The Romney campaign has to be pretty happy with liberal historian Rick Perlstein this week, or about as happy as they could be with anyone accusing them of winking at anti-Semitism. On Wednesday TNR Online published an article in which he argued that media reports highlighting complaints about Mitt Romney’s Henry Ford Museum announcement speech will help him connect with skeptical conservatives.
The thrust of Perlstein’s argument is that identity, or “tribal” issues, matter in partisan politics, and the more critical stories about Romney that appear in the elite media, the better he is likely to do with the Republican base. As he summarizes: “Get branded such a villain by our liberal elites, and you also might win a Republican primary.” The logic is sound enough, but Perlstein ascribes too much power to this phenomenon. Just because the “liberal media” is antagonistic toward a Republican candidate is not enough to change the fundamentals, and Romney’s fundamentals are bad.
Let’s start with this passage from his article, where Perlstein turns to the Internet to substantiate his point:
Consider the sarcastic reflection of this denizen of the right-wing website Free Republic:
Allright, an AP hit piece! The MSM has more acute RINOdar than we. Real RINO’s don’t get rinky-dink MSM hit pieces such as this. This proves that the MSM believes Romney is a conservative, and therefore must be roughed up.
Translation: I used to suspect that Romney was only a “Republican in Name Only.” But now I realize: He bugs the liberal media. By the tribal logic of right-wing identity politics, that is enough–Mitt Romney now can be called a conservative.
This interpretation is overly reductive — even Newtonian. As Perlstein would have it, for every action on the part of the media, there is an equal and opposite reaction from the conservative base. Leaving aside the fact that the Henry Ford story is less a flap than a blip — only the National Jewish Democratic Council made an issue of it, and Media Matters has pronounced the story “ignored” — it assumes that conservatives are captives of their distrust of the mainstream media.
Perlstein’s suggestion that dubious media attacks on Romney could bolster his support on the right almost certainly gets it backward: politicians who enjoy notable support in this regard have already bonded with their base. Presidents are frequent recipients; as the headlines got worse for Clinton and Bush through their two terms, the base rallied around them (although Bush seems to have exhausted that reserve of goodwill). Galvanizing candidates, such as Howard Dean, also can receive this kind of support. Unfortunately for Romney, he is neither.
Perlstein buttresses his case by comparing Romney’s announcement to a controversial 1980 campaign speech by onetime liberal Ronald Reagan. According to Perlstein, Reagan benefited from “all that outrage” over the location: Philadelphia, MS, site of the infamous 1964 Klan murders of civil rights workers. But there are several problems here. As noted above, the outrage about Romney’s speech was very limited and even treated like a joke. As even Perlstein admits of Ford’s Nazi sympathies, “Those memories no longer exist–except to the hair-trigger sensitivities of the likes of the NJDC.” Additionally, those Klan murders are the only reason anyone outside of Mississippi has heard of that particular Philadelphia, whereas the Ford musesum is pure Americana — technological innovation and nostalgia for what technology has made obsolete. And by 1980 Reagan was already a conservative hero, which of course Romney is not.
Perlstein also misses a few things about conservative “tribal” identity. Early in the article he asks:
Some observers wondered if perhaps [spotlighting noted anti-Semite Henry Ford] wasn’t intentional: If you want to prove to conservatives you’re no liberal, what better way than to announce on the former estate of a man who, as the NJDC also pointed out, was “bestowed with the Grand Service Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle by Adolf Hitler”?
“Nazi” is an epithet hurled at Republicans by liberals; it’s not a badge of honor and not a term that is available to be “reclaimed” like “bitch” or “queer.” Considering evangelical Christians’ close alliance with conservative Jews, their support of Israel above the Palestinians, and the growing perception that the “new anti-Semitism” is a liberal disease, there’s no percentage (in the polls or otherwise) in such a strategy. Bank shots are risky; bank shots that contradict your own beliefs are doubly so. Bank shots opening oneself up to charges of bigotry are dangerously stupid.
Not to mention, I’m not even sure that the Free Republic quote really says what Perlstein thinks it does. The comment at once suggests that the AP can accurately identify fake conservatives, and then implies that the media thinks Romney is a true conservative. Perhaps this commenter agrees with the media, but most Freepers do not. At best, Romney’s conservative credentials are a matter of debate. For example, check out the Free Republic thread responding to this exact same Perlstein article, where one finds a few Romney apologists, but others saying things like:
Strange that he was really pro life after professing to be pro-choice since 1970. And that he thought since Roe V wade was already decided, we should “sustain and support it”.
Plus he’s a gun grabber who is now trying to kiss the NRA’s butt.
At least with rudy you know you’re getting a liberal. With romney you’re getting a used car salesman who will say whatever it takes to get elected. In 2004 we called that ‘flip flopping’ when a certain democrat did it.
Flip-flopping is a charge Democrats would love to be able to throw back at Republicans in 2008, and Romney is the most susceptible. Romney has made the mistake of trying to persuade social conservatives that he is one of them, despite well-publicized past statements to the contrary. Like John Kerry, he may have flopped in the “correct” direction — but also like John Kerry, he can’t find the words to adequately explain why.
Contrast this with Giuliani’s approach: he too was elected by a left-leaning electorate, is openly pro-choice, and has similar hurdles to overcome. But so far at least, he isn’t trying to sell himself as a Bush-style social conservative. By downplaying his personal beliefs while promising to appoint strict constructionist judges, he’s selling himself as an ally of Bush-style social conservatives.
Even if we do accept Perlstein’s Newtowian politics, there’s so much more dirt out there about Giuliani that all those negative stories would surely generate more reactive reactionary reinforcement for him than Romney. And unlike Romney, Giuliani has never publicly disavowed Ronald Reagan. Among tribal issues, that will matter much more than anything the MSM can say.
