Do Endorsements Work? Mitt Romney and National Review
So National Review decided to endorse Mitt Romney.
And so far pundits and bloggers have had one of two reactions: Why not Thompson? And, “well, this is not exactly a surprise.”
Romney had long wooed the National Review crowd. This very public courtship finally ended at the altar, with NR saying it for Romney. It is probably the closest the magazine has been to a presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater.
Everyone has missed the larger point: Is it wise for magazines (or newspapers) to endorse candidates at all? Is National Review hurting itself?
While nearly every newspaper from the Daily Cowhide to the Washington Post endorses candidates, there is no evidence that it actually persuades voters in national races. Endorsements do seem to have a slight effect on local races. For a certain kind of inattentive voter (attentive enough to vote and read the newspaper, but not enterprising to learn the names and views of local candidates), the endorsement of the local paper can be a godsend. Oh, so I should vote for Jones for Sewer Commission Advisory Board, and not Smith.
For everyone else, endorsements are either a curiosity or a clue about the publisher’s private interests. Jones has decided that the county should pay to pipe away the printing plant’s pollution, while Smith is insisting the paper pay for its own wastes.
Maybe Americans have gotten cynical about endorsements, like we have about advertising in general. We just ignore endorsements.
So why do publications bother with them?
Like churches, newspapers are incredibly reactionary in their resistance to changes in rituals. But we always endorse candidates, editors say. Some even trot out the public service argument. The bigger reason is simply that the prospect of an endorsement brings candidates in to meet with the paper’s editorial board. It is about the only time the editors (as opposed to the reporters) will get to meet and question the candidates. This makes editors feel important. The meeting is everything. You can’t ask us to endorse someone we haven’t even met, editors say. But really the editors of New Hampshire Bugle just want to spend five minutes with Sen. McCain and are too lazy to hang out in the diner that the great man is scheduled to visit.
As for the “tradition” of endorsing candidates, it springs from the mid-19th century. Back then, newspaper were, formally or informally, appendages of political parties. (Some vestiges of this remains in the names of newspapers: The Waterbury (Connecticut) Republican-American, Santa Rosa, California’s Press-Democrat, and so on.) Endorsements started as lists of “our boys” in the party organ. Some tradition.
Interestingly, none of these arguments apply to the National Review endorsement. Its highly capable editor Rich Lowry has unparalleled access to candidates as does his staff. NR doesn’t need to dangle a potential endorsement to get a meeting with Thompson or McCain. The magazine has no history of endorsing candidates for any office, although it came close with Goldwater.
As for the idea that endorsements don’t matter, in this particular case it might. Many conservatives are on the fence about Romney. The question, put most baldly, is: Is he a genuine conservative or a flip-flopping politician who will say anything to get elected? The National Review endorsement goes a long way to assuring conservatives that Romney is the real deal.
While the endorsement was a boon for Romney, was it good for National Review? Probably not.
With an endorsement, National Review has just tied itself the mast of the Romney campaign. From now on, any position of the Romney campaign, every alliance or compromise, reflects on National Review.They better hope their new captain doesn’t steer them into any strange currents.
National Review has been burned before by a conservative presidential campaign. In September 1963, William F. Buckley Jr., the-then editor of National Review, and Brent Bozell, another editor at the magazine, met with Goldwater and two top aides to discuss fundraising strategy. One of those aides was Bill Baroody, a senior staffer on the Goldwater campaign who was a wanted to be the resident conservative intellectual-and didn’t want competition from the editors of National Review. A few days later, the New York Times described the meeting as “secret” and published the now infamous sentence: “The Goldwater for President ship has just repelled a boarding party from the forces who supposedly occupy the narrow territory to the right of the Arizona Senator.” It is widely believed that Baroody leaked the story to the New York Times to strengthen his hand in the campaign. The story demolished Buckley, who soon distanced himself from the Goldwater campaign. Gilman Barndollar, writing in the Concord Review, described what happened next: “The loss of the Buckley and Bozell meant the loss of a formidable national magazine, skilled Republican strategists, and campaign funding…”
And Buckley’s (and National Review’s) reputation took an undeserved hit.
National Review’s editors might want to remind themselves that history does sometimes repeat itself.
The Romney endorsement will also call into question the magazine’s considerable reporting on the other presidential candidates. Readers and other campaigns may come to believe the conservative fortnightly is in the tank for Romney and dismiss its justifiable criticism of other campaigns. And, of course, the endorsement will make it less likely that other campaigns will trust the magazine with leaks or exclusives.
As an alternative, consider the example set by the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which as a matter of policy does not endorse candidates. Robert Bartley, the editorial-page editor who stepped down in 2001, used to say that “the page is for principles, not people.” In other words, it is better to endorse political ideals (free trade, individual liberty, low taxes and so on), which endure, than politicians, who ultimately disappoint.
When politicians work to advance these ideals, they get praised. When they undermine the paper’s principles, they get criticized. Either way, the paper is committing journalism, not playing politics.
This policy spared the Journal a lot of grief over the years. Hopefully National Review doesn’t have to learn from Bartley’s wisdom the hard way.
I don’t think this at all: “The National Review endorsement goes a long way to assuring conservatives that Romney is the real deal.”
The National Review has had a man-crush on Romney from the first moment he announced. It’s one thing if a publication takes an “unbiased look” (like that ever happens) at the candidates and decides which one to endorse, it’s another thing entirely if they de facto endorse a candidate before he/she enters the race.
