Rating the Candidates 3 – Personality as the Differentiator
Mitt Romney
By KipParent on 11-25-2007
Every Sunday and Thursday
The third of the four Republicans in this series, while running third in the national polls, is currently leading in the first two bellweather states – Iowa and New Hampshire.
Mitt Romney
The initial impression of Mitt Romney, the candidate, is Guardian. From watching the somewhat maudlin early Mitt-TV episodes – “The Decision”, “Ann Romney- Christmas 2006”, to his focus on “traditional values” – pro-life, pro-marriage, etc., it would be easy to make this initial superficial read a conclusion.
But this image is relatively recent – and plays to the differences between the primary season and the general election I have alluded to in previous articles. That is – the rank-and-file Republican party is dominated by Guardians, and to appeal to this base, the candidates' general behavior is a Guardian style while pursuing the nomination. Romney's image seems to be carefully crafted to appear to be a solid, conservative, traditional Guardian. Looking at his history, though, suggests this recent style is less than full measure of his temperament.
What strikes me hardest in looking at Romney's background, and the words people around him use in describing him, is the way he goes about solving problems. In fact, numerous descriptions of him by people he has worked with include the term "problem solver". And the way he goes about problem solving is not through the cooperative, consensus seeking (or loyalty seeking) process of most Guardians, but instead, is very utilitarian:
"I have to see conflict," he says. "The last thing you want is people coming in saying 'We all agree. Here's the recommendation.' I know I don't want to proceed on that basis."
Romney used this method very effectively as a turn-around specialist in his pre-politics career, both in the turn-around of Bain & Company into a management consulting powerhouse, to leading Bain Capital in venture capital and private equity investing, to the rescue of the scandal-plagued Salt Lake City Olympics.
This utilitarianism marks Romney as a Rational - not a Guardian. He also displays Rational's flaws I see that may bite him hard if he makes it to the general election - flaws that have hurt previous candidates with an abstract temperament. Hillary Clinton has already started the attack on his "flip-flopping", the tactic that worked so well for George W. Bush against Idealist John Kerry in 2004. Indeed, Romney has taking 180 degree turns on a number of positions that helped him win the Massachusetts State-house in 2002 – abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, to pick the obvious ones. The flip-flop accusation is an easy one to make against many Rationals – they often appear wishy-washy because of their tendency to continue to debate issues in their own minds, even past the time most others have moved on. Remember, Rationals are always looking for a better way, even if that means destroying sacred cows (or their own previous work).
.jpg)
As a Rational, I think Romney could be the most interesting of the Republicans as the party's nominee in the general election. There haven't been many Rational nominees in the past 50 years - Al Gore and Barry Goldwater being the two. The last Rational President was Eisenhower, but in the pre-television age, he was able to run an Artisan-like ("I like Ike") campaign. How would he stack up against the individual Democratic candidates? This series of articles will conclude with a look at potential head-to-head match ups.
[Index to all articles in this series]
 |
 |
 |
 |
Posted by pzpeggy on Nov 27, 2007
I'm not sure why so many people focused on the alleged flip flopper of Kerry. Why couldn't you focus instead on his intelligence and service to his country? His change of mind was indicative of his ability to see and analyze all aspects of an issue not blindly follow flawed policy like our current president. Now we have 4 more years of complete incompetence to clean up because voters couldn't understand the complexity of Kerry. It doesn't matter what issues Romney stands for - he wears his religion on his sleeve, like the travesty I call Bush. This is enough to send most of us running. |
 |
 |
Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Nov 27, 2007
Although I don't have enough data about Romney, I also get hints that he is a likely Rational. Nevertheless, most people looking at him only see him as a Mormon. This appears to be a major sticking point for many religious Republicans. Winning in November seems important to many Republicans evidenced by major support towards Giuliani, despite his social positions. It is ironic that John F Kennedy had similar situation, Catholicism being major issue at that time, made it a point to exclude his personal religious views. I suspect Romney, if elected, would be careful to not have his religion, other than Rowe v Wade be an issue. Bush Jr. and Carter, both Protestants, had their religion greatly affect their presidencies. |
 |
 |
Posted by JackDermody on Nov 28, 2007
I think so-called flip-floppers have the choice to turn changes of mind into positives, and to do so aggressively. Kerry could have, but he didn't. Who better than a Rational to say something like, "Do you want a President who doesn't learn and who doesn't seek to make increasingly better decisions? Do you want someone who blindly follows an ideology? Or would you rather elect someone who intelligently and courageously questions old ideologies because of new information and clearly different circumstances? Slavery and male-only voting were part of old ideologies, for example. A great President needs to be intelligently flexible while honoring the most sacred American tenets such as freedom and individualism." |
