If you’re like me, you’ve been watching Mitt’s apparently-successful bamboozlement of cultural conservatives with some measure of horror and amusement. And of course, Rudy Giuliani’s doing the same thing, perhaps with even greater success, steering right on abortion and gay rights.
Of course this seems transparently phony to those of us who have been watching Mitt for a while, and know his background. But at some point, there’s diminishing returns for each additional pebble thrown on Mitt’s mountain of phoniness. People either believe his sincerity, or they don’t. And apparently, many folks do believe it.
And the reason is pretty simple. Human beings are not rational; they rationalize. Mitt and Rudy are telling cultural conservatives what they want to hear, and so to them, it sounds genuine. OK, so Mitt had a “change of heart” on abortion — but in the “right” direction! Those of a Christian background are used to stories of repentance and salvation, so Mitt’s conversion to right-wingery on the road to Damascus has a familiar feel to them.
To be sure, we on the left are flattered by converts to our side — because naturally they’ve come to see the light of reason! Reading Andrew Sullivan, for instance, is more fun than it once was for us; same with Arianna Huffington or David Brock. And we tend to assume that when John Edwards and others criticize the Iraq war, they’re speaking from the heart rather than opportunism.
But at least in Edwards’ case, he’s going along with public opinion (and reality). Mitt, on the other hand, is beer-bonging from the poisoned chalice of Bush Republicanism — running way, way to the right just as the general public seems ready to reject many right-wing ideas (militarism, free-market fundamentalism, the-rich-shall-inherit-the-earth economics) as manifest folly. It’s as if he’s running for 2nd place in the 2008 general election … which used to make you vice-president, but now is vice-nothing.
It’s interesting to see that it’s the Republican grassroots themselves that seem to be driving their candidates off a cliff — not the other way around.
<
p>
Charley, with all due respect I’m going to have to disagree with your generalization here. I’m not flattered by Sullivan’s, Huffington’s, and Brock’s “conversion,” despite their seeing the light of reason. Rather, I’m skeptical of what they say and I’m suspicious of their motives because I recognize that they had and have an incentive (economic, reputational, or otherwise) to have turned to the left. That doesn’t mean I dismiss what they have to say, but I am ready to raise an eyebrow when reviewing their work.
<
p>
As for Edwards and others criticizing the war, I don’t assume they’re speaking from the heart. I don’t assume anything else, either. Instead, I wait to see what kind of substantive, concrete steps they take to end the war or rally for its opposition to gauge their true intent.
“beer-bonging from the poisoned chalice of Bush Republicanism”
<
p>
Now, that’s a quote.
to reject what Edwards has to say as much of his career involves sucking up royally to globally oriented organizations. While he is doing this his tendency to bill himself as a hero of the common man truely pushes my Machiavellian red alert buttons.
<
p>
Most of the other mainstream candidates, which includes Mitt I place in the same category as the Lawrence Welk show. Old ideas and lower than mediocrity in a modern world. I find it far easier to side with the “hatters” and embrace the concept of an evil shadow government consisting of corporate profit only oriented powerful James Bond type individuals.
I just got Al Gore’s “Assault on Reason” from the library (after a long wait) and hope he’ll provide some insight into why “Human beings are not rational” lately.
<
p>
Hereabouts we know that Mitt began his prez campaign by simply memorizing and repeating sound bites from the Right-Repug talking points: taxes, death penalty, same-sex marriage, Iraq, etc. He became a champion panderer in South Carolina and elsewhere. Now he’s got the sound bites really well internalized. In one respect, he can lay claim to Ronald Reagan’s legacy and even surpass it, because he’s become a better actor than Reagan.
Recently, I read James A. Michener’s non-fiction account of working on JFK’s race against Dick Nixon. Mitt’s Fakery reminds me of something in that book. In a debate, JFK was asked about Harry Truman’s use of foul language (toward Nixon). JFK’s response was to laugh it off with something like “eh, Truman’s an old guy, I can’t change him.” Nixon, in his turn, turned on the saccharine with a line about how Presidents shouldn’t use foul language because children look up to Presidents, blah blah blah. Michener knew Nixon used swear words (and we know it now, too!) and got pissed off at just how fake Nixon’s sermonizing was.
<
p>
But when Michener went to talk to Republican women he knew, they’d swallowed that B.S. whole:
<
p>
There’s lots of voters out there like Omwake and Dale, who don’t care how many soldiers get marched into the meat grinder as long as our President looks and talks like their stereotype of Daddy.
I heard a caller on a local conservative talk show recently who expressed frustration with the current Republican line-up and hoped Fred Thompson would get in the race. He said – and I remember this almost verbatim – “we need someone with a Ronald Reagan image even it’s just an image.” Sheesh, Joel, you’re right:
The inverse of this is the notion of how some candidates are “inauthentic”. The “authentic”/”inauthentic” stuff is mostly subjective and loosely, if at at all, based on fact.
