David Brooks in today's NYT...
Reminds me of a few days ago when I said this...
The Reagan coalition has grown apart. There's no love in the marriage anymore. Such things happen over times in politics. But instead of trying to figure out how to solve the puzzle now, Romney's supporters want desperately to make things how they used to be. Problem is, there's no going back.
Romney's twenty years too late. He would've been a great presidential candidate in 1988.
(Romney's) biggest problem is a failure of imagination. Market research is a snapshot of the past. With his data-set mentality, Romney has chosen to model himself on a version of Republicanism that is receding into memory. As Walter Mondale was the last gasp of the fading New Deal coalition, Romney has turned himself into the last gasp of the Reagan coalition...
If any Republican candidate is going to win this year, he will have to offer a new brand of Republicanism. But Romney has tied himself to the old brand. He is unresponsive to the middle-class anxiety that Huckabee is tapping into. He has forsaken the trans-partisan candor that McCain represents. Romney, the cautious consultant, is pivoting to stress his corporate competence, and is rebranding himself as an Obama-esque change agent, but he will never make the sort of daring break that independent voters will demand if they are going to give the G.O.P. another look.
The leaders of the Republican coalition know Romney will lose. But some would rather remain in control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins. Others haven’t yet suffered the agony of defeat, and so are not yet emotionally ready for the trauma of transformation. Others still simply don’t know which way to turn. (emphasis added)
And so the burden of change will be thrust on primary voters over the next few weeks. Romney is a decent man with some good fiscal and economic policies. But in this race, he has run like a manager, not an entrepreneur. His triumph this month would mean a Democratic victory in November.
Reminds me of a few days ago when I said this...
(The establishment is) fighting to retain the political orthodoxy that has provided them with a livelihood. They're not concerned about the GOP. They're concerned about maintaining the status quo that sends them a paycheck every two weeks.
The Reagan coalition has grown apart. There's no love in the marriage anymore. Such things happen over times in politics. But instead of trying to figure out how to solve the puzzle now, Romney's supporters want desperately to make things how they used to be. Problem is, there's no going back.
Romney's twenty years too late. He would've been a great presidential candidate in 1988.
3 comments:
Actually, the Romney '88 comment is really interesting -- do you think he would have fared better than G.H.W. Bush despite Bush the Elder's credentials?
Haha, I hadn't actually thought about it but it's an interesting question.
I think that all things equal, Romney would've been a better candidate than Bush, who basically won on the back of Ronald Reagan and with the deft skills of Lee Atwater. Bush was bailed out only by some terrible tactical decisions by Susan Estrich and the rest of Team Dukakis.
That's kind of what I was thinking (especially the Dukakis push-over part), but I guess the deeper question is how much Republicans value style over substance since Reagan?
Not that Reagan wasn't qualified, credentialed or anything resembling a mental slouch, but if you asked anyone what his most valuable asset was the answer would almost always be his presence, style and -- dare I say -- elan. I can't help but think those skills are more highly prized by GOP voters these days and that the proof of this is in the bizarre and utterly irrational attraction with Fred Thompson (especially among Wisconsin bliggers).
It's almost an extreme example, really. Thompson's supporters seem to want the characters Thompson played in the movies and on TV ... or at least I hope they do because he's utterly worthless on the campaign trail. Romney is actually that slick on the stump. G.H.W. Bush was not (yet still leaps and bounds better than F.D.T.), but had one helluva resume.
Obviously, a lot of politics (and good old fashion leadership, for that matter) is perception, but I can't help but think that one of the inconvenient side-effects of the Reagan legacy has been to emphasize the crafting of perception over actual talent.
Post a Comment