how Romney botched the Mormon-Kennedy-speech issue by setting up impossible expectations, by consistently failing to identify opportunity and seize the initiative, and by allowing others to frame the debate

November 15, 2007 in 2008, analysis, argument, campaign communications, campaign communiques, campaign literature, campaign management, conservatism, election, election 2008, Evangelicals, GOP, incompetence, media, mitt romney, republicans, rhetoric, romney, strategy, stupidity, the dark soul of Mitt Romney, triumph of unreason
Tags: , AP, argument, associated press, cbsnews.com, dialectic, douglas w. kmeic, ed stoddard, Glen Johnson, jfk, mormon confession, mormonism, president john f. kennedy, reuters, rhetoric

“ARLINGTON. Texas (Reuters) – Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney needs to assure evangelicals that his Mormon faith would not be his ultimate guide if he wants their support, an influential Southern Baptist official said on Tuesday,” writes the estimable and precise Ed Stoddard of Reuters in a story titled Baptist advice to Romney: follow JFK’s lead

“If Romney wants to get significant Southern Baptist and evangelical support he’s going to have to give a Kennedy-style speech,” said Richard Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

Land was referring to a speech by then-presidential candidate John F. Kennedy in Houston in 1960 in which he assured southern evangelicals he would not let his Catholic faith dictate his policies but defended the right of a Catholic to run for office … etc.

The problem for Land is this: how can he embrace Romney and not appear to endorse the Mormon Confession, which he cannot do and remain consistent with his tradition and his reading of the Apostolic kyregma? So what Land wants from Romney—if we read Land correctly—is a rationale similar to the rationale Kennedy offered the nation in Houston in 1960. Regard: Often in a negotiation to get a concession you need to offer a rationale that allows the conceding party to save face or to justify his or her new position. Otherwise the other party risks being perceived as inconsistent, weak, too easily swayed etc., or risks collapse altogether. (Instance: Say that management extracts too many concessions from labour negotiators without offering a rationale or rationale(s); the result will be collapse in the form of the labour negotiators themselves getting dismissed by their organization.)

We are indifferent to whether Romney chooses to issue Land and his coreligionists their rationale. That would be between Romney and Land, because we, for our part, could not possibly care less. But what does interest us is how badly Romney has played this issue—how, once again, Romney has ceded effective control to others—in this case, Land—how, once again, Romney has positioned himself such that whatever move he makes, he loses.

Observe:

“This weekend at a gathering in New Hampshire, former Gov. Mitt Romney was asked, yet again, whether he would give a speech outlining his religious beliefs,” writes Douglas W. Kmeic in a story titled There’s More To Romney Than Mormonism; National Review Online: GOP Hopeful Must Refocus Voters Away From Religion

He said he would be happy to do so, but that some of his advisers caution against doing so, since it would “draw too much attention to that issue alone.”

It’s too late – the governor and his faith have our attention … etc., etc.

Well, yes and no, Mr. Kmeic. Romney has had our attention, and has been publicly deliberating about a possible address on the issue, for months. See:

Romney’s fatal indecision (ii): Hamlet ponders his Mormism

Romney has concluded that to allow the issue to remain suspended in the twilight of an eternal filibuster—to feign a divided mind or a divided camp—is more useful to his candidacy than to decide the issue one way or the other.

“I have some folks who think I should do it soon, some say later, some say never, some say right away,” Romney said. “I’ll make the decision. But there’s no particular urgency because I’m making progress in the states where I’m campaigning,” or so says his imperious and aloof excellency, Willard Milton Romney himself as reported by Glen Johnson in an AP release titled Romney’s advisors’ say on speech.

No particular urgency!? What leadership. What courage. What commitment to principle—the principle of expedience. (This explains a lot about Romney’s decision making process and why his campaign seems to shamble from disaster to catastrophe like a reeling drunkard. The man simply does not think ahead, nor does he explore the consequences of his acts.) But derisive laughter aside, Romney’s dilatory filibuster is useful for any number of reasons beyond a simple lack of “urgency.” Here are a few:

(a) The issue compels not just press, but sympathetic press—does it not offend your sense of fair play when people are excluded because of their confession or participation in a faith community?