<
p>
In daily life, we rely a lot on our Sincerity Detector. It’s tempting to think that it works just as accurately on people we know through television as it does with people we live with.
<
p>
Sadly, it doesn’t.
..and a pass on his obvious plastic fakery because the cast of characters on the GOP side is so pathetic.
<
p>
The fact that cultural conservatives are looking at Mitt and Rudy is a testament to the crappy field of candidates they have to choose from.
<
p>
They really do suck.
Human beings are not rational; they rationalize.
<
p>
In general, that seems to be true. When people are confronted with evidence that contradicts what they want to believe, more than a few people don’t change what they believe. They merely reject the evidence. We see that all the time with creationism/”intelligent design” advocates. It’s a fascinating phenomenon, but it can be read as a “defense mechanism.”
<
p>
Regarding Mittens, it is obvious that he is nothing more than a glorified salesman. But obviously, a very good one. His salesmanship got him a special deal with Bain–as was described here within the last few weeks–and who knows why?. And his salesmanship now is selling himself to at least enough of the feckless Republican rubes to get a nomination. Romney is telling them now what they want to hear now. Like a used car salesman dealing with a prospective customer.
<
p>
Going down a bit, regarding Andrew Sullivan, Arianna and David Brock. I go to Andrew Sullivan’s blog every once in a while, but it really is boring. The only thing that I’ve read by Andrew Sullivan is his Oct 1998 Advocate article Sex, Lies and Us; I neither buy nor read his books, and his association with The New Republic pretty much put him in purgatory.
<
p>
Arianna, I read her blog for entertainment.
<
p>
Brock’s site, I go there, but don’t believe everything I read there. He does have an interesting stable of commentators, though.
The conservatives as a social movement want a candidate that they believe will be responsive to their issues. While obviously they want a true believer, the reality is it doesn’t much matter who is in office so long as they are willing to bend to your social movement’s political pressure. Who else out there besides Mitt Romney is there in the top-tier who will bend their way? I know you like bullet points, so here’s a few:
<
p>
So from that point of view, it’s actually quite rational to support Romney. He’s got the money, he’s got charisma, and if your goal is to promote your values in the White House, having somebody who will easily bend to political pressure one way or the other just means your goal is to get more political power — which was your goal is from the start.
<
p>
So, who cares if Mitt is a friendless flip-flopping liar who looks like a Frankenstein and hates fire?
…it was Frankenstein’s “monster” who did. The two are often confused.
<
p>
Excellent comment, by the way. I would characterize Mittens using a German language term: a Wendehals (means “neck turn”). That was the term that was used by the East Germans to describe teachers in East Germany following the collapse of communism there in 1989. One day, they were towing one party’s (the communists’) line. The next day, they were towing the anti-communists’ line. It was almost immediate after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and it was hilarious to observe.
<
p>
Mittens is a Wendehals: he changes his tune depending on the election and the audience.
<
p>
Point of interest: are you of German descent? I am just curious, but “fertig” (in your handle) is a German word.
Yeah, actually my great-grandfather was from Austria. Also, maybe you can explain something to me. I know that “fertig” means “ready” or “finished,” but when my brother was in Germany and told people our last name they giggled. Does it have some sort of other connotation, like “finished in bed” or something?
<
p>
Do you get enough sleep?
Does it have some sort of other connotation, like “finished in bed” or something?
<
p>
…that I know of. It means “done” or “finished.” “Ich bin fertig” means, in connection with a meal “I’m done.” (There are other expressions “Ich bin gesaetigt” means “I’m satisfied.”) “Es ist fertig” means that the work is done. I use “fertig” here in Munich all the time and never gotten a giggle.
<
p>
“Ready” would be “bereit,” not “fertig.”
is bereit. The first adjective listed in The New Cassell’s German-English Dictionary is ready.
Family legend has it that when my great-grandfather came through Ellis Island and they called out his name, he shouted, “Fertig,” as in, “Ready to go!” and that’s how we got our name.
<
p>
I cannot vouch for the historical accuracy of such lore…
…I used to work with a guy whose last name I will refer to as “O’xxxyyy” (don’t want to identify him here). The O’xxxyyy obviously looks like an Irish name. But, no, he was of Polish descent, and an American of American birth.
<
p>
But, when his ancestors immigrated to the US, the people at Ellis Island didn’t know how to write down the Polish name, so they shortened it to O’xxxyyy, and that is what remained in his family ever since. And that is what he, himself told me.
I remember my grandmother’s Dorchester neighbor saying (decades ago) how he answered the immigration authorities, “just Maurice, just Maurice,” and that became his legal name.
…it’s nice that you go through word books. I have never, ever heard a German use “fertig” in the same way that they would use “bereit.” There is a difference of connotation.
<
p>
You might think to do a bit of study at the Goethe-Institut Boston to understand what I mean.
My brother was saying that whenever he told people his last name, they giggled or snickered, but wouldn’t say why. I wonder if he just pronounced it in a weird way.
