Privileged rich douchebag: The Mitt Romney narrative for 2012

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Last week, I wrote that, should he win the nomination (as seems likely), the various attacks on Romney by his fellow Republicans, notably by Gingrich, would cling to him like gonorrhea. What I really meant to say was, like a really bad case of gonorrhea.

As you know, a key element of Newt's attack has been the mostly accurate allegation that Romney made a massive fortune as a job-destroying, life-ruining vulture capitalist. This has some appeal among non-elite Republicans, who, like most non-elite Democrats and independents, have a healthy suspicion of ruthless, blood-sucking corporate malfeasance. But Republicans generally respect the rich and don't much care for anything that smacks of an attack on capitalism, which in its unregulated form is, in their black-and-white world, the only alternative to totalitarian socialism. In the Republican primaries, therefore, such an attack can only go so far. In the general election, however, Romney will face an enormous obstacle. Can he avoid being brought down by his own image, the image of Romney, rooted firmly in reality, that Newt and others have been drawing on the national stage?

Even if he avoids the vulture capitalist label, and even if some of Newt's attacks don't stick, Romney faces another perhaps even more enormous obstacle: himself. It's not easy to distinguish between Mitt Romney (the man) and "Mitt Romney" (the candidate), and perhaps the two have become one and the same, merged into a single soul-less being that isn't quite human anymore, a political cyborg, but what seems abundantly clear -- because he has made it abundantly clear -- is that Romney is a privileged rich douchebag who has no connection to and little regard for anything or anyone "ordinary," a man who profited off suffering, has a tax rate of about 15 percent, thinks that $374,327.62 is "not very much," and sends a lot of his money to the tax haven known as the Cayman Islands. (If you can relate to all that, you too may be a privileged rich douchebag. Congratulations.)

Now, "douchebag" isn't a nice word and may not be all that fair, I admit. But it seems accurate in Romney's case. As Jon Chait writes:

The utter failure is that Romney has come to be defined, through a recurring series of off-the-cuff gaffes, as a callous, out-of-touch rich man...

Romney declared "I like to be able to fire people who provide services to me." He described concern about rising inequality as "envy," suggested only people who are independently wealthy should run for office, suggested inequality should be discussed only in "quiet rooms," laid down a $10,000 bet in a debate with Rick Perry, deemed corporations to be people, and jokingly referred to himself as "unemployed." He has done the work of an opposition researcher on himself.

Yes, much of what Romney has said has been taken out of context, if not as ridiculously as he attacked President Obama way out of context, but the narrative of Romney as privileged rich douchebag has been coming together for some time:

Whatever the merits, the total self-portrait Romney has helped craft is utterly devastating: the scion of a wealthy executive, who helped create, and benefited from, revolutions in both the market economy and in public policy in the last three decades that favored the rich over the middle class, and who appears blithe about the gap between his privilege and the lot of most Americans.

Douchebag (Wikipedia): "The term usually refers to a person, usually male, with a variety of negative qualities, specifically arrogance and engaging in obnoxious and/or irritating actions, most often without malicious intent." If we weren't required to be all civil when talking politics, wouldn't we call Romney a douchebag? Or something similar?

Indeed, the only problem with the word, according to the Wikipedia definition, is that it suggests intent that isn't malicious. In the sense that Romney is an entitled asshole -- which, again, we would say about most people doing the things he does and saying the things he says -- sure, it may be that he's just being himself, that he can't help himself. Like when he talks about firing the people who serve him or pushing $10,000 bets. But there's more to him than that. Consider, for example, that under his tax plan he would find his taxes cut in half. Yes, here's a rich guy who thinks that politics should be for rich guys who has a plan to make rich people like himself even richer and who dismisses the rest of us as envious.

Douchebag? You make the call. Feel free to suggest a more appropriate word for him.

Anyway, whatever we call him, this narrative of Romney as "a callous, out-of-touch rich man" is sticking. And, Romney being Romney, it will continue to stick through the campaign. Democrats can help it along by pointing to Romney's plutocratic, self-interested agenda, as well as to his work at Bain Capital, but he is his own worst enemy in the sense that he is feeding this narrative all by himself, just by being himself.

The concept of the "narrative" is overused, I agree, but narratives really do drive electoral politics a great deal. They shape the stories that the media tell and that voters base their decisions on. Sometimes they're about trends or issues, but sometimes they're about people. Obviously, the key "issue" narrative for 2012 is the bad economy and Obama's handling of it, for better or worse. But especially in presidential elections voters choose a candidate more than a platform, and so in this case the narrative about Romney is Romney's story, from his upbringing to Bain and beyond, and what it says about who he is a person and how he would be as president. This story, this narrative, is how Romney will be presented to the public by the media, how voters will come to know him and understand him, and ultimately there isn't much anyone can do about it. Once a narrative takes hold, it's hard to replace.

It's early, but Romney is already defined. And he's done it largely by, and to, himself.

That crazy Arizona shooting: Jon Stewart, Sarah Palin, and the triumph of right-wing narrative

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I don't really have all much more to say about the Arizona shooting. We've written a lot here already on it, and so much has been written elsewhere that, barring a major development, like Loughner talking, we're all just repeating ourselves. Still, it's important not to let the conservative we're not to blame for anything, it's the liberals' fault for being so nasty narrative prevail, which is what seems to be happening -- because it's easier to blame the crazy dude for doing something crazy than to delve into what might have been behind it, into the culture, into right-wing politics, where what you find now are conservatives crying victim and lashing out at their critics for being mean and partisan and trying to score political points (when of course they're the ones being mean and partisan and trying to score political points).

**********

Last night on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart agreed with Sarah Palin that Jared Lee Loughner is crazy and that the right, Palin included, deserves no blame whatsoever for the Arizona shooting.

This, presumably, includes blame for the violent right-wing culture in which the shooting took place, that is, for the socio-political context, because those who are pointing at the likes of Palin and holding them responsible, myself included, make sure to stress that there may very well be no direct link between right-wing politics and the shooting itself. The issue isn't that Loughner is a card-carrying Republican or Teabagger (or both), which he apparently isn't, it's that Loughner didn't commit his act of violence in a vacuum.

This is what Stewart seems to be missing, and, needless to say, I have found his response to the shooting, including his refusal last week to say anything of substance, well, lacking.

In agreeing with Palin, all he was doing was buying into, and propagating, the right-wing spin, the narrative conservatives, finding themselves justifiably on the defensive, are trying so desperately to impose upon our discourse. I get that it's better to be civil than uncivil, but politics is politics, the right is the right, and Stewart is deeply naive if he believes a) that political civility is possible with conservatives being what they are these days, and b) that right-wing politics, and the right-wing culture of violence, had nothing at all to do with the shooting. If he truly believes the latter, it makes you wonder if he's watched his own show the past few years. Wasn't he the one pointing out all those gun-toting extremists at health-care town-hall events and Tea Party rallies?

**********

At Politico yesterday, Michael Kinsley provided a fine analysis of the right's "breathtaking bait and switch on Tucson":

In the week since the Tucson, Ariz., massacre, pleas for "civility" have turned into accusations of incivility, and the whole, useful discussion of "civility" versus "vitriol" has turned into the usual argument over competitive victimhood. The vast right-wing conspiracy has played President Barack Obama like a violin.

And they've done a pretty good job of messing with the heads of the liberal media as well. As a result, anyone who even raises the issue of who might be responsible, or more responsible, for the "atmosphere of vitriol" in which we conduct our politics is guilty of contributing to it. In just a few days, it has become the height of political incorrectness to suggest there might be any connection between the voices on right-wing talk radio and the voices in Jared Lee Loughner's head.

Republicans generally praised Obama's speech at the memorial service in which he took care to absolve conservatives and Republicans of any special responsibility for the tone of the political debate. It is, he said, "a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do." This sounds like a noble sentiment. But who is to blame for what ails the world if not those who think differently? If those who think the same as you are responsible, it's time to start thinking differently yourself.

Once again, liberals and progressives and Democrats and those generally on the left just don't seem to get it. Or, at least, a lot of them don't. I understand that Obama needed to be cautious, to walk a fine line, and that he said what had to be said. It would not have been "presidential" to have gone on the offensive.