Romney may be the most conservative Governor of Massachusetts in the last 4 years but he’s not a Conservative. The National Review endorsement is a classic case of “Beltway Fever”, they’re endorsing Romney because they know him. As you said, The National Review is now tied to the Romney Campaign and I have a hunch that their subscribers will learn that The National Review isn’t a Conservative Publication anymore.
First: “One of those aides was Bill Baroody, a senior staffer on the Goldwater campaign who was a wanted to be the resident conservative intellectual”
What on Earth does that sentence say?
Second: I used to subscribe to National Review, and I recall them making Presidential endorsements fairly regularly. If I’m not mistaken, during the ’70s they were solidly in Ronald Reagan’s corner.
Not to say that Romney = Reagan. Different men, different campaigns, different times. I’m just saying, I’m not quite sure I understand the assertion that the magazine hasn’t endorsed candidates in the past.
I read the free stuff NR has online and had thought them to be pro-Rudy prior to the announcement.
Plus, it seems every blogger and pundit on NR online is distancing themselves from the endorsement by saying they weren’t part of the decision and haven’t made up their own mind. From what I see online, there has still been plenty of praise and criticism to go around to all the candidates. The biggest change is with Rich Lowry who has been making the rounds explaining NR’s decision and has stopped making damaging criticisms of Romney.
And there are still a few people on there, notably David Frum (a Rudy man), who have pledged themselves to certain candidates.
I think the point that politicians are unreliable vehicles for promoting ideals is good. But who knows, maybe they got spooked by the prospect of a Huckabee victory and felt it necessary to strengthen someone with better chances in the general election?
Elements of NRO have been carrying Romney’s water for a long time, so the endorsement was no surprise.
But it has been interesting to watch their reaction to the Huckabee surge. Thinking it would help Romney, NRO took the line that social conservatives have the inalienable right to choose the GOP candidate. Now they’re watching as those social conservatives decide they prefer to Huckabee to Romney. Oops!
I like Miniter. I’ve watched all the Corn and Miniter shows, and wish they’d hurry up and do some new ones.
I like all 5 front-runners for the GOP nomination.
I’ve never heard Richard Miniter say anything complementary about Romney, unless it were backhanded or damning with faint praise.
I like endorsements. NRO is a journal of opinion, not a newspaper.
“NRO is a journal of opinion, not a newspaper.”
All newspapers, at the end of the day, are journals of opinion. It is inherently impossible to be “neutral and above the fray.” Those who believe otherwise will simply lie to themselves—before lying to you.
David T, I absolutely agree with you. There is, however, a meaningful distinction between an opinion piece and a news column.
A news column is supposed to attempt to be as neutral as possible, while an opinion piece is supposed to attempt to be as persuasive as possible.
As a journal of opinion, NR and NRO have always been upfront about, and advertised their bias.
Miniter thinks NR runs the risk of not being seen as an objective source. I think this is an especially silly concern, since NR has always tried to be explicitly persuasive, and never pretended to be above the fray.
NR– “These are our opinions!”
Miniter– “Careful, people might think you’re trying to persuade them…”
Me– “duh!”
“There is, however, a meaningful distinction between an opinion piece and a news column.”
At the end of the day, there is very little difference. The ideological inclination of the publisher and editors will still determine which news stories are covered—and which are ignored. Why one story get first page treatment and another is buried in the back pages. Those decisions will be based solely on one’s worldview.
A professional journalist should merely be somebody who is dedicated to accurately reporting the views and actions of a Nazi, Jehovah’s Witness, or the local boy scout troop commander. It is absurd to expect a “dispationate and objective” piece on a monster like joseph Megele.
I agree that certain elements within NR have been in the tank for Mitt Romney for a long period of time. I think Kathryn Lopez fell in love with him, and for many months would post a comment in the corner any time Mitt said anything. It was sickening.
Furthermore, I see them as loath to criticize Mitt because of their endorsement. Most recently, Mitt talked in circles on Meet the Press, and filibustered with long answers to Tim’s questions, when short answers would have sufficed, but they didn’t say anything.
What’s even worse is that National Review has said many very negative things about Mitt Romney, yet still decided to endorse him. It is completely illogical. I’ve collected a few at my website http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=35.
Here are 3:
Jonah Goldberg:
I’m sorry but Romney still comes across like a well-cast actor in a movie of the week about a guy running for president.
Peter Robinson:
Romney’s Catastrophic Answer: “I’ve always been personally pro-life.” That sure isn’t what he tried to convey in his debate with Ted Kennedy, citing his mother’s pro-choice activities and the death of a family friend as the result of a botched abortion. Courtesy of YouTube, hundreds of thousands have now seen that debate with Kennedy, watching with their own eyes as Romney asserted a personally pro-choice position. But he still can’t admit it? A highly intelligent, immensely accomplished, and hugely likeable candidate. But this? Appalling.
Rich Lowry:
Romney sounds like a game show host. (Rich is quoting someone here, but presumably he wouldn’t have posted this if he didn’t agree with it.)
I think this article should be filed under “we have to write about something”.
It’s perfectly fine (and they chose the right candidate IMHO) for a Op-Ed mag to endorse someone they believe in. I’d rather have them up front then in some “coded” way try to sway my vote. People are too sophisticated about media anymore to be coy in op-ed.
Though a news column should always remain neutral.
Disagree with Miniter:
“And, of course, the endorsement will make it less likely that other campaigns will trust the magazine with leaks or exclusives.”
I don’t think this is true. I think in most areas of political campaigns the Oscar Wilde quote says it best “It’s better to be talked about than not talked about”.
The only candidate who could get the vote from ALL types of conservative is Romney. Huckabigot could never earn my vote.