The Candidate in the Gray Flannel Suit
[Posted by Karl]
It’s a vintage reference, but one that Michael Barone might find apt to describe Mitt Romney, who was three years behind Barone at a private boy’s school in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan:
[A]s I look back on his biography, it seems to me that Romney missed one experience which changed the outlook and even the vocabulary of most of his schoolmates. This is a man who never experienced the ’60s. You know what I mean: peace demonstrations, dope smoking, ironic detachment, all that.
He spent a year in Stanford when, despite the calendar, the ’60s were just starting to arrive in Palo Alto; he debated the protesters. He then worked as a Mormon missionary in France (why doesn’t some debate questioner ask him to speak some French for us?) and witnessed with disapproval the May 1968 upheaval in Paris.
RTWT, but the excerpt ends there because it points out the weakness in Barone’s thesis. If Romney debated protesters at Stanford and witnessed the May 1968 riots in Paris, he probably had more experience with what Barone is calling the Sixties than most Americans.
Consider the following from two pieces published in the last election cycle. First, from fmr Gore adviser Morley Winograd and author Michael D. Hais:
It may surprise some to see baby boomers, so often represented as a generation of peaceniks and civil rights activists, producing this Republican realignment. But boomers were — and still are — a highly divided generation that actually tilts a bit to the right. On the college campuses of the 1960s, there were twice as many members of the right-wing Young Americans for Freedom as of the left-wing Students for a Democratic Society. It’s no different 40 years later. A survey done last month by the media research company Frank N. Magid Associates found that twice as many boomers call themselves conservative as liberal. The only thing that unites this generation are its members’ efforts to impose their diametrically opposed ideals, values and morality on everyone else through the political process.
Second, from lefty author Rick Perlstein:
The pictures people take and save, as opposed to the ones they never take or the ones they discard, say a lot about how they understand their own times. And in our archives as much as in our mind’s eye, we still record the ’60s in hazy cliches — in the stereotype of the idealistic youngster who came through the counterculture and protest movements, then settled down to comfortable bourgeois domesticity.
What’s missing? The other side in that civil war. The right-wing populist rage of 1968 third-party presidential candidate George Wallace, who, referring to an idealistic protester who had lain down in front of Johnson’s limousine, promised that if he were elected, “the first time they lie down in front of my limousine, it’ll be the last one they’ll ever lay down in front of because their day is over!” That kind of quip helped him rise to as much as 20 percent in the polls.
It’s easy to find hundreds of pictures of the national student strike that followed Nixon’s announcement of the invasion of Cambodia in the spring of 1970. Plenty of pictures of the riots at Kent State that ended with four students shot dead by National Guardsmen. None I could find, however, of the counter-demonstrations by Kent, Ohio, townies — and even Kent State parents. Flashing four fingers and chanting “The score is four/And next time more,” they argued that the kids had it coming.
Although Perlstein makes his point about pictures, one could easily make the same point about songs. Check Billboard’s Top 100 Songs for 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 to see how little revolution there is to be found there. In a 1969 Gallup poll, only 4% of American adults said they had tried marijuana. Even accounting for the stigma causing under-reporting, drug use was not widespread at the time.
The revisionist narrative of the Sixties Perstein describes is largely the result of the fact that the New Left captured one of America’s two major parties and most of its culture industry during the period. And the New Left has been so successful that even those who lived it — even someone as smart as Michael Barone — tends to lapse into the hazy cliches. If Romney was part of what Nixon called the Silent Majority, it means he was in the the majority. The counterculture was called the counterculture for a reason, even if they’ve partially succeeded in making it Establishment today.
–Karl
exactly. there is a gross disparity between the number of people who actually went to woodstock and the number of people who claimed they did.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/1/2011 @ 12:59 pm“…The only thing that unites this generation are its members’ efforts to impose their diametrically opposed ideals, values and morality on everyone else through the political process…”
Well, that and the fact that they don’t trust anyone over thirty! – Heh!
AD-RtR/OS! (b11b8b) — 12/1/2011 @ 1:03 pmAnd their narcissism.
Keep on accepting the lies about Herman Cain being a sexual harasser while defending Clinton you lying cheating Scrunts.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/1/2011 @ 1:07 pmSo shunning people because they have AIDS is homophobic?
