Monday, February 20, 2012

The Affirmative Case

It's getting frustrating for the Mitt Romney camp and some of its more vocal supporters in the blogosphere. Writing for Powerline, John Hinderaker goes off on Rick Santorum:

With Santorum launching one social issues bomb after another, there is no time to talk about the economy. Is this the Democratic Party’s dream, or what? In a national poll that came out today, Santorum is leading Mitt Romney by eight points among likely Republican voters. Can Republicans possibly be that foolish? Is it conceivable that a president with Obama’s lousy record could coast to victory, virtually by default, because the Republicans nominate a candidate who would rather talk about gynecology than debt? At the moment, that prospect does not seem far-fetched.
Well, yeah, they could possibly be that foolish. But why is that? Hinderaker's colleague Scott Johnson understands why:

Mitt is an inspirational candidate. The problem is that what he inspires is intense apathy among a substantial number of conservatives and Republicans. They (we) resist him. Santorum is the recycled non-Romney who now benefits from this resistance. He may be the last non-Romney standing. Among the previous beneficiaries of the resistance to Romney are Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Santorum, Gingrich and now Santorum again. The logic of a Romney candidacy has been insufficient so far to wear down the resistance of a large share of conservatives and Republicans.
And Johnson makes an equally important point:

The inclination of Republican primary voters and caucus goers to support Gingrich or Santorum is not the sign of a character flaw or mental defect on their part. It is a sign that Romney is a problematic candidate for the party whose standard bearer he seeks to be. Decrying the failure of Republican voters for failing to fall in line behind him seems to me something less than a winning argument.

Yep. What we need to hear from Romney, and from his supporters, is the affirmative case for why Romney is a better candidate. We got a passing look at the Romney parade here in Minnesota a few weeks back and the result was a Santorum victory. I was in the caucus and I can tell you, the people who attended weren't wild-eyed True Believers or slack-jawed morons. They were my neighbors. They are concerned about many things, some of which Romney can address. But he needs to do a better job if he's ever going to make it. And he didn't make the sale among those who were gathered at Mounds View High School that day.

Hinderaker, to his credit, has written often and well concerning Romney's credentials. The problem is this:  you have to go to the Powerline archives to read those pieces. What you see on the front page now is a frustrated guy savaging Romney's opponent. I understand the impulse -- half the fun of blogging is going after your opponents. But in the end, if you want to build a winning campaign, making the affirmative case is the better path. And if you have to make the same argument repeatedly, that's fine. The audience continues to change.

6 comments:

Brian said...

I'd argue the problem is as much with the party whose nomination he seeks as it is with the candidate himself.

Romney was by most accounts a successful governor. Moreover, he was a successful governor as a Republican of a state that is generally dominated by Democrats. His signature achievement was a health care overhaul that required bipartisan coordination, increased the number of people insured in the state, and remains popular with a majority of that state's residents.

He never mentions any of this, because being a pragmatic executive with a proven ability to work constructively with the other side is anathema to the GOP base. But these are the very qualities that would make him a (probably) OK president. He's got an even temperament (at least publicly), a stable family life, and no real scandal material to speak of.

Strip away the party labels, and he's basically Barack Obama in 2008, minus the historically significant biography and plus a better resume.

The is the southern strategy coming home to roost. The GOP has used social issues to whip up the base for decades. Nobody even talks about competent governance anymore. That is completely insane.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

Brian, your explanation doesn't ring very true, not for me at least. From my perspective, Romney (who has my tepid support) is uninspiring because he doesn't seem to recognize that we are in a moment that demands vision not just competence.

What is that moment? The crux of it isn't social issues. It is the role and especially the extent of government in our lives. There is a significant minority, if not majority, in GOP circles that is convinced that the government needs to spend a lot less and it needs to have its fingerprints on fewer things. So basically the two related issues are fiscal modesty and liberty.

Romney, unlike someone like Paul Ryan or Chris Christie, doesn't seem to get it. He doesn't seem to have a vision for how we need to reassess the role of government and how making it more modest wouldn't just be a slash and burn project, but a boon to liberty. I get the feeling that he might pursue some of the right policies, but I worry that he won't be able to make the case that governmental modesty is more than just a cost-saving measure, but inherently and beautifully American. Shrinking government isn't a rotten thing that we must do because we've spent too much (though we must and we have,) it is a way of reconnecting with what makes us better as people and as a country. Less is gloriously more. But he seems unable to articulate that.

The non-Romney's aren't held to the same standard because this is all about the presumed nominee. If Santorum starts looking like he's going to win, I think he will start having problems based on this same principle. He has support based on who he isn't, not on who he is.

Mr. D said...

Strip away the party labels, and he's basically Barack Obama in 2008, minus the historically significant biography and plus a better resume.

And therein lies the problem, good sir. Obama, to my mind, has been disastrous. We need someone significantly better. Unfortunately, the Republicans haven't offered anyone who is equal to the task.

The non-Romney's aren't held to the same standard because this is all about the presumed nominee. If Santorum starts looking like he's going to win, I think he will start having problems based on this same principle. He has support based on who he isn't, not on who he is.

Yep. Santorum is the last non-Romney left standing. Ron Paul is not going to be the Republican nominee and I don't think Newt has a third comeback in him.

This is why I keep looking for Romney to tell us why he's a better choice. He seemed to think it was obvious, but apparently it wasn't. And he's eroded whatever goodwill he might have earned in 2008 through his slash and burn campaign tactics.

Gino said...

Gary Johnson is not Romney.

CousinDan 54915 said...

It's almost time for Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio to step in and clean up this mess. Do you think it's too late?

Mr. D said...

It's almost time for Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio to step in and clean up this mess. Do you think it's too late?

It probably is too late now. If we end up with a brokered convention, the choice that could emerge (Jeb Bush) might be worse than what's on offer now.

Ryan and Rubio are certainly on the short list for a potential VP. Another name to watch -- Susana Martinez, governor of New Mexico.