Did ‘authenticity’ lose when Romney won?

January 16, 2008

The AP’s Ron Fournier, one of the more influential voices in the political media establishment, has a surprisingly pointed piece today, taking on Mitt Romney on the issue of “authenticity.”

Mitt Romney’s victory in Michigan was a defeat for authenticity in politics.

The former Massachusetts governor pandered to voters, distorted his opponents’ record and continued to show why he’s the most malleable — and least credible — major presidential candidate. And it worked. […]

This still looks to be an authenticity election. First, voters are tired of being spun by politicians who aren’t getting their jobs done…. Second, the Internet and other technological advances make it nearly impossible to hide a miscue or a shift of position. Can a candidate like Romney win in the YouTube era? Sure. He just did.

But to go all the way, Romney must overcome the original sin of his campaign — his choice to do whatever it takes to be president. The smart money says he can’t.

Now, the specific issue that got Fourier’s goat was the rhetoric about the economy in the run up to yesterday’s Republican primary in Michigan. John McCain told voters that any candidate who tells voters that traditional auto manufacturing jobs “are coming back is either naive or is not talking straight with the people of Michigan and America.” Romney said McCain was taking a defeatist attitude, and called the senator’s approach “baloney.” As far as Fournier is concerned, Romney was “pandering … taking the tactic to new heights.”

Well, sure. What I’m less clear on is what Fournier means by “authenticity election.”

Fournier doesn’t exactly define the word as he sees it, but in this context, “authenticity” appears to hinge on consistency. If a candidate sticks to his or her beliefs, he or she is authentic. If candidates shift to become what they think voters want, they’re not. To succeed, Fourier argues, a candidate has to be authentic enough to connect with voters, who can spot a phony.

Rather than running on his record as a can-do pragmatist in an era of government incompetence, Romney listened to advisers who said there was a tactical advantage in turning himself into the field’s social conservative.

Their reasoning: Evangelicals and Republicans who put social issues atop their list had found McCain and Rudy Giuliani, the two early front-runners, unpalatable, so there was room to run on the right.

Now he’s won Wyoming and Michigan and leads in the delegate count. Does pandering pay?

A few points. First, Romney is manufactured one of the more dramatic ideological metamorphoses in recent memory. But if he planned to compete as a Republican presidential candidate, he didn’t have a choice — a Mormon Massachusetts moderate who supported abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, and stem-cell research simply wasn’t credible. (Don’t believe me? Take a look at how Giuliani is doing so far.) Of course Romney’s pandering. The point is, he doesn’t have a choice if he wants to be the GOP nominee.

Second, I can appreciate Fournier’s disappointment about a phony, insincere charlatan persevering, but I wonder: does Fournier realize that this label applies to most of the leading Republican candidates?

Rudy Giuliani was to the left of his party (and some Democrats) on practically every culture-war issue in the country. Now he’s transformed himself into a conservative. Authentic? Strike one.

John McCain was a Republican maverick, who considered joining the Democratic Senate caucus in 2001. Now, he’s flip-flopped on practically everything he claimed to believe in. Authentic? Strike two.

As soon as he became a serious challenger for the GOP nomination, Mike Huckabee started flip-flopping all over the place, on everything from trade to immigration to healthcare. Authentic? Strike three.

The point is, Fournier is perfectly right to call Romney out for his shamelessness. But about the only guy in the Republican field who’s been consistently right-wing throughout his career is Fred Thompson, who apparently doesn’t feel like running for president right now.

Fournier asks, “Does pandering pay?” Unless Thompson or Ron Paul gets the GOP nod, I’m pretty comfortable answering, “Obviously, yes.”

After the last seven years of unfunded growth of the Federal Government, the question hardly needs to be asked.

While Mitt’s pandering was spectacular, McCain’s and Huckabee’s seemed hardly less so. McCain may have said the lost auto jobs weren’t coming back, but he promised a lot of Federal aid to make up for it. And this is exactly the kind of statist solutions that the Club for Growth and the Chicago School of Economics says is the wrong solution.

But if all three major candidates were pandering, can one pinpoint pandering as the reason for Romney’s success?

  • …voters are tired of being spun by politicians who aren’t getting their jobs done…

    And they’re also tired of “journalists” who aren’t getting their jobs done. Too bad we can’t unelect the ones who blew the Iraq war issue, because then we’d have a whole new ballgame. The only people who get to vote those losers off the island are the guys sipping martinis on the yacht. The rest of us schlubs get to endure a bunch of “journalists” who seem to take pride in either being as wrong as possible as often as possible, or as trivial as they can possibly be without actually bringing Britney on stage with them to ask the questions.

  • “…does Fournier realize that this label applies to most of the leading Republican candidates?”

    All who think they are (or want to be) Reagan. That’s authentic, no?

  • The party of “Let the Market decide,” and “The Market will provide solutions,” is now espousing billions of dollars in government aid to Detroit automakers. Moreover, Romney promised to relieve Detroit of those burdensome mileage standards. Now that’ll make ’em competitive!