What about heteros?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/1/2011 @ 1:16 pmWTF, Doh?!
JD (0388c1) — 12/1/2011 @ 1:20 pmIs Doh using the same stuff as epwj?
AD-RtR/OS! (b11b8b) — 12/1/2011 @ 1:22 pmOcassionally, Perlstein does exhibit the insights he gained from his Goldwater bio, but lost on the Nixon one, Wallace was a passing fad, the white ethnics represented by Michael Novak, the hard hats
narciso (87e966) — 12/1/2011 @ 1:23 pm(which composed the REagan Democrats, the former
Jewish liberals that would make up the neocons, those were the significant undercurrents.
Some time ago, I happened to see some pictures of a student protest during the 60s at a major university–Columbia, I think; or at least some other college with an instantly recognizable name. The vast majority of the male students who were protesting were dressed neatly in button down shirts, with short haircuts, no facial hair, etc.–“hippies” were in no way numerous. Females students were dressed in a way that suggested a secretary at a bank. So apparently even the politically leftists among them tended to be culturally conservatives.
Technically, I’m a baby boomer who more or less missed the Sixties. I was born in 1959, and remember scattered news reports about the protests, both in the US and Europe, and of events during the Nixon years, but my first real experience in political events came from watching the Watergate hearings and following the news reports about Watergate rather intently. That would have been during high school.
JBS (38f6c3) — 12/1/2011 @ 1:29 pmLate Sixties…
I was at Cal State-LA at that time, and everyday at Noon, the quad was filled with the Silent Vigil marking something to do with Vietnam/Cambodia/whatever.
It was really a hassle for the 99% to deal with as we tried to get into the Student Center to watch “The Dating Game”.
Plus, I am one of the untold millions that never attended Woodstock, or claimed to.
AD-RtR/OS! (b11b8b) — 12/1/2011 @ 1:29 pmBut, I just looked it up on the map, and lo-and-behold, on my one time in NY State, driving from Lime Rock Park CT, to Watkins Glen NY, last year,
I find that I passed within 10-miles of the place and never knew it.
And, quite frankly, would not have diverted to go see it either.
Honestly only JD, or Stashiu, dustin and other here who have served could make a comment with weight on rommneys not eing in Vietnam or none of his several sons serving in the military – which – i dont think precludes romney nor is fair to criticize him on the path he took nor any experiences he had 4 or 5 DECADES ago.
Romney is going to be elected based upon his record and people’s impression of him as a person.
Same as Perry, Bachmann and yes, that guy Cain.
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 12/1/2011 @ 1:33 pmHaving served gives nobody special rights to comment on something related to service, that is just a weird version of the chickenhawk nonsense.
JD (0388c1) — 12/1/2011 @ 1:38 pmjd. No special rights, but a better likelihood of getting the facts right. Not that that impresses all that many people….
Richard Aubrey (a75643) — 12/1/2011 @ 1:44 pmNo AD i just saw something on the news about AIDS.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/1/2011 @ 1:49 pmJD
No its not – its my personal preference to me that people who have served have more weight on those issues to me.
chickenhawk was not the intention
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 12/1/2011 @ 1:53 pmRomney’s sons serving or not serving indicates very little. My eyesight automatically rendered me unfit to serve even as a desk navigator in the JAG, but had I gone in, the odds of me seeing any actual combat would have been ridiculously low compared to the Vietnam era or today. (That would have been he Carter years: was there anything other than the abortive Iran hostage rescue mission?)
And even serving may not indicate much. My father was drafted during the Korean War and served his entire tour of duty at Fort (at the time it was merely Camp) Gordon, GA, without even coming close to being in combat.
But the wheres and whys of Romney’s (non)service doubtless have been talked over already, I would assume.
AD–the closest I was ever to Woodstock was the Tappan Zee Bridge driving back and forth between Boston and Florida as a kid, but as I understand it, there wouldn’t have been anything to see there if you had diverted.
JBS (38f6c3) — 12/1/2011 @ 1:58 pmThat ad put out by the israeli government is stupid.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/1/2011 @ 2:33 pmRomney not serving hasn’t been discussed that much, and why would it since neither Obama nor his likely GOP opponents served.
