WHATEVER you think of Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate, he seems to have a nice family. I watched their campaign ad on the topic earlier this week, with the occasional heart shooting out of my eyes. I've publicly admired Ann Romney's Pinterest board. I can't tell the sons apart, but I'm aware that one of them has inspired a Tumblr. Still, this week's drummed-up controversy about the comments of Hilary Rosen, a Democratic pundit, on Mrs Romney is wearying.
Yes, Ms Rosen was snide in saying that Mrs Romney "has actually never worked a day in her life." And Ms Rosen's larger point wasn't compelling: in the next sentence, she said that Mrs Romney isn't in a typical socioeconomic situation and therefore doesn't count as evidence that Mr Romney understands the economic issues women face. But Mr Romney hasn't actually been saying that his wife's situation is typical. He's been saying that his wife reports to him "regularly", and based on her conversations with women, that economic issues are uppermost on their minds. That's what I've been hearing from women (and men) too, and it might be a useful clarification on Mrs Romney's part; there's been so much argument over social issues lately that you could get the impression that women in 2012 are more concerned about access to contraception than access to stable employment. Further, it's not really fair to say that Mr Romney is suddenly talking about his wife as a bid to convince women that he gets them, in the "some of my best friends are women" way. He talks about his wife all the time and has done for years.
With all of that said, it's a little condescending the way some critics are clutching their pearls over this. A sensible take on this episode comes from Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post. "In some ways, the most interesting aspect of Rosen's comments was the swiftness with which the Obama campaign moved to criticize them," she writes. "...this after Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom quickly posted video of Rosen's remarks and incorrectly describing her as an 'Obama adviser.'"
Just so. Nothing distracts people from the issue at hand better than a polarising comment on a sensitive topic that calls up people's deeply-seated views about identity, equality and family. And that's the opportunity cost of this whole fracas. I doubt that the economic issues facing women would have become a major campaign issue in any case, particularly as men faced higher unemployment than women during the recession. There are, however, some economic issues that disproportionately affect women, and now we're definitely not going to talk about them. Women still earn less money than men, for example—a phenomenon that Mr Romney fumbled in addressing this week, before Ms Rosen's tone-deaf comment trumped his. They pay more for health care than men do, a situation that would not be improved if, for example, America's leading provider of family-planning services was in fact shuttered. They face higher poverty rates than men, and in old age, women are among the groups more likely to be wholly dependent on Social Security than men—a fact that gives entitlement reform a feminist dimension, as it means that the looming shortfall will disproportionately affect women. Mr Romney doesn't need to invoke his wife to discuss any of those issues. He could just invoke data, logic and analysis.
(Photo credit: AFP)
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Not knowing who Hilary Rosen is, I looked up the name.
I guess she said something outrageous in order to get "eyeballs."
Rosen left the Brunswick Group to join the political communications firm, SKDKnickerbocker in 2010.
And if one reads her bio, she hasn't "worked." She's been a
LOBBYIST.
She was paid to lobby the US Legislature and was a regular presence on behalf of the her employers in the Recording Industry at a time against proponents of file-sharing and new Internet technologies.
She fails to point out that the Romney children have only 1 mother,
whereas her kids have 2.
Rosen resigned as head of the RIAA at the end of 2003, in order to spend more time with her partner, Elizabeth Birch, and the the twins they adopted in 1999 (a boy and a girl).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Rosen
The bio doesn't have a box score so we have to assume they are both mothers, because we don't know - as Triumph the Insult Comic Dog would say - "Who's the pitcher, and who's the catcher?"
Regards
"Not that there's anything wrong with that."
