In a recent dead-tree version of NYMag, Benjamin Wallace-Wells had a long piece worth reading on George Romney’s Republican failure and his kid’s “success”:
You could say that the end of the moderate-Republican Establishment—the days when the smoke-filled rooms started to empty of father figures, and the casual country-club banter was replaced by something angrier—began at the party’s 1964 convention, at the Cow Palace, just south of downtown San Francisco, a week that ended with Barry Goldwater nominated for president. Political revolutions are often apparent only in retrospect, but this one was obvious to everyone right away, as if some great national timing mechanism had been involved. The conservatives, arriving and feeling triumphant, gave the event an explosive, adolescent, rumspringa energy.
This atmosphere was alarming enough to George Romney, the governor of Michigan, that he arrived a few days early, to support an amendment to the official party platform that would denounce extremism of all types. After his testimony, which also included support for an enhanced civil-rights amendment, Romney found himself in conversation with a leading southern delegate. Romney’s amendment, the delegate explained, was a nonstarter. He “made it clear that there had been a platform deal that was a surrender to the southern segregationists,” Romney later wrote in a furious letter to Goldwater. Romney was too late. The trajectory of the party had already been arranged.
The feeling of right-wing ascendance was almost physical. Some young moderates compared the atmosphere to a Nazi rally. “The booing, the hissing—it was frightening,” says Walter De Vries, who was Romney’s chief political strategist. Dwight Eisenhower, who just four years earlier had been president and was still the moderates’ icon, would later tell reporters that his niece had been “molested” on the convention floor; the plutocratic New York governor Nelson Rockefeller, trying to give a speech condemning right-wing extremism, was booed and catcalled until no one could hear him. (Rockefeller, characteristically, gave as good as he got.) Romney’s camp had long regarded Michigan’s conservatives as provincial unmentionables, deeply angry men who showed up at state conventions armed with megaphones, trying to shout the governor down. But clearly they had figured something out. In his acceptance speech, Goldwater confirmed their power. “Extremism in the defense of liberty,” he said famously, “is no vice.”…
De Vries was friends with the late, legendary Washington Post political reporter David Broder, and in 2007 spent much of his time researching a book he planned to write, with Broder’s help, about Mitt Romney, through the lens of his father’s politics. He gave the manuscript the working title Governors George and Mitt: Like Father, Like Son. But during the 2008 campaign, as De Vries was working on the manuscript, it began to occur to him that the attributes that had once drawn him to George were not so apparent in his son. The almost sacramental faith in the institutions of American life; the moral convictions so clear they frequently became rigid; the almost physical charisma—somehow none of that had survived. One day, De Vries sat down at his computer and, with no clear precipitating cause, deleted the manuscript’s title. In its place, feeling peevish, he typed in a new one, The Political Mitt Romney: Not His Father’s Son. Then he called Broder, and told him that his thesis needed to change…
Of course Wallace-Wells is not the first to suggest that Willard “Mitt” Romney’s single-minded pursuit of the presidency has been strongly influenced by his father’s failure. But he spells out exactly how nasty things were, back in what we like to pretend was a more innocent era, and how the younger Romney might have perceived that “his” party was being taken over by savages and cannibals. The problem for those of us who are not named Romney is that Mitt’s reaction seems to have been to dedicate himself to becoming the nastiest, least reasonable savage in the Republican tribe — or at least to promising the nastiest of his fellow tribalists that he’ll pander to whatever horrors their ids can throw up.
The prophet Nostradumbass
And, Mitt Romney has surrendered, completely, to the extremists. Nice legacy.
Hill Dweller
In a sane country, this clown couldn’t get within shouting distance of the Oval Office. Alas…
Villago Delenda Est
The savages and cannibals have OvenMitt by the balls right now.
Villago Delenda Est
@Hill Dweller:
The horror of Nazism is that the same country that produced Bach and Beethoven produced Himmler and Heydrich.
Amir Khalid
I guess that Mitt figures his father failed because of his scruples — scruples that kept George from
panderingappealing to the party base, and from achieving his presidential destiny. So Mitt took the lesson that moral scruple is a luxury he can’t afford as an ambitious politician. And so Mitt has abandoned the very idea of moral scruple to achieve his father’s destiny. Hence the constant lies, the inability to hold to principle. And maybe this is why he clings to Donald Trump: Trump is the Republican party in one man, its rich oligarchy and its rabid Teabagger base under the one bad comb-over. Win over The Donald, Mitt figures, and you win over the whole party.We might all think that Mitt loves George’s memory without reservation, and maybe Mitt thinks so too; but I suspect there’s a part of Mitt that has to forgive George his scruples, rather than see them as George at his best.
Kane
If Mitt Romney had been a sitting governor, congressman, or senator up for reelection in 2010, he would have been at the top of the tea party list of Republicans to be primaried. Less than two years later, the GOP is the party of Mitt.
Romney didn’t win the nomination by offering some grand vision for the country. He definitely didn’t win based on his lack of authenticity, charisma, and principles. And he certainly didn’t win based on how voters thought of his reputation as a conservative. He won primarily because he had much more money than his rivals.
joeyess
Sound familiar?
S. cerevisiae
You can rely on the old man’s money…
David Koch
you know who else had daddy issues — this guy
Amir Khalid
@Kane:
Mitt was the last one left standing in a shockingly weak field of Republican candidates. He had the most money and was the least inept. But in this, he only had to clear a bar that was all but lying on the floor. He’s up against Obama now: a better man, a better executive, and a better candidate any day of the week. If it weren’t for Republican partisanship in the American electorate, Mitt would be doing a lot worse in the polls.
Kane
The problem for Romney is that he is a congenital liar. His flagrant dishonesty is a glaring character defect that has been noted in his run for senator, governor, and his previous run for the presidency. In a political world that avoids the word “lie” at all costs, Romney’s GOP rivals throughout his political career have at some point gone on the record to say that Romney is a liar.
Citizen Alan
The saddest thing about the 2012 presidential race is that it has made me aware of George Romney, a man I knew nothing about a year ago. And from my reading of him, I think he’s someone I genuinely might admire and definitely someone who would have made a much better president in 1968 than the amoral SOB we got. I can only think George Romney would be utterly humiliated by how Mitt Romney has conducted himself. I am reminded of the incident from a few years back when George H.W. Bush gave a speech on the occasion of Jeb Bush completing his term as Florida governor and actually breaking down for a few seconds when he got to the part where Jeb (the smart one) lost the 1994 governor’s race and so Dubya became the one destined to carry the family legacy forward.
Older_Wiser
I’m just waiting for Myth Rmoney to utter the words, “socialist Kenyan.” He’s already hinting at it.
Davis X. Machina
@The prophet Nostradumbass:
Whatever it takes. Just win, baby. It’s as American as apple pie.
Ben Cisco
@Citizen Alan: Had we known how it would turn out, he wouldn’t have been the only one crying.
My sincerest hope is that Romney learns a harsh lesson regarding dumping one’s principles to obtain a cherished goal. My sincerest fear is that he won’t.
Southern Beale
Haven’t we seen this movie before? Wasn’t W’s presidency overshadowed by his daddy issues?
Jesus, people. Get some therapy. Leave the nation aloooone.
Southern Beale
@Ben Cisco:
If Romney wins it’s not going to have anything to do with him and everything to do with the obscene efforts to steal the election through voter suppression and the stranglehold a handful of super wealthy individuals have over our political system.
It will have nothing to do with democracy, everything to do with the death of democracy at the hands of plutocrats.
harlana
well, say what you will about it being a nasty time, sounds like today’s dinosaurs, moderate republicans, at least had the decency to stand up to the extremists, unlike today. if they even exist anymore, the seem to be cowering silently in a corner like their tea party counterparts have commanded them to do.
aimai
Maybe I’m sentimental but I read Cole’s cri de coeur about what he’d do with 250 million smackers and it really clarified for me what is so horrible about Romney. Its not possible to believe that this selfish man, the standard bearer for both crony capitalism and laissez faire capitalism, has the slightest intention to do good with the Presidency. He doesn’t care at all about ordinary people and never has. So every time he and Anne supposedly discuss how he wants what is best for the country or how he “knows he has to do something” to help the country that is the worst lie of all. Because both forms of capitalism are either anti-humane or result in inhuman policies and social destruction. But be that as it may Romney himself, alone, has enough money to put lots of policies and ideas into place. He doesn’t need the government to do it. If he had a pet cause he could affect it without dipping into government coffers to do it, without asking the tax payers to foot the bill. So what is left? he want the presidency because he wants it because he wants the power and the fancy clothing.
I know this is a huge “duh” post but really, it wasn’t until reading John’s post below, that it hit me so viscerally. Because I’d never asked myself what I’d do with 250 million dollars. And actually, since I think of politics as a way to improve people’s lives, I’d probably find I needed to run for the Presidency too since what would materially improve people’s lives in this country would be single payer health care and my fortune wouldn’t manage that.
aimai
The Ancient Randonneur
@Southern Beale:
My thoughts. as well.
Does every GOP male have daddy issues?
The Ancient Randonneur
@aimai:
For those 4 years he would never be stuck in traffic. With helicopter flights to Andrews AFB and streets cleared of traffic by the Secret Service for the Presidential motorcade it is always smooth sailing. It really is the ultimate perk for a onepercenter. He could donate his government salary to a charity that ensured investment bankers didn’t have to skip that new Mercedes when the stock market and banking system teeters on collapse.
MattF
I’m gonna get all psychological here for a minute. It’s been reported that after a couple of years, Romney lost interest in being Governor in Massachusetts, and just drifted along to the end of his term. If true, this pretty much rules out any rational basis for his political ambitions– it’s really all Daddy Problems. The (somewhat) good news here is that this raises the probability of self-sabotage. Romney wants to be President, but he also wants to fail. One can hope that he fails by not being elected.
NotMax
Ahem.
Romney and the White Horse Prophecy
brantl
The second half of this is the true part, I believe. I don’t think Mittens really has any principles, he’s just a chameleon that has learned to blend in with whatever the local color is. Rohrshach (sp?) Mitt.
cat48
The corporate press and corporate tv are selling Romney as “just a moderate republican” and never mention his lies or his budget plan. They want to get rid of Obama b/c he’s not nice to them, you know. Doesn’t socialize.
Boudica
@MattF: I think Romney (and Palin) thought being governor would be cool and fun (like being King!) and found out that it’s hard work (George W., too). I think part of these people’s self-delusion is what a cakewalk being president is gonna be. They are so smart and so successful…..why shouldn’t it be easy?
Frankensteinbeck
The current craziness does have deep roots. The 1964 generation, the baby boomers, are now the Angry Old People driving the Republican wagon into crazytown*. Most of the teabaggers didn’t belong to the crazy branch back then, but they were given a warning: The Civil Rights Act would lead to a world where a negro could be your boss, and your daughter might date a man of any race or religion, even a Catholic. The white supremacists seem like prophets now, and this world where a black man is president is an alien nightmare future. That the rest of us view this as progress and want much MORE equality makes it worse.
*Apologies to those of the boomer generation who did not fall for this madness. Members of your generation and the issues of that generation are running the GOP now, but just because the boomer generation contains this group does not mean boomers as a group are nuts. The boomers I know embraced the new world, but also saw what a leap it was.
Ash Can
@NotMax: Between this and the daddy issues discussed in this thread and in Cole’s thread of yesterday, my view of Romney is evolving, to coin a phrase. I still think he wants the office because of all its trappings of power and glory, like aimai says above, and is utterly in denial over any of the job’s downsides. But now I can also see how his religion and upbringing have made him feel entitled to the presidency — that it simply is “his turn,” as his wife put it. And if this is combined with a profound rejection of his father’s principles because those principles, in his view, equal failure, then he’s an even more pathetic individual than I thought he was — and one utterly unfit to hold any elected office of consequence, let alone the US presidency.
Karen S.
@aimai:
Great insight! Rmoney really is a loathsome creature.
bago
Extremism in the defense of liberty is how you get pirates. They extremely wish to liberate you from your goods.
spongeworthy
Couldn’t it just be that some Americans see this country as different than European? That they don’t like that we’re going in the same direction, a direction that will most likely lead to the same collapse Europe is experiencing?
The responses here reveal a great deal about how you all want to see your opponents. Don’t you remember doing the same thing to McCain? How he went from a war hero willing to denigrate Republicans–to your applause–to a tool of the hard right? Do you also remember how he got whacked pretty good? The only thing that changed about McCain was becoming your opponent–now he’s evil?
Why can’t your opponents just be people who see America differently? Why do you need to make them out to be something extreme and scary? Why are you afraid your ideas, your policies, are insufficient?
...now I try to be amused
To paraphrase George Wallace, Mitt Romney has decided he will never be outsavaged again.
ruemara
@spongeworthy: oh boy. Honey. Austerity, or, The Ryan Plan, is European. And it has brought about collapse. The Republican Plan is the European Plan. Entrenched old money, European. How you think criticizing Romney has something to do with being European or what ever your reference to becoming European means in your little head, I could say it’s mystifying, but it’s not, it’s just wrong.
Republicans are extreme, wrong and scary. They’ve proven it by holding meetings on inauguration day to plan how to bring down the incoming president, crafting literally hundreds of laws to investigate vaginas and generally being evil, mean fucks. So, quit whining when people call a mean, evil fuck, a mean, evil fuck.
Judas Escargot, Your Postmodern Neighbor
@aimai:
This. Same with all these shadowy billionaires in their 80s… I don’t understand them, either. You have everything the world has to offer, at your fingertips. Why spend all that cash and energy just to make life miserable for the Other? Especially when you, personally, will be dead within a decade.
After the first 2 or 3 billion, I’d pretty much stop caring about anyone else, mind my own business, and leave others alone (’tis a Dream I Have).
Deb T
@The Ancient Randonneur:
I’m a liberal democrat and I have to mention that a lot of the modern Presidents had daddy issues. Bill’s Dad died and he had a step-father and a really strong mother and married a strong intelligent woman. Obama’s dad was out of the picture early. He had a strong mom, very strong grandparents and married a strong intelligent woman.
Maybe the democrats dealt with their daddy issues better or maybe it makes the case for being raised by a strong woman and surrounded by family. I know that’s a little too facile, but I still thought it interesting.
...now I try to be amused
@Judas Escargot, Your Postmodern Neighbor:
These billionaires are true believers. I expect they’ve always existed, only they had a lot less money to spend on making mischief under Eisenhower-level tax rates. Low taxes — and Citizens United — empower the lunatic fringe.
spongeworthy
@ruemara: So not spending money is why they’re broke in Europe? C’mon, think!
Anyway, if anybody was thinking of responding “we’re not really demonizing Republicans exactly,” one look at your response should save a few pixels for Cole.
Did you know that more Americans believe Obama is “extreme” than Romney? All I’m suggesting is that you consider that other Americans–most not evil or extreme–might have a different vision for our future.
Somehow I doubt you’ll consider this. There may be hope for others.
Mnemosyne
@Deb T:
I was about to say that, too — both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have major daddy issues as well, but they both seem to have dealt with them more constructively than George W. Bush or Mitt Romney.
Maybe it’s the difference between having an absent father who you imagine you can never live up to, or having a present father who you know you’re a disappointment to.
Mnemosyne
@spongeworthy:
If I were pregnant and it turned out to be ectopic, conservatives want me to die rather than receive the medical treatment that would save my life, because that medical treatment would end the life of an embryo that has no chance of surviving to full-term. Conservatives think it’s better for both the woman and the fetus to die than for the one with the better chance of surviving to live.
You don’t find that extreme and scary?
Mnemosyne
@spongeworthy:
Yep. I realize that people who completely swallowed Reagan’s voodoo economics are unwilling to accept that trickle-down doesn’t work even when their lying eyes are showing them the proof, but Keynes was right.
If the economy is contracting, the worst thing the government can do is contract along with it. Our current unemployment problem? Private employment is actually doing pretty well, and has been for months. It’s state and local government layoffs that are dragging down the economy.
The proof is right in front of your eyes, but it goes against everything conservatives have told you for 30 years, so you’ve decided to believe them and not your lying eyes. Clap harder and the austerity fairy will bring you prosperity!
ericblair
@Mnemosyne:
Not only government. If you ran a business, had some cash flow problems, and went to the bank telling them that you were going to deal with your cash flow issues by slashing marketing and turning off your phone service to save money, what do you think they would think of your plan?
Oh yeah, just “cut the fat”. Guess what, that’s the easiest thing to say and the easiest thing to do for politicians, so most of it got done a long time ago. You’ve got two types of spending now: justifiable spending that’s endured the zillion rounds of spending cuts, and unjustifiable spending that’s protected by 800 pound gorillas that the politicians can’t or won’t fuck with. And most of this unjustifiable spending isn’t protected by Hollywood millionaires, the humanities faculties of public universities, or other wingnut bugaboos, either.
spongeworthy
@Mnemosyne: If it were true, I would find it scary. Your link doesn’t even come close to claiming that, let alone proving it.
Is this the kind of stuff you have to pretend to believe in order to convince yourselves the Others are evil? That’s pathetic.
spongeworthy
@Mnemosyne: This has nothing to do with trickle-down.
The Euros are faltering because they haven’t cut spending to any real measure, but they have raised taxes: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/europes-phantom-austerity-spending-cuts
That’s a sure recipe for failure. They’re promising spending cuts in the future that no one believes will materialize, but they’re raising taxes right now. That kills growth.
spongeworthy
@ericblair: Where does Solyndra et al fall, justifiable or not?
burnspbesq
Hopefully no one believes that the Goldwater movement suddenly materialized out of nowhere in the summer of 1964. If you do, I suggest you read Perlstein’s “Before the Storm” and follow it up with Kabaservice’s “Rule and Ruin.” Surprisingly large numbers of Republicans saw Eisenhower as a RINO and never forgave him for sending troops into Little Rock in 1957.
burnspbesq
@spongeworthy:
Everything you have written here this morning is contrary to fact. Do you think we don’t know you’re lying?
Kane
Sound familiar? The quote is from Theodore H. White’s The Making of the President 1968, describing Gov. George Romney.
Jebediah
@burnspbesq:
@spongeworthy:
I don’t recognize the nym, so I am a little bit curious as to whether or not HE knows he’s lying.