But rank-and-file Democrats and mainstream liberals are backing off, too, perhaps because Obama was so effective (and they feel guilty fighting back against the right), perhaps because they, too, don't want to delve too deeply into what really happened and why, perhaps because they're terrified of Republicans. Whatever the reasons, the upshot is that conservatives like Palin are largely getting away with it.

And, again, what is Stewart's excuse? Given that he has made a name for himself criticizing the "crossfire" of the news media, and that he has fashioned himself a voice of the silent majority against the extremes, even as he himself, not to mention his audience, leans left, it may just be that he thinks now is not the time for partisan rancour. Or maybe he really does believe that Loughner is crazy and that it's irresponsible, and simply wrong, to suggest that there may be more to it than that.

Whatever the case with Stewart and others like him, backing off simply enables the right, and allows it to win. No, this isn't all about partisan winning and losing, but ultimately politics, and hence governing, which is what you need to do if you want to change things, is about who wins and who loses -- not just at the ballot box but in the media, in the world of narrative, in the world of spin. And if you let the right win, in this case and others, nothing will change, including a socio-political culture that is deeply disturbed as a result of years and years of abuse at the hands of conservatives and their ideology of division, violence, and power.

If you really care about America, and Jon Stewart does a great deal, you must do everything you can to prevent that from happening.

The anti-Obama Republican/media narrative and why Democrats need to overcome it

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I've said it before -- a lot recently, reacting to the reaction to last week's election in Massachusetts -- and I'll say it again, I'm sick and tired of the fucking media's news fucking narrative, the story they're spinning to explain the way it is in Washington now. It's repackaged GOP propaganda, conservative talking points filtered through an enabling Beltway establishment, that's all, and yet it's being vomited into the gaping mouths of "news" consumers all across America.

Consider, for example, the opening paragraph of an ABC News article on how Obama "rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president":

President Obama, buffeted by criticism of his massive health care reform bill and election setbacks, said today he remained determined to tackle health care and other big problems despite the political dangers to his presidency.

First, it's not his reform bill, it's the Democrats' generally, and there are substantial differences between House and Senate Democrats, and it's not "massive" -- there's no public option, no government takeover of anything, no socialist menace -- it's a market-oriented approach to extending coverage and taking a bit of the power to deny coverage away from profit-driven insurance companies that have far more interest in their bottom lines than in the health and well-being of the American people (in fact, it's much better for the insurance companies, not to mention the drug companies, that people remain sick).

Second, there haven't been election setbacks, just a single setback, and, as I and many others have said again and again, it was not a referendum on Obama but rather a somewhat nationalized local election with a weak Democratic candidate and a strong Republican one that had far more to do with the poor state of the economy, for which Obama can hardly be blamed, than with Obama's and/or the Democrats' political agenda, health-care reform included.

Third, it's far too early to be talking seriously about "the political dangers to his presidency." Obama is only a year into his presidency, and, while Democrats may lose seats in Congress in this years's midterms, a common occurence for first-term presidents, the Republicans remain deeply unpopular and without anything resembling a viable alternative agenda. And, as of right now, some of the leading candidates to oppose Obama in '12 are all deeply flawed: Romney, Huckabee, Palin. Jeb Bush and perhaps Pawlenty are potentially more dangerous opponents, along with Jindal, Thune, and Cantor, but who knows who will emerge from the increasingly right-wing GOP?

To be fair, much of the rest of the article is fair, more or less, but only because it quotes Obama from an interview with Diane Sawyer, and it's a positive development that he's transitioning quickly to address the economy, the leading driver of public opinion at the moment, as he will in Wednesday's State of the Union address -- just as long as he doesn't abandon or significantly strip down health-care reform. There is simply too much at stake there, and it would be a disaster for Democrats to pass up this once-in-a-generation opportunity to begin to fix a broken system.

But the media narrative persists, backed up by Republican attacks, and Obama and the Democrats now find themselves in the difficult position of having to change or overcome that narrative if they want to get anything done without losing short-term public support (in the long term, Democratic initiatives like health-care reform should prove to be immensely popular). Doing so will require unity, courage, and determination, and yet, thus far, they have shown little capacity to be united, courageous, or determined.

