Below, Maggie Gallagher has posted a video claiming that Romney is a big phony. She says, “just to be clear,” that she disagrees with the video. She then says, “The real Romney would be a much better candidate than the guy who is pretending he’s not rich.”
I’ve watched pretty much all the debates, I think, and Romney has been called on several times to defend his wealth. He always has, saying he has been successful and wants to help others be successful as well. In my view, he has been admirably unapologetic.
Elsewhere in her post, Maggie says that Romney is “everything except authentic.” I hear this a lot, from pundits. But I wonder whether we’re qualified to judge another person’s authenticity. It is a very big psychological claim, to say that another person is inauthentic. This goes double for a person we know only from a distance.
If Romney shouted more, à la Santorum, or created personal dramas, à la Newt — would that make him more authentic? An even temperament can be perfectly authentic. I’ve always thought I should have more of one.
By the way, here is a snippet from Romney from a debate in December:
I didn’t grow up poor. And if somebody is looking for someone who’s grown up with that background, I’m — I’m not the person. But I — but I grew up with a dad who’d been poor, and my dad wanted to make sure I understood the lessons of hard work. And my mom and dad wanted to make sure that I understood the principles that made America the greatest nation on earth.
And so they made sure we had jobs as we were growing up. They made sure we didn’t spend money foolishly. And they made sure that I had — a care and concern for other people. I was able to serve my church overseas, and to — to meet people there that had very difficult circumstances in their life. I also spent time in this country, serving as a pastor in my — in my church, and again, having the occasion to work with people that were really struggling. I saw marriages under great stress.
You see, when — when people lose jobs, marriages get strained, people’s health gets affected — people become depressed. And — and I’m in this race, not — not because I grew up without means, but because I understand what it takes to get America working again. And I love this country enormously and understand the principles and understand the specifics that it takes to get America creating jobs again. That’s why I’m in the race.
The Republican party could do worse. And if we give in to petty populism, we will.
Thank you Jay. Just because Romney is not a fire-breather doesn't mean the man is inauthentic. Heck, put me on a stage and I probably would not be much different. By nature I'm polite, like to be precise with my language, and strongly dislike lobbing political firebombs because they are often as harmful as they are helpful. The problem seems to be that the narrative of Romney as "inauthentic" and a "flip-flopper" is so ingrained , that it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I was the same way until I learned more about Romney from reading Ann Coulter and David & Nancy French.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wonder why anyone would care what Ms.Gallagher thinks regarding any subject.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you for the sanity check. Pundits, opinion-makers, and we as commenters are too tempted to stretch and invent narratives for the drama of it all (e.g. Romney is pretending to be poor) and end up miles away from reality. I think Romney's "inauthentic" vibe come from the fact that he is so polished and near-perfect, that people say "He can't really be that polished and near-perfect, so he must just be a really skilled faker." Well, once in awhile, there ARE people who are naturally polished, even-tempered, kind, and bright, but in our cynical age, we are trained to not trust them. But if a person really does embody these traits, they are not being inauthentic, they are being themselves. Having the honor to have been personally acquainted with Mitt Romney in professional and personal settings, I would say he is authentic because he actually is polished, even-tempered all the time. I don't think he was born this way. It comes after years of hard work in family life and church service.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA guy who is as inauthentic as his detractors say he is would not make the gaffes Romney has made. They measure their words far too carefully for their audience.
Stiff, reserved, a bit aloof - yes, but not inauthentic.
I wish we'd had different candidates, but we don't. And even if we did, I'd probably be less than thrilled by several of them, too. But whichever of these men ends up with the GOP nomination, the cost of staying home or going 3rd party is too high. Should we sacrifice this country and its foreseeable future on the altar of a principle when that principle would only be undermined by doing so?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnyone who changes his position on major issues as much as Romney has is going to come across as insincere to thinking people. The conclusion that a chameleon isn't authentic isn't a big psychological claim; it's just commonsense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course we can judge someone's authenticity.
You were right in the past to note that when John Kerry gave his "salute" at the Democratic National Convention he was being a phony. I know you are a Romney supporter, but that doesn't mean you have to pretend you don't have a BS detector.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom the article:
If Romney shouted more, à la Santorum, . . .
I have never heard Santorum shout. I believe I read that he shouted -- or may have shouted, by some people's lights -- in a debate I missed. But he certainly isn't a shouter in general. It seems to me there are gratuitous digs at Santorum in almost every Nordlinger column, and I don't understand why.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHardcastle,
I've watched all the debates so far, and Rick certainly does raise his voice a lot. I don't know if I would call it shouting, but he does speak too loudly, and quite obnoxiously at times.
I think his attitude and debate presence is one of the reasons he did not catch on sooner. He comes across as a petty, arrogant man, who talks too much. He starts off really well, but by the end of the debate, I find myself wanting him to just stop talking.
It's too bad, because otherwise, he seems like a decent man. He is knowledgeable and speaks very eloquently on the issues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, because the Occupy Astroturf movement that so carefully set up that 1% vs the 99% meme will fall apart when Mittens stands up and says, "Hey, I sweep my garage."
This is a populist election. How could it not be, given how many people are out of work?
Obama is going to promise people they will be taken care of until the economy turns around. What is Mittie Rich the Poor Liberal Rich Boy going to say? He'll raise the minimum wage?
Catch a clue---Santorum speaks like somebody who cares about the working stiff---those are the votes we need to get to win. Put Romney up and we get two stiffs who've never worked a day in their lives battling over abstractions.
The populist message has traction because people are desperately hurting. Watching these two leftist idiots talk about reaching across the aisle to screw working Americans isn't going to do anything but light the match on a revolution.
So by all means, keep on!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou characterize a person who spent 25+ years in the private sector, building one company from scratch and saving many others from extinction -- making a fortune along the way -- as someone who has never worked a day in his life?
Your attacks on Romney are becoming increasingly untethered to reality.
Petty populism does not win elections (ask Bob Shrum). Envy is not an attractive attribute.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI characterize a man who has spent the last 18 years running for political office after having spent his adult life making money by stripping fixtures out of the business he acquired---who entered the executive ranks as an entry level position thanks to his father's wealth and influence----as somebody who's never worked a day in his life, yes.
But what do I know? My father was a bricklayer and my first working days involved lifting block and bricks up staging for him. Then I was off to a military academy for more luxury time for the privilege of wearing an officer's uniform in the greatest armed forces the world has ever known and working 18 hour days as a general rule.
Earned wealth is a wonderful thing. Bottom-feeding to support a mindless quest for power is not so wonderful.
Look at this guy.
External Link
Remember this image.
This is who Mitt Romney is.
He is pure, unadulterated, to-the-manor-born Ruling Class.
And Americans are sick to death of the Ruling Class.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf petty populism is going to win the day, then the Left has already won the war and the battle is just over which letter the Left is going to wear by its name.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTeflon, you say, "Santorum speaks like somebody who cares about the working stiff---those are the votes we need to get to win."
Sure. That explains why Santorum has done so well so far, I guess. Don't you understand (well, it's not a good question since you clearly don't understand; you just like being nasty) that Santorum was like the seventh choice, even among the more-anger-than-brains segment? Between Palin and Santorum, they liked ... Palin. Between Trump and Santorum, they liked ... Trump. Between Bachman and Santorum, they liked Bachman. Between Perry and Santorum, they liked Perry. Between Cain and Santorum, they liked Cain. Between Newt and Santorum, they liked (and most of 'em still like) Newt.
So explain to me again how Santorum has this wonderful man-of-the-people touch about him. that's just gonna roll up the votes in November. Then explain the 18-point loss when running for re-election to his Senate seat in Pennsylvania, where, you know, the "working stiff" segment is pretty well represented. Those aren't rhetorical questions; I'm genuinely interested in how you reach your conclusion based on the evidence to date.
And while you're explaining (assuming that you're willing to do so, of course), maybe you'll be kind enough to answer me this: I've noticed that you write on this site a lot. I've noticed that most of what you write concerns Mitt Romney, and that ALL of that body of work just DRIPS sarcasm, vitriol and unpleasantness. Directed toward him and toward his supporters. "MittBots" and the like. So my question to you, as a self-described Catholic, is this: Do you think that your words and deeds are in keeping with the teachings of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? Maybe you could provide a thoughtful answer on that subject.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI know Mitt personally. An 'even temperament' is precisely his authentic self.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks Jay. Thanks for giving voice to my thoughts as they closely align with yours...as per usual.
-Frank
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney? Inauthentic? Heavens no!
He is authentically moderate, authentically wishes he didn't have to mouth all of those conservative platitudes, and is authentically cautious about everything but sliming his Republican opponents (but Democratic ones, very cautious what he says about them).
My problem is that Romney is 100% authentic: he is exactly what he appears to be: an overly cautious moderate Independent, too sane (and cautious!) to be a Democrat, who wants VERY VERY badly to be president.
He will spend huge amounts of other people's money, and say nearly anything about a Republican to get to be president - and will then spend a lot more of other people's money VERY VERY cautiously on things that the New York Times will mildly approve of (as it tries to get him replaced by a Democrat).
With the jam we're in - this is JUST THE TICKET.
And the Captcha keeps up its Oracle of Delphi omniscience: "Under the Sea" - where the USA will soon be if we don't get bold conservative leadership.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI disagree that the GOP could do worse than Romney. Not because of his phoniness, though that is also a huge problem, but because of his continued support for the individual mandate and top-down, government-dominated approach to healthcare in Romneycare. If any other Republican governor, senator, congressmen or cabinet member is the nominee, a central issue of the fall campaign will be Obamacare's government take-over of healthcare. With Romney, it will be an issue to avoid because his principal accomplishment as governor shares the same flaws. He is by far the worst possible nominee, not only among those running, but among the entire universe of qualified GOP politicians.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a pretty good preview of what to expect for the next four years if Romney beats Obama. Nordlinger must miss licking presidential boots so much!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmen, Mr. Nordlinger.
Would that the juvenile R primary electorate that is craving for catharsis (aka Obama Derangement Syndrome) would snap to its senses.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse