Skip to main content

The Inevitability of the Romney Campaign

Might as well just begin the triumphal chorus right now: Mitt Romney's going to win the Republican nomination. For a minute there it looked like maybe Rick Santorum might make a miracle run to front. Even I thought so. But then, I forgot one of the Cardinal rules of politics, as stated by Jimmy the Greek.

Along with being a native of Stubenville, Ohio (minutes from where I grew up), The Greek was a world-famous bookie and sports commentator. He took bets on absolutely anything and everything sports-related. Few people know, however, realize he was also a politics junkie and loved to make bets on elections. Anyway, the Greek used to say that--except in times of extreme duress, like say, post-WWI Germany--the most centrist candidate will always win. I think Romney's latest wins in Michigan and Arizona have borne this adage out quite well.

Look at the two Republican front-runners:

Romney is this plastic, air-brushed, shrink-wrapped Barbie doll, middle-aged corporate white man who will say whatever it takes, stand on whatever side of whatever issue he has to, to get elected. He puts his foot in his mouth daily trying to sound like a "Joe Sixpack" kind of guy who can connect to normal people, one of whom he clearly is not. It seems he's incapable of saying anything genuine or truly speaking his mind. It's only when he makes these terrible gaffs that we get a window into his psyche.

On the other hand, you have Rick Santorum, an off-the-cuff, straight-shooter who speaks his mind (even if he's crazy and full of shit) and riles people up. Say what you will, when he speaks people listen, if for no other reason than just to see what he's going to say next. In this bullshit-choked modern world we live in, somebody like Santorum really cuts through the static an appeals to people at a gut level, however...

...he's way too far to the Right to get elected in this country. Period. Even though Santorum is much more genuine, consistent, and determined in his convictions, he will not get elected because at that same gut-level his convictions scare people. People would much rather have Mr. Waffling, middle-of-the-road Romney over some wacko like Santorum.

Contrary to public belief, most people out there in this country (and yes, I'm generalizing here) are pretty normal; they want to be kept safe, they want to have jobs, they want to live in dry, warm homes, they want to eat, they want to provide for their families. Frankly, if most people are able to do this--and, in spite of what you hear in the media, things are still pretty good in this country--they are not going to give a shit about radical views on abortion or gay marriage or universal health care or the tax code. They're gonna want someone who, even if they disagree on a few issues here or there, is going to be level-headed, rational, and stable.

Radical views scare people, whether those views are liberal or conservative. What's more important, in my opinion, is someone who has a well-defined set of beliefs, meaning you know where he's coming from, but who's also reasonable and open to compromise; someone who can be flexible about his own set of beliefs--when necessary--in order to get things done.

That's why Santorum is never going to win at the National level. That's why, despite his woodeness, Romney has this air of inevitability as the Republican nominee; he's the closest to the center. Fortunately it's also inevitable that he's going to lose to Obama. Obama has his own authenticity issues, but he's a hell of a lot more charming than Mitt Romney and he's already had the job for four years. Furthermore, he's also closer to the center than Romney and doesn't come off as being so woefully out of touch with the needs & concerns of the average American as Romney does. But I'm getting into a whole other bag of issues here, that's best left for another time...


Popular posts from this blog

New Yorker Fiction Review: "The Apologizer" by Milan Kundera

Issue: May 4, 2015

Rating: $$

Review: It took me five years and three separate attempts to finish Milan Kundera's famous novel, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, but in spite of that, quotes and insights from that book still rattle round my head on a weekly basis. What I mean to say is: my feelings on Kundera are very similar to my feelings on Haruki Murakami. I enjoy reading his work, but in small doses, like this short story.

Like Murakami, Kundera uses elements of magical realism, but where in a Murakami story you might encounter a flying dolphin or a disappearing hotel or a person who has lived his whole life in the same room, refusing to leave, Kundera's magical realism offers more direct insights and perspective on real life.

In Kundera's worlds, time and space are malleable and everything that ever happened in history is happening at the same time, and the narrator is a completely omniscient, caring, witty, and hands-on god-like being.

And so it is with "The Apo…

New Yorker Fiction Reviews: "Meet the President!" by Zadie Smith

Each week I review the short fiction from a recent issue of The New Yorker. If you told me when I was 12 that I'd be doing this I'd have been like, "Dork. There's no such thing as blogs," and I'd have been right...

Issue: Aug. 12 & 19, 2013

Story: "Meet the President!"

Author:Zadie Smith

(Please note: I've developed a highly sophisticated grading system, which I'll be using from now on.  Each story will now receive a Final Grade of either READ IT or DON'T READ it. See the bottom of the review for this story's grade...after you've read the review, natch.)

Plot: Set in England, far into the future (lets say 2113) a privileged youth of 15, named Bill Peek, encounters a few poor villagers from a small, abandoned coastal town on the southeast shore. He meets a little girl named Aggie, who is going to her sister's funeral. Peek is cut-off from real life by a sophisticated video game system that is implanted in his head, therefore th…

A Piece of Advice I Learned From My Grandfather

My grandfather was one of the most learned men I know. He read widely and voraciously, and not just in the sciences (he was a doctor); he loved politics, philosophy, and great literature as well. Whenever he finished a book he would write his thoughts about the book in the front cover and then sign and date it. To this day every once in a while I will open a book from my bookshelf or my mother's bookshelf, or at one of my family members' homes, and there will be my grandfather's handwriting. He was also a great giver of his books; if you remarked that you liked a particular one or wanted to read it, you were almost sure to take it home with you.

Reading is a very solitary pursuit but my grandfather was not a solitary person. He relished having family and friends around him which is convenient because he was blessed with a lot of both. And he carried out his intellectual life in a very "public" way as well. He was, in some ways, an intellectual evangelist. If he r…