Romney 3.0: Reverse Referendum? (or the Kristol Strategy)

Supposedly, Mitt Romney crossed the “choice versus referendum” line when choosing Paul Ryan. But this week of new ads, criticism within the right, and some theoretical data suggests Romney has switched strategies again.

The logic for the first switch from “Referendum” to “Choice” proceeds that Romney saw the writing on the wall—Obama’s high favorability, a 9.8 misery index low enough to neutralize economic anxiety—and realizing a simple “referendum” strategy would fail, instead chose to embrace the “choice” approach and picked the right’s most prolific policymaker and ideologue as a Veep.

Generalizations aside, this has been a pretty rough ride on the “Choice” horse. The “choice” dynamic has either fallen flat —think the Convention non-bounce—or worse, worked against him with caricature-like effect, as with the 47% video.

So it may not seem so surprising that Romney is back on the “Referendum” trail—er, sort of. Remarking on the failed “choice” strategy last week (to some notoriety), William Kristol of the GOP gentry explained why “Referendum” won’t work, and outlined a new solution:

“If this election is just about the last four years, that’s a muddy verdict. Bush was president during the financial meltdown. The Obama team has turned that around pretty well. Bill Clinton’s speech at the convention was very important in that way,” he said. Romney “has got to make it a referend–er, a choice about the next four years and explain what Obama would do that would be bad for the country and what he would do to be good.”

In other words, Kirstol suggests Romney run on — a reverse referendum? A referendum on the President’s failed four years…that haven’t happened yet?

An easy interpretation is that this idea still represents the “choice” dynamic a la Ryan, meaning Kristol’s “advice” is classic self-referential nothing-speak that earns political commentators their much-revered place on, say, the Daily Show. But we can’t be so sure: there’s a huge subtext of right-wing desire to “fix the Romney campaign,” highlighted by the awful week in “choice”-ism, and my earlier post on Political Science data suggesting that this time of September is absolutely crucial for solidifying a campaign image for undecideds just tuning in. With that clock ticking, there’s a new temptation to get the “Choice-Referendum” alchemy just right before it’s too late, and I think Kristol is drawn to this temptation—notice he gives a gutteral “referend–er,” before switching to “choice.” But the main exhibit is Romney’s new ad this week.

It’s a minute-long spot chock full of Apple Pie and welfare bromides, clearly aimed at mitigating 47% aftershocks. It’s noteworthy because A) He uses referendum language, explaining how “more” Americans are on food-stamps and welfare today than January 2009, but B) softens his tone on Obama (as Andrew Sullivan makes note), explaining that he thinks they both “care about poor and middle class families.” But Romney’s most interesting sentence is the last one. Thus, he says:

“We can’t afford another four years like the last four years.”

Maybe that looks like every Romney quote ever, but not to me; my ears perk up, and I hear something different. I hear a negotiation between choice and referendum—the President’s last four years sucked, but if you don’t buy that, I’m qualitatively different; also, if you think I’m qualitatively different for the worse, well, the President’s last four years sucked. At the same time, I hear a tacit acknowledgment of, “Yeah, this President hasn’t been so bad,” (both care about the poor) mixed with, “But actually, he kind of sucks,” (more welfare, food stamps, poverty) mixed with, “Yeah I said that stuff about 47%, so even if you hate me on as a ‘choice,’ vote for me as a ‘referendum,'” mixed with some “Look, just f****g vote for me, okay?”

Flash liberal commentary: New message or not, it’s mathematical sleight of hand all over again. Of course we can’t afford four more years like the last four years–any more than we can afford the once-in-a-lifetime economic cataclysm (caused in part by right-wing policies) and the slow schlep back to recovery. Blaming Obama for the net negative in welfare food stamps, while ignoring the steady reduction since then, is like decreeing the finish line has been moved after the race and then rescinding the winner’s medal—which, amazingly, even some of the most respected conservative commentators have tried to do to Obama.