(b) The issue draws attention away from Romney himself, always useful if you happen to be Romney himself

(c) The issue serves as an effective alibi for the non-performance of the Romney campaign—do you oppose Romney?—well, you must be anti-Mormon

(d) Related to (c), the issue transfers the burden of proof for Team Romney’s non-performance on to the querent, as the querent is enjoined to account for how Romney can be opposed or dismissed on grounds other than his Mormon confession.

But here is the problem for Romney, and it is functionally the same problem that Romney faces in the early-primary states: Romney has botched expectations.

(a) Romney’s delays and deliberations on the issue license voices like President Land to issue calls for a decision and get lots of attention when they do so—had Romney acted decisively one way or the other he could have preempted this discussion. Are you a pastor without portfolio who craves media attention? Write a press release calling for Romney to deliver a Kennedy-esque speech. Or: make yourself available for interviews and promise to explain how Romney can reach out to Evangelicals etc.

(b) Romney, by means of his interminable delays and effectively meaningless filibusters, has transferred the initiative to claimants like Land. This means that Romney has allowed Land to both frame the issue and set the terms for the debate.

(c) Note precisely what Land has called for: a speech like Kennedy’s—say what?!-–that’s a high standard, wouldn’t you say?—could Romney ever in his life deliver a speech like Kennedy’s?—answer: no. Neither could we. Neither could anyone. So why allow someone to set such a standard for you?

(d) Now, no matter what Romney decides, or when he decides it, or if he never decides the issue, he loses.

Were Romney to decide to forgo a Kennedy speech, he provides Land and his coreligionists the rationale to not vote for Romney and not be perceived as anti-Mormon. Why?—because Land has shifted the burden of proof—he and others have asked for their rationale and never got it. Nor did they ever get a clear and well supported ‘no’. Hence they may conclude on presumptive grounds that (a) their case had merit on the simple grounds that it was not dismissed out of hand, and (b) since their concerns went unanswered, those must have merit too. Perhaps to embrace Romney really is to embrace the Mormon confession—Romney himself could never bring himself to oppose the claim according to the terms that Land has demanded—Land enjoys the benefit of reasonable doubt, does he not?

-or-

Were Romney to decide to issue his Kennedy speech, he loses on several grounds. (a) Understand: In a sense, what Land demands is not a Kennedy speech, but the antithesis of the Kennedy speech. What made the Kennedy speech effective was that it was an instance of Kennedy seizing the initiative to set the terms of the debate in advance. What Land demands is not initiative as an expression of independence but its opposite: compliance. Romney is incapable of delivering the Kennedy speech as he ceded effective control of the issue months ago. Romney, alas, can only comply or not-comply. (b) The expectations for such a speech are by this time so high that whatever noise Romney emits, by whatever force of eloquence or strength of argument, will fall well short of the mark. Romney is not Kennedy. But even if Romney were Kennedy, or had Kennedy’s leadership or eloquence, the historical moment will not support such a speech—this is not 1960! (c) So: Whatever Romney does now—after having waited for so long—will be perceived as a concession or a sign of weakness. (d) Related to (c), were Romney to issue this concession in the form of a speech, he will find himself confronted by further calls for further concessions, clarifications, and explanations on the issue of his Mormon confession—because Romney failed to act decisively at a time when he could frame the debate, other players will do it for him, and their demands will only escalate.

Question: How can Romney scratch, claw, kick, and thrash himself free from this box he willfully, deliberately nailed himself into? We haven’t got a clue. An experienced or effective communicator would never get himself or herself trapped like this. And: This is not an aberration for Romney. Setting up impossible expectations, consistently failing to identify opportunity or seize the initiative, and allowing others to frame the debate is how Romney has botched his whole campaign. See:

Chris Cillizza provides further evidence against the success of the Romney von Schieffln plan

Oh, but by all means, let us make this ineffective counter-of-office-receipts our president! He is super-rich, after all.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

“myclob” in his rejoinder to Ruffinni reinforces the conviction of millions to never support Romney (or at least he reinforced our conviction)

November 11, 2007 in 2008, analysis, argument, campaign communications, campaign communiques, campaign literature, campaign management, election, election 2008, gaffs and pratfalls, GOP, incompetence, media, mitt romney, policy, republicans, rhetoric, romney, strategy, stupidity, the dark soul of Mitt Romney, triumph of unreason
Tags: argument, argumentation theory, blog.electromneyin2008.com, data, myclob, Patrick Ruffinni, people

In a Townhall.com editorial titled The Top 10 Things to Know About ’08, Patrick Ruffinni writes:

… 5. Be the Guy (or Gal) People Want to Vote For. Emotion, charisma, and nostalgia are still huge factors in driving the vote. Committed observers of politics disparage this basic fact — while candidates who are able to establish an emotional connection with the voters keep laughing all the way to the White House.

Hillary continues to romp thanks to Democratic nostalgia for Bill despite lingering doubts about her electability. Mike Huckabee, who’s good with a quip, edged the more rigorous Sam Brownback out of the race. The pro-choice Giuliani thrived while the pro-life McCain tanked because of the connection the former built with Americans on 9/11. Appeals to reason increasingly fall on deaf ears. That sounds like a stinging indictment, but it’s not. It’s simple reality. And smart politicians need to adapt to it … etc.

Someone named “myclob” responds to Ruffinni in a blog.electromneyin2008.com post titled Is Patrick Ruffinni Jaded?

Unfortunatley Patrick doesn’t give us an example of “appeals to reason falling on def ears”, but not only is he bemoaning the fact that people no longer listen to reason, he is actively telling politicians to stop trying to make “appeals to reason”. Contrast Mr. Raffinni to Mr. Lincoln …

Various responsa:

(1) Say what!? Mr. Ruffinni does develop his thesis with examples that support the notion that “Emotion, charisma, and nostalgia are still huge factors in driving the vote.” His examples:

1. Hillary continues to romp thanks to Democratic nostalgia for Bill despite lingering doubts about her electability.
2. Mike Huckabee, who’s good with a quip, edged the more rigorous Sam Brownback out of the race.
3. The pro-choice Giuliani thrived while the pro-life McCain tanked because of the connection the former built with Americans on 9/11.
   

In each of Ruffinni’s 3 examples a reasoned position loses to, respectively, an emotional attachment to (1) an era, (2) a quick wit, or (3) a national hero. Ground and consequent, not once, not twice, but 3 times in a row!—See how that works, Myclob? Duh! Oh, well, I suppose that you don’t see how that works since you missed it entirely. You prate about the utility of logic and evidence yet you can’t identify a simple argument?

(2) Mr. Ruffinni counsels office-seekers to connect with voters on an emotional level. Mr. Ruffinni is hardly the first to issue this advice. You only need to peruse Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, Cicero’s On Oratory and Orations etc.,. etc. Or perhaps you could peruse the more recent research of Cialdini, who includes “liking” as one of the primary instruments of social influence: we tend to want to listen to those we like, to those to whom we are attracted etc.—of particular interest to any Romney follower would be Cialdini’s category of “consistency”—we tend to want to be consistent with ourselves, and we tend NOT to trust those who are INCONSISTENT.

Myclob continues:

... It is a casualty of today’s short attention spans, that Patrick can’t make a longer more logical argument that we should abandon logic. He gives no logical reason why we should abandon logic. No empirical evidence. No statistics. He just asserts his superior knowledge to (you guessed it) “D.C. insiders, the media, and interest groups.” This is the kind of crud people are sick and tired of. Opinions are like elbows, everyone has them. Patrick never makes an argument for why people need to abanond logic. Go ahead read the article yourself.

He just states his conclusion, backed up by no facts. That’s why people hate politics. So many people say stuff that just isn’t true. In science and medicine people don’t go around saying stuff without trying to prove that it is true. But in politics people just spout their opinions …

We have already established that R. does offer grounds for his assertion, only Myclob failed to identify it. But just for fun, let us allow Myclob’s claim and ask: When is the last time you heard an e.g. categorical syllogism spoken from behind a pulpit, or a podium, or from atop a bima?—probably never. Formal reasoning occurs in specialized disciplines. Most deliberation in public or civic discourse takes the form of practical or informal reasoning, e.g. what Perelman would call argument based on the structure of reality (roughly: deduction), or argument that establishes a structure of reality (roughly: induction), various species of presumptive (default) reasoning, analogy, metaphor, illustration, dissociation …

Further: Politics is about the opinionable—it is about opinions—what is not opinionable or what is inarguable is no longer a political question. (Imagine if we could vote on the laws of physics.)

Contrast Patrick’s style of stating conclusions to Mitt Romney’s more data centered approach in this article. An example of Romney’s date-centeredness can be summed up by the statement of a business friend that we should; “Look at the invoices!”

Yes. And this precisely why so many of us bitterly oppose Romney, i.e. his aggressively and unapologetically apolitical habits of mind. Politics is about the polis, the mess and the muddle of the human community. Politics is about people. Data, on the other hand, are inhuman, mere telemetry, even if that data is about humans. We, for example, are not a demographic category, nor are we an income bracket. We have a name. We have a history. And we want a president who is not a bloodless problem solver. The president may appoint bloodless problem-solvers like Romney. But we would prefer a president with whom we can identify on some human level. And this would not be—never be—Romney.

yours &c.
dr. d.g.

Curling’s “rebuttle” to Ruffini’s “Where’s Romney’s Bio” further details and demonstrates the problems of the ailing Romney campaign

October 23, 2007 in 2008, argument, campaign communications, campaign literature, campaign management, election, election 2008, GOP, incompetence, mitt romney, republicans, rhetoric, romney, strategy, stupidity, the dark soul of Mitt Romney, triumph of unreason
Tags: ann marie curling, argument, coMITTed to ROmney, debate, maladriot, patrick ruffini

“Despite spending gobs of money, despite eclipsing Fred Thompson in the invisible primary, [Romney] still can’t quite connect with conservatives,” writes Patrick Ruffini in a post titled Where’s Romney’s Bio.

Contra Ruffini, in a Romney-in-2008 post titled Rebutting Ruffini’s “Where’s the Bio,” the estimable Ann Marie Curling argues point-for-point:

1. “I disagree with [claim that Romney emphasizes issues over Romney’s biography]. Romney’s campaign from the very beginning has promoted his experience as a businessman, at the Olympics, and as Governor while also putting forth great ideas of ways to manage our country better. First, lets go to the bio question” … Curling provides a number of Romney bio-vids of variable quality and substance to shore up her claim
2. “What a mischaracterization [Ruffini] has going on here [about e.g. the value voters summit] … If you’ll read this post from Evangelicals for Mitt it explains how the poll turned out and why. I don’t know why Patrick has decided to keep this mischaracterization going even after this was already explained now at least two or three days ago” … and yet the perception remains!—why is that?
3. “This [Ruffini’s] claim that Romney cannot out-conservative other candidates] makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, lets take some of the conservative issues. If you go to this link, it spells out in depth Governor Romney’s agenda. Lets list them (be patient these are PDF documents)”—here Curling laughably, and without a trace of irony, demonstrates precisely the behavior that Ruffini claims is so problematic, i.e. enumerating policy positions like you’re reading bullet points.
4. Curling concludes with examples of Romney’s bio-vids “high-lighting” Romney’s “accomplishments.

Curling completely misses the point of Ruffini’s analysis. Please understand: it no longer matters how many policy initiatives that Romney can rattle off—no one believes him!—in fact, the gesture itself only further undermines Romney’s credibility as it underscores the perception that Romney will say anything to get elected—that’s the point!—that’s the whole issue! Back to Ruffini:

Romney’s speeches are built on the assumption that he can out-conservative Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee by out-talking them. His words are a litany of conservative talking points.

Earlier this year, when his conservative credentials were genuinely in question, the issues-talk might have helped. But now his problem has morphed into something far worse: an authenticity problem centered around flip-flopping. And arguably, each time he opens his mouth and spouts platitudes, he only makes it worse.

Romney has done to himself what the Bush campaign did to John Kerry. The Bush team made it so that every time Kerry opened his mouth, he hurt himself, thanks to the perception that he was talking out of both sides of his mouth. Kerry couldn’t help himself by saying the right things because nobody believed what he was saying.

Romney’s situation is further complicated by the fact that issues are actually friendly terrain for Rudy Giuliani. Huh? That’s right — because people assume Rudy’s positions are liberal, when he talks conservative, that’s reassuring. When Romney talks issues, people assume he’s pandering … etc., etc.

But here is where Curling is right and Ruffini may be wrong: yes, granted, contra Ruffini, the Romneys have done their level best to promote Romney’s bio. The problem: no one cares. Further problem: those few who do care—e.g. us—discover lots of evidence to never vote for Romney in his bio.

Your resume can prevent you from getting elected. But no one ever got elected because of their resume.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.