[Romney's] economic pitch is in many ways contradictory and incoherent, but that’s intentional. Romney isn’t trying to sell Americans on some detailed, comprehensive plan to rebuild the economy. His goal is to offer broad, pleasant-sounding policy prescriptions while playing up dire statistics and anecdotes about the economy and the deficit.
Kornacki's introductory characterization is correct--Romney's pitch is contradictory and incoherent; and Kornacki's subsequent characterization is correct--Romney's goal is to offer pleasant-sounding prescriptions. But therein lies Mitt Romney's internal contradiction: incoherent policy prescriptions cannot by definition be pleasant.
Not to the rational mind, anyway. Incoherence yields chaotic results, or at least it does yield chaotic results in execution and it should yield chaotic results in its campaign debut. Yet we have been deluged for years by torrential assurances from both expert political analysts and amateur political sociologists (one is, for instance, terrorized by the thought of another David Brooks column plucked from another mad social scientist's lab) that American voters don't vote according to the mind; they vote from the heart.
I am not here to refute those findings. Their transcendent validity comes in three little words: George W. Bush. I am here to argue, however, that future elections are not necessarily captive to irrational behaviors of the past; that is, if, perhaps, political observers were to stop insisting that voters vote mostly with their hearts and rarely with their minds, well, maybe voters would pause--in fact might even find it incumbent upon themselves--to think more rationally for a change.
As things are, these persistent assurances that voters' irrational behavior is indeed normal behavior only encourages the irrationality's persistence.
I do not think that most Americans are averse to logic, as much they find highly detailed and complex models for decision-making useless. Concepts such as "government is the problem" and "lowering taxes pays for itself" have a logic, a simple logic that just happens to be wrong. Dragging out those complex models to refute those simple bits of logic are a sure way to lose.
This why I continue to endorse (over PM's admonishments to the contrary :-)) the concept of the 99% and the attendant "income inequality" and "fairness" concepts. No, mau-mauing those slogans at a camp site, in and of themselves, are insufficient for passing legislation. But by God, those concepts can be understood, and once understood, lay the foundation for understanding that the system is corrupt and real change is needed.
even if my pet slogans are not the solution, then we damned well better come up with something that is as functional in the body politic.
Posted by: Robert Lipscomb | May 25, 2012 at 01:36 PM
As a person from Zimbabwe, I cannot believe the similarities between the ruling Zanu PF and their leader Robert Mugabe and the American Republican party...amazing ! And as one Zim political commentator said of the choas in that country following the harrowing elections of 2008, the media and political hacks beholden to Mugabe were "normalising the abnormal" such as has been happening in the USA. Incredible...
Posted by: Monty | May 25, 2012 at 01:45 PM
The other insidious meme is that 'If the economy is good, Obama wins, if the economy is bad, Obama loses.' Apparently, this is supposed to be true even though he currently has no control over either outcome. If Europe fails, should we vote for Romney? If Republican obstruction causes the economy to slow down, should we give them more power? This 'logic' is STUPID. It galls me every time is springs forth from the mouths of pundits, especially Chris Matthews, perennial spouter of the ridiculous.
Posted by: laughingzebra | May 26, 2012 at 01:26 AM