The Flaws of Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney is not Barack Obama. We can stop the conversation there.

It’s rather drastic: Anybody other than Barack Obama is by definition — in the eyes of some — unworthy of the White House, with the possible exception of Bill Clinton, whom everyone has forgiven. We begin with his direct responsibility in the real estate bubble that precipitated the crisis.

Mitt Romney is a white man; thus, he hates women and minorities.

Mitt Romney is not ashamed to advocate for individualism, the business spirit and the values of capitalism. It’s thus a dangerous ideology, and he’s an enemy to the middle class.

We accept his claptraps. However, we make judicious criticisms. Mitt Romney is faltering, his arguments are simplistic, and he lacks warmth.

One can be “politically incorrect” without being electorally clumsy. Mitt Romney hasn’t succeeded well so far.

He is constantly diverted in his message by idiotic communication errors. Instead of talking about his proposals, he must always extinguish a lit fire somewhere else, often by the press who have taken a dislike to him and remain supportive of the Democratic establishment.

During his convention, Mitt Romney had, for example, left Clint Eastwood to babble incoherently, which created a diversion.

Today he is obligated to explain himself on old comments from several months ago that were recorded unbeknownst to him: He was reproached for having said, roughly, that half of the American population was being assisted, was not paying taxes and was voting for Obama because they prefer that the government occupy itself with them instead of taking charge.

This vision of America is very widespread in the ranks of the Republican right. This vision is not in keeping with reality.

Many Americans who are dependent on aid are in effect older citizens who are far from being poor. Many of them vote Republican. Many poor people work very hard. Aid isn’t exclusively for Democrats.

It is also a paradox for many Republicans who live in the large, sparsely populated states in the West: They hate Washington, D.C., and federal authority, but they count on it for streets and public services (telephones and electricity, which are more expensive in rural zones), and they exploit the natural wealth of the country by paying relatively little “royalties” to the “feds.”

That said, it is true that half of Americans don’t pay federal taxes on their income. By definition, these Americans are inclined to always desire an augmentation on taxes for others, exactly like in France.

What Mitt Romney said in confidence to his potential donors last spring, is thus caricatural and inexact, but not completely false either.

What is certain is that it is an electorally clumsy remark. The Republican candidate passes for a man without compassion. He fuels Obama’s argument, which says Romney wants to abandon the poor and the middle class to their own sad fate.

Mitt Romney doesn’t know how to counter the argument very well. He could say that debt is a form of theft. He could say that Barack Obama, in choosing debt to heal America, stole from the young in order to give to the old. He could better explain that social programs, which are financed by debt, are not tenable.

He could better describe in practical terms why an intelligent fiscal reform would create more jobs. His message isn’t clear or constructive enough. He is not like Reagan. He still doesn’t know how to explain with conviction that a job is created by the competitive private sector, not by the union members who finance the Democratic Party.

In the matter of foreign policy, Mitt Romney has a simplistic speech, far from the speeches of prominent Republicans who do justice to their country. I am thinking about James Baker or George Shultz, for example. A better knowledge of cases and more nuance would be apt for the man who wants to govern the United States.

Not that the “Romneysian” principles on foreign policy are good. He seems to take refuge behind slogans and poor knowledge about the world. Jon Huntsman, the other Republican Mormon who presented himself in the primaries, showed more finesse.

Roughly, Mitt Romney isn’t a good candidate at the moment. He is not a very good orator. He doesn’t connect with his audience. The Republicans certainly could have found better — if not among the candidates in the primaries, then certainly among the moderate and pragmatic Republicans, of which there are many.

Mitt Romney is certainly worth more than his caricature drawn up by The New York Times and other Democratic media. He is intelligent. His experience and success in finance are honorable. He knows the private sector, which is an enormous asset against Obama, who understands nothing about business and who seems to despise the success of individual entrepreneurs; has never worked in a business; and has not proven in four years that he is an effective leader measuring up to his however eloquent speeches.

While he was governor of the very Democratic state of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney was a pragmatic, rallying person, not polarizing.

And after all, President Obama is not without faults. Why does Barack Obama not have more respect from the Democratic leaders of Congress?

Because he talks better than he governs. Because he thinks a lot and acts less. Because he sugarcoats his power of seduction. Because he doesn’t have friends in Congress, and that they — including Democrats — distrust his insularity and the high opinion he has of his charisma.

What is alarming is that despite his flaws, Mitt Romney is still roughly equal in the polls with Barack Obama. I am talking about the polls that count: Those that apply to the states or the race to the White House are the most disputed.

No matter that Mitt Romney is ahead 10 points in Texas and Obama 10 points in California. What is important is the state of the race in Florida, Virginia and Ohio, for example.

And yet, in these states, Barack Obama’s lead is very weak and fragile. Let’s not forget that the president isn’t elected by direct universal suffrage but by the Electoral College, appointed from the elections at the state level.

What he must also follow: the polls of “probable voters,” not registered voters.

For the moment the race is very open. Obama’s popularity doesn’t exceed 50 percent. The mobilization of Republicans could be stronger than that of the Democrats and the moderates, of whom many are disappointed by the incumbent president.

The televised debates will probably be more interesting than usual because Mitt Romney is less-known than Barack Obama. If he simply levels the playing field with the incumbent president, he will have advanced his cause.