| |
|
Posted by KipParent on Nov 28, 2007
Jack, I agree with your sentiment! But- here's the caveat - I am a Rational, and like you, very comfortable with abstract communication. Unfortunately, in today TV culture, the only guys that get more than a 10 second sound bite are the pundits. Otherwise, what you wrote above would be clipped on the evening news to a background picture of the candidate with a voice over from the reporter saying "Al Gore today decried slavery and male-only voting". You do occasionally read well reasoned and detailed op-ed pieces by a candidate in the NY Times, but, again getting to the nub of the issue, the TRUE deciders in November don't care to read the NY Times. They watch Jay Leno. |
| |
|
Posted by JackDermody on Nov 29, 2007
Kip, you're scaring me. I still think people would listen to Rationals if they spoke with the tone and charisma of Huckaby and McCain in tonight's debate. I think any candidate needs to speak "Guardian," but that doesn't mean that the abstract cannot be spun concrete nor that the utilitarian can't be spun cooperative. I'm working on that quest right now with some of my writings and, although the wording is "not me," it still gets my message across and is one hell of a lot more interesting!! |
| |
|
Posted by KipParent on Nov 29, 2007
Jack, if Rationals could speak with the tone and charisma of Huckaby and McCain, they would be Artisans. That's the rub, and why Rationals are running up hill in the general election against an Artisan. Did you notice Romney's total inability to "be in the moment" during the debate? His inability to improvise was repeatedly exposed - McCain slaughtered him on the waterboarding issue, and his inability to respond clearly and succinctly to Anderson Cooper on the gays-in-the-military question was very awkward. Its strange to see a guy that is described as being "wicked smart" look so ill-equipped to handle straightforward debate questions. In the next set of this blog series, there are 2 Rationals to look at, one of whom seems to be better at "acting artisan". It'll be interesting to see how these behaviors play out over the coming weeks. |
| |
|
Posted by JackDermody on Nov 29, 2007
Kip, my take on Romney's responses was CYA, denial, and mixed integrity. The Republican debates have become Christianity tests and Gay tests and I can't believe most Rationals of any party could successfully proclaim to be ideological conservatives with a straight face on either of those particular issues. I'll be astonished if he comes out of this alive. But that doesn't change my belief that a good learner and hard worker could not learn to speak in any temperament of one's choice. I do it myself and have witnessed dozens of others. |
| |
|
Posted by KipParent on Nov 30, 2007
Jack, I'll definitely agree with you that a versatile person can, through practice, learn to act more in character of another temperament. I think Giuliani is managing this to some extent (Guardian looking more Artisan) and Obama is also (Rational looking more Artisan). But for most, it seems to be quite difficult, hence Romney's complete inability to come off as anything other than stilted in his answers to questions for which he didn't have a script. But Artisans have a huge advantage in this particular area - they don't even have to TRY - it is natural. And it is especially hard to act out of character when one is under stress, and I have to believe standing on the stage for one of these debates is pretty high stress. |
| |
|
Posted by JackDermody on Dec 2, 2007
Kip, one of my favorite things to do is imagining being a political candidate and imagining answering a question like the Bible question the Republicans got the other night in the debate. What follows is several steps: (1) How I might answer the question if I simply told my own truth and in my own natural manner. (2) Draft an answer in each of the four temperaments that would likely appeal better to each temperament. (3) Create a combo-answer that would hopefully answer the question in a minute or less, and at the same time appeal to all four temperaments. Question: Do you believe every word in the Bible? Truthful feelings of candidate: My religious beliefs are nobody’s business but mine. Americans cherish a separation between church and state and I support that. None of us wants a religion imposed on us, so I believe the correct answer is that my religion will never be imposed on you in any form whatsoever. Also I believe all American can freely choose a religion or choose not to have one at all. Why is this question being asked in the first place? Artisan appeal: I relish my personal freedom and support your personal freedom. Pardon me, but did I miss checking a box about my religious beliefs on the application to run for President? Don’t impose your rules and I won’t impose mine. Idealist appeal: I firmly believe we need to get along with one another and I don’t see how pledging allegiance to one of the world’s great religious books helps bring people together. Every single one of us would like to enjoy the beauty and satisfaction of our religious choices without being challenged. Excellent Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus, Christians, Animists, and atheists should all be able to run for President in this country. Guardian appeal: The right thing to do, the responsible thing to do is to check a candidate’s credentials for leading this country correctly and dependably. What is my track record? Have I been fair to all people and, in this case, to people of all religions? Do Americans feel that I am everyone’s President? Do some Americans feel that they are uncomfortable under my leadership because of MY religion, or uncomfortable because of THEIR religion? Rational appeal: I would have to wonder why this question is being asked. Whether I responded that I believed every single word of the Bible, or only half of it, or none of it at all – what does the questioner really want to know that makes me qualified or disqualified to be President? I would hope the voters want to know how much I know and how smart I am, whether I am ethical and hard-working and – especially – whether or not I will make the smartest possible decisions for protecting our freedoms – especially religious freedoms – keeping us safe, supporting a robust economy, and so forth. APPEAL TO ALL FOUR TEMPERAMENTS IN ONE MINUTE: Gee, I want to be every American’s President – one who relishes the personal and religious freedoms of every single American – as guaranteed by our Constitution. If you are going to question my beliefs, would you please take a close look at my track record. Do I have integrity? Am I smart? Do I come up with excellent solutions to difficult problems? Do I surround myself with competent people? Am I a kind person? Would I keep America safe? Will the economy soar? Will I seek justice for all? Will you be proud of me on the international stage? If you asked job candidates their about belief in the Bible, you would risk a very expensive lawsuit. Why are you doing that to me? Would you like that question asked of you? My religious beliefs are sacred, they are mine, and they are protected by the Constitution. Best of all, so are yours! Every single one of us would like to enjoy the beauty and satisfaction of our religious choices without being challenged. Excellent Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus, Christians, Animists, and atheists should all be able to run for President in this country and be expected to serve up an equal and open playing field to all. |
 |
 |
Posted by LisaFairhurst on Dec 3, 2007
Jack, as a firm believer that God wrote the Bible, I agree with you that it is no one's business what the candidates believe about the Bible unless they choose to reveal it. That totally takes away from the important issues politicians are elected to mess with. If a candidate says that they believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, what does that tell us about their fitness for governing? Not much. Even if one is an evangelical Christian wanting to get a take on a candidate's likelihood to oppose abortion, support family values, and allow private schools to maintain their religious values, knowing what someone thinks about the Bible doesn't help much. I very selfishly promote freedom of religion. If you are free to practice whatever religion you want, then no one (hopefully) can curtail my freedoms either. A candidate's stated religious affiliation does matter to me, but it is by no means the only factor. An ability to lead is rather useful too. My mother, a conservative fundamentalist Christian, has tentatively thrown her support behind Obama. |
| |
|
Posted by JackDermody on Dec 3, 2007
Lisa, what a thoughtful response you delivered here. If there is a definable "opposite" group to Christian Conservativism, I must belong to it, but I have to tell you the integrity your words suggest and the care with which you present them remind me to be more objective about both my own arena and yours -- to celebrate the brilliance and high standards that exist in every segment of American society. The tone and depth of these first discussions on this new blogging site are just exactly what I am hoping for. Would that the national political dialogue sounded like this!! |
 |
|
Posted by InventorChampionIntuitive on Jul 23, 2008
Let's see if this thread picks up if Romney becomes McCain's VP candidate... I was in school in Massachusetts when Romney was governor, so I got to see an extremely pragmatic side of him. Politically, I am as progressive as they come. I believe in protecting the environment, not selling weapons to violent regemes. I'm in favor of providing access to health care to the poor, and needy, and providing quality education to our youngsters. Yet, there is something I like about Romney, and I don't think I've ever said that about a Republican candidate before. I think that Obama is the right person for the country now, and that the time is right for a progressive who is willing to look to the future rather than the past. Watching Romney as Governor, it was obvious to me that he really doesn't have any positions, that he's interested in advancing politically as far as he can go, perhaps out for familial reasons. Perhaps the reason he appeals to me is that he is a Rational, and I believe that he's also a highly intelligent person. That also allows me to discount the things he says that I disagree with! |
I get what you mean about Romney. I have to admit, by the time of the last election, I was convinced Kerry was a wishy-washy flip-flopper and I couldn't bring myself to vote for him for president. With Romney, I have no idea what he really stands for - it seems everything he used to be for, he's now against. How can I trust someone like that?