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 (4)
Comments:
Jan '12
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
In all of these lamentations over Romney's lack of conservative bona fides, one would be wise to remember the words of a wise man, Dr. Thomas Sowell, who said,
It is to that first question of "compared to what?" that I see too little attention paid by some on these comment threads. I think we'd all agree that Romney is not the movement conservative that Reagan, Rubio, Goldwater, or others are/were.
Elections (and primaries in this case) are not about grading each prospective candidate on how conservative they are and then going home. You must choose one candidate over another, not simply proclaim that candidate x is 'not conservative enough for me' and decline to make the case for an alternative choice.
Jan '12
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Waynester put it well when he said (in this thread):
The recent Gallup Swing States Poll sums it up nicely. Here's a link to the story in USA Today. Read the story if you'd like, but here's the takeaway.
Jul '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
I made up my mind long ago that I would vote for Romney in the general election if that likelihood came to pass. I'd like to hear arguments why a conservative should not vote for him vs Obama. Think hard while your stomach turns and genuinely tell me why it's better for the nation to have Barry in there.
Jan '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Gus Marvinson
Anyone who lacks a vision--a core--can be manipulated. The unspoken, undetermined, and unpredictable variable and principle manipulator here is congress. Knowing this, Jonah's argument then becomes, "Romney will be an okay president if everything else goes just right."
That's an actual argument and a very strong one at that. Among the available candidates, Here's my counter:
Nov '10
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Romney is the one candidate left in the race who has actually run things and run them well. He's an excutive who knows how to run an organization, how to cultivate a vision, compartmentalize the tenets of that vision, hire the right people to execute, seek new information to adjust tactics to new realities, engage advisors to help him identify and plan for possible contingencies, and integrate new information. Gingrich is a bull, Paul an analyst (he might find himself more out of his depth than even President Obama in the Presidency), and Santorum.. well we just don't know, but there is little evidence to demonstrate his executive capabilities. It is Mr. Romney's executive ability coupled with putative disciplining majorities in Congress that may, at this point, be our best hope to turn the ship of state. One man's opinion, I suppose. I'd be interested to hear Professor Rahe's opinion on the importance or irrelevance of Mr. Romney's executive ability, even considering the apt description of him as a managerial progressive. Professor?
Dec '10
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Why on Earth would Mitt Romney feel indebted to Conservatives, when he knows full well that they won't have voted FOR him but AGAINST Obama out of pure desperation? Look at Obama: supposedly a movement Progressive, he's still managed to infuriate Progressives by ignoring his promises on the Bush tax cuts, Guantanamo and other key issues. I fully expect Romney to follow George H.W. Bush's lead, treating Conservatism as Bush did broccoli: "I don't like it, I'm the President, and I don't have to have any."
May '10
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
I sort of come down on the "who is competent, not leftist, and not a narcissistic fool" argument.
Life tends to be a set of choices between OK and awful if you are lucky, and bad and worse if you are not.
In this case, we have OK- none of the "Great!" alternatives ran, so get over it and remember who the enemy is.
I also advise anyone who is uncertain about Romney's pro-life convictions to read the Vanity Fair piece.
Apr '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Pseudodionysius: No, the Tea Partiers are viewed as the Blacks of the GOP. What are you going to do? Vote for them?
We are the Gorillas in the Mist. They will have outreach programs, focus groups with day old sandwiches, and expeditions where they will observe our behavior in the wild, our mating rituals, our strange chants before meals. Belching, babes and Budweiser will be on full display in the Super Bowl this weekend, where that strange 53 year old woman will be performing a peculiar song and dance. In deference to our bitter clinging, she promises to remain fully clothed.
Be not afraid. ·
The TEA Party path to influence, as I see it: Fight in the presidential primary for whoever you want, but put more effort into finding the races where the TEA Party can make a serious difference, and get Partiers selected there in the primaries. Work hard to get Tea Partiers and other Republicans elected in Congress (others are included because it's better to have someone who's with you 80% of the time than 20% of the time). Vote in the general election for the least bad candidates, but work hard to support the best.
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Exactly. I'm much more likely to get on the Romney Express if people just play it straight with me. "He's not great, but here are some marks in his favor."
Mar '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Tom Meyer
Gus Marvinson
Anyone who lacks a vision--a core--can be manipulated. The unspoken, undetermined, and unpredictable variable and principle manipulator here is congress. Knowing this, Jonah's argument then becomes, "Romney will be an okay president if everything else goes just right."