Well, the rubes who love ’em some God and hate ’em some gays have proven that they’re patsies so far, so why should things be different in 2008? Dubya is held up as “one of us” in office by the idiots, but he hasn’t really advanced much of the wacko religious right’s agenda:
<
p>
<
p>
(Though he did appoint suitably Jurassic types to the Supreme Court. That does count for a lot.) But in the end, Bush talks about Gawd an awful lot, but so does Obama. In terms of change affected, Bush’s religious nutjob agenda has barely moved the needle, yet he’s seen as a friend of the religious right. Clearly, these suckers will support anyone who strokes them the right way. If Bush can still be a hero after eight ineffective years, why not Rudy McRomney?
Regarding your stem cell research comment, as far as I can tell the federal war on science began in about 1994, when they cancelled the superconducting supercollider project. A not dissimilar project is going forward in Europe at CERN. Particle physics will be increasingly going abroad. (I’ll leave aside the NASA problem.)
<
p>
Further, the security regulations regarding foreign persons entering the US are making it increasingly difficult for foreign scientists to enter the US for scientific conferences. Result? The conferences are increasingly going abroad.
<
p>
On stem cell research itself, if there is some promise shown to stem cell research, it will be carried out somewhere. If not in the US, then in Europe, Japan, China and/or India. The US will be the losers.
<
p>
Skipping down to your “faith-based initiatives” point, unfortunately it didn’t fall flat. Its first director, John DeIullio (sp?) did in fact leave in disgust, and you are quite correct that he coined the term Mayberry Machiavellis. But, unfortunately, it is continuing. Is it effective? In a way. It is effective in shovelling taxpayer moneys to religious institutions. Is it effective in providing services? The jury is very much out on that question.
…the issue with the GWBush malAdministration is embryonic stem cell research. They apparently have no problem with adult stem cell research, but that carries its own problems (e.g., enhanced risk of cancer)
Raj, I don’t see how you can equate a “war on science” with “refusing to build white elephants”. Sure, CERN makes some change off their ability to smash atoms at a slightly faster rate than existing American facilities, but I’m not sure that was the best use of dollars. To me, smart science is start-up funding, not giant projects with marginal improvements. It’s all very awe-inspiring and a great way to geek out, but one has to draw the line somewhere. In any case, once the European figure out how to put a wo/man in space on their own, they have a ways to go to match America for big-budget science.
<
p>
I agree that the US may miss the boat on stem-cell if it doesn’t push hard for it. That said, the fact that California and New Jersey permit it (and there are pushes in Michigan, Illinois, and New York as well), we’re already talking a scientific industrial complex that matches most competitors.
<
p>
As for faith-based funding, there are few people as touchy as I am on the question of separation of church and state. However, it totals just around $1 billion per year, or about 1/2,700th of the total budget. I doubt that’s what the Bible-thumpers had in mind.
Mitt is a dream GOP candidate. A self-made businessman, he is a man of faith who ran the Olympics, then got elected governor of the bluest state in the union.
<
p>
But on the other hand, he is completely phony, shallow, and was the worst governor of Massachusetts in my lifetime. It bears repeating: in 2005 he spent 200 days outside the state, many of them bashing Massachusetts. On one memorable day, Ohio Governor Bob Taft was here courting biotech firms, while Mitt was in Ohio bashing Massachusetts. Speaks well for his foreign policy, eh?
The Canadians will love Mitt’s economic development strategy.
<
p>
Don’t be so certain. People are often quite willing to be lied to… as long as they think it is their own interest. They may not believe it for an instant, but as long as they are sure the liar is on their side… so much the better.
<
p>
There is a specific Republican love of ruthlessness: It is one of their most clearly defined and defining traits. Transparently phony isn’t a flaw if you’re already irrational enough to be scared of gays in every closet and terrorists under every bed… In fact, it’s a plus if you subscribe to a manichean fallacy of pitting our blood-n-guts bad guys (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc…) against their bogey men (Osama, Saddam, etc…). Moral considerations were of little relevance to Machiavelli’s Prince.
<
p>
It was on the commuter rail the other day, wherein I saw an advertisement for a new book called “Play Dirty”, with the catchphrase “If nobody plays by the rules, Play Dirty!”.
…can you IMAGINE how Edward, Hillary and Obama look to ME?
<
p>
WHICH side has nobody to chose from? Go, Biden!
<
p>
And while Edwards’ ‘bonging’ may jibe with BMG/MASS. public opinion, that is hardly representative of NATIONAL attitudes.
<
p>
we will be electing a president of the entire COUNTRY, not Cambridge!
i’m sure the dems don’t look great to you, by definition. however, you’ll be hard pressed to find one that has so blatantly and self-servingly reversed themselves on so many key issues. not to mention badmouthing the very state they were governor of while they were governor. that last item is so reprehensible that it alone should be enough to disqualify the candidate. anyone thinking willard wouldn’t maintain his patterns of with-the-wind reversals and backstabbing of the people he would represent is the same sort who keeps wondering why each married guy she had an affair with has ultimately dumped her.