Though he launched his first run for president more than five years ago, Mitt Romney is still widely seen as an enigmatic figure. With opponents for the GOP presidential nomination raising questions about the sincerity of the former Massachusetts governor’s beliefs, journalists and commentators have launched a round of speculation about who “the real Romney” is. (The phrase is even the title of a new biography from two Boston Globe reporters). Even Romney himself has embraced the “real Romney” framework as these questions have mounted, telling National Review this week that he “wanted to make sure that people remember the real Mitt Romney, not the one being fabricated by my opponents.” The process amounts to a public interrogation not of Romney’s record or his agenda, but of his very being.
Of course, Romney is hardly the first candidate to suffer this sort of treatment. Back in 2008, for instance, numerous articles and TV segments tried to answer who the “real” Barack Obama was—a question that was asked suggestively by John McCain in an attempt to create doubts about the Democratic presidential nominee. Similarly, George W. Bush’s campaign helped drive similar coverage asking who the “real” John Kerry was back in 2004. And, perhaps most notably, journalists frequently portrayed Al Gore as inauthentic and asked whether they were seeing the “real” Gore during his 2000 presidential campaign.
With such a pattern in mind, it’s worth asking: Why does the media keep searching for the authentic self of certain politicians? And what consequences does that approach have for the coverage that results?
The first point to note is that the quest for a person’s true self isn’t limited to politics or journalism. As Rich Yeselson wrote this week on the group blog Crooked Timber, the search for a “deeply internalized ‘authenticity’ which dramatically reveals our true, inner selves” is “one of modernity’s most potent fantasies” and one that “seems especially urgent in the case of those few who wish to be our president.” This impulse is reinforced by journalists’ perceived duty to learn about candidates’ character and by media outlets’ economic incentives to cover politicians like celebrities.
However, the idea that reporters or commentators can discover a candidate’s “true” self is deeply flawed. This approach falsely privileges hidden or private information as especially revealing of a person’s true nature or motivations. More fundamentally, as Yeselson correctly points out, people do not have one true self but instead behave differently in different social contexts—a human tendency that is likely to be especially strong in any successful politician.
Why, then, are certain candidates more likely to be portrayed as inauthentic or somehow lacking in a well-defined “true” or “real” self? It’s partly a structural issue. In some cases, a politician faces a constituency in a run for higher office that differs from one he (or she) previously represented. The change in issue positions and campaign style that typically results from such a change is frequently construed as reflecting personal inauthenticity. In Romney’s case, he had to make the switch from the moderate stances that allowed him to win election as governor of Massachusetts to the conservative positions required to win the GOP presidential nomination.
The other major factor is a candidate’s raw political skill. While journalists tend to avoid expressing their own policy views, they are quite comfortable assessing a candidate’s ability to perform the rites of politics. These judgments are often cloaked in the language of authenticity. As Paul Waldman writes at The American Prospect, “what [reporters] often value more than anything else is not authenticity itself, but the most convincing portrayal of the authentic.” For instance, George W. Bush’s frequent brush-clearing on his Texas ranch was generally covered respectfully even though he purchased the ranch immediately before his presidential campaign and spent his formative years at an elite New England prep school. By contrast, Romney is seemingly incapable of performing authenticity in the way that modern politics demands.
Journalists may do a poor job of discovering candidates' true natures, but it's not surprising that voters crave that information.
First, contra Jonathan Bernstein, candidates often govern in ways that are not predictable from their campaign promises, from FDR's New Deal, never discussed in his 1932 campaign, and his waiting till January 1941 to propose Lend Lease (1940 campaign: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."), to G.W. Bush's agreement to new taxes (1988 campaign: "no new taxes"), to Barack Obama (specifics omitted due to CJR's 600 word limit); many other presidencies would also provide examples. It's therefore not surprising that voters often discount campaign promises as an indicator of future actions.
Second, presidents frequently find themselves confronted with situations that could not have been predicted during their campaigns. G.W. Bush's presidency provides two examples: the 9/11 attacks and the economic crisis in 2008. As these examples demonstrate, often the actions taken in response to such unpredictable events turn out to be the most significant of a presidency. I believe voters instinctively understand that and seek a sense of what kind of person the candidate is, believing that's as reliable a basis as any for choosing among them.
