Book of the Month

Genghis's picture

The Capitalist and the Zombie: Romney's Threat to the GOP

A number of Republican presidential hopefuls and not so hopefuls have attacked Mitt Romney as a heartless capitalist who destroyed jobs while a partner at Bain Capital. Newt Gingrich compared Romney to a looter. Rick Perry called him a vulture. Jon Huntsman suggested that Romney likes firing people.

The anti-Romney offensive has raised the ire of many Republican leaders, who have condemned the charges as disrespectful to heartless capitalism. Their concern is understandable. Heartless capitalism is the very soul of Republican Party. Without it, the party would resemble some toothless decomposing zombie that blunders haplessly into disgusted voters while gurgling about taking back the country.

The sad state of today's Republican Party would surely disappoint its forefathers. Abraham Lincoln never intended to found a political movement for heartless capitalists or toothless decomposing zombies. In its youth, the abolitionist Republican Party held great promise as a force for social justice.

But the party went off course around 1896 when the Democrats surprised everyone by nominating a presidential candidate who seemed to genuinely care about the poor. William Jennings Bryan, the "Great Commoner," denounced monopolistic corporate trusts and called for an end to the gold standard. In response, anxious bankers and industrialists poured money into the pockets of his Republican opponent, William McKinley. McKinley won the presidency, and the course was set. Wall Street has fueled Republican campaigns ever since.

In the early 20th century, many Republicans proudly represented heartless capitalism in all its glorious brutality. They denounced the poor as undeserving loafers and vilified their progressive opponents as socialists and demagogues who would bring financial ruin to America.

That argument took a beating, however, when Republican president Herbert Hoover helped drive the country into the greatest depression it has ever known. After FDR demonstrated that government intervention could help the poor and improve the economy, American voters consigned the GOP to forty years of minority status in state and federal legislatures.

By the mid-1970s, Republican leaders finally acknowledged that heartless capitalism was no longer a winning campaign issue. They began to branch out into social issues, condemning by turns abortion, feminism, homosexuality, welfare, and integration busing. They warned that the government had been taken over by "secular humanists" bent on destroying America's moral fabric.

The new strategy worked brilliantly. Republican ranks swelled with social conservatives who embraced free markets as if they were ordained in the Bible. With God on their side, the heartless capitalists seemed warmer, gentler, more righteous. In 1994, the Republican Party finally recaptured Congress, and it has been collecting state legislatures like trophies ever since.

But the alliance is troubled. The motley confederation of rich capitalists and middle-class social conservatives worked well enough in boom times, especially with a drawling, brush-cutting, born-again child of privilege at the helm. But when financial excess crashed the economy (again), the stature of the bankers and executives plummeted even among social conservatives.

Unfortunately for the alliance, Mitt Romney chose this inauspicious moment to try to lead the Republican Party into a presidential election. Like George W. Bush, he is as elite as they come, an Ivy-educated dynastic multimillionaire. But in Romney's case, these attributes are not masked by a Texas twang, and his resume lacks a born-again epiphany. In the eyes of many evangelicals, he is not even Christian. Factor out Romney's shifting social positions, and what's left is a heartless capitalist stripped bare.

The social conservatives never signed on for that. They were willing to offer cover to an abstract anti-tax version of free marketism, but a naked capitalist in the flesh is only attractive to other capitalists. As Romney amassed his campaign chest from the usual big money donors, the social conservatives jumped from candidate to candidate in search of a viable alternative.

But there were no viable alternatives. The other candidates turned out to be slobbering toothless zombies.

That should come as little surprise. In the 21st century, a credible Republican candidate must have the soul of a heartless capitalist, the skin of a Christian conservative, and the chutzpah to carry off the contradiction. It turns out that men and women of such caliber do not come along every day.

Your last paragraph reminds me of the Vidiians in Star Trek Voyager.

I never watched much Voyager, but I fully support your politics-as-star-trek methodology.

Outstanding, Genghis. I hesitate even to comment. But I will. 

Romney may if fact become some kind of societal scapegoat since someone needs to atone for the financial rapes of the last few years and before. (Otherwise, it might have been Obama).

 Interesting parallel to the Italian boat captain and Italy's need to come to terms with some of their excesses. He's of course despised, but it seems to be going beyond that. 

Romney may if fact become some kind of societal scapegoat

I hadn't thought about it that way, but I think you're right. Someone with a more common touch than Obama could rip him to pieces on that. Obama will probably refrain, sadly.

I agree, Obama is much too much like the stiff Romney in many ways.

I think your point about W is under-appreciated. The East Coast types knew that anyone out of (to use a horse racing term) the Bush/Walker clan was one of them. Bush's famous 60 "pioneers" were all well connected CEO types definitely in the establishment mode.

But W. actually did have the other side of him because of his Texas based mother and upbringing in West Texas. One of the great inspirations of Rove was the Crawford ranch and the stupid rusty corrugated steel shed in front of which all the national media reporters stood. Every rural white male in the country could instantly relate to that fake shed. As you say, the absence of the dual personality is nowhere to be seen at this moment. 

Great post.  Somebody out to write a book about how a once vibrant Republican party turned into a bunch of weirdos who keep serving up whack-job fantasies about the plot to euthanize grandma, outlaw Christmas and turn junior into a raging homosexual.

Now, as I Wikipedia it, Mitt is 64 years old.  So he probably remembers the Reagan years really well and the presidency of George H.W. Bush even better.  George HW did not have a Texas twang.  He was straight out of the family that funded the white shoe Wall Street firm Brown Brothers Harriman.  He vacationed in Kennebunkport, where his loser son who would never amount to anything had to have his DWIs covered up.  His Dad was a famous (and famously wealthy) east coast senator.  He was the former head of the CIA.

So even though the Republican party changed over a very long period of time, as you illustrate here, it had not changed so much that George H.W. Bush couldn't become president in 1988 and nearly get re-elected in 1992 despite a financial crisis.

Mitt has got to be wondering what happened to the world of Republicans that he knew.   If George H.W. ran today he'd never get past the early primary states.

 

Thanks. I've seen a number of retired and disgraced Republicans bemoan the direction the party has taken. Oddly, I've never heard anyone actively seeking election do so.

The motley confederation of rich capitalists and middle-class social conservatives worked well enough in boom times, especially with a drawling, brush-cutting, born-again child of privilege at the helm. But when financial excess crashed the economy (again), the stature of the bankers and executives plummeted even among social conservatives.

My own little theory at this time is that the middle-class social conservatives (along with some not so well off financially) willingly took a back seat and let the rich capitalists drive the motley crew down the road to electoral success.  The implicit deal struck during the Reagan years was that the social conservatives wouldn't push their agenda too hard when the motley crew had the White House and worked to take over Congress, rather they would wait to get their agenda pushed through and focus on defeating the liberals and the Democrats. 

Now after tasting electoral success in 1994 and then in the beginning of the 21st century without seeing their agenda at the top of the docket, they are discouraged and quite frankly pissed.  They have been good back seat drivers all these years and now is their time.  They would rather line up behind a likely loser named Santorum then back the Establishhment's choice.  They'll continue to purge the party of the RINOs (aka non-social conservatives) at the Congressional and state levels. 

They seem to have taken the attitude regarding Mitt and Obama in the same way the left has taken toward Obama and Mitt.  Since both are basically inter-changable when all is said and done, they would rather have the one they can openly resist without being called traitors by others in the party. 

They know they are boots on the ground and the GOTV network which helped bush-whacking Republicans win in places like Ohio and PA.  They can cheer him at the convention and put on a happy face for the cameras when the time comes.  Then stay home during the run up to the election.  A loss of four or five percentage points in the purple states will probably mean the difference between a second-term Obama and President Romney. 

Then again...President Santorum has a certain ring to it.

Pennsylvania has voted for the Democrat in each Presidential election from 1992 to 2008.

In 1994 it was 51% to 49%, in 2000 51%  to 46%, in 1996 Clinton only received 49% with Ross Perot taking 11%.  In 1992, Clinton received only 45% of the vote.

Between 1980 and and 1992 it went to the Republicans.

Currently the majority of polls have Obama receiving less than 50% with the undecided and the named Republicans together making up the majority.

So I think it would be an over-reach to claim that PA is a sure thing for Obama in 2012 given the economy.  When one looks at the map of PA in 2008, geographically Obama just won the metropolitan areas in the east.  McCain was winning with around 60% in most of the counties outside that area.

I wasn't thinking necessarily about winning the electoral votes in the most recent elections.  But I guess that would be what was implied by how I wrote it - in part because I was trying to be clever

Is Mitt going to get the suburbs and the independents in eastern PA?  I seriously doubt Obama will do better than he did in the areas he lost.

I think Pennsylvania will be a difficult state for Obama this time, but it depends on both ends of the GOP ticket.  And the Democrat has won the last five times.  I think the states that will decide the election are Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Colorado, in that order of likely significance, so I agree that it's heavily in play.

I pretty much agree with your list and its order.  That is why a suppression of the social conservatives' enthusiasm could be devastating to Mitt.  Even though most Republicans and conservatives will not be negatively swayed by Bain, it has done a good job of showing some of the liberals there is a difference between an Obama administration and Romney administration, so I don't see too much drop off in general effort on the liberal side once the general election actually gets into gear. 

If Bain doesn't do it, then the Republican National Convention probably will.  A question is just how far right the agenda and presentation will be - Mitt will obviously want to tack to the center (and will be so as soon as he gets it wrapped up - if he does).  But again I think the social conservatives don't care if it causes Mitt some percentage points. They'll do what they can to put their message out during the convention.  I expect there might be some of the rift exposed out in the open between these two factions.

The economy is definitely going to shave off some significant percentage points from his 2008 results.  But if Mitt doesn't charge up the base to GOTV, Obama could slip into victory in places like VA and NC, or in the suburbs of places like Philadelphia.  In which case, Obama will have his second term.

My belief is that Myth will go for a hardcore right wing, tea party card touter, fire breathing bible thumper, right wing conservative - and will announce such a plan - perhaps even by name, sooner rather than later if Newt and/or Santorum carry SC and destroy his lead in Florida.  

He's being advised to not do the NBC debate on Monday (which NBC has not published it on schedule yet due to contemplating canceling debate if Romney does indeed 'decline' to attend).  Hmmm.  Wonder if they would do same if it was any of the other three?  In fact, he has been advised to not do any further debates for near future by his 'advisors'.

Latest Comments