Regards
Seriously, politics aside Hilary Rosen has a valid point. However, it seems that when it comes to a stay at home moms, the whole subject is taboo. Going to Salt Lake city is similar to traveling back in time, to an era where the church still runs everyone cultural and social agenda, which is to say in an environment where a woman first duty is to have as many kids as possible to populate the church congregation while serving and obeying her husband, who's role is to provide and protect. I doubt that this falls into the category of the average american woman nowadays, and that anyone under the influence of the church can claim to be free to chose how they want to live their own lives. The diffused moral sanctions are extremely effective in Utah, such that I got kind of hung up on Ann Romney's free to choose statement, mostly that the church is ran by men. It does not change anything to the fact, that Hilary Rosen may have said out loud what I presume many american women are thinking. I guess that it had to be said out in the open at her own expense, as she is the one whom is taking the wrap for bringing this issue out in the open. Her public claim is most probably understood by most stay at home moms, though the subject is taboo.
Mrs. Romney is able to be a stay at home mom because her husband worked his ass off and earned enough money to make it possible. Mitt Romney inherited enough money to buy a yacht and to live a life of luxary. Instead, he gave away the money he inherited and earned everything he has through the sweat of his own brow. He has spent a great deal of his life in public service doing jobs that pay less that he could have made working exclusivly in the private sector. Democrats make heros out of the Kennedys who inherited great wealth but want to attack Romney for doing the same thing the Kennedys did. There has never been a more hypocritical group than the liberal Democrats in America today.
Let me see if I got this right, Mitt Romney gave away his inheritance because it did not feel right to get money for nothing, and he did not keep anything for himself and his family. He then went into a very lucrative business to earn his money the hard way and rightfully call it its own. Now we should all sanctify him, on the face of your own self professed claim, a few notches above mother Theresa whom had no money and opted to go into poverty to help others by which ever means she could possibly use. Not only that, we should also vilify the offspring of the Kennedys, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Fords and so on for accepting their inheritance as their own irrespective of their deeds to society. You can call the liberal democrats, to use your own term, hypocrites if it pleases you, but you cannot call them flip floppers, though they are deemed synonyms if you get my drift. I guess that it goes to show that the so called liberal democrats will have to use their etch a sketch strategy later on to erase this wrong conviction you hold at present. Listen, I may be naive but I am not totally dumb, so please don't try to insult my intelligence. I now have heard it all, Sarah Palin was deemed an excellent candidate simply for being a good mom, Mitt Romney is now deemed as equally worthy of the so called highest office in the land, because he turned down money to make money. Moreover, I have now learned that FDR was a bad president for two main reasons, one, he was a dirty hypocrite liberal democrat, and two, he accepted a family inheritance.
"There has never been a more hypocritical group than the liberal Democrats in America today."
Ah, but you are wrong! You overlook the liberal Democrats of yesterday -- or the day before that!
And, if you contemplate the likely liberal hypocrisy of tomorrow, or any of the days which follow, then today's liberal hypocrisy is very small beer!
Half the problems of the human race are caused by lack of imagination. We think we see far only because we stand on the shoulders of giants. In reality, we dwell in the veriest foothills of liberal hypocrisy and lack the imagination to see the vast Andes of deception that lie beyond! In front, the moon climbs slowly, so slowly. But, Look!, to the West the land is dark with snarky double-dealing!
LibDems and Compassionate Conservatives = hypocrites. Give me independents any day...
I totally agree with you! Hilary Rosen said what was on my mind: Ann Romney is NOBODY to talk about any women's economic issue. Firstly because she never worked outside her home, and secondly because, as she is amazingly rich, she didn't have the burdens of the average homeworker. Oh! It must have been sooooo hard for her to manage her dozen servants, many mansions and cadillacs.
Democrats shouldn't worry because the women who are turned away by republican policies are actually feeling the pain for Rosen. All she did was to express herself in a wrong way, the idea behind her statements is correct and intelligent ( working and stay at home) women know it ( except stupid homeworkers with an inferiority complex ).
When all the fuss is over, the only thing women will remember is how a talented woman was viciously attacked for expressing an idea that, in the whole context, is correct.
