Romney's Decline and Fall

EdgeLeft is an occasional column by David McReynolds.
Romney's Decline and Fall

by David McReynolds

Published by Portside
August 13, 2012

One of the curious omissions by all the commentators I've
heard thus far, is that Mitt Romney, by choosing Paul Ryan as
the VP candidate, has insured that following Romney's defeat
in the general election, Ryan will become the leader of the
GOP and the almost certain GOP Presidential candidate in 2016.

In mid-July I had the odd feeling I was watching the
disintegration of the Romney campaign. First, Romney was
unable to deal with Obama's master stroke of lifting the
threat of deportation from a large number of illegal
immigrants. Obama had, with that action, secured a clear
advantage with the Hispanic vote.

Second, Romney's inability to deal with the income taxes, and
his confusing efforts to deal with his time at Bain (IE., he
had ended his ties with Bain "retroactively"!!!), left a sense
among political observers that Romney was in free fall. It
wasn't, if folks remember, simply that the Democrats had made
an issue of the income taxes, but that key Republicans and
conservatives had joined in the chorus demanding he release
more than two years of returns.

Third, most of us (including me) had not seen the media
attacks Romney had made on his opponents in the primary,
because those attacks were not made in the national media, but
at the local and state levels. Some of those candidates self-
destructed (the case with Rick Perry), or had known they had
no chance of winning the nomination (as was true of Ron Paul),
but Romney had waged a ruthless campaign against Gingrich,
Cain, and Santorum. He had poured in money, dug up dirt, and
essentially "bought" the primaries with his war chest.
Primaries are always lessons in how blunt objects will be
used to knock out opponents. In this case, the net result was
that Romney had left behind a trail of genuine bitterness and
hard feeling among the conservative candidates. It is true the
"Tea Party" (and the "establishment GOP") hate Obama so much,
they will support whoever is running against him, but in this
case what we saw was the victory of the candidate no one
really loved, and many profoundly detested. Contributing to
this was the perception that Romney would take any side of any
issue if it would help him to win.

The election had been Romney's to lose. With 8% unemployment,
(and I am referring to long term unemployment), Obama, on the
face of it, had no chance of winning. "It is the economy,
stupid", to quote the slogan from Bill Clinton's campaign.
Romney had done his best to make that the central issue of his
campaign.

Thus I found it difficult to believe, in mid-July, that the
Romney campaign was coming apart at the seams. But this was
confirmed by his overseas trip, where he managed to irritate
the conservative Prime Minister of England. It was therefore
no surprise when, starting in the first week of August, key
elements in the Republican Party (the Wall Street Journal and
National Review) began to push for the selection of Paul Ryan
as the VP choice. The selection of Paul Ryan was almost a
concession that Romney had lost the election but at least
would be able to pull the base together.

In politics it is extremely risky to state any outcome as a
sure thing three months in advance. Much may happen, from some
tragedy involving the candidates themselves, to events in
Europe, which could sink the US financial ship, to a possible
Israeli attack on Iran. But as it stands now, Romney has lost.
The polls of early August confirmed this - they were unanimous
in showing a shift away from Romney and toward Obama, beyond
the margin of error, and, most important, in the key states
Romney had to win.

Romney's plight helps explain why the GOP has launched such a
strong national attack on the right to vote - special credit
goes to Rachel Maddow, perhaps the brightest star in the MSNBC
galaxy, who has documented both the national efforts to
restrict the right to vote, and the specific and outrageous
effort in the key state of Ohio to make it much harder for
voters in Democratic districts to have their votes counted.
(Ohio is a scandal - in the Bush vs. Gore race the combination
of the voter fraud in Florida and in Ohio gave the race to
Bush. Voter fraud goes both ways - the Democrats have done
much the same thing. But this is the first time I can
remember, since the Civil Rights Act was passed, that we have
seen a systematic effort to deny categories of voters easy
access to the polls - this means African Americans, Hispanics,
the elderly, and students).

If I'm right and the GOP is doomed to defeat in this election,
the fault rests in large measure with the Tea Party which has
locked Romney into positions which alienated key sectors of
the voting public. Leaving aside gay voters, most of whom will
go to Obama, the assault on women's rights (well covered by
Maddow) has meant that even normally Republican voters have
been alienated. The Black vote will, again, go overwhelmingly
to Obama. The immigration issue has locked an overwhelming
majority of Hispanic voters into support of Obama. Romney's
visit to Israel did not split the Jewish vote, which will
still go by a heavy margin to Obama.

