Romney vs. Obama: Cool vs. Cool

The time for making a decision is rapidly approaching. Thanks to Florida moving the nomination process forward, Republicans must soon choose a candidate to oppose Barack Obama. Most of the faithful believe that it is crucial to take back the presidency, but a majority remains undecided about who can best achieve this.

I have recently come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney is the one. While many party regulars are uncertain if he is conservative enough to undo the damage that Obama and his henchmen have wrought, I now believe he is. But let me explain.

First there is the business of winning the general election. This is no small matter. Many in the current crop of contenders do not measure up to the task. They either lack the experience, the knowledge, or the temperament to get the job done.

The best place to start my analysis is with Mitt. By most accounts he has been the more consistent debater. Many, however, dismiss him as too bland, but I count this as an advantage. This is because another way to describe his style is as “cool.” He does not lose his balance or become overly emotional.

Some see this as a lack of commitment, whereas I believe it is the perfect antidote to Obama. Our current president is himself cool and unflappable. Whatever the challenge, he keeps his head and offers what sounds like a rational rebuttal. Even when he makes foolish comments, he does so in a manner that seems well considered.

Romney, however, can match him cool for cool. Both are self-possessed and clearly intelligent. As a result, it is unlikely that Romney can be made to appear a hothead relative to Obama. He too possesses an imperturbable disposition that is suited to the demanding decisions required of an occupant of the oval office.

But consider some of the other candidates. Perry gets tongue-tied when confronted with serious competition. He then resorts to emotional appeals to his presumably greater compassion, which makes him appear “hot.” Unfortunately hot on cool feels out-of-control. So score this one for Obama.

Next there is Michelle Bachmann. If Perry is hot, she is ablaze with fiery indignation. So passionate is she that she routinely rushes to the head of the parade without considering the implication of what she is saying. So once again Obama wins by coolly pointing out her errors.

Then there is Newt Gingrich. By almost every account, Newt matches Romney and Obama in brainpower. A man filled with good ideas, he also promotes many clinkers because, as has frequently been observed, he cannot seem to keep from verbalizing his every thought. Besides Newt has a mean streak that makes Obama look like choirboy. Here too the incumbent has the advantage.

As to Rick Santorum, he too gets carried away with himself. By his own admission, he is probably the most ardent conservative in the pack. Yet too often he also appears to be the least mature. Once he gets an argument between his teeth, he is like an adolescent at a bull session. Obama, in contrast, is the composed professor.

Finally, there is Herman Cain. Like many others, I love Herman Cain. He too is a cool adult. Moreover, he is probably the most honest of the candidates. Unlike ordinary politicians, he admits when he does not know something, and then goes out to learn it—as he did when he went to Israel to investigate the so-called “right of return.”

But Cain is politically inexperienced. In many ways he is a conservative reflection of what Obama was before he came to office. He is a jewel whose abilities must not be wasted, but if Chris Christie is unprepared for the presidency, he is less so. Consequently, I say: Cain for Secretary of Commerce.

Which brings us back to Romney. He is a specialist in turning around organizational failures—as is Cain—and is therefore well suited to a time of economic crisis. He may not be as conservative as some might hope, but if he wins election his coattails will probably bring in a very conservative congress. Like it or not, this will contain some of his more liberal impulses.

So let us swallow hard and nominate a candidate that Obama cannot possibly attack for having enacted RomneyCare.

Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Republicans as Palestinian Wannabes

Abba Eban’s observation was so prophetic that it continues to be cited decades after it was put forward. The former Israeli Foreign Minister piquantly described the Palestinians as “never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Sadly, what was true in the past remains true today.

Over the last several weeks we have again witnessed the Palestinians refusing to make peace with Israel. Because their real objective is the destruction of their neighbor, they persist in demanding a restoration of the 1967 borders and a right of return for the descendents of those who fled their former homeland more than half a century ago.

As the Palestinians must know, Israel cannot agree to these terms. Because they would be tantamount to national suicide, no Israeli official can possibly accept them. Thus, given this precondition, productive negotiations are out of the question and a quixotic application for statehood was presented to the United Nations.

Republicans would seem to have little in common with these antics, and yet there is a common thread. American conservatives have been among the stoutest defenders of Israel’s right to exist; nevertheless they appear to be modeling their electoral efforts on the Palestinian example.

Many Republicans are longing for a died-in-the-wool conservative to run against Barack Obama. Michelle Bachmann, who fancies herself the perfect fit for this ambition, has argued that our current president is so weak that any Republican, irrespective of how conservative he or she is, can win in 2012.

This, however, is a pipe dream. American voters, especially moderates, do not like extremism. No matter how much they distrust Obama, they will swallow hard and cast their ballots for him if they perceive the alternative as dicey. And make no mistake; if Obama runs against a right-wing radical, he will make this an issue.

Why is this important? The answer lies in the continued weakness in Mitt Romney’s support. Despite his obvious assets, an “anyone but Romney” attitude is abroad among the Republican faithful. He is simply not perceived as orthodox enough to satisfy the longing for a genuine conservative.

And so rather than rally to his side, there has been a frantic search for an alternative. For a while Bachmann seemed to be this person. But then her whiny, shoot-from-the-hip persona soured her chances. Despite her bravura pronouncements, people could not envision her as the leader of the free world.

Then there was Rick Perry. He was supposed to ride in on his white horse from the Texas plains to slay the dragons of liberalism. But a funny thing happened on his way being coronated. He stumbled and stumbled badly. Strangely inarticulate for a successful politician, even when he could make himself understood, it was in defense of policies that did not sound conservative to committed conservatives.

So that leaves Romney, except for a few other remote possibilities who have not yet decided to run. The issue is therefore whether rank and file Republicans will accept a candidate who can win a general election or insist on someone who passes a litmus test of ideological purity?

For many on the right, a sterling opportunity to unseat Obama is not sufficient. No matter how intelligent, well spoken, and poised Romney is, they just don’t like him. Although the recent debates have demonstrated that he has what it takes to best Obama in a one-on-one shoot-out, like the Palestinians they want what they want regardless of the outcome.

Nonetheless too much is as stake for this sort of fastidiousness. If Obama is re-elected, the chances of a long-term depression are too great to discount. And so the William Buckley rule should prevail. Buckley opined that he would support the most conservative candidate he could get, with the proviso that this was someone who could win.

Winning matters. Who is president in two years will have a lasting impact on the fate of our nation. This is not a game. While there will be another do-over in six years, the amount of damage done in the interim would be substantial. Consequently, although Romney may not satisfy in every particular, he is conservative enough to protect us from the maws of a left-wing disaster.

For the sake of our children and grandchildren we must not allow this opportunity to pass.

Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Gullibility Factor

I almost laughed out loud! Here was the president of the United States postulating a way to bring down the budget deficit that had been ridiculed several months before. When Harry Reid had proposed it during the battle over increasing the nation’s debt limit, it gained no traction whatever and even prompted Representative Paul Ryan to mock it on the floor of the House.

So what was this howler? What was this plan to save money that was so obviously not a plan to save money? It was asserting that the cost of a new stimulus could be off-set by not spending a trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that no one had proposed spending.

Ryan said that this was like first passing a bill to cover the moon in green cheese and the next day rescinding it amidst of flourish of trumpets heralding Congress’s frugality. This was nothing other than a transparent verbal gimmick. It did not even pass the smell test.

Hence my question is: Why are so many people accepting Obama’s scheme at face value? Why aren’t many more millions of Americans doubled over in laughter at the temerity of such nonsense?

It isn’t as if no one has noticed that our president is a habitual purveyor of falsehoods. Nor is it that he has never been called out for inciting class warfare. It cannot even be said that the late night TV comedians haven’t been finding humor in his pious incantations about being non-political. They certainly have.

It is also true that the president’s ratings in the polls have been slipping. Nevertheless, they have not plummeted. Many people are still more prepared to blame the Republicans for Washington’s gridlock than they are him. So once again I ask: Why is this so?

One reason is simple human gullibility. Lincoln told us that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time, but you can apparently fool a great many of them almost indefinitely. They are so determined to believe that they put their rational faculties on hold and cruise along oblivious to the most ridiculous twaddle.

So who are these gullible people, and what is the source of their gullibility? One group is the rabid partisans. These are the left-wing Democrats who are upset that Obama has not squandered more trillions of dollars on failed policies. They will continue to blame conservatives for our troubles no matter what Barack does. Although no longer enthralled with him, they hate their traditional enemies even more.

Another group consists of the politically detached. They don’t read newspapers, watch cable television, or check the Internet for current events. For them, what happens in Washington does not exist. They, therefore, continue to support the president because they have no idea that many of his policies might injure them.

Then there are the authority sycophants. They are prepared to defer to people in charge regardless of what they do. These folks do not question what the most powerful man in the world says because they always accede to power—especially if it is articulated in an authoritative manner. And Obama, of course, is good as sounding confident.

Next there are the people who believe in giving the next guy a chance. These tend to be good people who do not want to jump to conclusions too quickly. They are inclined to allow others a great deal of latitude before they conclude that they have failed. For them, three years of ineptitude is still not enough.

Finally, there are those who always believe. They are therefore liable to credit the last voice that they hear. Because they do not analyze what was said so much as take it at face value, they are frequently swayed by a rousing speech. Obama, as we know can give a wonderful speech—and gives lots of them. Consequently, for these folks he is often the last persuasive voice they hear.

If we put these all of factors together, although the president is down, he is not out. Indeed, he is counting on his ability to convince the gullible to join his cause. He is apparently hoping that there are enough of them to provide him with the margin for another term in office.

I, for on one, am hoping that he is wrong. I have my fingers crossed that more people will listen to what he says, rather than the way he says it.

Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University