Romney is the Alpha Male and Obama is a Woman (or Something like That)
Wherein a National Review piece leads me to think I am the OTB alpha blogger.
(Note: I wrote this before I realized that James Joyner and Doug Mataconis had written on it is as well—the dangers of busyness, I guess. However, it is written, so here it is–while there is some duplication, I think/hope that I hit on some different aspects*).
In a National Review cover story, Kevin D. Williamson provides one of the oddest stories I have read of late (and I do get around the intertubes, so the opportunities to encounter the odd are plentiful). The piece is entitled “Like a Boss: When it comes to being a rich guy, Mitt Romney should own it” and its basis thesis seems to be that Romney is awesome because he is rich and has had many sons and grandsons:
The offspring of rich families are statistically biased in favor of sons — the children of the general population are 51 percent male and 49 percent female, but the children of theForbes billionaire list are 60 percent male. Have a gander at that Romney family picture: five sons, zero daughters. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain.
Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.
From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote. You can insert your own Mormon polygamy joke here, but the ladies do tend to flock to successful executives and entrepreneurs.
Let me stop here and note that I have three sons and Joyner has two daughters. Hence, call me the OTB Alpha Blogger!
Ok, enough with the silliness (or, onto the silliness of the piece under review), but the general level of analysis in my last sentence is not all that far off from Williamson’s. While the tone of the piece can charitably be interpreted as tongue-in-cheek, the actually thesis of the piece is pretty much as follows:
Elections are not about public policy. They aren’t even about the economy. Elections are tribal, and tribes are — Occupy types, cover your delicate ears — ruthlessly hierarchical. Somebody has to be the top dog.
The whole piece is about how much money Romney (or, “R-MONEY”) has and how bug his family is. Note: this is the cover piece for the latest edition of National Review, which is supposed to be a representation of intellectual conservatism. Now, I will not feign ignorance and pretend like this is the first time I have personally called into question that description, but I must confess that I was surprised when I realized that this was not some hastily written blog post, but was something that not only went through an editorial process, but is a featured essay.
One rather amazing thing about it is that the piece actually could have been written by a liberal critic of the modern Republican Party, who nominated Mitt Romney (R, Money) as its nominee. This piece feeds into the notion that the contemporary Republican Party is the party of misogyny (boyz rule, dontch know) and the super-rich.
As such, it is odd for multiple reasons: 1) it is simplistic in style, 2) it is not worthy of a cover, especially of an allegedly intellectual publication, and 3) it makes, at least on one level, the opposition’s argument.
Most odd, indeed.
*And anyway, as I note in the piece: my power and significance has been confirmed by my progeny, so I have every right in the world to post a third piece on this subject and have it headline the blog.
I kinda think this is some kind of trolling. Or “satire,” in the Coulter/Limbaugh sense, meaning “say what you think, just punch it up a bit, and then laugh when people react.”
@Ken: Perhaps so. It just strikes me as bush-league blogging at best, but perhaps that is simply what NR is now.
As I posted in Doug’s thread, this seems to me to be a reflection of certain desire among the Conservative base (and it’s there among Progressives as well), of a desire for a “Muscular Candidate.” This isn’t about winning, it’s about fighting back, about the perception of all but beating up the other guy.
I think a lot of his has to do with the constant preaching — in populist Conservative media — of victimhood. For as long as Limbaugh has been on the air, Conservatives are always the victim (including the long period where they controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress). And that identification with being victims at all times leads to a certain type of anger (or at the very least frustration). That, plus their frustrations at real changes that are happening in the US, are leading them to look not just for a leader, but a “warrior.”
Two points.
1. Is Romney an Alpha Male? Signs point to no. Look no further than the whole Bain Capital thing where, at every point, Romney’s main concern seemed to be making sure he would always be protected in case anything went wrong. That’s pure Beta Male behavior.
2. What the *bleep* is Williamson doing with this essay and how did it get past the editorial judgment of a 5 year old, let alone a magazine assembled by professionals? Well, the intellectual decline of Movement Conservatism is a real thing but I think something else is at work here. So many conservatives are so deeply in denial about what their true motivations are that they’ve forgotten why they needed to deny them in the first place.
Mike
@MBunge:
See Newsweek and the cover story from this past week to appreciate how this isn’t just the national review being the national review.
Shorter: MY candidate could totally beat up YOUR candidate, so there!
[Foxworthy imitation] You know you have nothing when… [/Foxworthy]
Or, perhaps even more appropriately. “Here’s your sign.”
I think there’s a tone of “my dad can beat up yourdad” to the NRO piece. It’s sandbox politics.
Mitt Romney is such an Alphas Male that he’s installing a car elevator in his home so that he won’t have to walk up a flight of stairs – Alpha On, Mitt!
RT in C: which of us was channelling?
George W. Bush? Two daughters.
And articles such as this one you quote are supposed to convince us that the Republican Party and its supporters honor women and treat them as equals?
I also wonder about the intelligence (?) of NROs editors for letting this out. Of course, they still publish Jonah, the goof who gave us that stinkpile of a book “Liberal Fascism.” (Jonah probably still honestly believes he produced a work of intellectual depth and research.)
@Rafer Janders: Probably doesn’t work. The neo-cons are still mad at Dubya because he didn’t nuke Iran. Obviously a pussy.
I was eagerly awaiting the comments of the Alpha Blogger of OTB, so your duplication is not a bad thing. After all, look at those sons!
It’s not a notion. It’s a fact.
Cheney: two daughters.
Dubya: three (right?)
Bruce Willis: four daughters
NRO contributors and readers: filthy animals that are a threat to American society.
I think there’s another important Republican value put forth pretty clearly here. You have fallopian tubes, like half the species? That’s mockable, because only obviously inferior persons have those.
I’m surprised that Williamson didn’t suggest that Romney could better relate to the ‘common man’ or to younger voters in particular, by marketing a new shoe – a Nike “Mitt Love” priced at $300. This price point would ensure that the kids of successful parents would purchase the shoes.
At this point all I can say is, “Don’t take away the shovel.” and “Keep digging, boys.”
Romney is the ‘alpha male’ and ‘from an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote’?
I’d give pretty good odds that Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin could each whip Romney’s alpha a**.
This female vote is going to be given based on actual policies rather than pseudo psychology.
I was always under the impression that the word “charisma,” when used in a political context, was a polite term for sex appeal. For example, “Sarah Palin shows great charisma, especially among older male voters.”
Mr. Williamson, if you need to argue that your candidate should have it …
@john personna: Romney has always reminded me of “Mr Cellophane Man” in the musical Chicago.
Remember the ’80’s? British commentary: “Margaret Thatcher: the only man in the country”.
I have a suggestion: next time we do this primary thing, let’s not have votes or straw polls or whatever. Everybody line up, drop trou, and we get a measuring tape and settle things right away, winner take all, if you know what I mean….
@grumpy realist:
I did not see that movie 😉
DING! DING! DING! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner…
Not to mention Williamson’s…
@Lynda:
Or tie him to the bow of the yacht and off load him in the Cayman Islands
Alpha male Ronmey’s campaign is instructing local TV stations not to ask questions about Akin.
“I want to be President – no difficult questions please.”