Mitt Romney's one-dimensional campaign
By Richard K. Barry
By now we understand Mitt Romney's strategy to get the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Whatever the question, whatever the constituency, the answer is that Romney will do better at job creation than President Obama.
When Romney stands in front of the NAACP, rather than spend too much time focussing on historic injustices faced by African-Americans and the range of issues that would need to be addressed to provide effective equality of opportunity and good lives, he just wants to talk about jobs.
When speaking to Latino voters, rather than discuss substantive solutions to problems like immigration and other quality of life concerns, he just wants to talk about jobs.
Now, in a new political ad aimed at women, rather than discuss any number of issues that could improve the lives of women in America, he, or his surrogates at American Crossroads, wants to talk exclusively about the unemployment rate for women since George W. Bush broke the economy (of course, he won't put it that way).
I know that ever since James Carville, campaign manager for Bill Clinton in 1992, made everyone think everything was always about the economy, we have tended to think in that way. And in the midst of a bad economy, it's hard not to.
But I just want to ask the question: Does there come a time when key constituencies will get turned off by a candidate's unwillingness to engage on other, not directly economic, issues?
Yes, everyone cares about the economy, but my guess is that it is always wiser to speak to voters as if you understand the complexity of their lives and their challenges.
Maybe the reason Mitt Romney isn't doing that is because he can't.
We all like to joke about Bill Clinton as a candidate saying he could feel people's pain. But we still liked the fact that he tried and that Obama is trying.
When Mitt Romney is talking about job creation you don't get the sense that he grasps that people want jobs to enable them to live fulfilling lives. It's all so much a business calculus devoid of human feeling.
Yes, jobs. Yes, the economy. But yes also to the lives people want for themselves and their families in all its complexity. Is there any chance at all that Mitt Romney gets that? And is that going to be a problem for his campaign?
(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)
By now we understand Mitt Romney's strategy to get the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Whatever the question, whatever the constituency, the answer is that Romney will do better at job creation than President Obama.
When Romney stands in front of the NAACP, rather than spend too much time focussing on historic injustices faced by African-Americans and the range of issues that would need to be addressed to provide effective equality of opportunity and good lives, he just wants to talk about jobs.
When speaking to Latino voters, rather than discuss substantive solutions to problems like immigration and other quality of life concerns, he just wants to talk about jobs.
Now, in a new political ad aimed at women, rather than discuss any number of issues that could improve the lives of women in America, he, or his surrogates at American Crossroads, wants to talk exclusively about the unemployment rate for women since George W. Bush broke the economy (of course, he won't put it that way).
I know that ever since James Carville, campaign manager for Bill Clinton in 1992, made everyone think everything was always about the economy, we have tended to think in that way. And in the midst of a bad economy, it's hard not to.
But I just want to ask the question: Does there come a time when key constituencies will get turned off by a candidate's unwillingness to engage on other, not directly economic, issues?
Yes, everyone cares about the economy, but my guess is that it is always wiser to speak to voters as if you understand the complexity of their lives and their challenges.
Maybe the reason Mitt Romney isn't doing that is because he can't.
We all like to joke about Bill Clinton as a candidate saying he could feel people's pain. But we still liked the fact that he tried and that Obama is trying.
When Mitt Romney is talking about job creation you don't get the sense that he grasps that people want jobs to enable them to live fulfilling lives. It's all so much a business calculus devoid of human feeling.
Yes, jobs. Yes, the economy. But yes also to the lives people want for themselves and their families in all its complexity. Is there any chance at all that Mitt Romney gets that? And is that going to be a problem for his campaign?
(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)
Labels: 2012 election, Bill Clinton, Mitt Romney, political ads
posted by Richard K. Barry at
4:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home