He has run for the Senate, for governor and, twice, for president. He has given more campaign speeches in high-visibility circumstances than almost anyone in the country. And still, after 18 years on public rostrums and in the public eye, he remains the most mysterious figure on the American scene.
On the surface, he may seem the least likely politician of the age to be regarded as mysterious at all — but the plain talking, seldom excitable and rarely exciting Mitt Romney, who has been speaking four or five times a day for more than a year, has revealed almost nothing about himself and his views.
Indeed, Romney is, as Franz Liszt said of Frederic Chopin, “prepared to give anything, but never gave himself.”
America has had political figures with a mania for privacy before; Calvin Coolidge gave up little about himself, and the two President Bushes were so reluctant to share their personal thoughts they disparaged even the idea of introspection, saying they didn’t want to sit in a psychiatrist’s chair.
Not all privacy-preserving politicians are Republicans; both former Vice President Walter F. Mondale and former Gov. Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts failed to win the White House in part because they didn’t share the warm, engaging sides most voters still don’t believe they possess.
But seldom has a major American political figure so hidden both himself and his own ideas as Romney, who, like most politicians, prides himself as a man of the future rather than the past and, like almost all successful leaders, argues he is not a prisoner of the past. He is not, as John Maynard Keynes might say, the slave of “some long-dead economist” — not that Romney himself would be caught dead quoting Keynes.
Political polls have shown remarkably little movement in recent months, with President Barack Obama holding a steady but slim lead over Romney. While it is impossible to isolate a single reason why a business-oriented Republican has failed to overtake a regulation-oriented Democrat at a time of stubborn economic distress, it remains remarkable that Romney has proffered so few new ideas of his own.
This is not to say that Romney is running an empty, media-oriented campaign. He has plenty to say, about economics, gay marriage and, after his overseas trip, about national security and diplomatic matters.
But except perhaps for his China policy, his proposals, dutiful and detailed, are more derivative than innovative or original. They are a quilt of notions about the size of government that can be traced to Ronald Reagan; views about social issues with strong roots in religious conservatism; assertions of American exceptionalism growing out of the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party; and expressions of impatience with the status quo ripped from the labels of the tea bags on the muscular right of the conservative movement.
Not all American politicians are American originals, of course. Gov. Franklin D. Roosevelt had very few ideas when he ran for president in 1932, and even from this distance it is difficult to distill a consistent ethic from the New Deal except for the determination to do something, and then to do something else, until something worked or until the Supreme Court struck it down.
Only in the White House did Lyndon B. Johnson, a conventional New Dealer but mostly a wheeler-dealer, make the full transformation from Senate institutionalist to presidential idealist.
But some candidates, like Sen. Gary Hart (1984 and 1988) and Rep. Jack F. Kemp (1988), are founts of new ideas. Sen. John F. Kennedy (1960) and former Gov. Reagan (1976, 1980 and 1984) ran on very big ideas, with oversized rhetoric to match — rhetoric that, in both cases, stirs Americans still.
For his part, Romney is running as an exceptionally gifted, almost wizardly manager armed with conventional conservative ideas, though Americans rarely elect managers, who in folklore, if not in reality, often have the political sex appeal of accountants. The only exception may be Herbert Hoover, one of the great business figures of his age and perhaps the leading manager in political history.
What is significant here isn’t that Hoover presided over the Great Depression — his role in that is still debated — but that Hoover’s business experience and acumen, and the air of management competence that he cultivated and personified, gave him 444 electoral votes in his battle against a breakthrough candidate much like Obama, Gov. Al Smith of New York, the first Catholic to win the presidential nomination of a major American political party.
Other presidential candidates who have run as managers have failed, making little impact in electoral politics. These include Donald Rumsfeld, who as the recent former chief of G.D. Searle and Co., ran for president briefly in 1988, and Lee Iacocca, who held top positions at both Ford Motor Co. and the Chrysler Corp., and also toyed with running for president. Both said they would have emphasized bringing business values to government, which sounds better in the executive suite than on the campaign hustings.
(A business approach was not part of the electioneering appeal of Gov. George W. Bush, who became the first president with an M.B.A. He ran on his record of partisan conciliation in Texas, his concept of “compassionate conservatism” and his own brand of Western-style politics.)
In his 1988 acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Dukakis made a memorable remark: “This election isn’t about ideology; it’s about competence. It’s not about meaningless labels; it’s about American values — old-fashioned values like accountability and responsibility and respect for the truth.”
Romney could say almost all of that except for the ideology part, for he has drawn an ideological contrast with the president even without original ideas.
It is, however, relatively early in the campaign. Romney’s formal nomination is still weeks away. His acceptance speech has not yet been written. Both the phrases “New Deal” (from FDR) and “New Frontier” (from Kennedy) appeared in their convention acceptance speeches.
When Robert Frost went to visit the White House in 1958, he presented President Dwight D. Eisenhower a volume of his poems, and on the flyleaf he wrote: “The strong are saying nothing until they see.” Perhaps that applies to Romney, and perhaps for the former Massachusetts governor the road not taken lies ahead.
• Shribman is executive editor of the Post-Gazette.
Comments (50)
Add commentfunny
How David could forget to mentione the most secretive dolt ever to hold office without disclosure Barry Barack Hussein Obama the lier who uses fools as his tool
isldandhopper,
"the most secretive dolt ever to hold office without disclosure Barry Barack Hussein Obama"
Really? More secretive then say, the guy who lied about WMDs in order to obtain Congress' approval to invade a sovereign nation?
In what way is Obama more secretive than the 43 presidents who held the office prior to him?
If you're going to make such an accusation, at least back it up with something. Otherwise I can only assume you're just full of [filtered word] and listen to rush limbaugh too much.
By all means though, correct me if I'm wrong here.
Oh mitt, we love ye anyway,
"I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. " - Mitt, in 2011 op-ed
"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard."
- Mitt, 2002 campaign for governor
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country." - Mitt, 1994 race against Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy
"I have some friends who are NASCAR team owners." —Mitt Romney, after being asked whether he follows NASCAR racing (February 2012)
"I should tell my story. I'm also unemployed." —Mitt Romney, speaking in 2011 to unemployed people in Florida. Romney's net worth is over $200 million.
“ This kind of divisiveness, this attack of success, is very different than what we’ve seen in our country’s history. We’ve always encouraged young people: Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business.” - Mitt, suggesting anyone can be a successful businessman if they simply take advantage of the opportunities given to them. As though every young person has multi-millionaire parents as he did.
"Corporations are people, my friend… of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend." —Mitt Romney to a heckler at the Iowa State Fair who suggested that taxes should be raised on corporations as part of balancing the budget (August 2011)
"I'm not familiar precisely with what I said, but I'll stand by what I said, whatever it was." —Mitt Romney (May 17, 2012)
Shadow Puppet
The last thing he wants to do is reveal himself. Odds are he's a lot more liberal than he has painted himself, and if he showed that he'd alienate the far right of his base.
They know that deep down, but don't think they have an option. They forget there are third parties out there.
For islandhopper
Thanks for letting us know what the world looks like from inside Rush Limbaugh's colon.
Cheesy
As usual you're just blathering on about nothing, repeating talking points. As a liberal, I suspect if you ever actually had an original thought you'd die from fright.
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
@Mr. Jim: liberals tend to be
@Mr. Jim: liberals tend to be reknowned for their creativity.
You show me a revolutionary figure in history, and I'll show you a liberal.
Jesus? Liberal. Martin Luther? Liberal! Abraham Lincoln? Liberal! Frederick the Great? Liberal! Just about every philosopher? Liberal! Those darned founding fathers? LIBERAL TO A ONE!
Used to be that conservatism was an actual school of thought, with its own ethos, goals, and ideals. Nowadays, at least in the U.S., it has become a mere reaction to whatever liberals want. Rather than having your own ideas and philosophy, you simply rail against whatever those you perceive as liberal are trying to get done.
And frankly, that is a pathetic worldview.
well now
cheeesypuff
isldandhopper,
"I do not respond to her quarries’ either"
Umm, you responded to mine though... ten-second tom, is that you?
"cheeesypuff you’re too much of a stupid, moronic, idiot ,fool dolt, to figure it out then youre in the same skiff as the other tool PP"
what does this even mean? what an idiot...
akjim, I didn't repeat any talking points. I simply presented the board with a few of my favorite Mitt quotes... you can take them however you like. My guess is you didn't even read my post. What you don't want to know is probably what you need to know most.
Tool?
It used to be fun -and sometimes funny - to read the blogs but many are just name-calling now.
speaking of name calling...
it bugs me when people throw around insults when they can't tell the difference between and inquiry and a rock pit.
Lincoln was a member of the
Lincoln was a member of the Whig party. And when the Republican Party was formed in 1854, he joined the Republican Party and was the first Republican Pres.
MLK was also a Republican, as was most blacks during that era.
Frederick the Great, who really knows, he most certainly was not a Republican.
BO claims to shadow himself after Lincoln, however after reading a few quotes from Lincoln I have to think otherwise. These are completely opposite views that BO has and believes.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves
fisher44
& others sorry I try not to stoop to that (their) level, but after reading CPs rantings the last few days I could not resist. I will refrain from that in the future.
@Milspec.: being a Republican
@Milspec.: being a Republican denotes membership in a political party. Being a liberal denotes a certain philosophical outlook on the world. Up until recently, they were not mutually exclusive (and in fact, the Democratic party was originally the southern, racist, conservative party).
I like how you manage to bring up Obama in every single article you post on, though. When I was in elementary school, I used to mercilessly tease the girls I had crushes on at every opportunity, too.
Also, none of those are Abe
Also, none of those are Abe Lincoln quotes.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln/prosperity.asp
Maybe if you had better fact-checking skills you wouldn't be so ill-informed. Here's a hint: if it's in a chain email, IT'S PROBABLY NOT TRUE.
A comment I left on another
A comment I left on another JE article also applies here:
"Americans argue among themselves why their freak is better than the other freak. They will get angry with you if you call their freak a freak. They will actually fight and die to defend their freaks.”
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/08/08/the-dispossessed-majority/
Yes, we live in an oligarchy
Thanks for the link, CO14er. I agree with his summation:
"The US is ruled by a private oligarchy. The government is merely their front. The country’s resources are diverted to the pockets of Wall Street, the military/security complex, and to the service of greater Israel. The oil, mining, timber, and agribusiness companies control the Environmental Protection Agency and the Forestry Service, which is why regulation only pertains to the small individual, while fracking, mountaintop removal mining, and pollution of air, water, and soil run wild.
The oligarchs have succeeded in making americans a dispossessed majority in their own country. In November americans will again give their approval to one of the oligarchy’s two candidates."
I'll be voting for Gary Johnson or writing in Ralph Nadar. I realize that it's merely an impotent protest vote, but at least I can hold up my head when someone asks me who I supported for president.
makes me wonder
when PP shows up cheeeyswiz is gone & visa versa
spiff
Do you really think "The oil, mining, timber, and agribusiness companies control the Environmental Protection" ???
Yes, Spiff does
Yes, spiff really does believe in the libertarian-like conspiracy theories. His choices in elected officials makes that pretty clear. All one can do is shake their heads at the gross stupidity of so many.
Spiff
You're welcome. I suspect that (if they even read the article) liberals will love what the article says until about half way through, and conservatives may not even get to the third paragraph.
Akjim, I cannot speak for Spiff, but I can say I don't believe in libertarian like conspiracy theories (whatever that is), but I do believe that the actions of government and banks/corporations speak for themselves. Their words mean nothing anymore.
So with all due respect, the last sentence of your previous comment could easily be turned right around on you (which is not what I'm doing - just making a point).
isldandhopper,
"when PP shows up cheeeyswiz is gone & visa versa"
And you know this because neither of us have posted at the exact same time? Your investigatory skills are lacking... There's no way to post at the exact same time, genius.
Milspec,
your quotes are not lincoln quotes. Nice try though. I hope you bothered to read PP's comments, because you apparently mistake political parties for political ideologies. Democrats range from extreme liberal to extreme conservative both socially and fiscally, just like Republicans. The two parties we know today have been on both sides of the social political scene.
Democrats represented the slave owners prior to the civil war.
African Americans largely aligned with the Republican party after the civil war primarily due to Abraham Lincoln's quest for abolition.
During the 60s, Democrat support of the civil rights movement gained popularity among progressives and minorities.
At any rate, whichever party you align with now is not the party of Lincoln's time.
As far as Martin Luther King's politics go, he was never outspoken over his political endorsements. However, according to a fellow civil rights supporter, King said in a letter over his political affiliation in 1956: "In the past I always voted the Democratic ticket." He admittedly voted for JFK in 1960 as well. I don't know where you get your information, but you should stop looking there from now on. It's filling your head with lies.
wala
Low & behold
Conspiracies?
con·spir·a·cy /kənˈspirəsē/ - Noun:
1.A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
2.The action of plotting or conspiring.
con·spir·a·cy the·o·ry - Noun:
A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.
Neither of these definitions fits what is happening in this country, so no, I am not a believer of conspiracy theories like GW planned 9/11 or Obama isn't an American and is a plant by some shadowy Muslim organization who thinks real long-term.
I am a truth-seeker and look to actions rather than soundbites and pundit-speak. I do not believe assertions without looking for the footnotes and reading other views before making a decision. Gary Johnson and Ralph Nadar are simply messengers and, as far as I know, neither believe in conpiracy theories either. I would've voted for Buddy Roemer had he got the nomination of the Republican party, but as that group has become increasingly unhinged, they'd never recognize a normal, intelligent man such as him. He's not zealot-y enough for them.
The only reason one can so snarkily and blithely dismiss others views is because one has not taken any time to think critically about what is going on. Groups like ALEC are writing legislation word-for-word and that legislation is getting passed by various state houses across the nation. Furthermore, some of those state legislators now hold national office and are happy to carry the water for various corporations. None of this is particularly secretive - they're very upfront that they want all environmental laws eliminated or at least de-fanged. And they pretty much have it. One example: who pays for superfund cleanup sites? Not the companies that created them, that's for sure. We do.
Grow up and stop believing sounds coming from the idiot box. We're quickly turning into a bad movie (see: Idiocracy) and whether we get Romney or another round of Obama, I don't see anyone actually standing up for the common man (you know, me and you).
and islandhopper, it's "voila." It's a french word; I am surprised a right-wing idealogue like you would be caught dead using it.
akjim - I'll make you a deal. You don't put words in my mouth and I'll pretend you are capable of thoughtfulness and civility.
colorado14er,
I agree with some of Paul Roberts, and disagree with some as well. I agree with his social philosophy almost entirely, form what I've seen. Anti-war. I also agree with his analysis that neocons have essentially ruined the republican party and brought about social issues while ignoring important fiscal ones.
Mr Roberts being a cofounder of reaganomics, I can't support his economic ideals as much. I don't agree with trickle-down economics. This isn't so say supply-side economics is completely lost in my opinion. I agree making the environment for businesses to excel is critical in creating long-lasting jobs, I just don't think drastic tax cuts for the wealthy was in America's best interest. I find it interesting that Mr. Roberts agrees that a small elite class of Americans control the government even though he helped to create a more efficient path for the wealth to trickle up.
In his article, he mentions th emajority of Americans should stay home rather than vote. I see this is one of only a few solutions he provides. I understand his discontent towards the political environment in today's America. I understand where he's coming from. I'd like to hear a solution beyond staying home on election day.
Also, I see he's a supporter of Ron Paul. This I don't support. Ron Paul has no solutions, just pipe-dreams. We can't return federal agencies like the EPA and FDA to the states. This isn't a solution. It's a battlecry for those who think the government should be small enough so we can drown it in a bath tub. The truth is, the government is never small enough to drown in a bath tub and those who publicly argue this (norquist) know better than anyone that they really just want to get rid of government regulation that directly affects them financially.
well said cp
a much better job than i did. thanks for the thoughtful comments.
Apple Pie
My vote goes to the man named after a baseball glove.
Cheeesy, so tell me what is
Cheeesy, so tell me what is wrong with this? I know it is a Republican Association, right?
http://suwanneegop.com/NBRA%20Civil%20Rights%20Newsletter-2.pdf
milspec,
the problem with that document stating Martin Luther King, Jr. was a republican, is that no where in it does it provide evidence supporting this. It includes Mr King's niece's opinion on the matter. No documentation refuting King's admission of voting for JFK, a democrat, or statements suggesting he voted democrat in the past. This document debates history, and it's filled with propaganda:
"Democrat Party is the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism."
The democrat party that supported slavery, secession, and instituted segregation also supported big business, no government regulation, states rights, low taxes, and of course, were all white.
This document you provided suggests republicans, not democrats, championed the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement of the 1800s, yes. But Martin Luther King didn't live in the 1800s. The civil rights movement of the 1960s was championed by the democrats, and according to witness accounts and of King's, he voted democrat more often. There is no need to debate this. Mr. King never endorsed a party. He wasn't engaged in party politics. His niece, Dr. Alveda King however is. And for some reason she felt it necessary to endorse a document stating she knew her uncle better than he did.
This document you provided is a religious pamphlet. That's the first mistake you made. The second was not reading it with your thinking cap on.
Milspec, just because you can
Milspec, just because you can use binary logic doesn't automatically validate your point (or make it relevant for that matter); your point being that classism should be protected and supported of course. Oh wait! I forgot! Altruism is alive and well in the upper-class and those envious re-distributors just want too much!