See that is the difference between Republicans and Democrats, same situations (Rosen/Rush Limbough running their mouth, but in fact Rosen never insult anybody). Republicans even justified Rush, Democrats clearly self regulate without the need of pressure, even thought Mrs Romney has two Cadillacs that Mr Romney is able to provide, according to themselfs. So in fact you can reasonably say that she does not have a cleat idea of the situation out there, yes she works just as any housewife can only raise her kids but she is in a bubble compare with the rest of us in unemployment.
I agree with your claim that republicans use foul language and imagery to paint the opposition, and that Hilary Rosen did not. She expressed a personal opinion rather than vilifying the opposition, and yet she apologized for stirring a public controversy in a political climate where a democrat will be vilified for any and all reasons. How can her statement be compared to the awful spectacle offered by the republicans, which is manifest to the world by those public demonstrations of radical extremists brandishing signs depicting the president of the USA as either a monkey, a joker, a nazi and so on and this under the encouragement of elected legislators waving at the crowd up from the balconies of the Congress. I trust that the american people are smarter than what is shown. Should you ask me, I seriously believe that it is not politics which is driving the people to become collectively dumb, rather it is religion or the church to be precise.
Living in a dream world does not make it so. Being a "lock-step liberal" is living a life of complete blindness.
One great attribute of the blind is to develop his other senses beyond their usual capacity to make up for his loss of sight. Being blind does not prevent someone to see, however it allows him to see things in more details than he would otherwise have as an ordinary person. You may have the capabilities to see with your eyes, though the information which you receive is not necessarily decoded properly rendering your sense of sight rather useless. I thank you for providing me with reinforcement in my own convictions, as if you have to resort to insults and threats to make your own personal opinion come across, it can only mean that it cannot stand on its own merit. I am proud to be considered a liberal by you, as being dissociated from your kind is a real honour and privilege. Obviously you are not yet able to rewrite history to erase the episode of the public spectacle offered by the tea party republicans brandishing signs reminiscent of the dark ages era, a term I use in connection with the blindness topic you have brought in this discussion. You essentially are what you associate with.
"Romney doesn't need to invoke his wife to discuss any of those issues. He could just invoke data, logic and analysis. "
There is an ideological problem in just invoking data, logic and analysis on the issues of women you have identified.
The US conservative ideology has as one of its deeply ingrained tenets not considering any group as "victims" or as needing "additional help". I am stating this without making any value judgments on the tenet as that is irrelevant to my thesis.
This tenet has been used, for example, in matters of race or economic status. This creates the predicament Romney faces in taking on women issues directly.
If he were to use data, logic and analysis to make statements on "addressing" women issues (ones unrelated to reproduction), you can replace women with poor or with a minority race in such an analysis and that would totally undermine the Right's policy preferences towards such groups where similar issues exist.
At the same time, if one were to replace women in some of the Rightist analyses of minority "issues", then it might appear that they are either denying any such women issues exist or saying that it would be automatically get taken care of by the free markets if the women took personal responsibilities for themselves rather than look for policy help from the Government specifically targeting that group. Taking on such issues himself might even get him accused of being a RINO in certain conservative circles. And yet he needs the women vote.
This is the corner into which the ideology has painted itself and where Romney finds himself.
In addition, Romney comes from a part of the corporate world where the glass ceiling is still in existence widely, pay disparity is typical, emotional differences a concern amongst the men, etc. How is he going to be able to suggest a solution to these issues with that background and sound credible?
This is why the only practical option available to him is to let his wife do the talking on those issues and get credit by association.
This is the corner into which the ideology has painted itself and where Romney finds himself.
Give me a break. Who painted this corner of which you speak? Gloria Steinem in 1969? This whole "women's issues" conversation is just a pathetic distraction for President Obama's lack of any sort of real domestic accomplishment in his tenure.
I certainly hope, for your sake, that the Supreme Court does not embarrass him any further by invalidating the "signature achievement" of his presidency.
You forgot the argument clincher "and your momma wears combat boots".
Yeah buddy. "And who's your daddy" ?!?
I suspect that it goes deeper than that. The pure social conservative ideology is that we are all victims and that being victimized is just part of life itself. The ingrained tenet is that each individual on its own is responsible for correcting any wrongs encountered on its path under the guidance of God. Victims are essential to maintain god's existence, a he not only created an imperfect world but his guidance is required to avoid eternal damnation and seek salvation. After all an imperfect system is justifiable under the premise that those whom have done wrong and got away with it will have to deal with the consequences, or real justice, when faced with God and hence the final judgement. Therefore, man should not interfere with God's business in attempting to correct any wrongs out of their jurisdiction. As far as giving his wife a bigger part to play in his political campaign, I would think that this is part of the etch a sketch strategy, given that to get this far into the race he had to put his pure conservative mask on, he now has to break the mold he got into. I trust that in general the people are smart enough to understand the game and follow all the moves. At the end of it all, either reason or emotions will prevail because desperate people do desperate things, and I fear that emotions will prevail given the deteriorating economic environment. In short, the american populace will vote to send a message to the world, and this will trigger retaliation as it is an all made in America message which is sure to get lost in the translation. I doubt that any people will fold when told, because they fear that otherwise they will worse off.
"We are all victims or no one is" is a puritanical streak that has been exploited by those that have realized that there is money to be made in "victimizing" and then blaming people for being "victimized", a central theme in much of American Corporate culture.
The religious equivalent is "We are all sinners" and so we have control and personal responsibility to get out of being sinners with personal help from God.
Two distinct but often confused themes when capitalism meets conservatism.
I agree with the gist of your post though. As various right-leaning posters (presumably all men) have demonstrated here with essentially "What women issues?". This is why Romney has a problem and cannot address any such "issues" when his core constituency denies it or cannot deal with it.
May be not that different as capitalism or mercantilism is inspired by the Aristotle doctrine, whereby God is the master of the universe and man in playing the role of the slave is learning to live under God's image. And, this in opposition to Plato's doctrine where man is only the reflection of his shadow on the wall of the cavern, and hence the whole universe blends into one single indistinguishable entity, which is said to have given birth to socialism or communism. It is basically how we view and interact with our environment which makes the difference. Within a culture of hunter and gatherers, man is an integral part of nature as only of its element. While for the sedentary farming culture man controls nature with quasi total power, allowing for a formal distinction between the private and the public domain. We know however today due to science, that unless we take care of nature we will all disappear, but yet we keep debating this right vs. left as if we have grown our knowledge base since Socrate's times. Corporations and the people are polluting the environment in a not so manifest way, hence passing on the cost to the public at large and that is acceptable, and some will say that this is only a hoax.
"He could just invoke data, logic and analysis. "
This assumes that the outcome would not result in a faux paux.
Truly amazing how people can create a 7 course meal from a mini- marshmallow.
Now, if Rosen's dog had made the silly comment, that would be news.
One of the best pieces I've read on this subject. Thank you so much for thoughful, balanced analysis. Perhaps others in the media could emulate your good example.
"...this after Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom quickly posted video of Rosen’s remarks and incorrectly describing her as an 'Obama adviser.'"
Yeah, I don't think that was a mistake. The Romney Campaign's already shown a pretty easy disregard for truth. If they were willing to use out-of-context video to make the president say exactly the opposite of what he actually said, you can bet they're not going to care who Rosen's employment details.
The only thing more remarkable than Romney's uneasy relation with truth is the corporate media's lack of interest in pointing it out, although that might change when they admit he's the Republican nominee. Currently they are still in, "Look over there, a shiny thing!" mode trying to maintain interest in a totally trivial and boring exercise. Some of the left-leaning bloggers point it out regularly. Steve Benen posts a weekly roundup of the most egregious lies each week (they have to be above the level of mere falsehoods), and an interesting thing is his list has been getting longer each week since he started. Of course everybody expects politicians to lie, but it seems like Willard surpasses even such accomplished artists as Bush and Obama.
“He could just invoke data, logic and analysis.”