There's no good answer as to how voters can best acquire that sense of candidates' character, worldview and approach to governing. It's hard to fault journalists for seeking to answer the questions, easier to fault them for going about it superficially and with a pack mentality that promotes lazy repetition over original reporting.
#1 Posted by RobC, CJR on Thu 16 Feb 2012 at 04:52 PM
Why does Romney get more nervous as the social class of his audience drops?
If people have evolved over millions of years to mistrust the socially awkward, there's probably a good reason for that. There always is. It's not hard to theorise what that reason might be. If you look at people who are often called 'warm' or 'natural' or 'sociable', these are often active, useful, organised people (like my wife). Those who are morose, cold, nervous or withdrawn are often unhelpful, self-absorbed, slothful or absent (more like me).
When a psycho goes on a rampage, how often do you hear that he was a 'loner'? Prom queens, however, don't shoot up their high schools. Every society has had this preference for une belle franchise, for being comfortable in your own skin. You don't have to be extroverted (look at Obama), but you do have to be relaxed.
I believe that Romney's nervousness comes partly from awareness of his own serial dishonesty. I don't mean dishonesty in projecting a fake persona, but real, factual dishonesty on a daily, indeed hourly basis. I also think it comes from awareness that he's faking good will towards the voters. Romney can crunch numbers, he knows most of these blue-collar voters will be heading south under his policies. When asked what he offers the "middle class", for God's sake, he says "elimination of 'cap-gains' for middle class investors"! He can't even bring himself to say the word 'capital'.
Socially, I'm always at my least confident when I'm in the wrong. Or when I hold no cards, or have nothing to offer. Why does Romney get more nervous as the social class of his audience drops? Romney knows he has nothing to offer these voters, he knows he's lying to them, he has a subconcious fear of being caught out. He feels like a man wearing a disguise in the village of a hostile tribe.
#2 Posted by Bourassa, CJR on Thu 16 Feb 2012 at 08:24 PM
Given most of the so-called "bad memories" of Gore were fabrications of the GOP that the media amplified, Milbank looks particularly awful. I'm no fan of Romney, but nobody deserves the Gore treatment.
#3 Posted by scoresby, CJR on Sat 18 Feb 2012 at 03:13 AM
I am trying to reach Mitt Romney mainly to discuss his drive to become president,I am not a policial person but I do believe in our country & for some reason I have a gut feeling Mr.Romney does to.I do not know if he will ever be able to read this but I feel as his main problem is the voters do not connect with him,& I believe he is one who is tough enough to keep our freedom intact,his high powered people are very good at what they do but this just widens
the gulf.
If this can be passed on to him & I can be of help I can also be reached at 904 608 7117.
I have never really been envolved with politic's. But I do believe in GOD & this country.
Sincerly,
Leigh Dotson
#4 Posted by Leigh Dotson, CJR on Sat 18 Feb 2012 at 05:03 PM
Generally astute comments by RobC, Bourassa, and scoresby. I think it's natural and legitimate for the media and the public to try to figure out the character of a presidential candidate, same as we do with everyone else in our lives, and the dog on the roof story is fair game. Unlike RobC, I have found that presidents from Nixon to Obama have been quite predictable based on their character and record prior to taking office (not on every issue but as a whole) and it pays to study them beforehand. I also agree with Nyhan that the media should be providing more analysis of Romney's issue positions, which are quite in line with his character and background (see my Romney Medicare piece).
http://managedhealthcareexecutive.modernmedicine.com/mhe/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=757580&pageID=1&sk=&date=
As to media coverage of Gore, that was a travesty. I don't agree with Nyhan's explanation of that. Gore failed to develop a good personal relationship with reporters and paid a huge and unfair price, particularly after his distinguished vice presidency. But he was nowhere near the flip-flopper that Romney has shown himself to be. Journalists should try to be more self-aware and careful when engaging in this type of character analysis.
#5 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Mon 20 Feb 2012 at 01:37 PM