You know that thing you just [built]? Don't [build] that. - Douglas Adams on learning experiences.
This is a plea to the Peggy Noonans, George Wills, William Kristols, David Brooks, Joe Scarboroughs, and so on of the world. Sit down. Have a chair. Don't worry - Jennifer Rubin and Dick Morris are not invited. I wouldn't do that to all of you. And please, forgive me of my presumption that I may talk to my elders in such a way, but I believe that sometimes, it is worth doing.
I have called you all here today to ask you when you're going to take this as a learning experience. They say that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks - but I daresay that some of you are not half so old as you feel, and the other of you love to be contrary to conventional wisdom. I see no reason for you to stop that tradition with such a tired and worn maxim. I understand, Messrs. and Mdms., that you are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans. Perhaps you have always been more radical at heart, and the rightward shift that your party has experienced over the last few decades has been what you've always secretly wanted. Perhaps you were sincerely converted to a more right-wing view, and perhaps you just have been with the red team so long that you can't imagine being with the blues.
You probably have no idea what this is from.
Whatever the reason that you and I talk from opposite sides of the visible light spectrum, for the good of the nation, you have a job to do for the next seven weeks. Ms. Noonan, in today's Wall Street Journal you write, "Reagan [was] genially ruthless... But then it wasn’t about ... feelings, it was about America. You can be pretty tough when it’s about America." What I'm about to ask you to do might seem a little bit ruthless to your Republican Party. But it's about America, and Ms. Noonan is absolutely right; you can be pretty tough when it's about America.
Admit it: Barack Obama is the better man for the job.
More after the fold.
I'm not asking you to suddenly agree with the overwhelming majority of economists, nor the social gospel of Jesus, or every single major ally (unlinked: Brazil and other Latin American nation tend to be very pro-Obama as well) that needs America in tip-top shape to deal with problems too big for any one country to bear. Those are things that you have been confronted with many times before, and turned away from.
I am asking you to follow the logical conclusion of your own editorials. You are willing to pillory Willard M. Romney for his campaign pitfalls. And yet, as was highlighted so effectively by then-Senator Obama's confident assertion that he could both campaign and work in the Senate during the time of a financial crisis - because a President must do many things at once - a campaign is easier to run than a Presidency. In fact, much of the Obama disillusionment centers on this premise, doesn't it? Mr. Obama spoke of horses and everyone dreamed that they'd be riding unicorns.
Unicorns are kind of overrated anyway.
And yet, if Mitt Romney can't run a campaign, what hope does he have to run the Presidency? We're not talking about economic policies or foreign policies, we're talking about competency at executing anything. A campaign offers a situation closest to any businessman's home turf - the news cycle hangs on your every word (for good and ill), but you're not accountable for anything but your job itself - approval rating. You do not have to deal with the pressures and realities of dealing with a legislature and a judicial branch - who each have their own ideas. You are not the beginner and ender of most things as President, you are the middleman - the ultimate middleman. The Congress starts the ideas, and the Judiciary decides if it's allowed to do that. Your job is mostly having a say in what gets out of the looney bin the legislative branch and into the wild, and interpreting the instructions handed to you by Congress. (Executive orders.)
This is the Mitt Romney with a campaign administration that has as much time to prepare talking points as the Obama administration has to do that and actually make sure that they are taking on-going steps to maintain the security of our people. A Mitt Romney with a budget that is millions larger than the President's warchest; a Mitt Romney with a Congress that's doing everything that it can to help him make his talking point of "The President's not working."
I'm sure you disagree.
You might say, "I don't want to admit that. It hurts. People are smart enough to draw that conclusion from my column without me saying it." And many people would be, you're right - but now's not the time for taking unnecessary chances. You there, Mr. Scarborough. You decried, "[your] stupid party," not that long ago. I don't think your party is stupid - I think they've been fooled by an echo chamber that has done them a disservice. There will be a percentage of Americans who, after Mr. Obama wins this re-election, will continue to insist that Mr. Obama cheated in some fashion. I think we can all agree that they are wrong.
And it is your job - as people who they listen to and respect - to prepare them for this. They are not dumb, but they have been lied to an awful lot about biases that don't exist. And they have had truths omitted that can continue to inform their misconceived look at the world. It is your job, as the intercessors of truth between the powerless and the powerful, as the fourth branch of government, to disabuse them of these notions.
You can couch this discussion on your own terms. I recognize that you are Republicans. Though I do not agree, I will not begrudge you if you say, "Though I disagree with this President on many things and feel that he is not leading this country in the right direction, he will lead the country wherever it goes with more competency and safety than a Romney Administration ever could."
Really, you're in trouble right now.
And then I ask you for one favor more: these are the businessmen who have run for President in recent recollection:
- Steve Forbes (didn't even leave a mark on the '96.)
- Ross Perot (the butt of many jokes.)
- Ralph Nader (a painful memory for us.)
- George W. Bush (a painful memory for everyone.)
- Willard M. Romney (a painful memory for you.)
- Herman Cain (the first Pokemon Trainer candidate.)
- Jon Huntsman (didn't even leave a mark on this election.)
Herbert Hoover was a businessman, too. Not one businessman has presided over an economic recovery.
Businesses are not government. I'm not asking you to repudiate everything that you have convinced yourself to believe in, only to face up to and own some of the conclusions that go a half-step further than "Mitt Romney's bad at running a presidential campaign." There's "not my strong suit" and then there's "terrible," and the latter should reveal more about the type of candidate (and not merely the individual candidate) than you've been willing to give it credit for. Disseminate that to your readers.
Otherwise, your candidate in 2016 will be as much of a joke as the one in 2012. Otherwise, America's going to continue to be wounded through this next term because people will not give President Obama the legitimacy and respect he is due. I was not happy about either Bush election, and there was a lot fishy there. But it was a done deal, and I - like most liberals - moved on. We didn't feel it was right, but there is the President we have, and not the one we want. Right now, a large minority of conservatives seem to be unable to do so, and it is hurting the country.
And if you don't do this, we're all in trouble.