Excuse me, EG? This is America! We’ll take our campaigns nice the emotionally populist, thank you. Don’t go muddying up the waters with fuzzy math and liberal-elite book learnin’.
Well, Obama has certainly reached out to the people by avoiding proper accounting then. Consider him a patriot.
Patriotism is the ultimate refuge of scoundrels.
That's why our country is run by such gosh-darn patriots!
Indeed, we have the "least transparent government in history," just as he promised in his campaign. Oh, wait...
You haven't adequately explored the opportunity offered by the Left.
left is another word for failure. The Eurozone is the perfect example of wealth destruction through collectivism.
"women still earn less money than men"
They dont work as many hours and go on maternity leave. Its hard for them to make as much when they essnetially have a second job in rasing kids.
Actually, there are studies which control for that. And women still make less money -- even with the same hours, the same experience, and no children. The factors that you cite would, of course, make a bad situation worse. But they are not the whole story.
Of course that is because companies fear that even women without children could have them later.
If the study you are talking about controls for maternity by only focusing on women who don't have kids, I'd say that this probably says more about the earnings of people who for whatever reason have never had children. For example, better looking people, more outgoing people, and those with better personalities make more money than ugly mean people. Not to say that everyone who doesn't have kids is ugly and mean, but it seems like being friendly and sexy is conducive to having children.
*Also what ^ said
Well perhaps in some cases. But in a lot of fields, there is sufficient turn-over that losing someone to maternity is not particularly more likely than losing them (male or female) to another job offer. Except, of course, that the people who are hired away are routinely your very best people, whereas maternity doesn't correlate with job skills.
So? Perhaps the women that aren't smart enough to realize their is a life outside of work actually aren't any good at work either.
If you somehow took that from my comment, I obviously have a serious need to improve my communications skills!
Has anyone talked about Obama's woman problem. He's stopped smoking, he has to eat salad and organic salad at that, and sometimes he looks genuinely afraid of Michelle. I don't think he can even think about lighting up a spliff or his wife would murder him. He is so completely whipped. I'm disappointing because he isn't any fun anymore.
"I'm disappointing because he isn't any fun anymore."
Buck up friend, and live for yourself instead of through others! ;)
f34R the wife.
I thought that one of my people had finally got elected President. Then he quit smoking.
-
Teacup, I didn't say he didn't have good reason to. I'd be afraid of her too. She'll tax our soda and steal our cigarettes and make us run laps. I have nightmares.
She'll make you eat your veggies too.
As long as I can still play air guitar to Metallica, I'm cool with it.
Rosen came at this issue with a meat axe. Women are free to choose when there is a man providing it for them, or a government surrogate. They can choose the latter with Obama, but maybe not Romney. The uncertainty, ooh the uncertainty in one' s life choices.
Excuse me, but what are you talking about? Women are free to choose what? What does "a man providing it" (what?) have to do with the price of rice? The issue Rosen was talking about was the disparity of wages for similar jobs between men and women? What does Obama have to do with "providing" anything? The law involved was passed back in the 1960s, and the courts have enforced it only grudgingly. What are women supposed to choose? Not working? What would that have to do with Obama providing anything? Anything that costs money has to be passed by Congress, the President can't just "provide" it.
Still, this week's drummed-up controversy about the comments of Hilary Rosen, a Democratic pundit, on Mrs Romney is wearying.
Well, if Rosen hadn't snidely continued her commentary on twitter, she and @AnnRomney wouldn't have gotten into a twitter fight(see Breaking News Timeline chart via Dave Weigel). Then @DavidAxelrod wouldn't have had to tweet: “Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney. They were inappropriate and offensive.”
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58372028@N00/7072141213/
Well, Rosen is a pretty disgusting creature (a "political strategist"?), and the Republican attempt to make her words seem like something from the Democrats is pointless. The people who will believe that already believe it -- they hate Obama so much they believe any derogatory thing said about him -- and the rest of us will not. I despise him already, but that's because he has continued and expanded so many of Bush/Cheney/Addington's policies, but The Republicans have become so detached from reality that they scare me to the point where I may have to vote for the bum.Who can guess what policies Willard will adopt if he should ever get power?
