A lot of bloggers have recommended reading this Boston Globe piece on why Romney lost. It’s probably good, with a lot of inside info, but I could only get through about a third of it because (a) the topic has been beaten into the ground already; and (b) almost any answer/explanation will do and it may not really matter anyway because in 2016 the situation will be different (and my guess is that the Republican generals will be fighting the last war rather than adjusting to those changed circumstances).
But now that I’ve said all that, I can’t resist piling on. Just a little bit.
I am fairly certain I know why Romney lost. In talking to a number of non-blog-reading conservative friends of mine (I do have a few such friends, you know), I’ve come to my own conclusion about it, and it’s a rather simple conclusion. These people don’t know each other, and yet each told me almost exactly the same thing, in almost exactly the same words: “Romney doesn’t understand.” “Romney doesn’t care.” “Romney doesn’t understand what it’s like for regular people.”
Now, if those people (none of whom had any intention of voting for Obama in the first place) felt this and were deeply affected by it, you can bet it was a very widespread and troubling perception. You can say that particular perception became widespread because (as the Globe article suggests) the Obama campaign was successful in painting Romney this way, and that Romney never answered the charge effectively. But you know what I think, in retrospect? There was no way for him to answer it effectively. He could have saturated the airwaves with stories of what a caring guy he is. He could have filled the media with tales of how he struggled and ate macaroni and cheese when he and Ann were starting out. But it wouldn’t have made a dent in this perception.
Romney has a naturally patrician and removed air that feeds into that impression. Voters like me couldn’t care less; I don’t need someone who’s walked in my moccasins, I just want someone smart and capable, with qualities of leadership, conservative principles, and America’s interests at heart. But many people do care about it, deeply.
And it’s not about Romney’s being rich, either. FDR and JFK were rich men born to rich families, but they were able to convey to the general public that despite that background they understood and cared, whatever that meant at the time. Democrats have a natural advantage in this, because the Democratic Party bills itself as—and is widely perceived as—the party that cares. Never mind if Democrats can’t actually fix things and make them better, or even sometimes make them worse—they’ve got the right rhetoric, they’ve got the temporary bandaids, and they hold your hand. And all those things are sometimes what people want, and think they need, when they’re hurting.
Republicans have a different message, a tough-love message. And to effectively deliver that message in a way that doesn’t come across as unsympathetic and/or harsh and/or elitist they probably need a very different sort of person than Romney (or than anyone who entered the fray this year).
My perception of who that person might be was the reason I had secretly hoped that Chris Christie might enter the race in 2012, and was disappointed in the field that did enter instead. Christie is from the general region of the country I’m from, so maybe I’m drawn to him because of the familiar cadences of home that I hear in his voice, an accent I’ve eradicated from my own speech. But I think, whatever the accent, Republicans need to find leaders who can speak directly and sincerely to people and reach them on a caring level. Good man though he is, Romney didn’t have that ability, and his “47%” remark most assuredly didn’t help and may even have been fatal to his chances.
Personality styles like this can’t be faked, either, and it’s not about ads or spin or lack thereof. You may object to Christie because you think he’s a RINO, or because he sucked up to Obama after the Sandy floods, or because he’s fat, or for whatever reason you want. You may say the country’s in such bad shape and you’re so angry at the Republican Party that you don’t care anymore: a plague on both their houses, and on the House too.
But if either RINOs or conservatives or libertarians or some combination of the three that now goes by the name of the Republican Party is going to try to take back the country from runaway liberalism in 2016, the personality characteristics of the nominee are going to matter. Don’t you think that people thought that Reagan cared about them and understood them? And don’t you think that was at least partly responsible for his success at the polls?
I’ll stop now. And perhaps this is the last post that will be filed under the heading “Election 2012.” But I’m making no promises.