Another reason Mitt Romney won’t be nominated in 2012

There are many reasons, but over at Gene Expression I assert that Mitt Romney simply comes off as too wonky and brainy to do well in the Republican primaries in 2012. You don’t need to be dull to be nominated. Both John McCain and George W. Bush had IQs which were well above average based on standardized test scores, though both also underperformed their measured aptitudes in their higher educational careers (McCain more than Bush). But I think it is fair to say that since Richard Nixon all the Republican nominees for president have been intellectually modest in their presentation to the public (this does not mean that they were actually intellectually modest in their endowments. For example, I think that George H. W. Bush had both aptitude and realized academic achievement in his youth). The Democrats have struck a different profile. Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were smart (Carter has a degree in physics in engineering from the Naval Academy, class rank 59 out of 820, and was a nuclear engineer in the navy*), but balanced out their academic orientation with a folksy Southern charm (in Clinton’s case his personal morals seem to have been crassly base, making him “earthier”). Michael Dukakis was a nerd, with no balancing qualities. Barack Obama mixed the “wine-track” with the black segment of the Democratic primary.

In many ways I think Mitt Romney is like Michael Dukakis. Both governors of Massachusetts, and nerds. Romney is physically robust and handsome, but for some reason he seems to come off as a nerd on testosterone to many people. I think this is why he was so detested in the 2008 primaries by his rivals. He’s smart, rich and handsome. These should be traits which make him an object of admiration and envy, but instead he is perceived as a striving overachiever, and elicits resentment from his peers. And I think that’s partly because he can’t mask his management consultant affect (I now suspect his flip-flopping and Mormonism come into higher profile because people want to give him a wedgie).

Note: To be clear, I am positively predisposed toward Romney. But the more I think about it the more pessimistic I get about his prospects in the primaries. Once in the general I think Republicans put-off by his nerd sensibility would vote for anyone but the Democrat, just as they did for McCain despite previous antipathy. And Romney’s wonkish competence would probably start to draw in upwardly mobile professionals, former nerds themselves quite often, who aren’t part of the Republican primary voter base.

* Some readers were skeptical of Carter’s educational credentials. It looks like he has exaggerated his background in physics, he took an uncredited graduate level course at Union College. His undergraduate degree at the Naval Academy was engineering, the most common degree given in the service academies. His son does have a degree in nuclear physics from Georgia Tech.

Posted in politics | Tagged | 55 Comments

Change of design

I have to change themes. Will make it a less generic one soon, but the previous theme kept having security holes, and I can’t waste anymore time working on that.

Posted in politics | 3 Comments

Neocon is like liberal?

Look at the reader survey I notice not too many neoconservatives. Not that surprising. But I had an offhand thought: neoconservatism as a label has become somewhat like liberal, something no one wants to admit to, but a movement which is strongly influential. “Progressives” are just really liberals. And a neoconservative outlook on foreign policy has totally captured that particular “leg” of the conservative movement.

Is is wrong? Right?

Posted in politics | Tagged | 23 Comments

Amen (Sort Of, And If That’s Not An Inappropriate Word To Use)

I have to say that I rather liked this by Freddie, the blogger at L’Hôte:

 …Atheism is not a project.It has no purpose. It proceeds towards no end. It has no meaning beyond the simplicity of absence. It has as little negative presence as positive and demands no philosophy. Sam Harris’s life is dominated by religion. It’s what he thinks about; it’s what he writes about; it’s how he pays the bills. He speaks all over the country about religion, he opines on it constantly, denying it is his constant endeavor. His intellectual and philosophical life could hardly be more centered around religion if he were a monk.

Me? I go weeks without thinking about religion or God. And why would I?

 

With the important qualification that I do spend quite a bit of time pondering the implications of religious belief (to start with, there’s that whole rise of militant Islam business to think about), I have some sympathy for what Freddie is saying, even if I suspect that many of those who have taken the trouble to define themselves as atheists have already spent far more time on this topic than it deserves.

