David Brooks and elusive authenticity

On Monday I wrote ...

To win the debate, [Romney] must thrust his arms upward before Reason's mobilized forces, he must concede the fatal weaknesses of his accumulated position, he must confess that all is lost--that the Republican Party has been reduced to the scattered tatterdemalions of lily-white bigots, delusional Austrian Economics apparitions, medievalist science-deniers, and ungodly God-thumpers.

I also predicted Romney wouldn't go that way, "Because Romney's a loser."

Turned out, though, Romney indeed took that route; and by all accounts (not mine, but that's another topic), Romney won the debate. Obama had prepped to go against Mr. Mitt Romney, Far-Right Lunatic, and yet suddenly, shockingly, disorientingly there on the stage was Gov. Willard M. Romney, Old School Conservative. 

David Brooks--while weighing all the usual caveats--seems to be buying it:

Either out of conviction or political desperation, he broke with Tea Party orthodoxy and began to redefine the Republican identity. And, having taken this step, he’s broken the spell. Conservatives loved it! They loved that it was effective, and it was effective because Romney could more authentically be the man who (I think) he truly is.... Mr. Audacity might still lose to the former Mr. Right Winger.

Oh, David, you poor thing. Yes, I wrote that Romney's only hope of winning Wednesday's debate was to opt for some updated version of Eisenhower Republicanism. But winning a debate isn't the same as winning an election, and Romney won't--can't--win the election because there's one monumental obstacle that he cannot overhaul as he would a debate tactic: himself. And David, there is no self in Mitt Romney; there is no authentic Romney; there is only today's Romney, which might be tomorrow's Romney, but could just as easily be yesterday's Romney.

And that, David, is why Romney's momentary, opportunistic version of Eisenhower Republicanism won't help him, whoever "him" might be. It is simply no longer intellectually, philosophically or politically feasible to propose an "authentic" Romney. 

Again, some Eisenhower conservative might have a realistic shot at the White House in 2016 or 2020. But not Romney in 2012. Because there is no Romney.

Comments

[SueMe]

Well said, P.M. Certainly the majority of voters will not buy Mitt's last minute leap to the center. Tomorrow he will be back with the crazies and the day after..who knows!

[japa21]

Being 36 hours removed from the debate, I have a better feeling about it. As a efw people have said, what matters most is not who wins the debate, but who wins the few days after it. Kerry definitely won the debate with Bush when he mentioned Bush saying he really didn't think about OBL very much. The was the main topic of discussion in the immediate aftermath.

But when you woke up the next morning all you heard was about how he disrespected the Cheney family by mentioning that they had a lesbian daughter and how that crossed the boundary of decency (even though that was common knowledge).

Well, most of what you heard yesterday was about Big Bird being fired. Romney definitely said more things that can be used as sound bites against him, and they have already started.

Plus the economic news today, with the UE down to 7.8% takes a lot of wind out of Romney's sails about the economy not recovering.

Romney may have won Wednesday night, but I am pretty confident he lost yesterday, and will lose the next few days at the least.

[Robert Lipscomb]

PM puts his finger on the key issue when he calls Romney's flip-flop to win a debate a good tactic. It sucks as a strategy though.

First, it opens a new third line of attack (in addition to Bain capitalist and 47%), flip-flopping (a.k.a. liar, deceiver, con-artist). The new line of attack compliments the others, rather than obscuring them.

Secondly and possibly most fatally and even as Brooks notes, Romney pushed the Tea Party (Religious Right, et. al.) under the bus. I have predicted that this cycle, for Republicans, would be more about who woould control the party than who the next president is.

This might possibly work for Romney but all the real experts still have Obama as a 7 to 1 favorite. What is important is that the purveyors of neo-Reaganomics are in control. It remains an open question whether or when the Tea Party realizes they have been dropped like a bad habit in the wake of the end of the culture wars. If they wake up before the election, Romney is absolute toast.

The second most (maybe the most) importantaspect of Romney's old switcheroo is the implicit concession that he and his wing of the GOP realize neo-Reanomics "dog won't hunt".

"Neo-Reaganomics" is the answer to Obama's question, "What's he hiding?"

"In the closet" is the answer to the question, "Where's it hiding?"

[Peter G]

I see you are back in mid-season form and that is good. I detected a certain funk in the immediate aftermath of the debate. To be honest I shared that a little. The substance of your post is spot on. Even now Romney's rapid response team is unsaying many of the things he said during the debate by way of trying to keep the hard conservatives appeased. They still don't trust him and now he is giving them reasons not to do so. The truth of the matter is that they didn't howl about the things he said because they believe he doesn't believe it. Or they hope desperately that he doesn't.