Romney’s
Rhetoric:
A
Textual Analysis of GOP Presidential Primary Candidate Mitt Romney’s Rhetorical
Appeals to Influence Voter Perceptions of Likability in the January 26, 2012
CNN Florida Debate.
Ethan
Smith
COMM
452
INTRODUCTION
It
has begun. The race is marked out and the remaining Republican primary
candidates are running their hearts out in what is coming to be considered one
of most volatile presidential primary cycles in history (Roarty, 2012). After a
series of overwhelming wins for both the Republican Party and its more
polarized Tea Party branch in the 2010 midterm elections, conservatives looked forward
in anticipation to the Presidential election of 2012.
One
of the first to announce his candidacy was Mitt Romney, the former Governor of
Massachusetts who formerly spent twenty-five years in the business sector. Since
announcing his candidacy in June of 2011, Romney’s efforts to achieve the
party’s nomination have appeared strong. He entered as the runner-up candidate in
the last primary cycle, allowing Romney to start his campaign with an
already-laid groundwork of support and strategies for a 2012 run. The strength
of the campaign foundations have been clear as Romney from the start has led
the field of candidates, consistently remaining around 20-25% in terms of
support in national polls (Pew Research Center, 2012).
Romney
is also helped by Republicans’ tendency to elect candidates who
were the runners-up in the last primary. McCain was runner
up to George W. Bush in 2000 before he clinched the nomination in 2008, when he
edged out Mitt Romney. So now establishment rules, in addition to polling
numbers, predict a Romney nomination. Except that Republicans do not seem to be
warming up to the former Massachusetts governor and while he has had a
consistent, well-oiled campaign machine, Romney still cannot seem to
significantly outdistance his opponents.
Since
the 1960s, Gallup polling research has shown that the number one prognosticator
of presidential elections is “likability” (Sanders, 2005). Fast-forward to the
GOP presidential primaries of 2011/2012. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt
Romney leads his rivals in almost every arena: money raised (and spent),
endorsements, debate performances, polling of which candidate is most likely to
beat President Obama, polling of which candidate will be best for the economy,
even polling of which candidate can best manage national health care. Mitt
Romney comes out on top in essentially all but one area: likability. During
these tumultuous economic times, Mike Huckabee’s quote from 2008 that Romney
looks like the guy that fired you is often repeated (Silverleib, 2012). There
is a sense of inevitability to Mitt Romney’s campaign, but Republicans continue
to avoid any significant loyalty or devotion to him. This research will study how
Mitt Romney constructs his campaign rhetoric to address this issue and influence
voter perceptions of likability.
While Romney started strong and has
remained consistent, the fact that he has failed to accumulate any further
support than he started with, despite the nationally publicized gaffes of many
of his opponents, points to a deeper failure in the Romney camp to sufficiently
connect with voters. Clearly those who do support Romney consider him to be the
GOP’s best bet to defeat Obama in 2012, and national polls reflect as much. So
why has Romney failed to connect with the core of the Republican Party and more
easily clinch the party’s nomination? The purpose of this prospectus is to
analyze the rhetoric utilized by the Romney campaign as they attempt to reach
out to a larger demographic of voters in their quest to go the distance and
clinch the GOP nomination.
RATIONALE
This is a critical time for America as
it attempts to recover from recession, avoid another financial collapse, and
renegotiate its place in the world among the surging influences of growing
Eastern economies. Elections are crucial in determining the direction this
nation will take in the regards to the challenges it faces. While the policies
of the potential victor in both the primary race and the national election will
undoubtedly shape the country, their election will be heavily influenced not
only by their positions on key issues, but how they articulate those positions
in an attempt to persuade the American people to connect with them and their
ideas and to translate such identification into action and votes on behalf of
their political movement. How persuasive attempts are rhetorically constructed
is ultimately the deciding factor in most U.S. elections. The rhetoric of
political campaigns sways the very future of our nation. Surely, there are few
areas of study more important.
The rhetoric employed by the Romney
campaign is all the more interesting as he is the candidate predicted to be
victorious based on historical patterns and is also seen as being the candidate
most likely to effectively challenge Obama in the national election in current
polls. Yet his campaign has failed to significantly grow or build momentum in
these first few months of the primary cycle. The rhetoric which succeeded in
shoring up his initial support, as well as the rhetoric which has thus far
failed in growing that support is essential to understand if we are to
accurately analyze the current political atmosphere, both at the level of the
base of the Republican Party as well as at the national level, and how the
American people will be influenced to vote in the upcoming election.
LITERATURE
ENGAGEMENT
A
number of communication scholars have directed their efforts towards studying
the persuasive appeals of presidential campaigns. These works have ranged from
the changing face of media coverage, to in-depth case analysis of particular
candidates. Using these studies as a foundation and backdrop will allow this
paper to develop an analysis of the rhetoric of two-time presidential contender
Mitt Romney and his presidential campaign, particularly in terms of likability
and perception, something which seems to not yet be the sole focus of
communication scholars.
Hardy
and Dietram (2009) have studied the dynamic nature of politics and how
interpersonal discussion can influence perceptions, such as likability, which
potential voters attribute to candidates. While candidates and their campaigns
struggle to develop clear understandings of who they are and what stance they
take on specific issues, “Most of the information citizens gain about
presidential candidates is learned from media coverage of campaigns and talking
with other citizens” (Hardy & Dietram, 2009, p. 90). Hardy and Dietram make
the case that it is in fact interpersonal discussions which most heavily
influence the strength or weakness of the effects of mass media which are so important
in developing perceptions of presidential candidates. It has already been
established that issues of character and stance are more likely to be misunderstood
and for the knowledge of such things to contain inaccuracies at a much greater
rate than issues seen as more factual, such as a physical characteristics
(Lenart, 1994). This is because issues of character and stance are much more
easily called into question during discussion than facts such as physical
characteristics, thus emphasizing the influence interpersonal discussion has on
perceptions of candidates.
Conversations
citizens have with each other have such a strong influence on perceptions
because of voters’ use of cognitive short-cuts, which political factions use to
mischaracterize their opponents’ campaigns with misleading claims (Jackson
& Jamieson, 2004). Hardy and Dietram (2009) subsequently contend that “If
voters are exposed to such misleading claims during campaigns and infer candidate
issue stance based on heuristics and not on an integrated understanding of the
underlying issues, interpersonal discussion among these voters may in fact amplify misleading campaign rhetoric and
thus decrease voters’ knowledge of where the presidential candidates stand” (p.
91).
Interpersonal
discussion, as described by Hardy and Dietram, plays an integral role in the
development of how potential voters form their perceptions of presidential
candidates through the influence of word-of-mouth. What such an understanding
about the dynamic nature of politics achieves is an awareness that there is an
“ebb and flow” to the power of media, and that its effects, as well as the
efforts of campaigns to directly influence public opinion, are subject to the
situation and environment in which media effects and campaign efforts are being
processed. In other words, citizens will have discussions concerning the things
they hear about presidential candidates. Information, whether factual or not,
will inevitably be passed along through the population through a variety of
mediums. Managing that information, then, by giving extra intentionality to the
types of things that voters talk about (ie; debate performances, speeches,
television ads), becomes a primary focus of presidential campaigns. Therefore,
analyzing Mitt Romney’s debate performances will help scholars understand how
Romney attempts to influence voter perceptions of likability. The campaign
knows citizens will talk about what Romney says and that those discussion can
majorly influence the outcome of a race. So how does Romney construct his rhetoric
in such a way that he can be discussed in the best possible light and as a
likable candidate?
The
efforts of presidential campaigns to influence voter perceptions of their
candidates can be studied in a number of ways. Primarily, this paper will study
the debate performances of Mitt Romney. Such appearances at highly visible
events, it has been argued, is often the only time campaigns can directly
influence the preferences of voters (Campbell, 1996; Holbrook, 1996). The
modern presidential campaign has been described by Medhurst (2005) as “a marvel
of organization, management, technology, demography, and, of course,
communication… That is why it takes a phalanx of rhetoricians – usually dubbed
media consultants, speechwriters, demographic researchers, copyeditors,
advertising gurus, filmmakers, and the like – to execute a modern presidential
campaign” (p. 23).
Yet
it was not always this way. Medhurst studies of the evolving nature of American
politics and the uses of what he identifies as the four functions of rhetoric:
issue framing and definition, agenda setting, character construction, and
emotional resonance. Prior to the 20th century, candidates rarely
campaigned on their own behalf, leaving such efforts to others who would make
use of newspapers and broadsides. It was Theodore Roosevelt who first began to
truly develop rhetorical campaign efforts with his oratory and Woodrow Wilson
who developed and further articulated this personal method of campaigning
(Tulis, 1987). It has developed to such a point today, that Medhurst (2005)
goes so far as to say that in today’s political environment, “it is not
debating points that win elections. It is the voters’ perceptions of strength,
leadership and yes, judgment… Rhetoric [does] make a difference… We ignore it
at our peril” (p. 36).
Here
we see further contention that the politics of the day have been delineated
from the basic persuasion of argumentation and rhetoric, but are now also
influenced by voter perceptions influenced by the media and developed through
interpersonal discussions. The rhetoric employed by Romney and his supporters
mirror such a delineation. Romney’s responses in debates does more than attempt
to convey his stances on issues, but also try to develop voter perceptions of
him as a candidate who is relatable and likable.
As
the rhetoric employed by presidential campaigns grew and evolved, it began to
attract more strongly the attention of communication scholars, especially with
the exploding popularity of televised debating in the 1960s. Then, not only did
a campaign’s verbal rhetoric receive attention, but so did the content and
effects of political advertising. These studies focus mainly on candidate
image, or personality projections, and on audiences’ emotional and cognitive
responses to leaders’ depictions (Seizov & Mueller, 2009). In the past,
such analysis could be thought of as trivial, since campaigns will often
release demographic specific ads, the effects of which cannot be
generalized to the wider public, as only
a select portion of the population would ever see them (Goldstein &
Freedman, 2002). Now, however, with the introduction and growth of the
internet, all videos can be found and viewed online. This, of course, marks
perhaps the most major political shift of the past two decades – the movement
online – and has even led some scholars to put forward that candidates
effectively disqualify themselves when they do not make use of the growing
possibilities of internet resources (Dorsey & Green, 1997).
Now
that every debate can be streamed, watched, and watched again on the internet
at voter discretion, debates have become perhaps the biggest online
advertisements of all; reality show-like presentations and contrasts between
the candidates. Recent studies of visual campaign texts, such as ads and
debates, indicate that candidates mostly stick with what is understood to be
their designated constituencies and segments and rarely venture into unorthodox
directions (Seizov & Mueller, 2009). Seizov and Mueller argue that “it
appears, then, that when the race is hot and the stakes are high, keeping in
touch with normalcy and not taking… risks is the norm. This provides message
and campaign security but also deprives candidates of personality, charm, and
unexpected appeal to electoral segments which may be unreachable otherwise” (p.
28). As a candidate who is seen to lack an ability to connect with America’s
“everyman” and who is in the midst of a volatile primary battle, it will be
essential to study the rhetoric employed by Mitt Romney in his campaign.