Five sons, none volunteering durin war – now that’s kinda bad.
jeanne (5a5d33) — 12/1/2011 @ 3:09 pmBoston Herald has a story up on Rummy’s Solyndra style oopsies. Tech outfits run by his supporters received state subsidies, tax benefits and cash and hit the skids.
Money involved is not comparable to Urkel, however.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/1/2011 @ 3:20 pmJeanne
I dont think its fair to expect the children of Presidential candidates to be even discussed even when they campaign for their parents.
Obama’s kids are my kids – they are America’s citizens and so are Mitts – it Mitts who’se running
I know alot of people see it the way you do but I think the main thing with Romney is his record and hs conduct – which is what it should be for everyone
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 12/1/2011 @ 3:30 pmAmerikkka is done with this President, and Romney too.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/1/2011 @ 3:31 pmRomney was the one that used the blue suit / black suit thing in the debates 4 years ago, right? I think of him once in a while when I dress in the dark. Boy, that sounds creepier than it should.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 12/1/2011 @ 3:46 pmThen again, “Obama’s kids are my kids” reads pretty creepy, too.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 12/1/2011 @ 3:47 pmI wasn’t aware Eric married Obama?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/1/2011 @ 3:53 pmComment by Dohbiden — 12/1/2011 @ 1:49 pm
i just saw something on the news about AIDS.
I saw Op-ed articles in two newspapers, one of which explained that December 1 is “World AIDS Day”
I do remember hearing something like that before, some other year, but forgot.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 12/1/2011 @ 3:54 pmVery creepy, carlitos. Both points. Hey, have you ever tried Moto? Their head sous chef is on Top Chef.
JD (0388c1) — 12/1/2011 @ 4:16 pmObama says his kids will succeed even if America fails.
ColonelHaiku (d838e0) — 12/1/2011 @ 4:47 pmHey, have you ever tried Moto?
No, but I’d bet the sumb*tch has tried mota, though.
ColonelHaiku (d838e0) — 12/1/2011 @ 4:48 pmgulrud… something I’ve been meaning to ask you: what’s the significance of your constant use of three “k”s in your spelling of America? You one of those grand wizards or something?
ColonelHaiku (d838e0) — 12/1/2011 @ 4:50 pmI remember when Dan Quayle was in the spotlight, his wife Marilyn was making some noise about the 60’s. Contrary to popular belief (or wish), not everyone Turned on, tuned in, and dropped out.
She [Marilyn Quayle] also indulged in a new form of 60’s nostalgia — recalling the unwild times of Richard M. Nixon’s Silent Majority. “We did not believe in destroying America to save it,” Mrs. Quayle told the Republican National Convention in a remark that brought her some of the strongest applause.
“I came of age in a time of turbulent social change,” she said. “Some of it was good, such as civil rights, much of it was questionable. But remember, not everyone joined the counterculture.”
“Not everyone concluded that American society was so bad that it had to be radically remade by social revolution,” Mrs. Quayle said. “Not everyone believed that the family was so oppressive that women could only thrive apart from it.”
Dana (4eca6e) — 12/1/2011 @ 4:54 pm28. Irony.
29. Marilyn Tucker Quayle was a very great missed opportunity for Amerikkka. Apart from the absent fire in the belly, as engaging and intriguing as Palin.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/2/2011 @ 12:58 amVia HotAir, Romney is motivating surrogates like Christie to battle Gingrich.
I appreciate the temptation of fighting on more equal footing with champions, but sacrificing oneself for Mitt? Are you freaking nuts, Chubby?
gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/2/2011 @ 1:02 amIt’s cultural. I recall John Kerry’s attitude about military service: it’s for low class losers who didn’t study in school.
That’s something I’ve heard a million times from people in the North East.
Of course Romney’s kids don’t want to serve if they lived in MA. Not that it’s at all fair to blame Mitt for this.
And actually, plenty of awesome people don’t serve. And plenty of people do serve because they don’t have other opportunities and want to make something of themselves, plus they love their country enough that the sacrifices are worthwhile.
But there’s more to military service than just proving how great you are. It’s so valuable an experience that is not easily replaced with a good adviser. It means something to those in uniform that everyone in their chain of command has been approximately willing to do what they are being asked to do. I think you get a no BS idea of what the military is and what it can and cannot do. The whole thing is logistics. Obama thought we could cut and run a lot faster than Bush did because one of these men served.
