Typically, attacking an opponent’s conduct towards household pets is considered a sign of desperation. That is, unless you’re LBJ running for Senate and the only way to win is accusing your opponent of intimate relations with a pig. But that was over 50 years ago. It won’t work now, right? Right?
Wrong. In recent days, Mitt Romney’s treatment of his dog has somehow become a major topic. Even The Washington Post blogged about the whole thing, dismissing it as hogwash. Heck, for once, the person denouncing attacks on Romney wasn’t even the Post’s token conservative political writer Jennifer Rubin! So why is the attack still going?
To answer that, let me tell a story. An ex-girlfriend, who was a liberal from Massachusetts (and no, that has nothing to do with why we broke up), once told me she couldn’t vote for Romney. When I asked if it was because of his record as Governor, she replied, “No, it’s because he was mean to his dog.”
And no, this story isn’t just about me getting catharsis over a failed relationship (I promised myself I wouldn’t cry). I bring it up because it tells us something –namely, that it’s difficult for someone to overlook political differences if they think someone’s a bad person. Also, they can overlook someone’s serious moral failings, if they agree with them politically. For evidence, see Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, Al Sharpton and Bill Clinton.
On the scale of moral failure, strapping a dog to the roof of a car isn’t nearly as bad as being a serial adulterer. So why does it hurt Romney so much? Well, remember what I said before? The converse is true as well. People can also overlook political differences if they think someone’s good.
Romney’s got the worst of both worlds. While no one thinks he goes around murdering puppies, he’s unapproachable enough that no one’s really sure whether he regularly puts puppies through hours long rides in what amounts to a makeshift wind tunnel. Also, no one really knows whether they agree with Romney politically, so there’s no convincing rationalization there either.
Romney’s problem isn’t that he’s a callous jerk who tortures dogs (sorry, liberals/Santorum supporters). Nor is it that he’s a closeted liberal who wants to impose corporate-government-sponsored Romneycare on everyone. It’s that people don’t know. And when you don’t have any reason to believe someone’s good, or at least on your team, it’s the safest possible thing to assume the worst.
That’s why Romney’s dog matters. The dog knows how its owner behaves, and Americans are too scared of being strapped to the roof of Romney’s private limo only to find they are being driven down the road to serfdom.