Not
only have the rhetoric of presidential contenders developed through the years,
but campaign coverage by the media has changed as well. Despite the recent rise
of the internet, newspapers remain an integral part of the election cycle
(Hollihan, 2009), and in fact correlates with higher levels of knowledge and a
higher likelihood to vote (Hansen, 2004). Therefore, as media coverage evolves,
so too changes how voters perceive candidates. The proliferation of the
internet’s nature of immediate gratification has challenged traditional notions
of what it means to report on political candidates. “Because reporters are
tweeting and blogging and shooting video and filing all day long, they have
little time to dig into candidates’ backgrounds and their positions on issues”
(Enda, 2011, p. 21).
Scholars,
therefore, dismiss the necessity of the media, because as the emphasis shifts
from issues and candidate qualifications to “the horse race,” the media is less
useful to voters than many assume (Benoit et al., 2010, p. 276). While other
researchers contend that glimpses of ideal objectivity can be found in American
political life, they still admit that “play dependencies predict that
popularity and likability will assume a relatively greater importance among
voters as a foundation for voting decisions” (Davies, 2009, p. 26).
However,
even if the media has decreased in its capacity to inform and increased the likelihood
of dispensing misinformation, it remains all the more important to study how
voters are forming their perceptions of Mitt Romney, in light of their
potentially misinforming conversations and viewership of media coverage.
“Studies show that the amount of coverage received by candidates, the tone of
the coverage, and the amount of horse race coverage focusing on a candidate can
affect voters’ perceptions of candidates (Ross, 1992)” (Benoit et al., 2010, p.
261).
In
terms of rhetorical theory, it will be important to study where all the
practicality of the above falls in terms of the theoretical. In Saving Persuasion, Bryan Garsten (2009) confronts critics’ key issues with
the field of rhetoric, the misunderstandings of persuasion as being unethical
as it can lack a concern for the truth, have incoherent notions of justice, and
risks pandering and manipulation. Garsten describes the latter critique, saying
that “in
trying to persuade, democratic politicians may end up manipulating their
audiences, or they may end up pandering to them... When we persuade, we want to
change our listener’s minds by linking our position to their existing opinions
and emotions. In our desire to change their minds lies the danger of
manipulating, and in the effort to attend to their existing opinions lies the
risk of pandering” (p.2). These concerns mimic the accusations leveled against
Romney that he is a “flip-flopper” who chooses his positions based on the
popular opinions of the day. It will be important to analyze the rhetoric of
Romney’s campaign in order to attempt to study how Romney responds to such
accusations.
In “Identification,”
Burke (1989) states that identification is central to the act of rhetoric and
persuasion, as rhetoric is the expression of the ideology with which the rhetor
wants the audience to identify. Understanding rhetoric as an attempt at to
create consubstantiality will be able to offer insights into Romney’s campaign,
especially since, as a politician who began his political career as a
self-described moderate Republican, Romney is attempting not to persuade the
audience to adopt his ideology, but rather to persuade them that he has adopted
theirs. Ideology and Identification are important aspects to the discussion of
Romney’s continued attempts to convince Republicans that he is, in fact,
conservative.
Fisher (1984) says, in Narrative as Human Communication Paradigm,
that “By ‘narration,’ I refer to a theory of symbolic actions - words and/or
deeds - that have sequence and meaning for those who live, create, or interpret
them. The narrative perspective, therefore, has relevance to real as well as
fictive words, to stories of living and stores of imagination” (p. 2). He goes
on to describe how humans are naturally storytelling creatures and the stories
we tell envelop most of human communication. The Narrative Paradigm allows
Romney’s campaign to be analyzed in terms of the story the candidate has
attempted to construct. This is particularly interesting as Romney has clearly
attempted to connect with the everyman, but in his own story Romney is the son
of a powerful family who has become a successful, millionaire businessman; not a
story the American everyman can intimately relate to.
Finally, Farrell and
Goodnight (1981), in “Accidental Rhetoric,” describe how the
professionalization of specialized fields has created a subtle yet expansive
divide between said fields and the public so much so that any communication
which occurs between the two must be distilled down to ensure proper
understanding, which ironically can often lead to misunderstandings. Perhaps
this perspective could offer a unique take on the public’s lack of connection
with Romney, particularly in terms of the immense complexities of the national
fiscal climate with which Romney, as a businessman is intimately acquainted, as
merely a misunderstanding resulting from a distillation of messages. Based on
these scholarly works, both of practical research and enlightening theory, we
will now turn our attention to the analysis of Mitt Romney’s presidential
campaign.
METHODOLOGY
I
will be conducting a textual analysis of Mitt Romney performance in the CNN
Florida debate, held on January 26, 2012 at the University of North Florida. This
debate will be used because it fell between Romney’s dramatic loss in South
Carolina to Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and his equally
dramatic win in Florida. The debate will help answer how Romney shifted his
debate strategy to change perceptions of likability.
TEXTUAL
ANALYSIS
Romney
enters the January 26, 2012 GOP Republican presidential primary debate in
Jacksonville, Florida following his surprisingly drastic loss to Newt Gingrich
in the South Carolina primary. He is seen as having little likability and faces
the rhetorical challenge of altering such perceptions. Romney navigates and
negotiates these strengths using three primary domains: personality/family/religion
(which address notions of likability more directly), immigration (in which
Romney makes more indirect appeals for likability), and the economy/business
(which also consist of more indirect appeals).
