Amid all the post-Romney candidacy analysis, I find most interesting the notion that Romney was “too perfect” to be president. That is because, the argument goes, he lives up to high personal standards, by all accounts, and seems extraordinarily successful and fortunate, both in business and in his personal life. On the day Eliot Spitzer resigned because of his, well, imperfect personal life, that notion seems especially fascinating.
Libby Copeland of the Washington Post is the latest to express the “too perfect” view:
Romney seemed so Mormon, so squeaky clean. His seeming normalcy isn’t the norm anymore. Maybe we understand better those who’ve strayed or failed and recovered — or, for that matter, those who aren’t fabulously successful and can’t put tens of millions into their own campaigns. Maybe we relate to the family lives of other candidates, candidates who have been divorced, who have blended families, whose children don’t all campaign with them (and may not even like them). Sure, they’re messier, but messy is authentic.
“Messy is authentic.” What an interesting way to express the difference between the real and the ideal. In other words, we like what is real because it seems familiar and comfortable to us and doesn’t make us feel inadequate, doesn’t challenge us to aspire to something better. (But wait, I thought Obama’s slogan of “Change” was what people found so inspiring about him. Maybe that’s because he’s talking about changing government, which is appealing, and not about changing ourselves, which is not.)
Now compare Ms. Copeland’s view, which seems to prevail in the MSM, with that of Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online:
What a breath of fresh air the Romneys on the public stage have been. Way too often in pop culture, men are portrayed as dopes; think about just about any sitcom. The dad/husband is portrayed as a doofus. What’s wrong with having somebody in public life who’s like Mitt Romney — a capable, experienced executive who loves his country and also happens to be a God-fearing father and husband? That’s not a bad thing for Americans to see. Forgive him for being easy on the eyes.
And I’ll go one step further. I worry about a political culture that is a little too suspicious of a scandal-less, all-American-gee-whiz-this-is-the-American-dream-in-overdrive package. We should be glad that good people — who, while well-off, are not without their share of painful crosses — are willing to subject themselves to the ugliness that politics can inflict. We should be grateful that good families will make the sacrifices necessary to serve — and make those sacrifices with no guarantees they’ll succeed.
I agree with K-Lo. Let’s hear it for our political class setting a standard to which the rest of us can all aspire.
John comments: What a sad commentary it is when we want leaders “just like us” - meaning “just as screwed up as I am.” I also find it cognitively dissonant with the idea that the election is about “change.” I am reminded of high school class elections that were essentially “social group showdowns,” you know, jocks vs. nerds, stuff like that.
Frankly, what Copeland expresses is identity politics in another guise - only in some ways much worse. Instead of based on some identity group – that group being hopefully attached to some higher idea – this is pure identity, and negative identity to boot.
I also think this is Democrat politics as well - think about it, all their candidates lately come rife with extensive personal problems, thus we see the governor of NY resigning just this morning, and the foibles of the Clintons have been worked out in public for a couple fo decades now. Then there is Obama’s historical drug use. All this when guys like Evan Bayh, fairly liberal Democrat to be sure, but decent, moral and honorable human being, is relegated to second fiddle status. Do we really want to be like the Democrats?
Sphere: Related Content
