably better grounded in evidence and considerably more professionally stated.
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
Troy Senik, Ed.
But count me skeptical that the most conservative wing of the party looks askance at Romney because they find him insufficiently therapeutic.
Speaking as someone who's long been skeptical of Romney...
If you go back a month, to detach yourself from current arguments, and read some pre-Iowa discussions of Newt, you may find yourself more open to the therapy argument. An overwhelming majority of Newt defenders used the forms "Newt is like" followed by some figure in a totally different position to Newt, or described the way that Newt made them feel. There was the "how much would you be willing to pay to watch Newt debate Obama". There was the fight against the media and later the enthusiasm for Newt taking on race. Some of this is practical, but a lot of it is straightforward feelgood stuff. The talk about Perry, likewise, included regular references to his imagined talent for physical fights.
This doesn't mean that you, Troy, view ABRs like that. Parker isn't writing the article about Ricochet, or any individual Ricochet commenter. Your understanding of your old boss is far more rich and nuanced than most of the electorate's.
Aug '10
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
Understood. However, the fact that Newt may not be any more palatable on this issue doesn't increase my enthusiasm for Mitt.
Duane Oyen
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/newt-gingrich-supported-an-individual-mandate-as-recently-as-may-2009/252233/
"Exciting"- Newt Gingrich RE RomneyCare. What? Oh yeah, that was then, this is now. Excuse me. Today's position is.... · 13 minutes ago
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
Troy Senik, Ed.
And his campaign is pockmarked with little tells of his less-than-conservative instincts: proposing what amounts to a trade war with China and telling Rick Santorum on the debate stage that individual liberty is "not worth getting angry about", for instance.
Romney proposed sabre rattling that might lead to a trade war, but not a trade war as such. He did so not from protectionist desires (much of his anti-China strategy involves freeing up trade with neighbors of China, and elsewhere he is impeccably free trading), but out of a desire for law enforcement. Does law enforcement pay for itself? Not generally in the short term. Is it, despite being a government function that leads to less money being made than would be optimal, a conservative value? I think there's an argument for it.
In the debate, he responded to Santorum's angry discussion of the horse race aspects of Romneycare, which are not worth getting angry about. This is not symptomatic of a broad range of liberties. Certainly not a divergence from conservatism in the way that GSE support, "clean energy" funding, flex fuel mandates, and deficit explosions are, all leftism advocated today.
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
Bill Waldron: Understood. However, the fact that Newt may not be any more palatable on this issue doesn't increase my enthusiasm for Mitt.
Duane Oyen
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/newt-gingrich-supported-an-individual-mandate-as-recently-as-may-2009/252233/
"Exciting"- Newt Gingrich RE RomneyCare. What? Oh yeah, that was then, this is now. Excuse me. Today's position is.... ·
I wouldn't ask you to get excited over Mitt because of that. I do think it responds to the notion that Newt was a true conservative who occasionally strayed while Mitt was no conservative. In terms of dollars spent, policies actually implemented, there's some trivial regulation of three power plants and Romneycare to the charge that Mitt was no conservative, against a long and difficult struggle on social conservative issues, immigration issues, and tremendous success on spending cuts.
Newt has the budget, which was balanced on spending cuts he opposed, tax hikes he opposed, benefits accounting fraud he blames on others, and private sector growth he had nothing to do with. He also has Santorum, Clinton, and Tommy Thompson's welfare reform. Against that, big rafts of government programs supported and expanded.
Aug '10
Re: Mitt Romney: Too Perfect?
Fair points, James. Not to mention the image seared into my brain of Newt and Nancy on the couch. I wasn't arguing pro-Newt.