When a candidate acquires a reputation for inauthenticity, journalists often engage in a pathological search for further evidence of his of her phoniness. In this sense, the closest precedent for the coverage Romney has received is Al Gore. Like Romney, Gore acquired a reputation as a phony in part due to a mismatch between two constituencies (his home state of Tennessee and the Democratic primary electorate) and lacked the political skill to plausibly bridge that gap. As a result, the media covered him derisively during the 2000 campaign, portraying his cowboy boots, the color of his clothing, and even the number of buttons on his suits as reflecting his lack of a true self. Every shift in emphasis or position that Gore made was framed as his latest fraudulent persona and his statements were frequently taken out of context to portray him as a liar or exaggerator.
While Romney has not been treated as poorly as Gore, coverage of the GOP frontrunner has frequently portrayed him in a similar manner. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank captured the parallel perfectly, even as he exemplified typical media attitudes, in a January 13 column:
Romney… has an “authentic inauthenticity problem.”
And that is precisely why his struggle is so familiar. He is the political reincarnation of Al Gore, whose campaign I covered with an equal amount of cringing a dozen years ago.
To see Romney, in his Gap jeans, laughing awkwardly at his own jokes and making patently disingenuous claims, brings back all those bad memories of 2000: “Love Story.” Inventing the Internet. Earth tones. Three-button suits. The alpha male in cowboy boots. The iced-tea defense. The Buddhist temple. The sighing during the debate.
Journalists’ fixation on a candidate’s clothing is a telltale sign of this sort of pathological coverage. Back in 2011, several articles on Romney’s early campaign highlighted his jeans and lack of neckties and suggested they were part of an image makeover. More recently, CNN aired a segment in which correspondent Jeanne Moos reported that “while trying to appear as a man of the people, Mitt Romney stumbled into wearing mom jeans.” Romney was promptly mocked by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews as inauthentic. (“This guy with his—whadaya call ‘em?—mom jeans or whatever he wears. What is that costume that he wears? What is that costume? Nobody wears clothes like that.”) The trope was subsequently recycled further by David Horsey of the Los Angeles Times even as he admitted its weakness. Horsey drew a cartoon mocking Romney’s “mom jeans” to accompany a blog post that conceded “this rap on Romney seems a bit unfair” before concluding: “Yes, it’s silly, but if a candidate’s clothes don’t seem to fit the man, it raises a dangerous doubt in the voter’s mind: Is this guy a fake?”
The perception that we don’t know the true Mitt Romney has fueled interest in personal anecdotes that supposedly provide insights unavailable in his public behavior. Perhaps most famously, an anecdote about Romney putting his dog in a crate on the roof of his station wagon during a family vacation has been repeated nearly fifty times by New York Times columnist Gail Collins, who cites it as revealing something about Romney’s character. Syndicated columnist Susan Estrich was even more explicit in expressing the idea that the incident provides some deep insight into Romney’s character:
Presidential elections are, in a very fundamental way, tests of character. You can’t predict all the issues or crises that will face the person you elect president, which means that character, ultimately, counts for more than position papers and platforms.
And in my book, as a dog lover, nothing tells you as much about a person’s character as how they treat their dog
Before I decide what I think about this man’s character, I need to know more about that trip — and that dog.

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