There is no shortage of those on the right who would try to liken the upcoming Manichean conflict between Romney and Obama as Reagan vs. Carter. This is something my libertarian friend will bring up occasionally, knowing full well I'm an Obama supporter. He does it with his usual arrogance and a self confident sneer tugging at the end of his mouth, brimming with the immaturity I find to be the hallmark of just about every libertarian I have ever known. This would be the dream of the Republican party: paint President Obama as the weak kneed appeaser vs. a man who will restore America to Saturday morning cartoon glory. They so desperately want Obama to give a State of the Union malaise speech, and watch as the reincarnation of Reagan cuts taxes and divides Americans from non-American communist sympathizers and their radical environmentalist allies. Finally, the enemies of conservatism will meet their tragic end, as the Republicans will save America from a weak economy and a tide of invasive regulations.
They really don't like me....
Why do I say this? Because I've seen two interviews with Jimmy Carter recently, and I wonder why they're bringing him up. First, Rachel did a sensitive interview with him, and most recently, with Piers Morgan who clearly was angling for pinning Carter to Obama as best he could. He asked questions about their personal relationship, and got President Carter to reveal the administration was trying to maintain some distance from him. I can't help but wonder why Carter, a President not normally brought up into public view outside of his charitable work, is now in people's faces before Obama's state of the union. They could have just as easily asked Clinton what his views on Obama were. Heck, there are tons of Democrats ready for the job, but to make Carter visible is clearly to stain people's view of Obama and bring back the image of a man who's weakness and poor position in history led to the Reagan revolution.
They really DO like me!
Thankfully though, this ploy is "bullpucky" as Rachel would say. Whenever my friend tries to paint Obama as Carter, a man who will eventually give way to a weak economy and his impotent handling of a crisis situation, I usually grin, then turn to him and say "You wish." In fact, if there is a race that 2012 will be like, it will be a mix of Clinton vs. Dole and Bush vs. Kerry. This is what the Republican establishment knows and is trying its damnedest to wiggle its way out of. Why else would people like Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, and Chris Christie not simply step on Romney and snatch away the brass ring? They know what's in store for their political careers once they melt under the white hot lights of the national stage. When Republicans smell defeat, they try their best to confuse and conflate the situation until it works to their favor. They know this has the makings of becoming a landslide defeat. They have two main problems: Romney's fecklessness as a politician and a base who realizes this and has never really gotten along with him or the establishment that supports him in the first place. I remember the night of the Bush-Kerry election. I was of voting age, but I didn't cast a ballot because I knew there was no point. My friends were all huddled around the television that night, but I stayed in my room doing other things, much to their surprise. As far as I was concerned, there was a war on and 9/11 and the fear it inspired was in America's recent memory. This would buttress a strong point of the Republican portfolio: national defense and militarism. It's what's always repulsed me about the Republicans. Secondly, I watched a single debate between Kerry and Bush, and I couldn't help but notice that Kerry was devoid of charisma. I was raised with Clinton and felt first hand how he made a connection with the average man. Kerry came off as cold and unskilled in debates, and didn't inspire the necessary level of trust in the audience to steer the ship of state. Even when he counter punched you were left feeling that everything was mechanical. The common wisdom was that the election was "God, Guns, and Gays," but I thought the specter of the war was too great for Kerry, an unnatural leader, to take the reins. I know this may not jibe with what many of you thought of the election and may seem like an opinion based on instinct, but we're instinctual creatures and I can usually get a good read on people in this department.
A picture is worth...half of Mitt Romney's wealth.
Fast forward to 2012. We have Willard M. Romney, a technocrat from Massachusetts who has a great set of personal characteristics if you want to strip mine a company, but awful when it comes to inspiring confidence in people. When I converse with my libertarian friend, I shocked him when I described Romney as a "brittle man who has never been tested by adversity or hardship, condescending, loathes to have his authority questioned, and an amoral sycophant who will scheme to achieve his goals." What's worse: he oozes these qualities from his being and cannot hide them to save his life. It's the downside of having the Emotional Intelligence of a toddler. Romney will of course try to set up the conditions for Reagan vs. Carter as best he can, by making use of low information voters and poor Democratic messaging to make people believe that somehow Obama wants to appease the Muslims and continue pulling childishly at the levels of power while ruining the economy. Gingrich of course has taken things further, as Romney doesn't do wingnuttery as naturally, but the idea is the same. The problem is the dissonance with reality is so stark, so clear, that even the most low information, milquetoast moderate is not going to believe what they hear. Combine this with the fact that Romney doesn't even believe the Ann Coulter-esque lines he's spewing will further signal to any homo sapiens that Romney's core is nowhere to be found.
"Of course the economy is getting better!" or, how to make Laura Ingraham's jaw drop.
What we will see from coming battle between Obama and Romney is that our President has what it takes to connect to voters and inspire confidence. Obama is a skilled politician and does not make the unforced errors that we've seen Romney make so far on the campaign trail. This comes from the simple fact that the man has an actual core to his being. It comes out in natural spurts, like we saw with his recent ditty. That was an instant cultural connection because of the weight of its sincerity and the fact it gave the public a glimpse into a man that they instinctively know has to maintain a polished, predictable image. Romney is no novice to political kabuki, except the shape shifting that has thus far served him will have no place here. It was always a one trick pony. It's even less effective in an era of Youtube and cheap camera phones. If there is no connection, then even the most delectable doggie treats of race baiting and Obama derangement will taste bland to even the most die hard Tea bagger. This will be the reason for Rmoney's defeat.
I think in 2012, I'll be in my room again, reading a book, and when I hear the car horns honking outside, I won't have to wonder who emerged the victor.