I don't think that graph means what you think it means

Since I don't think I'll find many opportunities to disagree with political scientist legend Larry Bartels, I'll use my feeble blog to briefly do so now. Bartels posts the graph below to argue that Mitt Romney might have a sincere wealth problem:

As Bartels explains, this graph demonstrates average ratings on a 100-point “feeling thermometer” for a variety of social groups. He adds, "A rating of 50 is supposed to reflect neutral feelings about a group, so numbers between 50 and 100 reflect varying degrees of net favorability". These ratings are from the 2004 National Election Study survey. We see "Big Business" at the very bottom, even lower then "People on Welfare" and "Labor Unions". So does this mean that Americans really hate the big bad businessman? I think this survey question says nothing of the sort. Or rather, I suspect this survey question doesn't tell us anything about the mindset of the American voter. First, very few Americans aspire to join a labor union (speaking anecdotally as a union member, even my fellow union members can view their own unions as wasteful and untrustworthy). Second, no American aspires to join the welfare ranks. But how many people aspire to join the ranks of business tycoons? A substantial majority I suspect. All those favorably viewed "working class" and "middle class" people would trade positions with Mitt Romney in one second. Furthermore, most Americans, rather naively I would suggest, believe they will join the ranks of the super wealthy, believing unequivocally in the myth of economic mobility in the United States (in reality we trail most developed western economies on measures of economic mobility). I mean, did you know that 2 out of every 10 Americans (20%) think they will be millionaires in ten years? Compare that to the reality that only 1 in 20 HHs (5%) in 2010 were millionaires. This sort of economic optimism is clearly ludicrous but also, and I would argue unfortunately, an essential component of the "American Dream". Despite Bartel's interpretation, I don't think this specific graph is ultimately a condemnation of Romney's electoral perceptions. I think he's much more perceptible to the attack that he is of inherited wealth and that he is a "vulture capitalist," rather than abstract feelings about "Big Business" in America.

And I'll end this post by saying that none of this shit matters and the winning candidate will entirely be a reflection of the growing or stalling economy. The end!

Newt

The persistence of Newt Gingrich in the Republican nomination battle has been a boon to Democrats. I mean, attacking Mitt Romney from the left! Wonderful! I'm not even sure the Obama administration would have had the balls to do this in the general election battle, but this opens that very door. Even Nate Silver, the world's best electoral analyst and most cynical Democrat, concedes that a capitalist critique from both the left and the right on Mitt Romney can give credibility to the charge and it could inflict long term damage to the Romney brand. Apropos of this observation, I stumbled upon this picture of Newt Gingrich.

Newt spends the holidays with a close relation.

This reminded me of the time I saw Newt Gingrich at the NYC Museum of Natural History near the dinosaur exhibit. This was funny because I would have just assumed that it was canon in Republican orthodoxy that dinosaurs never existed - or if they did, the skeletons should be staged in musuems fighting battles with Adam and Eve or being ridden like horses by Moses and Jesus. However, this wasn't the worst of it. Gingrich was actually waiting in line for the (fee additional) Darwin evolutionary exhibit! Does Gingrich believe in evolution? Apostasy! Perhaps instead he was there to point out the theory's inherent flaws to museum curators? I wanted to take a candid photo of him but it felt a little creepy. Alternatively, I was considering approaching the speaker and a) challenging him on evolution and global warming or b) cordially addressing him as Mr. Speaker and making small talk. You know, just to tell people I met Newt Gingrich. Instead I chose c) ignore him completely. That blowhard didn't need another person reinforcing his continued relevancy!

Also, too, I was probably just too intimidated to do either a) or b).

Beat the Idea, Not the Man

Speaking of political advertising, I think this anti-Mitt Romney ad below, which the liberal blogs seem to love, misses the mark:

I don't think you are going to be able to convince voters (independent or otherwise) that Mitt Romney is some kind of evil corporate overlord, single-mindedly driven to extract American resources in order to improve his own personal bottom line. I just don't think that pitch will sell - people see pictures of Mitt Romney and he's a well-mannered, good looking dude, and that impacts their personal assessments. [There is a ton of political psychology research on how personal attractiveness impacts political perceptions]. But I think you can use similar language to paint Mitt Romney's behavior as a corporate raider as evil. This in turn underscores the larger, and more important point, that his economic worldview is fundamentally flawed and likely to lead to increased unemployment and American poverty. Mitt Romney thinks that Bain Capital and its devious squad of financial titans can improve the effectiveness of already functional and successful American companies. In reality, Bain and its ilk are corporate raiders. They find competently managed and well-financed companies, slay their employees, raid their coffers, and leave the ship to the rats as it slowly sinks into the bottom of the ocean. Romney and his frat brothers make millions and get out before the company goes under. Unfortunately, the boat would have been just fine if it wasn't looted and incinerated by pirates!

I know Mitt Romney is supposed to be robotic and aloof and unlikable but these perceptions (which I believe to be overstated) won't make a lick of difference if people think he can turn the economy around. We need to run ads (and feel free to use the fine gentlemen above), that demonstrate that Mitt Romney's economic theories are going to create a lot more unemployed people. Counting on rich people to come in and save our economy is not going to work. And that's what Mitt Romney proposes. He proposes tax cuts and subsidies for the richest Americans. Rather than hiring additional Americans, the "captains of industry" are much more likely to layoff Americans, particularly if it means gains in short-term personal wealth. It's 2012 but unfortunately we, meaning Democrats, still need to beat the economically defunct but politically robust theory of trickle-down economics. "Job creators" will not save us. The only way to stimulate the economy is to put money into the hands of people who will spend it (i.e. the poor and middle classes).  It doesn't work if we continue to funnel the money into the hands of people who will just save it, shelter it in tax havens, or use it to drive up the price of high-end luxury goods (paying $4 million for a yacht that cost $2.5 million two years ago does nothing to stimulate economic growth). But Mitt Romney doesn't see it that way. If we are to beat him in 2012, we need to beat his economic messaging, not the personal candidate. We need to demonstrate, in our writings, in our editorials, in our debates, and in our commercials, that tax cuts for the wealthy will not work as economic stimulus. Nor will debt reduction or a dismantling of the social safety net. We need to prove that Republicans are bad for the economy. And we need to start doing now.