TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
01.01.2008
Mitt Romney's Fatal Flaw

David Brooks correctly diagnoses it: it's his rationality. As Brooks writes:

The most impressive thing about Mitt Romney is his clarity of mind. When he set out to pursue his party’s nomination, he studied the contours of the Republican coalition and molded himself to its forms. 

[snip]

And yet as any true conservative can tell you, the sort of rational planning Mitt Romney embodies never works. The world is too complicated and human reason too limited. The PowerPoint mentality always fails to anticipate something. It always yields unintended consequences.

And what Romney failed to anticipate is this: In turning himself into an old-fashioned, orthodox Republican, he has made himself unelectable in the fall.

I think Brooks is right about this. Romney, in his heart of hearts, is probably a fairly unorthodox Republican. And an unorthodox Republican would actually have a decent--albeit not great--shot at beating the Democratic nominee in 2008. But one look at any of the numerous polls showing a generic Democratic presidential candidate trouncing a generic Republican one reveals just how unelectable an old-fashioned, orthodox Republican will be in '08. Hence Romney's problem.

In fact, the GOP's best shot in the fall is probably McCain--specifically a McCain who bears an increasing resemblance to the McCain of 2000 rather than the McCain of 2006. I think this pro-McCain point was basically the sub-text of Brooks's anti-Romney op-ed (which is why, I'd imagine, the McCain campaign is emailing Brooks's piece around this morning).

But it's the point Brooks makes in a brief aside that I think is most interesting--and telling. He writes:

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.]

Which is why my money's still on Romney to win the GOP nomination. It's going to be pretty fascinating to watch Republicans--rather than Democrats, for once--snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

--Jason Zengerle 

 

Posted: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 11:52 AM with 7 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Ivanova said:

I think this is an interesting point, but I don't know if I'd use the word "rationality" so much as "pragmatism." Romney strikes me as almost completely post-ideological, which I think is connected to the flip-flopping. It's a quality that kind of freaks a lot of people out. And yes, there's no way he could win.

January 1, 2008 12:57 PM

myzaguirre said:

Never say that there's no way for a major party Presidential candidate to win.  One never knows what events may arise that change the tenor of an election, and any major party candidate can count on at least 40-45% of the electorate (barring some major third-party candidate) to vote for him or her, no matter what.  I'll agree that Romney has a lot of weaknesses as a candidate, but I sure as heck won't count him out, and neither should anyone else.  

January 1, 2008 1:08 PM

drdannyu said:

Jason, from your lips to God's ears.

January 1, 2008 2:19 PM

sabatia said:

Mitt decided that to win in Iowa had had to appeal to the R base on religion, immigration, and the culture wars. So he threw the Mass. R moderates and independents who elected him based on his essentially non-ideological "manager" appeal under the bus. To win the general he must come back to the middle--many of the Evangelicals and other rightwingers who are gingerly supporting him now will be very unhappy. On the other hand, his money must be very appealing to the R establishment. The R's are way down in fundraising, way behind the D's. If Romney uses his own fortune for his campaign, that lets limited R dollars go to other campaigns and may be a saving grace for the Rs. I've also noticed that rather than feeling as if Romney is buying the election in Iowa and NH, his supporters take his wealth and his willingness to use it as a pure positive.

January 1, 2008 4:12 PM

cspencef said:

Oh, come now.  No one beats the Democrats at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  It is way, way too soon to be writing that kind of fate-tempting stuff.

January 1, 2008 10:14 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Brooks' comparison of El Bainie to Walter Mondale in 1984 brought home his other, in my book much more insightful, point: the exhaustion and collapse of the Reagan coalition of hawks, country-clubber/supply-siders, and bible-thumpers. But Brooks didn't mention a crucial fact here that most of the punditocracy for the most part fail to see: it's the tensions WITHIN each of these subgroups, not between them, that's screwing the GOP now.

Tension #1 is,the clash between the GOP's reality-based economists and the Club for Growth zealots. The likes of Mankiw and Hubbard know that our bread and circus economy of artifically cheap consumer credit fueling massive spending on crap that negative-savings American consumers don't need and can't afford is a) unsustainable; b) a disaster in the making given our addiction to low interest rates at a time when the dollar will only be hammered further by lower rates; and c) unavailing, to put it mildly, for US working families in states red and blue alike who are basically no better off than they were was 25 years ago.

Tension #2  : hawkish realists vs Wilsonian-Wolfowitzians. Man,  was the Cold War ever simpler for the GOP. See the Norman Podhoretz vs WF Buckley fireworks, as reported by Johan Hari in these pages not long ago. You see this same confrontation of (in my book) swagger / bellicosity OTOH and OTOH decent-minded disgust with torture and with strategic stupidity in the largely hostile GOP reaction to McCain's statements, in Sen. Danforth's and Buckley's castigation of GOP "machismo" on foreign policy, in Will's elegant takedowns of the insanity of democracy promotion among peoples still trying to advance beyond tribalism and gangs.

Tension #3: almost nothing in the media (aside from one filler piece in the Times a few months back) about the schism between the evangelicals' reactionary old guard and the more progressive under-45 evangelical flock (as well as younger pastors across the country).

The Southern Strategy is dead. Either the GOP gets serious about working families-- ie does a NIxonian turn toward massive state intervention to ensure high-quality affordable health care access for all-- or it goes the way of the Whigs.

As to the GOP "snatching defeat", let's not get complacent. McCain has to be the favorite now, and I'd bet my next paycheck that his strategists are plotting ways to try to neutralize our advantage-- if not wrongfoot us entirely-- on health insurance.

January 2, 2008 3:41 AM

butchie b said:

tep, we can't snatch defeat.  We aren't supposed to win.  Not after 8 years of W and, you know, all those bread lines and high unemployment and.... never mind.  And there's all those alliances W has shredded, like France ("America is the greatest country on earth" - Sarkozy) and Germany (100,000 troops and not a Sov in sight).  Never mind again.

In any case, those are good points you make above, and McCain can split most of those differences.  He can also propose new health care plans that are not dependent on massive state intervention, and win the election.

He's an adult.  Who you got? Besides Biden, who has no chance.

January 2, 2008 4:10 PM