Maybe now, driven to this point, a feckless majority seemingly incapable of taking advantage of the incredible opportunity to implement meaningful change on a wide variety of issues, Democrats will rise to the occasion.

Frozen in place: When conciliation is a bad thing

By Carol Gee

Former Vice President Richard Cheney is working on his memoirs and assuring its success with a good deal of news making prior to its publication. Thursday's Washington Post article by Barton Gellman adds to the breathless anticipation of Cheney's potential reading public by promising revelations of previously unreported opinions and events. Here's a Hit Tip to journalist Mark Knoller, who posted several insightful tweets about the article, along with a generous suggestion to "buy the paper" to read the story.

The Cheney piece heads the current list of "most viewed political articles" on the WaPo website. And I read it immediately, too. Headlined, "Cheney uncloaks his frustration with Bush," it reveals more little juicy tidbits guaranteed to keep us all panting to read the published tome from cover to cover. One of the most interesting to me was this aspect of Cheney's frustration with Bush, whom he evidently thinks "went soft." To quote:

Cheney's disappointment with the former president surfaced recently in one of the informal conversations he is holding to discuss the book with authors, diplomats, policy experts and past colleagues. By habit, he listens more than he talks, but Cheney broke form when asked about his regrets.

"In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from him," said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney's reply. "He said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the criticism he took. Bush was more malleable to that. The implication was that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against Cheney's advice. He'd showed an independence that Cheney didn't see coming. It was clear that Cheney's doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times -- never apologize, never explain -- and Bush moved toward the conciliatory."

. . . The former vice president remains convinced of mortal dangers that few other leaders, in his view, face squarely. That fixed belief does much to explain the conduct that so many critics find baffling. He gives no weight, close associates said, to his low approval ratings, to the tradition of statesmanlike White House exits or to the grumbling of Republicans about his effect on the party brand.

Cheney's intrigue -- What is it that keeps us all fascinated with this man, who guarded his privacy so jealously until now? As a retired psychotherapist, I am interested in his psychological make-up, particularly his apparently persistent paranoia. Others have their own reasons. But there is no doubt that his book will jump to the top of the charts when it comes out, which will please his daughter Liz, at whose suggestion Cheney is writing the book, despite past disdain for officials who wrote "tell all" books upon leaving office. It appears that he is not "frozen in place" on this issue.

Richard Cheney appears to have acquired fixed beliefs that are frozen in place, however. The first is in the concept of the "unitary" presidency, born after Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace. And the second is in a very dark world with enemies waiting to pounce and destroy him and the nation. With a model like that, is it any wonder that there is such fear mongering and craziness associated with Republican opposition to everything Obama.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

It's the GOP vs. Obama (and the American people)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Following up on Creature's post from earlier today...

From WaPo, more good poll numbers for Obama:

As President Obama prepares to address a joint session of Congress tomorrow night, he receives strong grades for his first full month in office, as large majorities of Americans support his $787 billion economic stimulus package and the recently unveiled $75 billion plan for stemming mortgage foreclosures, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Nearly seven in 10 believe Obama is delivering on his pledge to bring needed change to Washington, the poll found, and about eight in 10 say he is meeting or exceeding their expectations. At the same time, however, the bipartisan support he enjoyed as he prepared to take office has eroded substantially.

And why has it eroded? Because the Republicans have no interest in working contructively with Obama and the Democrats, because they've entrenched themselves, once more, behind extremist ideological lines, because they think they can score political points by being obstructionist.

Now, I'm not one to think that polls are infallible reflections of the truth, nor that the American people, according to the polls, are right about everything all the time. But it's an awfully good sign, not least given how virulent and, for a time, narrative-forming the Republican attacks over the stimulus plan have been, that Obama still seems to have such overwhelming public support. The honeymoon may be over -- it was short, given the urgency of the economic crisis and the bitter and divisive way the Republicans have handled themselves -- but it is impressive that he has been able to keep up that support in the midst of such attacks and with a media establishment buying, for a time, into, and regurgitating, the Republican narrative.

Republicans have turned on Obama, as expected, but, in so doing, they have sided against the American people. They will end up paying dearly in the end.