Anyway, my man is probably Newt at this point (not enthusiastically), and it does bother me that he did not serve. Not as some kind of judgment of the man’s character, but as a very important set of experiences, and the morale factor.
Anyway, I know a tree by its fruit, and Newt has produced thorns and Newt has produced many fruit, too. He’s capable of weathering storms, and I think he’s more likeable than he gets credit for.
Some of the other candidates have produced more fruit and fewer thorns, but are not good politicians. Some of the other candidates are great politicians, but have produced only thorns.
Dustin (cb3719) — 12/2/2011 @ 1:09 amThis country is screwed up. My dad served in Korea, but thinks kids should go to Canada instead of joining the service. He is a retired teacher of 40 years. Pretty much sums up our problems. Ignorant school teachers.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 12/2/2011 @ 2:45 amOooh Ramesh is fighting back the tears, stamping his feet, “Give it up, Romney’s the one!!!!!”
Come on, let’s flush his head in the toilet. What an maroon.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/2/2011 @ 11:31 amThat right there is probably the biggest problem, or at least the most key problem.
This is why politicians get away with making government so relevant to every problem and issue they can. Everyone grows up thinking that’s what we need, and only a few politicians are brave enough to say that (And thus they) are not the solution to our problems.
And folks are woefully uninformed of so many important aspects of our system of government and western history.
Dustin (cb3719) — 12/2/2011 @ 11:41 amPreston at PJM has a post up supposing that the snit up Romney’s nose is he deduced his failure in 2008 stemmed from running as the conservative.
His failure in analysis conflicts with his self-image as the competent technocrat, finding a solution to every problem.
In fact, I propose, the problem is that he’s Mitt, for which no conceivable solution exists.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/2/2011 @ 12:34 pmI’m glad to see this piece. It really is unfair to smear the 85% with the 15%. Of course the reason the 15% get all the press is because they were and remain wealthy. All romantic movements are fairly wealthy, because who else has the leisure? OWS is no different.
Renaissance Nerd (de4d63) — 12/2/2011 @ 2:00 pmWhat, I wonder, would he say about President Obama, who was born in 1961, and was, therefore, only nine years old when the 1960s ended. Heck, President Obama could barely even be said to having experienced the 1970s in the way that the esteemed Mr Barone is looking at things.
So, Mitt Romney didn’t tune in, turn on and drop out in the 1960s. All he did was grow up — with plenty of advantages, it should be noted — and turn into a successful businessman, good governor, and savvy organizer of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics. Mr Romney is not my preferred candidate, but he’s a heck of a lot better than the guy in office now.
The inquisitive Dana (f68855) — 12/2/2011 @ 5:29 pmWell said, Dana.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/2/2011 @ 5:34 pmObama wishes he had really grown in the 60s. whereas he spent most of that time abroad.
the mutants (87e966) — 12/2/2011 @ 5:38 pmComment by Dustin — 12/2/2011 @ 1:09 am
Dustin, you forget that Newt “served” by osmosis as an “Army brat”.
AD-RtR/OS! (4046c5) — 12/2/2011 @ 5:43 pmThat, plus his training as an historian, probably gives him as much insight into the nitty-gritty of how the military works, and doesn’t, as some of our more notable serving pols.
Culturally, the “60’s” actually extended to around 1974, ending with the resignation of RMN – plus, they really didn’t start until around the time of the Free Speech Movement (1964) in Berkeley.
AD-RtR/OS! (4046c5) — 12/2/2011 @ 5:48 pmTo be candid, I believe Romney can win even giving away 25% of the Right’s votes to Nor Laup and lesser names among existing parties, e.g., the Constitution and Independence parties on the ballot here in MN.
The Dimmis are behind a moderate party run to suck some wind from Romney’s sails, but Urkel will be lucking to get a third of the popular vote and is really only safe in a dozen states.
That being said, Mitt can’t win the nomination. He’s got nothing to meet Gingrich with except negativity and that will end up blowing his Presidential aspect.
Even if he squeaks in NH and NV he’ll get murdered outside the NE, IL, MI, and the Mormon West. We just don’t like him as a person.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/2/2011 @ 5:48 pm