Personality/Family/Religion
In
the opening moments, moderator Wolf Blitzer asks the candidates to introduce
themselves to the audience. Mitt Romney immediately uses his answer to make an
appeal for likability, saying, “I’m Mitt Romney, and I’m pleased to be here
with my wife and my oldest son Tagg Romney. We’re the parents of five sons,
five daughters-in-law, 16 grandkids. And it’s great to be back in
Jacksonville.” Like many of the other candidates, Mitt Romney used the
introduction as an opportunity to appeal to voters on a personal level. In the
reference to his family, Romney attempts to create with voters the type of consubstantiality
described by Burke (1989) by invoking sentiments of
responsibility and well-roundedness which accompany thoughts of a true
family-man. It is also a more subtle differentiation Romney makes between
himself and his main challenger at the time Newt Gingrich, who, on his third
marriage and with a history of adultery, is not well-known as a family man.
Additionally, the mention of grandkids offers a more specific appeal to older
voters, who make up such a large majority of the electorate, that Romney is
quite like them. Lastly, that it is “great to be back in Jacksonville,” implies
a previously existing connection with the hometown of those in the audience. It
fosters the idea of audience members that “He’s one of us.” Romney’s answer to
this first question indicates a focus of the candidate in using his rhetoric to
persuade voters that he is someone they can like and relate to. This focus will
continue to appear throughout the debate.
Romney’s
biggest gaffe of the night came directly after when questioned by the moderator
about an ad being run by the campaign which pointed a moment in Gingrich’s
campaign in which he said children should learn English, so that they knew the
language of prosperity instead of the language of the ghetto. Romney’s only
response was that “I haven’t seen the ad… I doubt that’s my ad.” He went on to
explain his own position on teaching English in schools, saying “Kids in this
country should learn English so they can have all the jobs and all the
opportunity of people who are here.” Again, he reinforced the idea that he
cares for the everyday person.
However,
later in the debate the moderator announced that the network had double-checked
and that the radio ad was one of Romney’s official campaign ads, and in fact
ended with a sound-byte of Romney saying, “I’m Mitt Romney and I approved this
ad.” At this announcement the audience erupted into a chorus of boos. It was a
clear moment of Romney’s credibility being tarnished. While not a major lapse
in morality in Romney’s part, it was a rare moment of unpreparedness on the
part of the former governor. The incident mostly hurt Romney because it gave
the impression that Romney quickly signed off on attack ads without first
seeing them. This reinforces the idea of Romney as a disconnected politician
who will say anything to be elected. Romney here falls prey to the dangers of
political rhetoric outlined by Garsten (2009) as Romney is now criticized of
manipulation. The perception of Romney’s willingness to flip-flop or be
dishonest has been the constant bane of his campaign efforts, and which was only
amplified by this encounter by becoming one of the more widely held
interpersonal discussions described by Hardy and Dietram (2009) following the
debate.
Another major issue of the debate was a discussion of NASA and
America’s space goals. In response to Gingrich’s proposed plan to build a
colony on the moon by the end of his second term as president, Romney said that
“If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few
hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I’d say, ‘You’re fired.’”
While a clever response, political pundits latched onto this statement,
claiming that it was indicative of Romney’s tendency to downsize companies for
personal profit. In other words, Romney likes to fire people. It is a bit of
stretch for the connection to be made, but it’s one that was widely propagated
in the following days. After a number of incidents in which Romney
unintentionally placed a disconnect between himself and voters (i.e.: his
$10,000 bet offer to Rick Perry), in this debate Romney continues to trip
himself up with such comments which, especially when used by the news media,
negatively affect his likability.
Because flip-flopping has been Romney’s Achilles’ heel in this
race, effectively establishing himself as a candidate who has a personality of
consistency would go a long way in contributing to the development of Romney’s
likability. Therefore, Mitt Romney goes on to accuse Gingrich of pandering to
his audiences, another danger of political rhetoric outlined by Garsten (2009).
“We have seen in politics – and Newt, you’ve been part of this – go from state
to state and promise exactly what that state wants to hear,” Romney says. As
the candidate so frequently accused of flip-flopping, Romney takes the crown of
panderer off his own head and places it squarely on that of Gingrich. In
accusing Gingrich of going state to state promising different things, Romney
positions himself as the candidate with the most consistency on this issue.
Later in the debate, the candidates were tossed a bit of a
“freebie” and asked to describe why their wife would make a great First Lady.
Romney took advantage of the opportunity to appeal to a number of different
constituencies. Championing his wife as a fighter, Romney cited her struggles
with Multiple Sclerosis and breast cancer, both of which she battled
successfully. “As first lady,” Romney boasted, “she will be able to reach out
to people who are also struggling and suffering and will be someone who shows
compassion and care.” Here Romney extends the idea of being concerned with the
needs of others, his major likability strategy of the night, from his own
passion to that of a family pursuit. So more than a specific address to those
battling serious diseases, Romney also again speaks to anyone who has a general
sense of need.
Romney’s answer also made an appeal to the heart of religiously
inspired, conservative fundamentals. He tells the audience that his wife has a
passion for “helping people in troubled situations, young women in particular,
understand the importance of getting married before they have babies and
encouraging people to create families to raise kids in.” The family principles
of conservatism ignites a fiery fervor in the grassroots movements of the GOP,
and Romney makes an effective moral appeal to those groups; groups with whom he
has struggled to develop a strong relationship of mutual liking.
However, Romney missed an opportunity to influence voter
perceptions of him when attacked by Newt Gingrich for his politically moderate
past and specifically for a quote Romney gave when running against Ted Kennedy
in which Gingrich charged that Romney said “‘I don’t want to go back to the
Reagan-Bush era. I was an independent.’” Romney defended some of the specific
decisions he made in the past, but failed to address this quote which has
plagued him throughout the campaign, and without his specific response,
continues to plague his campaign. It should be surprising that after so many
months of campaigning, the Romney camp has failed to develop a specific
rhetorical response to the quote. So Romney’s lack of a rhetorical response
here was a detriment to his likability.
