A Transactional Case For Romney
I've been on the hunt for Mitt Romney defenses that are persuasive. Jonah Goldberg's column today makes a point about Romney that I find at least worth discussing. He says that some conservatives are sold on Romney and some merely think he has a problem articulating conservative principles. A third group just doesn't buy that he's conservative at all. We have all three groups here at Ricochet but it's the last group that Goldberg addresses:
First, let me say: I feel your pain. The Tea Party arose in no small part out of a delayed allergic reaction to the rhetorical and, to a lesser extent, policy problems of George W. Bush’s presidency and the deep resentment that came with having to vote for John McCain in 2008. These disappointments were visited upon the conservative base by something the naysayers (often problematically) call “the Republican establishment.”
After what seems like an eternity under Obama, and with the raised expectations from the Tea Party’s earlier successes, conservatives are extremely reluctant to settle or compromise simply on the say-so of the establishment. For good reasons and bad, Romney seems like a compromise. And no matter how begrudgingly a conservative comes to accept the reality of Romney’s nomination, the diehards immediately proclaim any support for Romney to be proof of membership in the establishment. In fact, it seems like the best definition of a Republican-establishment member these days is simply someone who has made peace with his disappointment prematurely.
I love that last line. Goldberg goes on to say "It is better to have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you." A President Gingrich would "wander off into trouble" within 10 minutes:
If elected, Romney must follow through for conservatives and honor his vows to repeal Obamacare, implement Representative Paul Ryan’s agenda, and stay true to his pro-life commitments.
Moreover, Romney is not a man of vision. He is a man of duty and purpose. He was told to “fix” health care in ways Massachusetts would like. He was told to fix the 2002 Olympics. He was told to create Bain Capital. He did it all. The man does his assignments.
So, what do you think about this transactional case for Romney? I can buy it, although I wonder if the pro-choice progressives who elected him in Massachusetts would argue differently about his vows (I guess he stayed true enough to them while in office, only becoming more pro-life and conservative after he left?).
- Comment (106)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
Aug '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Goldberg is making the case he made once before: "The Trick is to see Romney like a tool." (Link to Michael Tee's Ricochet post on the subject.)
Edited on Feb 3 at 7:42amDec '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Why on god's green earth would I believe that Romney would honor this IOU?
When he doesnt honor it, like squishy republicans never do, what then? There is a never ending parade of democrats to be meaninglessly less bad than. When exactly is the appropriate time to have a "come to jesus" talk with "the establishment."
All these cases have been made before and the pile of IOUs is a mile high, the cause has not been advanced in any meaningful way. So what exactly are the promises and IOUs of a deadbeat worth?
Since you cant count of a republican congress to not fall to easy temptation, why would mitt romney in charge of keeping them honest?
These cases are implausible and proven foolish by very recent history.
Edited on Feb 3 at 7:46amApr '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
I could almost live with the idea that we are simply electing someone to hold the pen to sign what a Republican Congress sends down the line.
And then you read about something like the House Transportation bill here and I realize that the Republican House is no great shakes either, and this was the Republican majority that was elected by the Tea Party.
This simply cannot be the best we can hope for.
Aug '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
I think Jonah is correct in his assessment. Mitt Romney is a man of accomplishment who wants to please. He is not conservative in the sense that he consistently measures his accomplishments against a conservative view. He measures his accomplishments against success. His life has been a series of difficult tasks done well - BYU, Harvard MBA, Harvard Law, Bain, Bain Capital, MA Governor, SLC Olymptics. Within those accomplishments he also managed to raise a beautiful family and give time and effort to his church. And it's not always worked out. He lost his bid to beat Kennedy and failed to garner the Repubican nod in 2010. He's not really comfortable with self promotion; in that respect he's the anthesis of Newt. However, even if he is driven by accomplishment, he is still conservative. Just not "a conservative." He needs to surround himself with conservatives who can steer him from the dark side. That's why the Senate needs to be turned and we need to keep Congress.
Edited on Feb 3 at 7:54amSep '10
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Well, I suppose it depends who his friends and allies and fellow travelers are when it comes to who owes who:
George H.W. Bush Yale B.Sc. '48
George W. Bush Yale A.B. '68 Harvard MBA '75
Mitt Romney Harvard J.D. MBA '75
Barack Obama Columbia College '83 Harvard J.D. '91
Michelle Obama Princeton A.B. '85 Harvard J.D. '88
But, to be fair, its not all one way.
Aug '10
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
"He was told to create Bain Capital."
Who told him to do that?
Mar '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
I'm in the third group - Mr Romney's lack of worry about the poor statement demonstrates that he is not a conservative at heart. Might I suggest that a conservative would be worried about the poor, and finding ways to get 'em a job so that they are no longer poor? Or, better still, taking the Silent Cal approach, and taking all the constraints off business, so that they can create jobs for the poor, so that they can start moving up the ladder to the rich. As opposed to the Utopian (Obama) model of giving 'em more and more food stamps, paid for by the rich.
Having said that, I am with Dr Levin in the current podcast in saying that at least Mr Romney is running for President, so he deserves some credit for that (unlike certain conservatives who shall remain nameless).
I think he will fine as President if we have a conservative House and Senate.
But I would prefer a real conservative - Mr Santorum is the only one left running.