That's an actual argument and a very strong one at that. Among the available candidates, Here's my counter: · 2 minutes ago
You aren't exactly brimming with confidence, here.
Sep '10
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Exactly. I'm much more likely to get on the Romney Express if people just play it straight with me. "He's not great, but here are some marks in his favor." · 0 minutes ago
Only one fly in the ointment and hence it gives me pause (not paws). In Peter Robinson's book on Reagan he made one observation that quite shocked me. If you'll recall during the first Gulf War, GHWB was able to build a coalition of the willing because of his ample rolodex of heads of state. Reagan, by contrast, had no network. He had never tried to curry favor with an elite. So, my open question on the tool time presidency remains: fine that your quarterback doesn't call his own plays, but who wrote the playbook?
Apr '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Duane Oyen:
I also advise anyone who is uncertain about Romney's pro-life convictions to read the Vanity Fair piece. ·
Right. That was my one quibble with this piece. Romney was not the pro-choice, nor the progressive candidate in either election. Both times the pro-choice lobby supported his opponent, and the Massachusetts Citizens For Life endorsed him for governor. He had his conversion experience early in his gubernatorial administration. His promise had been not to change the laws, and (shockingly!) it turned out that in Massachusetts this was functionally indistinguishable from being pro-life, so he kept his promise.
He fought hard on life issues, particularly on embryonic stem cells, and met with some success. Most of the big life issues came up late in the administration, though, by which time the legislature had gotten more veto-override happy, so it was not his most successful field.
Again, it's worth noting that even when he was politically in favor of the status quo, he was passionate about Life as a "bishop". To the point of going into a hospital and chewing out a parishioner intending to have an abortion, saving a life, but losing a relationship.
Sep '10
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Gus Marvinson
Tom Meyer
Gus Marvinson
Anyone who lacks a vision--a core--can be manipulated. The unspoken, undetermined, and unpredictable variable and principle manipulator here is congress. Knowing this, Jonah's argument then becomes, "Romney will be an okay president if everything else goes just right."
That's an actual argument and a very strong one at that. Among the available candidates, Here's my counter: · 2 minutes ago
You aren't exactly brimming with confidence, here. · 3 minutes ago
This is the Leper with the most fingers argument, as the following video demonstrates.
Dec '10
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
"You cannot defeat likeability with belligerence no matter how much that belligerence may please the Tea party/true conservatives in the Republican party." I disagree. When everything is running smoothly, likability wins because there's no need to upset people. When the situation is dire, belligerence coupled with direction trumps likability, because people have more confidence that belligerence will save them from a dire fate. Consider the radio transmissions between the Italian Coast Guard commander and Capt. Schettino (who became master of the Concordia because he was charming and likable): the belligerent Coast Guard commander is a national hero for unleashing Hell on the gosh-darn likable captain who holed his hull and jumped ship.
Jun '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
I agree Mollie, but I also feel like this complaint is a bit of a canard. Hasn't the meme been that Romney is the candidate with the "gee, I guess, if I have to" lawn signs? There are a few enthusiasts, but how many have gone as far as Coulter?
Sep '10
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Mollie,
The strongest argument for Mitt came from the 2008 run up primary and this question by Chris Matthews. I shamelessly clipped this from Catholic Culture.org
Dec '10
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
"Anyone who lacks a vision--a core--can be manipulated." Yes, even to the point of convincing oneself that the right people will have sway over a President Romney. You know who REALLY and DIRECTLY owes his position to the TEA Party? Speaker of the House John Boehner. How's that balanced budget coming along? Debt ceiling cemented in place, no longer being raised routinely? Got those big entitlement reforms we do desperately need? If Boehner managed to wriggle out from his debt to Conservatives, explain again how a President Romney doesn't form a Congressional coalition of Democrats plus the ample supply of moderate Republicans.
Mar '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Pseudodionysius: Mollie,
The strongest argument for Mitt came from the 2008 run up primary and this question by Chris Matthews. I shamelessly clipped this from Catholic Culture.org
0 minutes ago
It's the best argument I've heard for Romney, so far.
May '10
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Remind me - bargaining is which stage of grief?
Jun '11
Re: A Transactional Case For Romney
Right before depression...