Streams

RNC Dispatch: Ann Romney v. Chris Christie on GOP's Softer Side

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - 09:29 AM

The Republican Party is having a fight over its identity. It's not the Ron Paul Libertarians vs. a coalition of Wall Street Bankers and religious zealots. It's not Tea Party fanaticism vs. a dying breed of representatives who value bipartisanship. It's not Mitt Romney vs. his entire base, which greeted him with a relatively short ovation in his staged surprise appearance at the end of his wife's speech.

The real battle is between love and respect - as seen in the point-counterpoint between the night's two keynotes: Ann Romney and Chris Christie.

Ann Romney's task was to humanize her husband, offer a glimpse into their lifelong commitment, and expand it as a metaphor for how he'll serve the nation. As one of the longest speeches a woman will deliver throughout the convention, this was also a time to appeal to female voters who are lukewarm on Romney, put off by Ryan, and scared by Santorum.

She tackled this task with a message about love. Her love from Mitt. Their love for their family. The love Republicans have for America. Her love for every member of that audience. Love, love, love. She was bringing a taste of Woodstock to Tampa.

Her speech sought to soften not only her husband, but their party as well. Her delivery was stilted, though most authentic when she described her personal feelings for her husband. Her reference to life being tough for many - as seen in fees for school sports that used to be free - sure sounded like an accidental appeal to increased educational funding. But overall, she did her job: she told the world, "We're not that scary."

The Governor Christie came up to close out the night. Either nobody vetted their two speeches, or someone thought Ann Romney really deserved a rebuttal.

Christie's main theme was that it was better to be respected than loved. He promised blunt truths. They took the form of accusing Democrats of divisive scare tactics, suggesting that Obama only follows the polls, and claiming he'd better advocate for teachers than unions would. Like a blunt instrument, smashed around without much precision, without piercing beneath the surface and with a lot of pounding. And one of the recipients of that pounding was Ann Romney's whole message.

This isn't just a conflict between speech-writers, or even between the candidates vying for 2012 and those jockeying for 2016. This is a real division in the party.

In 2000, George W. Bush succeeded with the rhetoric of compassionate conservatism . In 2010, the Tea Party animated a landslide with take-no-prisoners extremism. While many Republicans will voice the need for new revenue to strengthen public funding of inclusive social programs, they are drowned out by Paul Ryan and his caucus that gleefully calls for a Draconian budget. There are conservatives who suggest a bigger tent of the sort that Reagan cultivated; and others who use racial code and fear mongering to target immigrants, gays, women and people of color lest they be accused of loving anyone.

In invoking their commitment to charity - with the humorously self-unaware humblebrag that they never talk about all their generosity - Ann Romney was speaking from the heart. She believes it's her role as a wealthy American to give to causes she believes in - such as Planned Parenthood, which she supported as First Lady of Massachusetts. In her particular way, she wants to show the world she loves.

And now, Mitt Romney may have to choose between his wife and the man he supposedly wanted as his running mate; between his own patrician qualities of noblesse oblige, and the harsher populist energies of the party he has chosen; between love and respect.

Sadly, for Mitt, right now it doesn't seem like he has much of either from his own party. Romney was virtually absent from his own Convention, even ironically after he arrived in the room. When a series of Governors spoke about job creation, it wasn't about jobs Romney had created in the private sector or as Governor of Massachusetts. When Santorum segued from economic themes to socially conservative red meat, he was voicing views on choice and marriage that he knows the Presidential nominee is more muted on. As Rachel Maddow pointed out, Christie spent the 1,800 words of his 2,600 word speech before mentioning the man they'd gathered to nominate.

Mitt received little respect and less love during his Convention's opening night - and the conflicting speeches show that his campaign hasn't determined which he'll be seeking from the American public this November. So far it's a recipe to get neither. But last night we did learn that if voters don't choose him, he'll be OK: in addition to extraordinary wealth and good health, he will still have love and respect at home from a woman who truly adores him as he is…whoever, in fact, he turns out to be.

Tags:

More in:

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [2]

Towana from Indiana

There is no battle between love and respect within the Republican Party. To think otherwise one is either being purposely manipulative or they lack the ability to listen and reason at the same time.

It was clear that the love Ann Romney spoke of was always coupled with respect. As for Chris Christie, he merely stated that he was taught that "IF you have to choose between love and respect, always choose respect" because love without respect is fleeting, but respect could grow into a lasting love.

Surely that is not so hard to understand.

Aug. 30 2012 01:27 AM
thomas k from NYC

The two speeches further demonstrate that the GOP is going through a major identity crisis.

On one hand, it still wants to cling to the "compassionate conservatism" dogma, as portrayed in Mrs. Romney's speech.

On the other hand, it wants to launch a Reaganesque "bold" and gritty style of governing, showcased by Gov. Christie.

Caught between these two polarizing ideologies are the fundamentalists and extremists, who want to ignore modern science and "take America back" into the 18th Century.

I find it ironic and disingenuous that Christie ended the speech by proclaiming "the new era of truth-telling." We would not be in the mess we're in right now, if the elected officials heeded to the truth-telling warnings for the past 12 years.

Aug. 29 2012 03:27 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Sponsored

About It's A Free Blog

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a blog, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Supported by

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public.  Learn more at revsonfoundation.org.

Authors

Feeds

Supported by