The CEO CandidateHow Mitt Romney's corporate success explains his campaign—and his flip-flops.
By Daniel GrossPosted Monday, Feb. 26, 2007, at 6:29 PM ETIt is clear that Romney approaches politics not as a crusade but as a business case study. He doesn't run in elections, he competes in markets. In 1994, the former management consultant knew his market. Running against icon Ted Kennedy in an intensely Democratic state, Romney knew there was no percentage in running as a right-wing alternative. So, he tried to get to Kennedy's left on women's and gay issues, and asserted he wasn't even a Republican in the 1980s.
Like a good management consultant, Romney has also been a relentless bench-marker—taking proven tactics and adapting them to present-day circumstances. When he ran for governor in 2002, he followed the playbook of William Weld, who showed that the way to get elected as a Republican in a hyperpartisan, wealthy state like Massachusetts was to run as a likeable, moderate post-partisan.
Today, Romney correctly recognizes that what is appropriate for one market (Massachusetts voters) clearly is not appropriate for another market (Republican-primary voters). And so he has borrowed the tactics of President Bush, addressing the market much as Bush did in 2000, as a tax-cutting, pro-business, pro-life, anti-gay-marriage, gun-toting, compassionate conservative who can also hold hands with African-Americans.
It's not surprising that Romney has fled from his public record and is running to the right. What's surprising is that the man who has usually been so competent is proving to be rather poor at execution, and timing. He's moving hard right at a time when the national mood seems to be swinging in the opposite direction. Witness his graceless attacks on liberals, sudden interest in guns, James Inhofe-like soundings on global warming. They sound all wrong and unconvincing, like a consumer-products company reinventing itself as a dot-com—in the summer of 2000. Meanwhile, his focus on a narrow (and suspicious) conservative niche is likely to inhibit his ability to appeal to a mass market. After all, the latest poll from Quinnipiac College has him charting at 7 percent.
Remarks from the Fray:
I think the story behind the efforts of Republican candidates to shift to the right is simpler.
The driving force is the lack of a credible candidate of the social-conservative, religious right. In fact, when it comes to considering this wing of the party, "credible candidate" is not the first thought that comes to mind. It is too intellectually challenged and often simply too outrageous to generate a candidate that would be attractive to the American mainstream. Nobody would vote for Ann Coulter -- or for another Dubyah.
The natural Republican candidates, therefore, emerge from the center of the party, where the intellectual buzz is, and where candidates can be found that appeal to the median American voter.
But if nature abhors a vacuum, so does politics. If there are no credible candidates on the right, there are only more valuable voters to be won there. Motivated voters, who can be expected to turn out for the primaries. Therefore all Republican candidates will have to pander to the right, event the extreme right, during the primaries. And after the primaries, when the winner has been selected, he or she will do its utmost to disavow any contact with these people and appear as moderate as anyone could ever be.
Cynical? Yes. But it is the natural consequence of the workings of the US political system, such as it is. All candidates first have to shepherd their party's faithful to the polling booth, and then renounce them to seduce the average voter.
Everyone will be doing it. So why blame Mitt Romney?
--MutatisMutandis
(To reply, click here.)
Why is Romney bothering to make such a hard right turn?
Conventional wisdom has it he's trying to woo the all-important right wing to secure the nomination. Religious conservatives, neocons, immigration backlashers, NRA faithful, etc. act as gatekeepers in the nomination process. A candidate has to make nice with enough of these interest groups to accumulate conservative credentials and win some primaries, then move on to the general election and convince middle ground voters he's not really a shrill, partisan nut job who owes his soul to fringe interests.
If Romney buys this, he's kissing the babies he needs to kiss to gain the approval of fringe interests in the early going. Later on, he'll have to convince average voters he kissed those babies because they seemed cute and harmless at the time and, hey... everybody kisses babies. It didn't mean he wanted to adopt them and send them to preschool with your kids or anything dangerous like that.
A better strategy for Romney, considering his business and religious affiliations, might be to start on a moderate campaign right now and put all his eggs in that basket. Most voters are suspicious of the Mormon thing and are edgy about some wacko alliance between the LDS church, which they regard as something of a cult, and the weirder elements of religious conservatism. Sure, that's unlikely, and nobody could describe in detail any such hypothetical alliance, but it's an exploitable fear Democrats could use if Romney doesn't use some restraint in associating with the anti-abortion and anti-gay interest groups.
Of course, Romney is informed by what happened to John McCain when he tried to chart an independent course in the primaries against GW Bush. Now that McCain has fallen in line and is experiencing some success, Romney probably figures that's the safest way to get the nomination. Generous application of money and spin can then be applied to craft a softer, more moderate image for the general election.
It looks like Romney is gambling that liberal Republicans (all 813 of them) and moderates will stick with him during his foray into the fringes, Sure, they'll get nervous, but he can win them back once he gets the nomination, if he can send them the right coded messages to reassure them he hasn't gone nuts. He can probably count on people like Chris Shays and Susan Collins to speak up for him when he campaigns in the north. He might even get some help from people like Joe Lieberman, depending on whom the Democrats nominate.
Besides, running as a level-headed, pragmatic moderate is very difficult when faced with the clustered super primaries in the South. Some fire-breathing bible toter could easily steal his thunder and make conservatives in general go wobbly on him from North Carolina to Texas.
Romney's real challenge is convincing southern voters he's with them. As much as they might like the social conservatism represented by his Mormonism, they don't see real common ground there, and look at the LDS church as a western phenomenon. Fundamentalists of various persuasions have even labeled the Mormons non-christian, idol worshippers, anti-Jesus, necromancers, etc. Some of them maintain the anti-Christ will rise from within the Mormon church. This is powerful stuff in the South, not as easily dismissed ss it would be elsewhere.
If Romney is only doing what is necessary to gain the nomination, what does that say about his principles? Probably not much. I doubt very much he has any principles, and not just because he's a CEO turned politician, a combination some people would regard as the ultimate amoral actor.
The last president we had who stuck firmly to his principles was Jimmy Carter, and we hated him. The most unprincipled president we had in modern times was Richard Nixon and he was wildly successful until his venal personal behavior cooked his goose. (I would say GW Bush sticks to his principles, but he can't articulate what they are, so we can't be sure he has any.) Getting to be president and succeeding at the job requires a certain "moral flexibility" that we love and hate at the same time, Bill Clinton providing a recent example. Our current president is failing because he sticks to his decisions, whether or not they are informed by principles.
I think Romney would be a successful president because he has that situational adaptability exemplified by Bill Clinton. Romney would not be bothered by "selling out" when necessary, which is why I think fears about his religion are baseless. He wouldn't be an inspirational leader, but we're a nation no longer much interested in being inspired anyway. We prefer to be managed and Romney would be a competent manager.
--Arlington2
(To reply, click here.)
(2/28)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Twitter and Google Couldn't Stop Facebook. Can Anyone?
Nine Theories for Why It's So Hard To Find Chocolate in China
Why Is Buttoning Up Your Shirt All the Way Hollywood's Shorthand for Retarded?
George Clooney Almost Convinced Me To Like Up in the Air. Almost.
Why Is More Than Half of Congress Still Not on Twitter?
The Best Thing About Alice: Kathy Bates as the Queen of Hearts
Remarks from the Fray:
I think the story behind the efforts of Republican candidates to shift to the right is simpler.
The driving force is the lack of a credible candidate of the social-conservative, religious right. In fact, when it comes to considering this wing of the party, "credible candidate" is not the first thought that comes to mind. It is too intellectually challenged and often simply too outrageous to generate a candidate that would be attractive to the American mainstream. Nobody would vote for Ann Coulter -- or for another Dubyah.
The natural Republican candidates, therefore, emerge from the center of the party, where the intellectual buzz is, and where candidates can be found that appeal to the median American voter.
But if nature abhors a vacuum, so does politics. If there are no credible candidates on the right, there are only more valuable voters to be won there. Motivated voters, who can be expected to turn out for the primaries. Therefore all Republican candidates will have to pander to the right, event the extreme right, during the primaries. And after the primaries, when the winner has been selected, he or she will do its utmost to disavow any contact with these people and appear as moderate as anyone could ever be.
Cynical? Yes. But it is the natural consequence of the workings of the US political system, such as it is. All candidates first have to shepherd their party's faithful to the polling booth, and then renounce them to seduce the average voter.
Everyone will be doing it. So why blame Mitt Romney?
--MutatisMutandis
(To reply, click here.)
Why is Romney bothering to make such a hard right turn?
Conventional wisdom has it he's trying to woo the all-important right wing to secure the nomination. Religious conservatives, neocons, immigration backlashers, NRA faithful, etc. act as gatekeepers in the nomination process. A candidate has to make nice with enough of these interest groups to accumulate conservative credentials and win some primaries, then move on to the general election and convince middle ground voters he's not really a shrill, partisan nut job who owes his soul to fringe interests.
If Romney buys this, he's kissing the babies he needs to kiss to gain the approval of fringe interests in the early going. Later on, he'll have to convince average voters he kissed those babies because they seemed cute and harmless at the time and, hey... everybody kisses babies. It didn't mean he wanted to adopt them and send them to preschool with your kids or anything dangerous like that.
A better strategy for Romney, considering his business and religious affiliations, might be to start on a moderate campaign right now and put all his eggs in that basket. Most voters are suspicious of the Mormon thing and are edgy about some wacko alliance between the LDS church, which they regard as something of a cult, and the weirder elements of religious conservatism. Sure, that's unlikely, and nobody could describe in detail any such hypothetical alliance, but it's an exploitable fear Democrats could use if Romney doesn't use some restraint in associating with the anti-abortion and anti-gay interest groups.
Of course, Romney is informed by what happened to John McCain when he tried to chart an independent course in the primaries against GW Bush. Now that McCain has fallen in line and is experiencing some success, Romney probably figures that's the safest way to get the nomination. Generous application of money and spin can then be applied to craft a softer, more moderate image for the general election.
It looks like Romney is gambling that liberal Republicans (all 813 of them) and moderates will stick with him during his foray into the fringes, Sure, they'll get nervous, but he can win them back once he gets the nomination, if he can send them the right coded messages to reassure them he hasn't gone nuts. He can probably count on people like Chris Shays and Susan Collins to speak up for him when he campaigns in the north. He might even get some help from people like Joe Lieberman, depending on whom the Democrats nominate.
Besides, running as a level-headed, pragmatic moderate is very difficult when faced with the clustered super primaries in the South. Some fire-breathing bible toter could easily steal his thunder and make conservatives in general go wobbly on him from North Carolina to Texas.
Romney's real challenge is convincing southern voters he's with them. As much as they might like the social conservatism represented by his Mormonism, they don't see real common ground there, and look at the LDS church as a western phenomenon. Fundamentalists of various persuasions have even labeled the Mormons non-christian, idol worshippers, anti-Jesus, necromancers, etc. Some of them maintain the anti-Christ will rise from within the Mormon church. This is powerful stuff in the South, not as easily dismissed ss it would be elsewhere.
If Romney is only doing what is necessary to gain the nomination, what does that say about his principles? Probably not much. I doubt very much he has any principles, and not just because he's a CEO turned politician, a combination some people would regard as the ultimate amoral actor.
The last president we had who stuck firmly to his principles was Jimmy Carter, and we hated him. The most unprincipled president we had in modern times was Richard Nixon and he was wildly successful until his venal personal behavior cooked his goose. (I would say GW Bush sticks to his principles, but he can't articulate what they are, so we can't be sure he has any.) Getting to be president and succeeding at the job requires a certain "moral flexibility" that we love and hate at the same time, Bill Clinton providing a recent example. Our current president is failing because he sticks to his decisions, whether or not they are informed by principles.
I think Romney would be a successful president because he has that situational adaptability exemplified by Bill Clinton. Romney would not be bothered by "selling out" when necessary, which is why I think fears about his religion are baseless. He wouldn't be an inspirational leader, but we're a nation no longer much interested in being inspired anyway. We prefer to be managed and Romney would be a competent manager.
--Arlington2
(To reply, click here.)
(2/28)