Toward the end of the debate the issue of religion arose, an issue
which proved to be a large obstacle for Romney, a Mormon, during his first
presidential bid. When asked how religion would affect decisions made as
President, Romney responded that “I would seek to assure that those
[Judae-Christian] principles and values remain in America and that we help
share them with other people in the world, not by conquering them, but by
helping them through our trade, through our various forms of soft power, to
help bring people the joy and opportunity that exist in this great land.” This
is Romney’s most obvious attempt to increase his likability with religiously
fundamental conservatives by proclaiming that he too associates with the values
they hold so dear. The expression of his desire to share the values around the
world also speaks to those in the party more inclined to nation building as
well.
Immigration
The
first question presented to Mitt Romney concerns illegal immigration. This is a
hot topic in the GOP and one that hard-liners of border regulation refuse to
shy away from. Even tea-party favorite, Texas governor Rick Perry was sharply
criticized for his position to allow children of illegal immigrants in Texas to
go to college and pay in-state tuition. He was particularly disparaged for his
defense of the policy that those who opposed it don’t “have a heart.” It is
therefore a complicated issue for Romney to navigate as he attempts to appease
those in the party who want stricter border control and increased penalties for
illegal immigrants, while still attempting to redefine his likability and
appease Florida’s large Hispanic population.
Romney
began his answer by discussing an E-verify program, under which employers who
hire illegal immigrants or who don’t verify their employees’ legal residence
“would be severely sanctioned.” Here Romney attempts to satisfy the more ardent
opponents of illegal immigration. However, he then pivots from a discussion of
penalty, to almost a plea for empathy on part of the illegal immigrants. Romney
goes on to say, “I don’t think anyone is interested in going around and
rounding up people around the country and deporting… 11 million illegal
immigrants.” The way in which Romney frames this issue, that deportation of
immigrants amounts to “going around and rounding up people,” places a
inhumanistic quality on deportation. The concept of “rounding up” is more of an
obvious reference to cattle or other livestock, than to the fair deportation of
criminals. By suggesting that deportation essentially treats human beings as
inhuman, Romney not only effectively places morality on his side, but also
positions him as a candidate who cares for people on an individual level.
The
former Massachusetts governor continues his answer by reminding the audience
that it is important to remember “that there are three groups of people that
are of concern to us. One are those that have come here illegally, 11 million.
The second is the group of people who are brought over by coyotes and who are
in many cases abused by virtue of coming into this country illegally. And the
third are the four to five million people who are waiting at home in their own
nations trying to get here legally.” The first and third groups that Romney
discusses, illegal immigrants and those who want to be legal immigrants, are
groups which are most primarily discussed in any conversation of immigration.
However,
by introducing the second group, those who are brought into America against
their will by human smugglers known as coyotes, Romney has effectively changed
the terms of the debate. In being the only candidate speaking about the
injustices and brutalities inflicted upon people by coyotes, Romney attempts to
solidify his status as a candidate who cares for people and, in this case,
attempting to make it seem as if he is the only candidate who cares. And he
does more than mention them. He returns to their plight a few sentences later,
saying that “those that are abused, we’re concerned about them.” This is not
only an appeal to the basic humanity in each of us, but also a more specific
petition to his Hispanic audience, who are an essential voting block to appeal
to, especially in Florida, and who more closely connect and sympathize with
these issues.
This
is a smooth pivot by Romney from addressing key conservative principles of
strict policies of immigration regulation and border control, while also
contributing to the development of his likability among Hispanics and moderate
conservatives. However, while someone who cares for the well-being of others is
more likely to be well-thought of, the more conservative voters in the base
probably sensed a weakness in Romney’s answer, similar to the way they viewed
Rick Perry’s “have a heart” comments, which may have actually hurt Romney’s
ability to relate to and subsequently be liked by core conservatives who make
up the grassroots movements of the party. It was a risk Romney took, to so
strongly identifying himself with a constituency not often associated with the
Republican party and its views on immigration. However, Seizov & Mueller
(2009) argue that these types of risks give a candidate unexpected appeal to
electoral segments that they normally could not reach. The long-term effects have
yet to be seen, but Romney did win the primary in heavily Hispanic Florida,
with some credit certainly due to his response here.
The
moderator moves on to ask Former Speaker of the House, candidate Newt Gingrich,
if he would restate a claim made in one of his television advertisements which
characterized Romney as being anti-immigrant. Gingrich responds to the question
if Romney was the most anti-immigrant candidate that, “I think, of the four of
us, yes.” This is Romney’s first time in this debate to respond to the specific
attack by an opponent. This particular accusation by Gingrich attempts to
undermine the appeal Romney just made to Hispanic voters and establish
rhetorical restraints to Romney’s appeals for likability. Romney begins his
response by saying, “That’s simply unexcusable. That’s inexcusable. And
actually, Senator Marco Rubio came to my defense and said that ad was
inexcusable and inflammatory and inappropriate.”
By
striking back so vigorously, Romney aims to show his audience that he is vehemently
opposed to such an immoral mark against his reputation. He makes it clear that
he wants himself to be known as a moral person, and a claim which conflicts
that he finds to be personally offensive. The reference to Marco Rubio’s
defense is an effective association Romney makes with the widely liked and
appreciated Senator from the state of Florida. Rubio carries significant
political weight as a leading contender for the Republican Vice-Presidential
pick. So when Romney reminds his audience that Rubio sides with him, he then
shares in the respect directed towards Rubio. Voters like Rubio; Rubio likes
Romney. The former Massachusetts governor clearly hopes the equation can be
completed with “Voters like Romney.”
