In National Review today, Rich Lowry writes that the Romney campaign deserves some credit for jumping on the Hilary Rosen comments and reversing the “War on Women” trope that the Democrats were beginning to develop.
And yet, he suggests, the Romney people are wrong to dwell on this:
Romney is right when he says that what women really care about is the economy. But he shouldn’t get drawn into debating on the terms of an Obama reelection campaign desperate to play demographic small ball and elevate distractions over the big issues: an unaffordable and dubiously constitutional health-care law, an 8.2 percent unemployment rate, a $14 trillion debt. In this case, the high road is the best road. If Romney’s vision for the country’s future is compelling enough, the women’s vote will take care of itself.
Rich is right that Romney so far hasn’t given us the big policy ideas that might define and compel a election. There have been three reasons for that, I think: First that he’s been so very, very careful about everything: as battened-down a campaign as I’ve ever seen. Second, his temperament forces it, too: This is a manager-type, not a philosophizer.
But the third reason is his campaign’s clear judgment that modern elections are only lost on the level of serious policy. They’re won by working above policy (on the level of broad inspiration like “Hope and Change”) and below policy (on the level of little mocking memes and missteps like the current Rosen stuff).
Is that correct? Leave aside the question of whether it ought to be right. The question I’m looking for help on is whether the Romney campaign is right electorally to avoid big policy, or Rich Lowry is right that big policy will win the campaign all by itself.