Most of William Kristol’s piece in The National Review is pedantic, political fare. Most of the advice he gives Romney is the typical, talking head advice we’ve heard every pundit give every politician that hopes to unseat an incumbent. Most of it is so pedantic it causes the eyes to glaze over, but the piece separates itself from the usual political fare in the third to last paragraph.
In this paragraph, Kristol lays out a solid piece of advice for any candidate seeking to unseat an incumbent: “Don’t insult the candidate they voted for in the previous election, because that insults that voter.” One wouldn’t normally think that a voter would be insulted by an office challenger telling the voter’s that their previous vote was obviously an incorrect one based upon that candidate’s performance while in office. One would think that a voter would allow for a challenger to say, “And here’s why I’m going to do it better.” For generations, we’ve become accustomed to candidates insulting one another, digging up stats and events that dictate why the previous candidate was a boob. Kristol says that’s the wrong approach, because those voters made a judgment in that previous election, and by insulting that former occupant, you are insulting the judgment those voters made in that election.
“Part of making the case for Romney’s future presidency is winning over some citizens who voted for Obama in 2008. People don’t like being told they are, or were, stupid. If some previous Obama supporters are now disappointed—and they are—Romney should empathize with them, not condescend to them. In 2004 John Kerry unfailingly gave the impression that he thought if you had voted for Bush, or approved of anything he’d done (in office), or found him in certain ways likable or admirable, then you were an idiot. That’s no way to beat an incumbent. His former supporters need to be won over rather than bludgeoned into submission. Reagan provided a strong contrast on the issues to Jimmy Carter in 1980. But his tone wasn’t snide or contemptuous. Romney—and especially his campaign, which has had a taste for the snide and the contemptuous—might profitably study Reagan’s 1980 effort.”
