Romney, the Product


Oct 15, 2012 by

There actually is a Romney Root Beer

WASHINGTON — As he tries to engineer a comeback in this week’s presidential debate, President Obama needs to recognize two things. First, when it comes to politics, Mitt Romney treats himself as a product, not a person. Second, Republicans cannot defend their proposals in terms that are acceptable to a majority of voters.

You can imagine Romney someday saying: “Politicians are products, my friend.” There’s no other way to explain why a candidate would seem to believe he can alter what he stands for at will. His campaign has been an exercise in identifying which piece of the electorate he needs at any given moment and adjusting his views, sometimes radically, to suit this requirement.

In that respect, Romney does Richard Nixon one better. When Nixon was looking to revive his career in the 1968 campaign, the terribly scarred veteran of so many political wars realized his old persona wouldn’t sell. And so he created what came to be known as the “New Nixon” — thoughtful, statesmanlike and tempered. The operation worked until Nixon’s old self got him into trouble.

But manufacturing the New Nixon took years of painstaking effort. New Romneys appear on a monthly, weekly and sometimes daily basis. Thus did Romney move far to the right on immigration last year because he needed to dispatch nomination rival Rick Perry, a moderate on that one issue. Since then, Romney has been trying to backtrack to appease Latino voters.
ujkm
During the same nomination battle, Romney abruptly changed his tax policy to placate the supply-side-Wall-Street-Journal-Grover-Norquist axis in the GOP. Romney’s initial tax proposal was relatively modest. The right wasn’t happy. No problem, said Romney, and out came his new tax plan that included a 20 percent cut in income tax rates, “rate cuts” being a term of near-religious significance to supply-siders.

Romney pointedly asserted (again, in the primaries) that he wanted the tax cut to go to everyone, “including the top 1 percent.” But this doesn’t sell to swing voters now, especially after the leaked video in which Romney wrote off 47 percent of Americans as incorrigibly dependent. So in the first debate, Romney tried to pretend that he didn’t want to cut rich people’s taxes. He reassured us that “I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” (By the way, he could cut taxes for the rich a lot and still keep their “share” of the government’s overall tax take the same.)

And then there’s abortion, an issue about which you have to wonder if Romney cares at all. Without much effort, you can find video online in which Romney declares with passion and conviction that he is absolutely committed to a woman’s right to choose — and video in which he declares with equal passion and conviction that he is absolutely opposed to abortion and committed to the right to life. Just recently, Romney moved again, offering this shameless gem of obfuscation to The Des Moines Register editorial board: “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” There is no candidate I am familiar with who has tried to have as many positions on abortion in one lifetime as Mitt Romney.

But there’s an underlying reason for Romney’s shape-shifting. It’s the same reason Rep. Paul Ryan always resorts to impressive-sounding budget speak and mathematical gobbledygook to evade explaining the impact of his budgets on actual human beings.

Romney, Ryan and the entire right know that their most deeply held belief – the one on which they won’t compromise — is rejected by the vast majority of Americans. That’s their faith that every problem in the economy and in society can be solved by throwing more money at rich people through tax cuts.

Vice President Joe Biden kept Ryan on the defensive during most of Thursday night’s debate precisely because he refused to let anything distract him from driving this central point home. Without pause and without mercy, Biden kept bringing viewers back to the obsession of the current Republican Party with “taking care of only the very wealthy.”

Obama doesn’t have to look angry or agitated in this week’s debate. He simply needs to invite voters to see that Romney, the product, will give them no clue as to what Romney, the person, might do as president. Romney keeps changing the packaging because he knows that the policies inside the box are not what voters are looking for.

E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne@washpost.com. (c) 2012, Washington Post Writers Group

Donate to The Moderate Voice

Share This

Related Posts

Sponsors

468 ad

2 Comments

  1. zephyr

    You can imagine Romney someday saying: “Politicians are products, my friend.” There’s no other way to explain why a candidate would seem to believe he can alter what he stands for at will.

    What is a little more challenging is explaining how tribal allegiance is willing to make so much room for a leader without any center. It boggles the mind.

  2. The_Ohioan

    Romney, Ryan and the entire right know that their most deeply held belief – the one on which they won’t compromise — is rejected by the vast majority of Americans. That’s their faith that every problem in the economy and in society can be solved by throwing more money at rich people through tax cuts.

    They have another deeply held belief, and this is the one that keeps R&R’s numbers high, I think, and that is the belief that the 47% really do suck the life out of the economy. My friends that are going to vote Republican are convinced that they are not part of the 47%, even though the retired ones are. The Tea Party has been a very effective vehicle to promote this idea and they will tell you that “We just can’t keep up this spending!”, and “we’re Taxed Enough Already”, even as they collect more in just SS than they pay in taxes, their children have no health insurance because they can’t afford it, and their grandchildren will never have a shot at college.

    I’m convinced that if Obama had not been our first black president, this strange refusal to look at what R&R have in store for us (more spending on military toys and more inclination to enter a third ME war along with no real plans to lower the national debt – other than slashing the safety net under those very seniors) this would not have been attempted by the supply siders/neocons. His election was the impetus to found a movement to rid the country of paying for all us “slackers” to stay out of poverty, and at the same time reward those who had been trying to grab (more) power all along. And they wasted no time; by 2010 they had a full blown movement under way. You can hear their pets’ answer to the dog whistles by the way their antipathy is expressed in how they characterize Obama – “the one”, “walk on water”, and the more controversial ones that showed up on all those early Tea Party signs.

    Does anyone think that a black Republican president would have elicited such malice? There would have been some, but only from the die-hard racists and bigots. This election is as much about race as it is about the economy and it shows just how far we have to go and how easy it is for bad men to profit by using it. Distressing, indeed.