Lee Siegel tells us (at the Daily Beast) that Mitt Romney is doing a better job at threading the needle on his way to the GOP nomination than most people are giving him credit for. There’s actually a case to be made for this proposition — how the hell has Romney remained in the top tier at all? — and I’m willing to hear Siegel out. But before Siegel gets to his point, he says this:
Why is anyone surprised at the instability of the Republican race? The Republican Party is now mostly a movement. It’s a party only in its upper echelons. You have a relatively small group of Republicans who, thanks to the amplifications of cable and the Internet, and thanks to the liberal media’s pornographic obsession with the hard right, have been wielding a disproportionate influence over the GOP. You have primaries in which traditionally only the hardcore faithful vote — and sometimes, in an open primary, Democrats out to make some trouble. It is hardly a shocker that the most fanatical candidate — first Gingrich, now Santorum — is going to come out on top for a while. There is nothing wild or astonishing about it.
“The Republican Party is now mostly a movement” — I have no argument with that statement in isolation, because the GOP is, in fact, now a mass of angry, fist-waving delusional lunatics, with a moderate remnant that’s just large enough to give Romney a shot at the nomination. But Siegel follows this up by telling us that the party isn’t “mostly” the movement you and I and all sensible people think it is — he says that “a relatively small group of Republicans” have disproportionate power” … and it’s our fault! Well, not yours and mine, but the “liberal media,” out of a “pornographic obsession” (and yes, I know that Siegel really ought to avoid talking about pornographic obsessions), in cahoots with cable TV and the evil Internet (the latter being the White Whale toward which Siegel directed his Ahab-like rage in his 2008 book, Against the Machine).
So, wait: the “liberal media” actually makes more hard-right lunatics vote in primaries? By writing about them? Liberal journalism is like sowing the dragon’s teeth — wingnut warriors arise from earth wielding “NObama” signs, then head to the polls? How does this work?
Oh, and lunatics win Republican primaries in part because “sometimes, in an open primary, Democrats out to make some trouble”? Seriously? The evidence being what? Kos’s call for a pro-Santorum vote, which came twelve days ago, which means it’s affected no results in any GOP contests that have concluded, and which was immediately denounced by two of Kos’s own co-bloggers? Why are we supposed to believe this even could work? Because Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos pushed Hillary Clinton across the finish line ahead of Barack Obama four years ago?
****
Siegel’s conclusion about Romney, ultimately, is this:
By performing his aloofness from and contempt for the radical right, even as he fakes solidarity with it, Romney is doing exactly what he needs to do. He is keeping the radical right close to him for the general election by seeming to bow to its power, even as he is signaling to everyone else that he knows how miserably inadequate the support of the radical right will be in the general election.
Translation: Romney is successfully signaling to us that his wooden recitation of right-wing talking points is phony — but the wingnut rubes are too stupid to get it. He’s still managing to keep this rube voting bloc “close to him” by “fak[ing] solidarity with it.”
Which doesn’t explain why the rubes aren’t voting for him. Oh, yeah, I forgot: they’re not voting for him because they’re not really a significant bloc, and they only seem so because the liberal media and cable and the Net have inflated their numbers. Which, um, doesn’t explain why Romney would even bother to try to mollify this chimerical, “miserably inadequate” group in the first place. Oh, yeah: the creators of these spectral voters still manage to get them to vote in large numbers.
But only in the primaries.
Just trying to follow this logic makes my head hurt.
(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)
Logic: Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Steve, I think you are being much too generous in even describing Siegel’s thought processes as “logic”.
Steve, I’m actually really impressed you managed to untangle Siegel’s “logic” at all.
I was kinda thinking the same the other day. (Except not about the liberal media creating the frothing right. That’s … curious.)
Romney’s actually doing spectacularly well. He’s a Mormon and he designed Obamacare Alpha. He’s been leading the whole time. That’s pretty amazing, even before you factor in his “Ow! My Butt!” campaign stylings.
I’m glad you posted this. I don’t pay enough attention to this nitwit. That stuff about Uma Thurman is taking pathetic to eleven.
Well there is the empirical fact that primary/caucus voters are a tiny proportion of general election voters, and very little evidence that they constitute a random representative sample of the Republican, never mind the national, population as a whole.
So in that context, it is arguable that Romney is doing rather well – before you factor in his money and organisational advantages. However his chief tool has been the superpac and negative advertising. So if you want to blame the media you have to focus on his rich and corporate base which supports him.
Santorum doesn’t need a liberal media to amplify his message. He does it all on his own because he is trying to motivate his base to go out and vote. Blame low turn-outs, religious fanaticism and hate radio if you want, but the liberal media? Only if you want to paint Romney as a reasonable moderate. A hard sell.
I think he may be explaining what Romney is trying to do. Maybe. There’s an unwarranted assumption that Romney’s true colors were shown when he ran for Senate or when he ran for and served as governor of Massachusetts. But the Massachusetts is almost as liberal as the wingnuts are conservative, so how do we know that Romney isn’t just a chameleon? He governed much like he promised the Massachusetts voters he would, perhaps because he had to deal with a very Democratic legislature. Why wouldn’t he govern the country the way he says he would, particularly if he has a Republican legislature (which he will, if he becomes president).
I think trying to find the “true” Romney is a fool’s game. All we know for sure is that he’ll cut taxes on wealthy people and slash the budget for everyone else.
And, in any case, even if he is going to govern as a moderate in the Poppy Bush mold, he isn’t doing a good job if he’s making all kinds of promises he has no intention of keeping and he’s doing massive damage to his standing with crucial voting blocs, like Latinos, for example. If he’s making himself unelectable in the general, he’s not doing it right.
Well it does help that Romney is the only candidate the Ron Paul has NOT attached in the dabates.
dangles Paulista bait and steps back
Yeah, a bowel movement.