Perry Can Be Changed Along the Way
Published in Svenska Dagbladet
(Sweden) on 29 August 2011
by Roland Poirier Martinsson (link to original)
I’ve always had a problem with Rick Perry, the governor from Texas who is now campaigning to be the Republicans’ next presidential candidate. When I lived in Austin, I saw him in newspapers and on TV; he struck me as rather ignorant and with one eye constantly on the opinion polls. What made me most uncomfortable was that he seemed to play a forced role rather than present a well-rounded personality.
Among my circle of friends, there were many who had known Perry for decades, people I had confidence in — and almost all of them, without exception, lacked respect for him as a governor. He was considered a puppet leader; one couldn’t really take what he said seriously.
Is it time for a change of opinion? I have a few thoughts on the matter.
Firstly, the primaries before the presidential election are a difficult and drawn-out process and have the capacity to mold a candidate. The latest examples are Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who began the primaries as vacillating and vague, but concluded them as well-honed candidates. If Perry goes the distance and stands against Obama next autumn, he will almost certainly be a different politician than the one who now seeks to win his party’s confidence.
Secondly, when a candidate is dismissed as unworthy and populist, it can be a veritable sentence. But one should be wary of joining in with the establishment’s naysayers without first taking time for reflection. A candidate that goes to election brushing aside established truths and attacking the elite will almost by definition be depicted as ignorant and vulgar. Sometimes the people see something else. On the other hand, just because those who have been established for decades say Perry is wrong, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he is on the right track. But that also doesn’t mean that he is barking entirely up the wrong tree.
Thirdly, the people who surround Perry are a group of smart individuals who have long been with him and are characterized by a deep loyalty to their boss. I asked around a little: If Perry is such a non-entity, why are his members of staff so loyal? The responses I received surprised me. The verdict is that in private Perry is considerate, gentle and thoughtful. The Texas swagger he displays publicly is a role that makes those who know him hide their faces in their hands when they see him in public (it’s like Carl Bildt standing in the soccer stands bellowing chants and insisting this was the real deal). If this description is correct, there is potential, I should think, for either his imminent downfall as a candidate or his capacity to grow with time into an electable challenger to Obama.
Finally, I notice an interesting psychological mechanism at work in friends in Texas. (I’m trying to defend myself here.) After dismissing Perry out of hand for 10 years, people are looking for reasons, despite everything, to like him, to rely on him. It depends, of course, on [whether] they want to see a Republican in the White House. But if Perry stands against Obama next autumn — though my guess still is that it will be Mitt Romney — they will be bragging about how insightful and steadfast he is: Who is it then that has changed?
Among my circle of friends, there were many who had known Perry for decades, people I had confidence in — and almost all of them, without exception, lacked respect for him as a governor. He was considered a puppet leader; one couldn’t really take what he said seriously.
Is it time for a change of opinion? I have a few thoughts on the matter.
Firstly, the primaries before the presidential election are a difficult and drawn-out process and have the capacity to mold a candidate. The latest examples are Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who began the primaries as vacillating and vague, but concluded them as well-honed candidates. If Perry goes the distance and stands against Obama next autumn, he will almost certainly be a different politician than the one who now seeks to win his party’s confidence.
Secondly, when a candidate is dismissed as unworthy and populist, it can be a veritable sentence. But one should be wary of joining in with the establishment’s naysayers without first taking time for reflection. A candidate that goes to election brushing aside established truths and attacking the elite will almost by definition be depicted as ignorant and vulgar. Sometimes the people see something else. On the other hand, just because those who have been established for decades say Perry is wrong, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he is on the right track. But that also doesn’t mean that he is barking entirely up the wrong tree.
Thirdly, the people who surround Perry are a group of smart individuals who have long been with him and are characterized by a deep loyalty to their boss. I asked around a little: If Perry is such a non-entity, why are his members of staff so loyal? The responses I received surprised me. The verdict is that in private Perry is considerate, gentle and thoughtful. The Texas swagger he displays publicly is a role that makes those who know him hide their faces in their hands when they see him in public (it’s like Carl Bildt standing in the soccer stands bellowing chants and insisting this was the real deal). If this description is correct, there is potential, I should think, for either his imminent downfall as a candidate or his capacity to grow with time into an electable challenger to Obama.
Finally, I notice an interesting psychological mechanism at work in friends in Texas. (I’m trying to defend myself here.) After dismissing Perry out of hand for 10 years, people are looking for reasons, despite everything, to like him, to rely on him. It depends, of course, on [whether] they want to see a Republican in the White House. But if Perry stands against Obama next autumn — though my guess still is that it will be Mitt Romney — they will be bragging about how insightful and steadfast he is: Who is it then that has changed?