 I did, however, note with concern this passage from the same post (the whole post is incidentally well worth reading in full):

I once listened to a recording of a lecture by the New Age guru Ram Dass…

 

 Oh dear, I hope that’s not a sign of some quest for “meaning”.

H/t: The Daily Dish

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 20 Comments

Rejecting a mathematics of morals

In my post below where I outline what I believe are the appropriate parameters of eudaimonia I was obviously influenced by the inductive methods of history and natural science. Naturally this elicited a strong response from some quarters. This is no surprise (though the rude manner of comment is not necessary, long time readers of my various blogs have disagreed on this particular point for years without being uncivil barbarians. Reading Plato clearly does not make one a gentleman).
Continue reading

Posted in culture | Tagged , | 16 Comments

Craven

Well, this story (via The Daily Telegraph) is depressing:

A Danish newspaper on Friday became the first in the country to apologise for offending Muslims by printing a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb-shaped turban, rekindling a heated debate about free speech. Politiken said its apology was part of a settlement with a Saudi lawyer representing eight Muslim groups in the Middle East and Australia…Politiken was among several Danish newspapers that reprinted the cartoon in 2008 after police uncovered an alleged plot to kill its creator, Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard.

In a statement, Politiken said it “recognises and deplores” that Muslims were offended by the caricature. “We apologise to anyone who was offended by our decision to reprint the cartoon drawing,” it said. Toeger Seidenfaden, the paper’s editor, told The Associated Press that the paper was apologising for the offence caused by the cartoon – not the decision to reprint it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

How I learned to love moral relativism & cultural chauvinism

Over at Crunchy Con Rod Dreher points me to a new book, Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time, which, in Dreher’s words “attempts to defend St. Paul against his modernist critics (e.g. those who consider him an impossible troglodyte for his views on women and homosexuals) by explaining the Greco-Roman social and cultural context in which he composed his letters.” If you open the Bible and read it front to back, there is much to defend, or as academics would say, “contextualize.”

As a young unbeliever with some fluency in the basic texts of the Christian religion I would occasionally point to the “politically incorrect” aspects of scripture, or commentaries by the Church Fathers, in arguments with my devout friends. The main issue which prompted me was the contention by my righteous interlocutors that their religious tradition espoused timeless values, that they had access to Truth untouched by historical contingencies. I didn’t believe it then, and I don’t believe it now. Liberals are wont to point out the selective reading of scripture by cultural “conservatives.” The sections devoted to homosexuality have great relevance today, but those speaking to the sin of divorce are less emphasized in a society where many “Bible believing Christians” engage in serial monogamy.

Attempts by Christians to genuinely “roll back the clock” in a more credibly consistent manner have met with little success. Doug Wilson, a Reformed theologian and pastor prominent in right-wing Calvinist circles, attempted to defend the Biblical basis of slavery. Wilson’s argument is logically consistent. Christianity Today noted:

Continue reading

Posted in culture | Tagged , , , , | 45 Comments

Secular Right reader survey

A reader asked about a survey for this weblog. If you are a regular reader, please consider taking this survey. I’ll post the csv on the 6th of March (survey closes on the 5th). There are 30 questions, none of which are mandatory. They proceed from demographic variables, to general political ideology, to specific political questions. You can view results here. It goes rather fast since most of the questions have answers you should know without much reflection (e.g., your sex).

Posted in politics | Tagged | 39 Comments

Thought for the Day

One begins to suspect that the true American tradition is less that of our Fourth of July orations and our constitutional law textbooks, with their cluck-clucking over the so-called preferred freedoms, than, quite simply, that of riding somebody out of town on a rail.

— Willmoore Kendall, Conservative Affirmation

Posted in law, Odds & Ends | 2 Comments

Gays & gun control

By now you’ve probably seen the Ryan Sorba video from CPAC:

Right now opposition to gay marriage is a winning issue for conservatives. But how much longer? I wonder if we’re going to see a shift where conservatives are going to have to put anti-gay sentiments aside because of changes in the wider societal Zeitgeist. Similar to the way that the Left seems to have soft-pedaled or deemphasized the gun control agenda over the past 10 years.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , | 16 Comments