You can make the exact same argument without using this “data point” and getting into a subsequent argument about how much Mitt Romney at 65 is like Mitt Romney at 18. Let’s be honest here: the primary value of this story is the fact that it’s repugnant, not the insights it offers into Romney. You can argue about the economic purpose of venture capital firms and the social and fiscal value of stamping out Planned Parenthood and the hilarity of Romney’s stance on the auto bailout, which was “I was against it and had nothing to do with its passage but I want credit for it anyway,” but those require arguments. Nobody’s going to defend a high school bully. So apparently this is an easy way to make a point that ought to be made in a smarter and more relevant manner. Talking about what he’s done in office and said he will do in the campaign would give you a much better idea of what he might do in office than his misbehavior in 1965.
Ought to? For informed and attentive voters, yes.
For vast swaths of the American electorate? It’s reptile brain all the way.
I agree that the story generated interest because it hits a number of popular buttons like bullying and gay rights. However I believe it does provide real insight into Romney’s psyche.
I don’t think this is true. Not because decades old behavior is useful, but because his campaign seems to be an exercise in pandering to whoever he is currently talking to. Granted, I was not planning to vote for him, and my state is pretty much an Obama lock, but I like to have a sense of who the opponent is, and judge what his administration would be.
What I’m learning about Romney is that he has no empathy, and it’s not new, and he’s not changed over the years. It’s not some trumped up anti-Wall Street sentiment, it’s not made up half truths from his rivals, it’s who he is. He doesn’t even have the inherent decency, today, to man up and say that he did something stupid and wrong when he was a kid, and apologize to the person he wronged. He just wants the story to go away so it doesn’t hurt his campaign.
This is useful to know, and we wouldn’t know it without this story.
And his non-apology apology didn’t help his empathy problem. “If it happened, I’m sorry that people were hurt by it.” What’s that even mean? Precisely nothing. Being more forthright would’ve helped him with independent voters. Imagine if he’d have said this:
“I don’t remember all of the pranks that I and my group of friends pulled in high school, and I’m sad to say don’t recall this incident as well. It’s clearly a vile and base way to act, and is in no way funny or harmless. I was a stupid teenager, which may not excuse my behavior, but I’ve grown and changed as an adult due to my experiences in <insert campaign opportunity here>. I would never tolerate such behavior in myself or my children today, and I’m sincerely sorry for the pain any of my juvenile past actions has caused.”
But he didn’t. He issued a non-apology apology. And that laugh as he said it. This is a guy so divorced from everything that he barely even registers as human. And he himself keeps reminding the rest of us of that fact.
Do you think it’s relevant that Romney destroyed lives while at Bain, while doing very little to boost the economic viability of the firms he took over? I’m not saying that’s all he did: I am claiming that breach of trust was a big part of his business model.
My take is, “No, that’s not especially relevant either”. What matters is Romney’s policies, not whether he is a sweet guy. Romney’s use of the bully pulpit might matter a little, but that’s something separate to his character.
So what should the low information voter do? Back in the 1950s-1970s, it was a little tricky as there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. But now it’s relatively straightforward: forget about the candidate, just choose the party. The Democrats are a coalition of liberals, moderates and conservatives. The Republicans consist of crazies and simulators of the same. Adam Serwer: The best explanation I’ve seen for the two Romneys (The moderate Massachussetts governor and the conservative standard-bearer) comes from Reason’s Peter Suderman, who compares Romney to a business consultant who views his task as “presenting the customer with a slicker, better packaged, but fundamentally unchanged version of itself.” When the client was liberal Massachussetts, Romney was a moderate. As the leader of the post-Tea Party GOP, he will [be] as conservative as his clients need him to be. Congressional Republicans vote almost entirely in lockstep, so with that level of unity evaluating any particular candidate is a task for political junkies only.
I think you’re starting from a flawed premise. You think people would remember this kind of thing as a brutal assault, as do you. They may or may not. Back then, this was called something like ‘teaching the wiseguy a lesson’, or something. This may or may not be something that could be remembered. Now, of course, it is regarded as a heinous assault. Back then, even the cops would have said that the longhair was some fag who deserved whatever he got, and was lucky enough that somebody took the time to try and straighten him out.
And the bloodstains on your yearbook.
The point is that, if he doesn’t think this way, then that in and of itself is a testament of his character. And, unlike what Marley says, the more information we can get about the guy’s character, the more we can predict his future decisions. I have no reason to actually believe his policy stances–every politician lies to get elected. And his behavior as a capitalist doesn’t tell me much, as all capitalist titans wind up making what I consider immoral decisions. His character as a private person is far more telling.
I mean, the only reason I don’t believe he is a sociopath at this point is that, as a politician, he should have learned much better how to manipulate people. It’s clear he has some morals–ones that are making him feel he needs to tell some form of the truth.