The Real Deal

THE REAL DEAL….So why did Mitt Romney crap out against a field of weak competition? The press narrative is pretty clear:

Boston Globe: “In the end, his campaign foundered for one basic reason: He lacked authenticity.” New York Times: “Mr. Romney’s advisers…conceded that they had failed to overcome doubts about Mr. Romney’s authenticity as they sought to position him as the most electable conservative in the race.” LA Times: “Romney failed the ‘authentic’ test.” Slate: “[Romney] faced one fundamental problem that almost all the papers summarize with one word: ‘authenticity.'”

Well, maybe. That’s certainly how Romney seemed to me. Still, I can’t help but notice that none of the news pieces hawking this narrative really presents much evidence for it. And based on a scientific poll of a friend I had lunch with yesterday, I’m beginning to wonder about this. To battle-hardened reporters and cynical liberals, Romney probably did seem phoney. But when I mentioned this offhandedly at lunch, not really expecting an argument, my Romney-supporting friend was clearly taken aback. That had never occurred to him. To him, Romney seemed like the real deal: conservative, good business background, command of the issues, good looks, etc. etc.

So I’m not sure. But I will say this: it felt to me that Romney’s real problem was a lack of passion from his opinion-leader supporters. I read National Review’s The Corner pretty regularly, and the magazine was editorially committed to Romney. Despite that, The Corner’s actual support was lukewarm at best: only a few of their contributors agreed with the editorial line, and even those who did never seemed especially committed to the cause. He was sort of the anti-Obama in that regard.

But judging from his spittle-flecked CPAC speech yesterday, he’s learning. Maybe by 2012 he’ll have figured out how to act more authentically wingnutty and he’ll be ready for a second losing run. And why not? He even has the “little man atop the wedding cake” look made famous by the Republican Party’s best known two-time loser, so he’s well cast for the role. Now about that Mormon thing…..

Washington Monthly - Donate today and your gift will be doubled!

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation