In Defense of Romney, by David Brooks

In the Tuesday NY Times is an editorial by David Brooks on page A20, column 1.

Brooks argues that Romney isn't exactly exciting, which is what many Republicans want. "They don't want Organization Man. They want Braveheart."

The last election was decided because people swooned over Obama. They chose him as if it was a disco event and he was suddenly on the floor and leading a chain dance.

Chris Matthews emoted, "I feel a thrill up my leg."

Brooks himself said something about the nice crease in Obama's trousers.

They fell for him as if he was a Latin dance master. This is how the late Romans chose emperors. Heliogabalus (according to Suetonius) could dance, and the Roman soldiers went wild.

But Pied Pipers are not what the country needs.

Brooks writes, "Romney can be dull. Political activists like exciting candidates. But most people, who have lower expectations from politics and politicians, just want them to provide basic order. They want government to be orderly so they can be daring in other spheres of their lives."

Brooks' argument is pretty sound. He says Romney is not charismatic and this may be the best reason to elect him.

Brooks is right. Romney is a red-state politician from a blue-state. So he knows how to talk to the arugala eaters without making them throw up. He knows "how the other party thinks," which is not something that W. or O. really knew. They therefore infuriated people and made them throw their napkins.

O. had special challenges in that he had no real background for the job, and kept picking inexperienced people, or outright inflammatory Marxist idiots like Van Jones.

Finally, Brooks writes, "The strongest case for Romney is that he's nobody's idea of a savior."

Right. We shouldn't expect the president to be the Second Coming. If he or she is, he's probably just a satanic mess, as we saw with O. O. is a neophyte and a demagogue. He's more of a criminal than a president. He's suave and he dresses well. Beyond that, he flouts the law and he has no regard for anyone's opinion beyond that of his own cult.

Romney will build a consensus. He will get things done. With America starting to function again the world economy will recover.

The question is whether the Tea Party and others will drop their flaming Warrior Woman in Bachman or the angry Southern Sheriff in Perry, or now the used car salesman in Cain. We need someone who knows what they are doing, and will remain within the realm of the possible that is politics. For too long we've had to deal with Mission Impossible who wanted to "fundamentally change" America.

Which means O. didn't mind wrecking what was already the light of the world. His wife said she had always been embarrassed by America until her husbo got the nod. It's no wonder they wanted to fundamentally change America. They wanted to make it into a more ideal country using Marxist principles of taking over the business community and running it on the idea that the poor should have increased entitlements, and businesses should be punished for their profit-making. The economy was dimmed by O but not extinguished. There is still hope that we can fix the economy. We can go back to the Constitution, we can affirm the principles of the Bill of Rights, and the idea that the business of America is business and that business should be run by the business community. Obama can go back to being a community activist, and reading Saul Alinsky, and perhaps he can finally once again attend Trinity Church in Chicago, where he felt at home for decades. Or maybe he can skip even that pretense and sign up with the Socialist Workers' Party and help them write lyrical agit-prop. Maybe he can even skip that and become, like Jimmy Carter, an unreadable poet published in exquisite editions by big city publishers. He can have a half-talented family member do illustrations.