CHOOSING NOT TO SELL WHAT NOBODY WANTS TO BUY

Politico today has a lengthy piece arguing that the Romney ticket's struggles are all the candidate's fault. Buried in the story is this bit of genuine insight about Romney's approach to camppaigning:

One close confidant said Romney sees the process like buying a company from a reluctant seller: Just do and say what you need to do to get the deal done, and then when it's done, do what you know actually needs to be done to make the company a success.

I disagree with the general premise of the Politico story -- I don't think Romney's failures are all his fault. I think Paul Krugman is closer to the mark:

... this has become such an ideological election -- much more so than 2008. The GOP has made it clear that it has a very different vision of what America should be than that of Democrats, and Democrats have rallied around their cause. Among other things, while we weren't looking, social issues became a source of Democratic strength, not weakness -- partly because the country has changed, partly because the Democrats have finally worked up the nerve to stand squarely for things like reproductive rights.

And let me add a speculation: I suspect that in the end Obamacare is turning out to be a big plus, even though it has always had ambivalent polling. The fact is that Obama can point to a big achievement that will survive if he is reelected, perish if he isn’t; health insurance for 50 million or so Americans (30 million from the ACA, another 20 who would lose coverage if Romney/Ryan Medicaid cuts happen) is enough to cure people of the notion that it doesn't matter who wins.

... it looks as if voters are rejecting the right's whole package, not just the messenger.

I think voters are rejecting a lot about the GOP agenda -- the feared evisceration of the safety net (especially for the elderly), the hard line on reproductive rights and gay marriage, the even harder line on tax cuts for the wealthy, and on and on. Now, you'll say that Romney is the worst possible guy to deliver the Republicans' message. But, really, who could do a better job? And how? How can you possibly sell this to voters?

You can try to sell it with a lot of loopy nonsense and magical thinking, which is what Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain were trying to do in the primaries -- but those guys just looked ridiculous, and it was absurdly easy to debunk any optimistic-aounding promises they made. You could predict hellfire and damnation a la Rick Santorum -- but the general public sure as hell wasn't going to respond well to being called a bunch of decadent libertines.

Or you could do what Romney's doing, which, yes, is exactly what's done by corporate takeover guys, and by pretty much any new boss who plans to "clean house" and "shake things up": say nothing about the changes you're cold-bloodedly intending to introduce; make vague, reassuring noises; then get the job and drop the bombs.

That's a lousy approach when you need to get the consent of those whose lives you're going to upend before you upend them -- but, really, there's no good approach to doing something like that. The solution for the GOP wouldn't be a better candidate -- it would be a better agenda, one that somebody, if perhaps not Mitt Romney, could possibly sell to the public.

But today's GOP doesn't want that. Citing this story about Romneycare in Massachusetts, Charlie Pierce gets to the heart of the matter:

It turns out the problem Republicans have with the program is not the ideological big-government aspect of it. The problem they have with it is the good it turned out to do for people. The problem with it is that it made people's lives a little easier. The problem is that cruelty has become an ideology in itself, and it is an implacable one.

"The thing Romney needs to do to beat Obama is show up in this debate and not have another empathy comment. Those comments are really hurting him far more than any 47% comments," said Ryan Rhodes, a tea party activist from Iowa. "The government's not here for empathy, it's here for the law. If we use empathy for everything we want to do, that's how countries go bankrupt and bad policy is created."

The problem with the Romney campaign is not the alleged ideological incoherence of his political resume. The problem is that he's trying to appeal to a party full of moral monsters.

Exactly. And now his job is to appeal to the general public with nothing to offer but what those moral monsters want. No wonder he doesn't want to go into detail about what's on offer.