EG, you're a very good writer. I like the attention to detail shown in your second paragraph. Your fourth paragraph, to comment on I think, would be a mistake. I'll only say it seems that you violated your own rule set out at the beginning of that paragraph, when you continued on writing. This is a nice piece though. Despite obviously have views on identity, equality and family, you do seem to have a knack for reporting unbiasedly before you then delve into your opinion. Kudos.
I would agree with this assesment of E.G.'s talent. His reporting has been especially fair lately.
What makes you think E.G. is a "him"? A person's wife could tell them about women's issues or they could invoke data, logic and analysis...unless they were a woman.
Sorry, guess im a sexist pig. I dont understand the second part of your comment.
I am a she. No worries, though, and thanks to you and ccusa for the kind words.
You're very welcome.
This is much less important than the Hillary Clinton cookie-baking scandal . . . what, you don't remember that world-historic outrage?
Upper-middle-class feminist career-women are probably more out of touch with typical American women than any others of their sex.
About as much as Romney is out of touch with the average working stiff.
Romney is out of touch with the average multi-millionaire.
I've known people who worked with him when he was Governor. The verdict is very smart, very competent, and (from the ladies) much more handsome in person.
All cats are grey in the dark. All that handsomeness is taken, but I will grant he is the least sartorially challenged of the field.
Romney should work on making those smarts produce fewer gaffes.
If the election went all traditional, with the dems holding the legislature and Romney the white house, maybe some functionality might return. I want a split ticket on the vp though, just for the comedic potential of having both Biden and Romney in office. They'll be inserting feet in mouths so fast, the shoe industry will get a boost.
If it weren't for that scoundrel Aaron Burr trying to pull a fast one on Long Tom Jefferson, you might have been able to have your Vice Presidential wish.
I think the country can work well with a Republican President and Democrats controlling Congress.
"He could just invoke data, logic and analysis."
There's something important here, that is stopping him from doing any of these things.
He's a Politician And a Republican one at that.
"Clutching their pearls over this." Sassy. Is it ok to say "sassy?"
Only if you post it again.
Hmmm, maybe a Romney presidency would come with elements of corporatism. Women would refer their lady problems to Ann and Romney would handle the other sex.
Looks like you a day late with this sideshow.
Tell me more about the 20% tax cut.
Regards
Here's something current.
It also fits in under "divide and conquer"
The news service the mayor of NY owns (spam filtered)
says:
"President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, paid a 20.5 percent federal tax rate on $789,674 in adjusted gross income for 2011, according to tax returns released today by the White House."
"Vice President Joseph Biden and his wife, Jill, reported paying $87,900 in taxes on $379,035 in adjusted gross income for a 23.2 percent rate. The White House also released their returns today."
Romney paid about 15%.
Can you vote for someone who pays - and probably cares more about people who pay - a lower tax rate percentage than you?
Regards
Dear Mr. HedgeFund:
1.) Please stay on topic. There are plenty of articles about taxation that you could comment on.
2.) Yes, I would vote for someone that pays a lower tax rate percentage than I do because such simplistic comparisons amount to nothing more than a distraction. Obama paid a lower rate than his secretary. She should not vote him, by your logic. He also paid a lower rate than I did. Just for that, I'm not voting for him!
Oh, dang... I violated my own #1!
My stay at home wife 'REPORTS TO ME'!..That says it all! Not' I have had conversations with women and they tell me'!!!
No wonder the 1/3 of the 1/3 of the American voters support him!
Bill Clinton's response to who would you seek advice from first, my wife, went down really well. He probably should have said that instead.
It just turned out to something of a lie, and something of a disaster. I don't think the first lady should be drafting major legislation, and that doesn't even things up for cheating on her.