One of the great ironies of the 2012 presidential campaign is the extent to which President Obama’s team is openly trying to paint Mitt Romney as a strange, vaguely un-American “other,” as Roger Simon writes today. We heard the reverse complaint virtually nonstop during the last four years, first during the 2008 election and then during Obama’s first three years in office. Nearly any critique of Obama doing things differently–another irony, as his campaign was built on hope and change–was construed as an offensive implication that Obama is alien to Americans. Here’s Simon:
Swiss banks accounts? Who has Swiss bank accounts? Others, that’s who.
Biden described Romney using classic terms of “otherness.” Romney, Biden said, was “out of touch” and “out of step” with basic American values….
Nobody is saying (as of yet) that Romney did anything illegal by keeping millions of dollars in Swiss and other foreign banks. It just seems … odd.
What’s happening here, and what has been the source of criticism of Romney from the right for the last two weeks, is not only that the Obama campaign is defining Romney before he gets a chance to define himself, but that Romney doesn’t seem that interested in defining himself at all.
That’s how Simon sees it: “This is the Republicans’ great hope, their great strategy: Forget about Romney. Romney is a cipher, a place holder. He has but one real quality: He is not Barack Obama.” That’s the other irony here: Obama, too, ran as a cipher. We didn’t even know the extent of it until this year, when we learned that Obama’s autobiography was actually a novel about a character Obama thought would be attractive to the Democratic electorate. He studied the identity politics of the left closely enough to discern a formula that could win him the nomination on biography alone. It worked–even though it wasn’t his biography.
So the Romney campaign may not be as lackadaisical as they are accused of being. Their seeming lack of a strategy may in itself be a strategy. But if so, they are misreading the Obama election. When Obama ran, he had a media establishment that steadfastly refused to vet him, wanting no part of debunking a story that won their hearts–facts and journalism be damned.
Romney does not have that luxury. Instead, the media will do what the Washington Post recently did. The Post ran a story accusing Romney of outsourcing jobs at Bain. As Jim Pethokoukis noted, the accusation was wrong—based on ignorance of outsourcing and business. But no matter—it promptly ended up in an Obama campaign ad. This two-pronged assault will continue.
Meanwhile, perhaps the most talented politician in America right now, Chris Christie, gave a speech at the Brookings Institution yesterday. Near the end of his speech, he told a familiar story about his mother’s deathbed reassurances that nothing between them had been “left unsaid.” Christie’s lesson was that when you form important relationships, you cannot be a cipher, a stand-in, a riddle:
We shouldn’t be listening to political consultants whispering in our ear to tell us, say as little as possible. We shouldn’t be listening to those voices who say, just use the party doctrine and don’t stray. We tell people how we think and how we feel and let them judge us up or down… You can’t lead by being a mystery, you can’t lead by being an enigma, you can’t lead by being aloof, you can’t lead by being programmed.
Christie probably meant this more as a criticism of the president than of Romney, but Romney should take it to heart. According to recent polling, Obama’s supporters are voting for Obama, while a large number of Romney’s supporters are voting against Obama. Romney is not connecting–it’s as simple as that. But the solution is not so simple. It’s easy to produce campaign ads that successfully sow doubts about a candidate. It’s far less obvious how to convince an electorate, especially through advertising, that a candidate is someone they can relate to. This is an organic element of politics, something that tends to come naturally or not at all.
Simon is right that it’s possible Romney can win this way. But if Christie’s right, he can’t lead that way. The transformation of successful candidate Obama to fumbling, incompetent President Obama is a testament to both.
All of this "It's My Turn Now" business that Republicans have used the last two times to decide on a nominee is not working. Trying to find the least zealous candidate whose primary purpose seems to be to flip the swing states back to the Republican camp is not working. Do the GOP higher-ups really want to win? I doubt it!
The joys of a two party, middle of the road system! If we had any chutzpah, we'd be supporting at least a three party system but I don't think most folks can handle it. Whenever there is a strong showing from such a candidate, It certainly causes the RINOs, Dems, and media to flip out which, in my mind, is a great reason to support it…
The electoral system doesn’t support a three party system, just as the British one does not. After the Liberals broke up in the 1920s, many voters continued to support liberal candidates, but it was scattered across the country. So it was under represented in the House of Commons. The present coalition is a fluke. Our two parties are, of course, coalitions anyway.
The fact that the electorate wants to "relate to" the President is stupid but true. Sad state we are in.