Edited on Feb 3 at 8:05amMar '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
I am about this close to losing whatever remaining respect I had for Jonah Goldberg. Jonah is reduced to arguing that we should support Romney because he will probably be the conservative that he says he is even though he has no history of being a conservative.
Why are we supposed to take you seriously, Jonah?
Jan '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
I find this persuasive, though I've been leaning this way since Huntsman dropped out and reading Goldberg's Romney-As-Tool argument.
Though there's an obvious connection between a candidates actual ideology and what they accomplish, I'll always prefer a slippery character who gets good things done to a died-in-the-wool guy I agree with who can't deliver. Romney's the former and I can live with that.
On a related note, I think a Romney win would be good for the Tea Party, as it's new job would be to keep him (and Congress) on the straight-and-narrow. The fact that Tea Partiers aren't in love with him will make it easier to focus on his accomplishments in office (or the lack there of) without getting distracted by the kind rhetorical chew toys Gingrich will throw.
Edited on Feb 3 at 7:59amJun '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Doesn't Romney offer the states a waver to reject Obamacare? Is that a supposed to be a repeal?
Oct '10
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
The fact that someone as far left as Obama (Ayers, Alinsky, Rev. Wright, spread the wealth, constitution flawed because it only contains negative rights) could be elected without really having to defend his leftism, or even triggering an honest debate, indicates there is a fundamental problem that requires transformational change.
The question is, with a succession of Bush/Romney/McCain types, is transformational change more or less likely? How will the disenfranchisement of a majority of Americans manifest itself with Romney as president, vs. a second Obama term?
Jan '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Gus Marvinson: I am about this close to losing whatever remaining respect I had for Jonah Goldberg. Jonah is reduced to arguing that we should support Romney because he will probably be the conservative that he says he is even though he has no history of being a conservative.
Why are we supposed to take you seriously, Jonah?
Okay. Got a better idea?
Sep '10
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Nov '10
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Your first line,
Is probably the most persuasive argument against Romney. Why is it necessary for anyone to "hunt" for defenses for him? Why is there so much much chatter about "here's what Romney should have said", or "Here's how Romney can make his case for/against..."
Does it make sense to put all one's weight behind a candidate for which this is even one of the top 10 memes? If a priori supporters have a nontrivial job thinking of defenses for him, how will you persuade the undecided?
Mar '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
I'm starting to see Jonah Goldberg "like a tool." Is this what a writer does when he has nothing of substance to say but is expected to produce copy? You want to be prolific, Jonah? Try writing fiction.
Well, I mean honestly label your work as fiction. You can write the same stuff.
May '10
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
I wish I had a load of that stuff to spread on my garden this spring.
The line that "It is better to have a president who owes you..." is downright laughable. Political debts are like claims made to a bankruptcy court - those with the highest amount of claims go to the head of the line. The folks in the back get pennies on the dollar.
So who will President Romney owe more to at the end of the day? The Republican establishment types that helped to squash or at least delay the ambitions of more conservative types and the folks that have been backing him since the early days of 2007? Or do you really think that he will feel indebted to the base?
Remember, Romney has guys like Mike Murphy in his ear telling him that the base will turn out, they always do. The Rubes can be turned because their ABO instincts are stronger than their ABR ones.
No, the Tea Partiers are viewed as the Blacks of the GOP. What are you going to do? Vote for them?
Edited on Feb 3 at 8:23amRe: A Transactional Case For Romney
Gus Marvinson: I'm starting to see Jonah Goldberg "like a tool." Is this what a writer does when he has nothing of substance to say but is expected to produce copy? You want to be prolific, Jonah? Try writing fiction.
Well, I mean honestly label your work as fiction. You can write the same stuff. · 3 minutes ago
If you want to dispute his argument, please do so. Let's leave the personal attacks to other sites.
May '10
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
I don't want to vote Romney. I want anyone but. However, if it is Romney, I am going to suck it up and vote against Obama and hope the GOP wins. I hate the GOP with a passion, but I hate the Dems more. One does not win by losing. There are no great defeats in history. History is written by the winners. I have to sign on to the team that best supports my side.
The GOP does a lousy job of being conservative. It cannot follow through on a Win, like a pre-Grant Union General. It gets into power and is corrupted instantly, selling out conservatives as fast as it can. I want people that will fight for and articulate conservative ideas, but none of those shining lights will bother to run for POTUS for a variety of given reasons that all boil down to shirking their duty.
So, since I want the Republic to have a chance to be her for my children, I have no choice but to vote for the side most likely to help. I don't think it is even a 50% chance we can survive, but I play the odds.
Jul '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Hey these smart pills taste like rabbit droppings. "Now you're getting smarter."
Mar '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Tom Meyer
Gus Marvinson: I am about this close to losing whatever remaining respect I had for Jonah Goldberg. Jonah is reduced to arguing that we should support Romney because he will probably be the conservative that he says he is even though he has no history of being a conservative.
Why are we supposed to take you seriously, Jonah?
Okay. Got a better idea? · 15 minutes ago
Yeah, at least two of them, Gingrich and Santorum. Even Ron Paul has core principles. I just can't get behind a "Vote for Romney, the Rorschach candidate" campaign.
I've been stricken with core principles, you see.
Edited on Feb 3 at 8:40am