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 #151: "The Bog Girl" by Karen Russell

From the June 20 issue...

My loyal readers (if there are still any, which I doubt) will know I'm usually not a fan of Magical Realism, which, as you may also know, is Karen Russell's stock in trade. That said, there's nothing I love more than having my antipathy for magical realism shattered by an awesome story like "The Bog Girl."

Briefly, an Irish teenager discovers the body of a young woman who as been buried in a bog for over 2,000 years and begins to date her. What more do you need, right? If I'd read that one-line description somewhere else, and wasn't on a mission to review every New Yorker short story, I doubt I'd have read "The Bog Girl." But maybe I should start doing a George Costanza and do the opposite of everything I think I should do.

Where Russell succeeds here is in two main areas: 1.) Making us really love Cillian, the teenager who falls in love with the bog girl, and 2.) pulling the unbelievable trick making the characters…

Holiday Q&A, Volume 1

These questions come to us from Grace. Thanks for sending your questions!! Answers below:
What is the most thrilling mystery you have read and/or watched?
The Eiger Sanction (book and film) by Trevanian is what's coming to mind. International espionage. Mountain-climbing assassins. Evil albino masterminds. Sex. Not a bad combination. Warning, this is completely a "guy" movie, and the film (feat. Clint Eastwood) is priceless 70s action movie cheese. But in case that's your thing...
What's the deal with Narcos?
Narcos is a Netflix show about the rise and fall (but mostly the fall) of Columbian cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar. Thus far there are two seasons of 10 episodes each. RIYL: The film Blow, starring Johnny Depp; the book Zombie City, by Thomas Katz; the movie Goodfellas; true crime; anything involving the drug trade. My brief review: Season 1 started out a bit slow and I know a bunch of people who never made it past the first few episodes. Some of the acting is a…

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…