The most talented politician in America , Chris Christie , purposely ran as not being Jon Corzine. He didnt propose any plans and was completely vague for a good reason. I enthusiastically voted for him because I detested Jon Corzine. He outperformed by the pre election polls..NJ is a quite bit more liberal than the rest of the country and Chris Christie's strategy was successful . I wouldnt doubt that being the unObama can indeed work.
My sense is that Romney is not into squandering money this early. I read recently that Robert Reich was criticising Obama for not concentrating on jobs, He said what I think is true. The electorate is not yet focused, but, come Labor Day it will be focused like a laser beam. I think Romney is getting advice to keep low, don't give the opposition much to go on and come out fighting at the Convention. At least, I hope that is the advice that Romney is getting.
I think you are absolutely right. The people, in general, are on vacation and will only start focusing after the Olympics. Then we will have the conventions, and the two month campaign. The Romney campaign will deluge the airwaves with ads and if the job numbers stay the same dismal state- Obamacare, this idea of "defining' and vritually everything else will just fall by the wayside. The economy and jobs will be fromt and center- and the Obama record is dismal. Think of it- Obama and Romney are in a dead heat. Don't you all think that Obama fears he can only go but down?
Agreed. I really don't think that average, not-obsessed-with-politics Americans are paying close attention at this point. Recall the polls showing that substantial numbers of people had no clue about the Supreme Court's Obamacare decision. The Romney campaign is wise to husband its resources and wait for the right moment to strike back. Team Obama's early resort to these rather lame personal attacks betrays their growing desperation. But inevitably, the subject is going to be turned back to the dismal state of the economy. My personal view is that Obama's in much worse shape than most pundits and bloviators realize.
The Kennedy's have tons of money in offshore banks. nThat's OK for the left. nRomney is a chess player, Obama plays blackjack, or poker. n nToo bad the American People have identified his tells. nSorry Barry,….you lose.
Love the post. Disagree with the conclusion. Romney can run as not-Obama. He can win as not-Obama. And he can govern as not-Obama. There's a remarkable consensus around not-Obama. It's a more descriptive term than conservative or moderate Republican or small government or anything else. He'll define himself a bit at the convention, the debates, some late commercials. He'll jump over the exceedingly low bar Obama is setting for him.
Either Romney defines himself or others will for him. He's no Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama isn't Jimmy Carter (policy wise excepted). n nI'm convinced that these attacks on Romney are keeping the race close even though it's likely that large parts of the electorate aren't listening to them too closely. It's background noise. But relying on the idea that he can run out the clock because the late deciders will go for him is taking quite a risk. It worked for Reagan but again, Mitt isn't Dutch and it's 2012 and not 1980.
Business and politics are different in that in business working hard is key (think of Seinfeld's soup nazi as someone who can have a successful business without being personable) and in politics what is key is the kind of leadership associated with sergeants in the military (think of Audie Murphy, as in who's foxhole do you want to find yourself in and who are you willing to follow when he advances). That said, though, Romney can seem personable, especially with his wife and kids. He acts like a father (Obama more reminds me of Michael Corleone as a father, doesn't he). Romney CAN relate, but not as much in ads as on the nightly news day after day as he will be this fall, starting with the convention.
I sure hope that those who think that Romney’s “strategy” gives him a lead are right.
But readers (e.g. me) of the Wall Street Journal Opinion section’s editorials and op-eds and columnists (particularly Peggy Noonan) are likely to be less confident. From them we have read many pleas that Romney state specific policy proposals. But there’s no response.
Meanwhile, Obama IS making specific policy proposals, such as extend the Bush-Admin’s tax cuts, EXCEPT for families with incomes above $250k (and single individuals with incomes above $200k, which encourages two-income families — even with children — to not get married, or to not register their religious marriage with the government if they can avoid doing so), with no adjustments for the huge variation in housing costs (compare Silicon Valley or Manhattan to any midwest city, including Chicago). Even the current tax structure punishes two-income marriage — look at the tables of rates, not of amounts.
The many ignoramuses who think that businesses deliberately created a Great Recession will vote for Obama’s hatred of not only the truly rich but also of those whose salaries are only slightly above the national median, but who have had high savings rates that have helped finance the private economy before it was attacked by grossly excessive regulation.
I fear that in an economy operating far below capacity, with enormous unemployment of people and of factories, Obama’s often dishonest class-warfare can easily work, especially if Romney provides no significant “basic economics” educational response.
Roger Folsom