What Romney does have is a clear majority of the white working
class male voters, plus a majority of the middle class voters.
(The number of upper class voters is too small to be decisive,
but in any event will split). In the old days this might
easily have been enough to win an election. But older white
voters who depend on Medicare and Social Security will be
turned off by the choice of Paul Ryan. (The addition of Ryan
to the ticket may well have guaranteed that Florida will go to
Obama).

With each passing year the electorate is "less white". One
reason for the Tea Party is the sense of alienation felt by
older white voters who are baffled by a world in which there
are gays and lesbians getting married and anchoring TV news
shows, and a black is in the White House. The Tea Party is
hardly a "reasoned response", and this was confirmed by those
who sought its blessing, from Bachmann to Santorum.

What is disturbing about the GOP campaign this year was the
range of possible candidates. We didn't have a choice of
serious folks, but people like Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann,
Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry. Jon Huntsman was one of the few
candidates who could be considered qualified, and he was
quickly eliminated. If this had been an "off year" when the
GOP stood no chance of winning, one might understand why
someone such as Michele Bachmann was taken seriously. But as
it stands, the range of candidates suggests the GOP has few
heavy hitters. (An exception is Paul Ryan who, despite my
sharp disagreements with his "Ayn Rand" economic approach, is
a thoughtful man).

One personal note on Romney. It is rare that truly wealthy men
or women enter politics - it is easier for them to hire a
candidate. (As, if you check the record, you will find Richard
Nixon was hired, long ago, by a group of businessmen in his
Congressional district). There are exceptions such as
Rockefeller or Bloomberg. Generally, however, the very rich do
their best to avoid publicity. It is considered in bad taste
to make a display of wealth. The very rich are virtually
invisible. They do not ride the subways or buses, they do not
fly economy class. Their children go to private schools. They
lived in gated communities or in well guarded condominiums.
They often have body guards.

It is not merely, as Scott Fitzgerald wrote, that "the rich
are different" from the rest of us - they are, for the most
part, invisible, and prefer it that way. Romney is in this
category of the super-rich but he lacks something that usually
goes with this category - a sense of noblesse oblige.

That ability to leave "lesser mortals" at ease marked FDR,
John F. Kennedy, and George Bush (the senior - not the Jr.).
But it is something George Romney lacks. His laugh is nervous,
his smile too quick, his responses too robotic. This is in
part because his background in the Morman Church already put
him at a distance from most of us. Remember, as a Morman,
Romney can't have a beer, or a bourbon and branch water.
Unlike JFK or Bush Sr., who saw military service and had to
deal with people from a range of classes, Romney didn't share
that experience.

It is my private guess that this accounted for his
extraordinary fumble on the matter of taxes. I doubt there is
anything illegal in the returns, rather I think Romney felt
"we" simply didn't have the right to demand more than the two
years he will give us. His wife, who shares his background,
made the comment when pressed about the taxes that "you people
have all you need". That "you people" was so revealing - it
wasn't said in anger, but from that sense of distance that
great wealth has given the Romney's.

What is missing in the debate about the deficit, and the Paul
Ryan budget (which, let it be noted, was attacked by the
Catholic Bishops) is not some display of anger about exempting
the wealthy - the Democrats are good at that. What is missing
is any discussion of the one area where massive cuts can
safely be made - the military budget. Hundreds of overseas
bases will remain off limits to discussion. And on this,
Obama, just as much as Paul Ryan, will be silent. (Though
there have been some subtle hints that Obama may mention this
in the course of the campaign). Jesus once said to his
disciples "the poor you have always with you", something Paul
Ryan is happy to accept. If Jesus were around today he might
say "the military you have always with you".

In any event we will know very soon if I have badly misread
the political scene. For myself, I will vote for the Socialist
Party ticket, Stewart Alexander - and if the SP can't make the
New York State ballot, I'll vote for whatever minor party does
make it.

[David McReynolds was the Socialist Party candidate for
President in 1980 and 2000, worked on the staff of War
Resisters League for nearly forty years, and is retired and
living with his two cats on Manhattan's Lower East Side. He
can be reached at: [log in to unmask]]

==========

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate