|
My friend John Podhoretz has a characteristically outstanding article on Rudy Giuliani in today’s New York Post. J-Pod’s thesis is that Rudy has to do better, and can do better. If he doesn’t, he’ll blow it.
I have a lot of responses to the column, which by the way I agree with completely. First, I think it might not be a bad idea to cut all of the candidates some slack. Running for president is a tricky business, and the candidates are bound to make mistakes. The hope on the Republican side is that right now the candidates are in the political equivalent of spring training. When the real games begin, theoretically (and hopefully) they’ll all be razor sharp. It’s probably not fair to expect these guys, as gifted as they are, to be able to handle 400 intense news cycles without the occasional bobble.
BUT SOMETHING LARGER IS AT WORK HERE. There’s a piece of conventional wisdom in politics that all politicians and their campaign advisors religiously adhere to – shore up your weak spots. So, for instance, if you never served in the military, you better be damn sure you’re solid on Veterans affairs and that you never miss an American Legion convention.
This is solid advice, and tough to argue with. But our current batch of politicians is taking it too far. For instance, with Rudy, his potential weak spot is that he’s too combative and too much the tough guy. Too address these issues, he does things like play kissy-face with his wife in front of Barbara Walters and say how delighted he would be if his bride sat in on Cabinet meetings.
The problem here is that Rudy’s principal appeal is that he’s a tough SOB. If you like him (as I do), it’s not because of any soft side that he might purportedly have. I don’t want to see him cuddling with his wife – I want to see him vowing death to the jihadists.
AN EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM is that efforts such as Rudy’s interview with Barbara seem insincere. Needless to say, my guy also had a problem of this sort last week when he touted his hunting bona fides.
I understand what Mitt was trying to do; he was trying to communicate that even though he’s an incredibly successful billionaire, he’s still a regular guy. This is true - up to a point. From my experience, there are some super-rich people who have Cezannes and Van Goghs on their walls and have a veritable retinue of grape peelers surrounding them. These people haven’t done a load of laundry, emptied a dishwasher or seen the inside of a super-market since the earth cooled. I’m not judging them, just reporting. But I think we can all agree that decadent conspicuous consumption isn’t to one’s political advantage.
Now, there are other super-rich people who lead a much more modest lifestyle. They live in the same house they bought 25 years before they made a mint, they do their own laundry and pick out their own produce. The Romneys fall into the latter category. Not only do they actually live in the same house they moved into before he became so wealthy, a couple of years ago I bumped into him and his wife as they shopped at Whole Foods on the day of a blizzard. (If I do say so myself, the link is actually pretty interesting if you want to know the kind of things I was saying about Mitt Romney in January of 2005.)
It’s understandable why Romney would want America to know that he has this streak of normalcy running through him. But Mitt’s appeal, at least to me, isn’t because he’s regular or ordinary but because he’s exceptional. I like the fact that he’s relentlessly driven and intellectually curious. I’m happy he’s long been in the habit of spending his weekends in a more constructive fashion than watching NASCAR or the PGA tour. He’s different from most of us. Frankly he’s better. And that’s good.
Some people are taken aback that I’m supporting a candidate just because I know him and personally like and admire him. But that’s not exactly it; if my best friend ran for president, I wouldn’t support him because him I don’t think he would do well at the job (although he would bring long overdue order to those t-ball game they hold on the White House lawn). I support Romney because, ever since I got to know him in 1994, I thought he had precisely the attributes and values that would make him a great president.
BUT MITT’S NOT THE ONLY EXCEPTIONAL PERSON running for president. I like Rudy very much, and I would love to see Thompson enter the race. But what I would really like to see is all the candidates embrace that which makes them exceptional. This is an hour where the American people pine for exceptional leadership, and a time when we need it.
Thus, any presidential candidate’s efforts to look ordinary or normal in this election cycle are misguided. For most of the candidates, thos should be good news. For instance, Hillary can drop the southern accent and John Edwards can stop eating at Wendy’s.
As for the Republicans, they know what they have to do. Or at least I hope they do.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com
|