    With McCain showing a six point lead in South Carolina polling, Mitt is bound to promise South Carolina tobacco farmers more crop subsidies and he’ll pledge to remove the Surgeon General’s warnings on tobacco products. If things get really tight he’ll propose a Federal “Smoking is Good for You” campaign.

    Meanwhile, Huckabee will promise to give home schooling moms the same pay as teachers, Thompson will nap and 9iu11iani will remind everyone that he single handedly rebuilt New York’s economy on 9/12.

  • If he wanted to go after someone on his authenticity, why didn’t he go after John McCain?

    That guy has more flip-flops than Romney or anyone else, and he’s hiding it by going after the guy with the second-most for the same thing.

    No one’s asking the questions.

  • perhaps romney won michigan because romney is a very popular name in mi republican circles and mccain’s past michigan win had more to do with people being anit-w.

  • “Moreover, Romney promised to relieve Detroit of those burdensome mileage standards. Now that’ll make ‘em competitive!”

    except for those buyers who prefer to drive cars that get better gas mileage. or those buyers who can’t afford to buy gas for those big guzzlers……

    face it, if buyers didn’t care about gas mileage, why would sales of toyota prius be so high? its funky looks?

  • “Mitt Romney’s victory in Michigan was a defeat for authenticity in politics.”

    True, but where was this ‘influential voice in the political media establishment’ back in, ooohhh, I don’t know. 2000, maybe? Or 2002? Or 2004?

    ‘Authenticity in politics’ didn’t seem to be too important to the political media establishment when El Residente needed them to “catapult the propaganda”, did it?

    Honest to Jeebus, these people really have no shame whatsoever.

  • I thought that Romney’s performance in Michigan was politics at its most authentic:

    1) Tell them what they want to hear.
    2) Promise whatever it takes to get their votes – look doubly sincere when you know that you can’t or won’t deliver.

    The Republicans have worked this one for years with the religious right. Why stop when you’re on a roll?

  • John McCain told voters that any candidate who tells voters that traditional auto manufacturing jobs “are coming back is either naive or is not talking straight with the people of Michigan and America.” Romney said McCain was taking a defeatist attitude

    Let me see if I have this: Romney was trying to offer auto workers HOPE, McCain pointed out that Romney was selling false hope, Romeny said that was defeatist; the auto workers took the rosy scenario and took offense at the straight talk, and the guy with the bigger smile and shinier message won – and people on the left are finding fault with this?

    Maybe Mitt heard this is the year hope sells (and while he was at it, he totally ripped off Obama’s “Change” placards. I’m not sure Romney has enough original thoughts to be President.)

  • Those of us who live in Left Blogistan probably value “authenticity,” “consistency,” or whatever name you care to give it, more than the average voter does.

    You can get a lot of support by telling people what they want to hear. “Inconvenient truths” don’t sell nearly as well.

  • Actually, I think McCain IS wrong and defeatist. There’s no reason that the US can’t reclaim our position as a leader in manufacturing.

    That said, Romney’s ideas on how to do it are terrible. And it would take a massive re-thinking of what government is supposed to do and how we can get involved to do it. Things like universal health care and pension systems would be a good start – when Canada is doing better on the manufacturing front than we are you know the “socialism is bad for business” argument has some holes in it.

    But then if the candidates didn’t show sufficient faith in the God Of Markets they wouldn’t be Republicans, now would they? Regardless, defeatist talk tends not to win elections. People know that things are bad – they need to know that you know it AND that you have some ideas for making it better. Romney’s ideas are lousy, but McCain’s are worse.

  • Once Romney started hitting McCain for McCain’s “authentic” assessment of the situation, the onus was on McCain to hammer Romney into the ground — which as far as I know did not happen. I think what some folks were saying here yesterday was that it’s fine and necessary to play political hardball when you’re under attack, but do it with arguments that have some integrity. Romney just made stuff up and got away with it for now, but sooner or later it’ll catch up to him — hopefully before he has a chance to sit in the Oval Office.

  • There’s no reason that the US can’t reclaim our position as a leader in manufacturing.

    Technically, this may be true. Practically it is not. Detroit would have to become something unrecognizable; nearly every office would need cleaned out.

    When Japan was putting the finishing touches on the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius (and Accord Hybrid and Camry Hybrid), and gas prices were shooting up, Detroit was rolling out. . . the new, bigger Jeep Commander? the Hummer H3?
    Huh?

    Detroit lacks vision and moves too slowly to implement once it sees the future.

    It will take a generation to rebrand Detroit. Even the Cadillac CTS and other award winning new models are rarely seen as the cars people aspire to. Buying a car because you’re status conscious? Lexus or Inifniti. Because you want safety? Volvo. Inexpensive and practical? Honda, Scion. Green? Toyota.

    Detroit is seen as making second-class cars in design, in gas milage, in quality control. There is a big “cool factor” in car buying; Detroit is very uncool right now. (And I say this as somone who has, every day of my adult life, owned an American car, currently a Jeep).

    • Comments are closed.