ce Romnifique!—ce formidable!—oh, to be so gifted with dissociations and double-binds, like our hero, Mr. Romney
“Mitt Romney was asked today in South Carolina whether he thinks Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani will have an impact in attracting Christian conservatives to the Rudy camp. His answer, Jonathan Martin reports: ‘Not at all.'”—writes Eric vom Kleefield in a TMP ElectionCenter post titled Romney Downplays Robertson’s Endorsement Of Giuliani
“I don’t think that the Republican Party is going to choose a pro-choice, pro-gay civil union candidate to lead our party,” Romney added … etc.
Note the sleight-of-hand disqualification, a species of double-bind in which the respondent changes the content of the question or statement:
“I don’t think that the Republican Party is going to choose a pro-choice, pro-gay civil union candidate to lead our party.”
The statement is Functionally equivalent to: I don’t think a good little boy or girl should choose such a option.
First injunction: you will make a choice.
Second injunction: to be a good little boy or girl, you will choose what is my choice; hence, you effectively have no choice.
Our intuition: Romney has confused conservatism with some sort of creepy-nightmare-paternalism, a blunt-instrument American Caesarism, only the Caesar is the caricature of an uptight-screwball, seething-with-impotent-rage middle manager, affordable-tract-housing suburban father circa 1963.
P.S. Here is the problem for Romney: how many Evangelicals know who e.g. Weyrich is?—or Bopp, despite his cool name? But everyone knows who Pat Robertson is—whether you agree with him or not, you know who he is, and you know that he is a staunch believer etc.