The image of Mitt Romney, as a man fit for the demanding role of US President, has been seriously buffeted over the last few weeks. His reluctance to release more than two years of his income tax records, followed by the reaction in some circles to his criticism of the London Olympics, have seen a widespread questioning of the competency of his campaign.
But, with 100 days to go before the election, the big news is that --- despite these errors ---- Mitt Romney is still running in a virtual tie with President Obama for the White House. Obama has also made mistakes, notably ill-worded reminder to successful business owners 'that you did not build it on your own", and polls indicate that voters are sticking with their preferred candidate.
So the impact of these errors on both sides may not become fully apparent until the two meet face-to- face in the Presidential debates. Most American voters are prepared to believe, for now, that Mitt Romney's tax records are not a reason to disqualify him as the next occupant of the White House. One well-timed quip from the current President, however, accompanied by a less-than-onvincing rebuttal from the candidate and lingering doubts about Romney's honesty, could propel a narrative over Mitt's ability to represent ordinary Americans.
Similarly, a peevish response by Obama to an attack on his economic record, or his perceived commitment to a "socialist" system of government could convince a number of his wavering supporters to switch their vote.
But the static poll numbers is beginning to raise the possibility that the nature of American politics is changing in a subtle way beyond the headline camapign.
Since the election of 1960, when John Kennedy used the first televised debates to discomfort his less charismatic rival Richard Nixon, personality politics have been a central part of US Presidential elections. Candidates without the 'X Factor' have suffered at the hands of those who have been more successful at using television a an effective medium of communication. During this election, however, we are seeing a candidate in Mitt Romney who is ineffective in the visual media and in front of an audience but who is managing to preserve his voter support.
Instead of being swayed by the personality of a politician, voters are judging candidates by how much or how close that man represents the opinions they have already formed from other sources. Elections now are more than a quadrennial event; they are fought out year-round via e-mail lists, Twitter updates, and blog sites.
There are other reasons why the polls are not moving in response to the unfolding events of this campaign season. Republicans might be winning in a landslide if they had been able to pick a candidate able to enthuse more voters against President Obama's economic record. Democrats might be holding a comfortable lead if Republican Super PACS had not launched a flurry of attack ads, made possible by funding unleashed by the recent Supreme Court ruling.
And another possibility is that the American two-party system is working exactly as it should; and always has. Back in 1949, E. Allen Helms wrote an article in which he started from the premise:
A single political party seldom finds itself in control of all three branches of government at the same time. Thus party spokesmen are enabled and encouraged to make promises freely; they are provided with iron-clad alibis for failure to carry them into action. As a consequence, job politics prevails over policies and programs. The essential point to victory in an election is control over personnel and patronage. Policies and programs are promoted by pressure groups operating both inside and outside the government, sometimes partisan but more often bipartisan or non-partisan in composition. Party platforms merely reflect the inter-play of these pressure groups.
That sentiment still resounds today. But Helms also made an argument for politics to become more responsive to the will of the people, with elections reining in the dominance of Congress over the Executive:
These objectives of securing the nomination and election to the Presidency and Vice-Presidency of men of greater public esteem and greater stature may be accentuated by more extensive use of scientific public opinion polls and more wide-spread radio and television coverage of campaigns, conventions, and other political activities. Men with experience in politics, men with ability and with qualities of leadership as candidates and in the White House can get results in party leadership, in leadership in Congress, and in leadership of the public where dull and incompetent men will fail. The greatest hope at present lies in that direction.
Helms hoped that a more robust Presidency, with its stature reinforced by polls and television coverage, could counteract the pernicious influence of pressure groups in a two-party system. That obviously has not come to pass.
Two-party elections have been close and contentious affairs, with even the Founding Fathers succumbed to the temptation to conduct their Presidential campaigns in less than restrained tones. In 1796, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams --- both involved in the fight for America's independence --- turned into bitter rivals. Jefferson was accused of cowardice for not fighting during the War of Independence, while Adams ws smered with the charge that he was secretly planning to institute a hereditary monarchy with his son as his successor. That election, and a re-match in 1800, led to the framing of US politics as “furious” and “white-hot” differences between the Jeffersonian Republicans and Adams' Federalist Party.
"Furious"? "White-hot"? I am not sure this campaign merits that description. Whether it will do so remains to be seen. And so is this answer to this question, beyond November's outcome: will it make any difference in Washington?