In a recent interview with Matthew Tully of the Indianapolis Star, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels offered the following thoughts on the Romney campaign:

He said political victories that follow “slash-and-burn” campaigns seldom lead to great accomplishments.

“You have to campaign to govern, not just to win,” he said. “. . . Spend the precious time and dollars explaining what’s at stake and a constructive program to make life better. And as I say, look at everything through the lens of folks who have yet to achieve.”

After a pause, Daniels added with disappointment: “Romney doesn’t talk that way.”

“You don’t change one thing about the policies you advocate or your principles,” he said, noting instead that candidates should simply make clear how their policies would lift up those who are struggling. For instance, he said, at fundraisers Romney’s message shouldn’t be about how his policies affect the well-heeled people listening in the audience, but rather those who can’t afford a ticket to get in.

“It’s not complicated,” Daniels said. “But for some reason sometimes candidates just miss that.”

Gov. Daniels’ remarks reminded me of a recent Bloomberg View column by Edward Glaeser, in which the distinguished urban economist recommended that rather than try to win the election, Romney should engage in a kind of extended public education campaign:

Romney should give up on contorting himself to please voters, for America and the Republican Party desperately need a leader who will put truth above popularity, and honestly discuss the costs of the benefits he promises.

If nominated, he will have our attention for the next seven months, which is a great gift. If he uses his visibility to tell voters only what they want to hear, he loses the ability to shape the nation. He could use the election to promote honest accounting and a culture of responsibility, which would earn him a permanent place in the American pantheon whether he wins in November or not.

While I’m sympathetic to Glaeser’s take — our views on substantive policy questions are near-identical, not least because he literally shaped my views on most of the important ones — I disagree somewhat with his mental model of the electorate. That is, I’m not sure the lasting impact on public opinion of a campaign that seeks to enrich the public’s understanding of broader economic and policy challenges will outweigh the lasting impact of the policy changes that will likely occur if the president is reelected. If the Republican presidential candidate has a reasonable shot at winning, and there is good reason to believe that he does, learning from and effectively responding to the Obama campaign strikes me as the most responsible course of action. 

All that said, I do think that campaigning to govern is a sensible strategy, which is part of why I was disappointed with Mitt Romney’s decision to embrace a fairly specific tax reform proposal before the Michigan primary. It’s hard to tell if that decision made the difference between victory and defeat in Michigan, but it has certainly constrained his running room.