Romney
continues his defense by saying, “Mr. Speaker, I’m not anti-immigrant. My
father was born in Mexico. My wife’s father was born in Wales. They came to
this country. The idea that I’m anti-immigrant is repulsive. Don’t use a term
like that… [That is] the kind of over-the-top rhetoric that has characterized
American politics too long.” By conjuring images of both his direct and
indirect family immigrating to America, Romney helps his audience to get to
know him more on a personal level by communicating to them the type of
narrative described by Fisher (1984), in which voters, specifically Hispanic
voters, can find both meaning and relevance. While also a larger reference to
the immigratory nature of America’s historical origins, the reference to his
family roots in Mexico is primarily an effective association he makes with his
Hispanic constituency. It equates Romney to them, subtracting from the notion
that Romney seems to feel superior to voters. Romney makes the indirect case
that, as the son of immigrants, he is just like so many of those in the
audience. And again, characterizing Gingrich’s attack as repulsive and
over-the-top helps Romney fervently to fight for a position of being
pro-immigrant. Romney concludes this part of his defense by saying, “I’m glad
Marco Rubio called you out on it. I’m glad you withdrew it. I think you should
apologize for it, and I think you should recognize that having differences of
opinion on issues does not justify labeling people with highly charged
epithets.” Here Romney portrays Gingrich, is primary antagonist, as somewhat of
a name-calling bully, casting himself as the more likable candidate.
Gingrich
responded by asking Romney “what language you would use to describe somebody
who thinks that deporting a grandmother or a grandfather from their family” is
acceptable immigration policy. Romney reiterated that he is against “rounding
people up” and goes on to say that “I am pro-immigrant. I want people to come
to America with skill and vitality and vibrancy. I want them to come legally.
There are grandmothers that live on the other side of the border that are
waiting to come here legally. I want them to come here too, not just those that
are already here.” Romney here establishes a spirit of invitation to
immigrants.
Yet
in keeping with his balancing act of likability, Romney takes advantage of
Gingrich’s refusal to let go of the grandmother scenario to reinforce his
association with the Republican mainstream. After Gingrich furthered the
grandmother conversation, Romney responded, “You know, our problem is not 11
million grandmothers,” a highlight joke of the night, “Our problem is 11
million people getting jobs that many Americans, legal immigrants, would like
to have. It’s school kids in schools that districts are having a hard time
paying for. It’s people getting free health care because we are required under
the law to provide that health care.” While maintaining a welcoming spirit
towards immigrants, Romney also strikes a common chord with the GOP
conservative base, making a plea on the behalf of the unemployed, of children,
and of the unhealthy. He wants his audience to know that he cares for the needs
of the most helpless of them.
Economy/Business
Another
question posed to Governor Romney concerned real-estate entities Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. Romney responded in a number of ways, first going on the offensive
by saying, “Speaker Gingrich was hired by Freddie Mac to promote them, to
influence other people throughout Washington, encouraging them not to dismantle
these two entities. I think, instead, we should have had a whistle-blower and
not horn-tooter.” As an attack against an opponent is always a simultaneous,
comparative statement about self, Romney here claims a morality higher than
that of the former Speaker. When he says that people deserved a whistle-blower
instead of a horn-tooter Romney implies that in the same situation he would
have served the American people by blowing the metaphorical whistle of
morality. The argument that people shouldn’t like Gingrich is a persuasive
suggestion that voters should like Romney instead, thusly making this statement
a subtle argument for Romney’s likability.
Romney
continues that “The right course for our housing industry is to get people back
to work so they can buy homes again. We have 9.9 percent unemployment in
Florida. It’s unthinkable, 18 percent real unemployment here. Get people back
to work. We’ll get people into homes.” Romney pivots from one candidate’s
failure to look out for the American people to his own promise to keep the
needs of the average citizen in his focus. The stability of a job and the
comfort of a home are no less than what Romney is promising the American people
and are certainly claims which aim to convince the American people that Romney
wants to provide for them on an intimate level. However, the more high-concept
ways in which Romney frames his argument (9.9% unemployment, 18% “real”
unemployment), rather than describing the situation in more relatable terms
(ie: stating the number of people without jobs, or explaining what “real”
unemployment is), prevents Romney from connecting with voters as intimately as
possible. This is because Romney is using language which has been, as described
by Farrell and Goodnight (1981), so specialized that the average person without
Romney’s business experience has difficulty understanding it.
Gingrich
responded to Romney attack with a brutal attack of his own, pronouncing that
Romney owns shares of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Goldman Sachs and
questioning how much Romney had profited as a result of those shares off of
houses that have been foreclosed on. Gingrich here employs a common attack
against Romney that his wealth was made off of the misfortune of others. This
has been a major factor in impacting Romney’s likability and his response,
therefore, was clearly important to the perception voters would have of that
trait before voting five days later. He responded with an explanation of his
finances, that his investments are not made by him but are in a blind trust
managed by a trustee who invested in those institutions through mutual funds
and bonds and not in stocks. Romney then moved in for one of the biggest
political scores of the night, asking the Speaker if he had checked his own
investments. “You also have investments through mutual funds that also invest
in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” This got a rousing round of applause from the
audience and effectively grounded Mitt Romney’s morality as being at least no
less than the tea-party favorite Newt Gingrich.
Romney
reiterates that the interest he earned from those investments, investments
which essentially amounted to “loaning money to the United States,” was a much
different way of making money than the lobbying Gingrich did for Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. “What the speaker did was to work as a spokesman to promote Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac. To protect them from those people that wanted to take them
down. He got paid $1.6 million to do that… That is one of the reasons we’re in
the trouble we’re in.” Romney here breaks through some of the specialized,
complex language described by Farrell and Goodnight (1981) and effectively
develops the understanding that while his investments were more indirect and
innocent in nature, Gingrich’s were much more direct and malevolent.
Later,
Romney and Gingrich clashed once again after the moderator asked Gingrich if he
would restate his accusation made earlier in the week against Romney that he
couldn’t relate to the average American because “He lives in a world of Swiss
bank and Cayman Island bank accounts.” Gingrich suggested that the candidates
adopt a more civil tone for the rest of the debate. “Wouldn’t it be nice if
people didn’t make accusations somewhere else that they weren’t willing to
defend here?” Romney quipped to applause. Gingrich then challenged Mitt Romney
to defend the “unusual” accounts. Romney reiterated that a trustee manages his
accounts and that everything was perfectly legal, Romney then articulated the
best defense of his wealth of the night:
There's nothing wrong with that. And I know that there may be some who try to make a deal of that, as you have publicly. But look, I think it's important for people to make sure that we don't castigate individuals who have been successful and try and, by innuendo, suggest there's something wrong with being successful and having investments and having a return on those investments.
Speaker, you've indicated that somehow I don't earn that money. I have earned the money that I have. I didn't inherit it. I take risks. I make investments. Those investments lead to jobs being created in America. I'm proud of being successful. I'm proud of being in the free enterprise system that creates jobs for other people. I'm not going to run from that. I'm proud of the taxes I pay. My taxes, plus my charitable contributions, this year, 2011, will be about 40 percent.
So, look, let's put behind this idea of attacking me because of my investments or my money, and let's get Republicans to say, you know what? What you've accomplished in your life shouldn't be seen as a detriment; it should be seen as an asset to help America.
Romney confronts the
Speaker accusations on a number of levels. Romney’s major point is that success
should be seen as a positive quality in a presidential candidate and not a bad
thing. Romney does nothing, really, in this defense to situate himself as an
average American citizen; his substantial wealth obviously places him in a
unique category of individuals. However, he makes sure to espouse the key
components of realizing the American dream: working hard, taking risks, and
making investments. There seems to be the indirect suggestion that even if
Romney is not an “everyman,” every person could achieve the same level of
success if they were to put forth the same effort. Romney’s appeal places his
situation in a positive light, relatable to the dreams of every hard-working
citizen who believes in the American dream.
Romney
also contends that his business experience, which has led to his wealth, has
also served the American people. “Those investments
lead to jobs being created in America… I’m proud of being in the free
enterprise system that creates jobs for other people.” Romney suggests that his
business dealings were more than a for-profit enterprise, but also an
intentional act designed to provide for the American people. He goes on to
further the idea that he is an individual who serves others but stating that
“My taxes, plus my charitable contributions, this year, 2011, will be about 40
percent.” By pointing out that almost half of his wealth goes to supporting the
government or to those in need through charity, Romney manages to slip another
attempt at increasing his likability into his defense of his wealth. It would
be difficult to dislike someone who gives away almost half of what they have.
In the debate dialogue concerning insurance, Former Senator of
Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum, attacked both Gingrich and Romney, arguing that
their big-government, required-mandate history on the issue will not do well in
the national election. “This is the top-down model that both of these gentlemen
say they’re now against, but they’ve been for, and it does not provide the
contrast we need with Barack Obama.” In the midst of a good deal of
back-and-forth between Santorum and Romney concerning the specifics of their
stances on the issue, Romney took a moment to make another likability/emotional
appeal. “I have passion and concern for the people in this country that have
health care, like this young woman who asked the question.” Again, Romney
reaches out to voters with a promise of humanitarian motives.
Lastly, the candidates were asked why they were the best candidate
to beat Barack Obama. Romney responded by stating a number of his policies and
then saying that “To change Washington in such a dramatic way, you cannot do it
by people who have been there their entire careers… I have lived in the private
sector. I know how it works. I’ve competed with businesses around the world. I
know how to win… I will be able to convince the American people that someone
with my experience is very different that Barack Obama. And that experience is
how I’ll beat him.” Romney’s last appeal to voters sends the subtle message
that he is not a politician, but rather someone who, just like the average
voter, lives in the real world and goes to a business job day after day. Again,
Romney is communicating a narrative, described by Fisher (1984) as a story which
holds meaning and relevance for the audience. The narrative Romney constructs
is that of the quintessential American, who has a regular job and works for
everything he has. This narrative helps Romney create the type of
identification between voters and himself described by Burke (1989). Romney
reiterates the success he discovered in his pursuit of the American dream, a
pursuit all Americans have the opportunity to follow. And in arguing that his
experiences are positives, he contends that he stands the best chance of
differentiating himself from and defeating Barack Obama.
CONCLUSION
Throughout the years, America has seen a dramatic shift
within the realm of politics. No longer are political contest determined solely
on the basis of ideas or party platforms. Now candidates for public office are
largely judged on the content of their character. The trait that most strongly
correlates with the likelihood of a politician being elected is perceptions of
likability. In the January 26th GOP presidential primary debate in
Jacksonville, Florida, there was no clearer example of this than Mitt Romney as
he attempted to positively influence voter perceptions of his likability and
display the leadership and strength of character Medhurst (2005) describes as
being such a decisive factor in elections. Romney used a number of methods to
rhetorically persuade his audience that he was someone whom voters could trust,
relate to, like, and ultimately vote for.
One way in which Romney attempted to influence voter
perceptions of him was repeated references to his family and to the family
values he holds, appealing to the base of the conservative party. Romney also
took a large amount of time discussing immigration and reaching out to Hispanic
voters, expressing sentiments of caring for those who wish to come to America.
In fact, the theme that Mitt Romney cares for the people of the nation was the
strongest theme found in Romney’s rhetoric of the night as he made multiple
references to a number of ways in which he has, is, and wants to help those in
need.
Romney’s
night was not perfect, however. He made a few mistakes, such as stating that he
had not seen a particularly vicious attack ad, which actually included a
sound-byte of Romney’s endorsement at the end. Other gaffes include Romney’s
suggestion that he would fire Newt Gingrich and his refusal to directly
confront a quote in which he identifies himself as a moderate.
However,
Romney also made one of his most powerful defenses of his wealth thus far,
invoking qualities of the American dream and referencing that he gives away
almost half of his wealth in taxes and charitable contributions. Romney also
managed to make a number of appeals to the religiously inclined base of the
party. Additionally, the former governor scored a number of political points
against Newt Gingrich, characterizing himself as more likable in comparison to
the former Speaker.
Overall,
Former Governor Mitt Romney’s debate performance that night, filled with
rhetoric more focused on influencing perceptions of his likability than
actually concerning stance issues, exemplifies the shift outlined in previous
research from importance voters place on issues to that of candidate character,
specifically likability. This case study offers an in-depth look at how
politicians attempt to take control of the perceptions of themselves and
influence characterizations of their likability. A limitation to the case study
is that while every politician has to address issues of likability, few have had
to grapple with voter perceptions of this quality as much as Mitt Romney.
Therefore the application of results from this study may not fully help develop
an understanding of other candidates in other races. Case studies in their very
nature, while in-depth, lack the ability to be widely generalized across a
populace. Future research could perhaps develop a comparative case study,
looking at how different politicians interact with the premise of likability.
Obviously, other debates and speeches given by Romney would help cast an even
greater light on his campaign efforts to influence voter perceptions of
likability.
Works
Cited
Benoit, William L.,
Hemmer, Katharina and Stein, Kevin. (Winter 2010). New York Times’
Coverage
of American Presidential Primary Campaigns, 1952-2004. Human
Communication,
13(4), 259-280.
Burke, Kenneth. (1989).
On Symbols and Society, ed. J.
Gusfield (Chicago: University of
Chicago
Press).
Campbell, J. E.
(1996). The American campaign: U.S. presidential campaigns and the national
vote.
College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Davies,
J. (2009). The Effect of Media Dependency on Voting Decisions. Conference Papers –
International Communication Association, 1-35.
Dorsey, M., and Green, B.
(1997). Spinning the web. Campaigns and
Elections, 18(8), 62-65.
Enda, Jodi. (Fall
2011). Campaign Coverage in the Time of Twitter. American Journalism
Review,
33(2), 14-21.
Farrell, Thomas B. and
Goodnight, G. Thomas. (December 1981). Accidental Rhetoric: The
Root
Metaphors of Three Mile Island. Communication
Monographs, Volume 48.
Fisher, Walter R.
(March 1984). Narrative as Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of
Public
Moral Argument. Communication Monographs,
Volume 31.
Garsten, Bryan. (2009).
Saving Persuasion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Goldstein, K. and Freedman, P. (2002) ‘Lessons learned: Campaign advertising in the 2000
Goldstein, K. and Freedman, P. (2002) ‘Lessons learned: Campaign advertising in the 2000
elections’.
Political Communication 19: pp. 5-28.
Hansen, G. J.
(2004). The informational function of communicative sources in presidential
campaigns:
Effects on issue knowledge and character evaluation.
Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation,
University of Missouri.
Hardy, B. W., & Scheufele, D. A.
(2009). Presidential Campaign Dynamics and the Ebb and
Flow of Talk as a Moderator: Media
Exposure, Knowledge, and Political
Discussion. Communication Theory (10503293), 19(1), 89-101
Holbrook, T. M. (1996).
Do campaigns matter? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hollihan, T. A.
(2009). Uncivil wars: Political campaigns in a media age (2nd ed.).
Boston:
Bedford/St.
Martins.
Jackson, B.,
& Jamieson, K. H. (2004). Finding facts in political debate. American
Behavioral
Scientist,
48, 229–237.
Lenart, S.
(1994). Shaping political attitudes: The impact of interpersonal communication
and
mass
media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roarty, Alex.
(Feb. 23, 2012). Republican Race’s Volatility is Historic. The National Journal.
Ross, M. H.
(1992). Television news and candidate fortunes in presidential nominating
campaigns:
The case of 1984. American Politics Quarterly, 20, 69-98.
Sanders, Tim.
(2005). The Likability Factor. NY:
Crown Publishing Group.
“Santorum
catches Romney in GOP race.” (Feb. 13, 2012) Pew Research Center. Retrieved from <
http://www.people-press.org/2012/02/13/santorum-catches-romney-in-gop-race/>.
Seizov,
O., & Mueller, M. (2009). Visual Style and Visual Strategy in U.S.
Presidential
Campaigning: A Study of Online Campaign
Spots in the 2008 Presidential
Primaries. Conference Papers -- International
Communication Association,
1-51.
Silverlieb,
Alan. (Jan. 25, 2012). Mitt Romney: The man on the wedding cake? CNN Politics. Retrieved from < http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-25/politics/politics_romney- dewey_1_mitt-romney-romney-today-massachusetts-governor?_s=PM:POLITICS>.
Tulis, Jeffrey K.
(1987). The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment