In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
I am inclined to agree with much of what Duane Oyen says in his post below in defense of Mitt Romney's candidacy. I fear -- but am not certain, especially in the case of Rick Santorum -- that the other candidates really are impossible. I am also impressed by Governor Romney's demonstrated managerial capacity, and I worry that he lacks a quality that statesmen have always been in need of -- persuasiveness.
There is one point that Duane makes that I think needs further discussion. Here is what Duane says:
“RomneyCare” was the best available alternative to the single payer program that was inevitable had Governor Romney not been able to use persuasion and coalition-building to block it with the most free-market program possible under the circumstances, designed by the most free-market recognized conservative health care experts - Prof. Mark Pauly of Penn and AEI and Edmund Haislmaier of Heritage, all fighting against a legislature 85% controlled by the Democrats who were advised by ObamaCare’s designer Jonathan Gruber of MIT.
This claim may or may not be true. Some times it is better to go down fighting while making one's argument -- to lose temporarily in order to return later to win when things do not work out as well as the proponents of a measure predict. Politics is far less less about management than about persuasion, and what Duane describes in this passage is a compromise in which the fundamental principle that we are responsible for taking care of ourselves is sacrificed in the pursuit of a utopian end embraced by the left: universal healthcare.
But this is not the worst of it -- for when Romneycare passed its author touted it to all and sundry as "a model for the states" and even, on one occasion, as "a model for the nation." He did not say that he had made the best of a bad situation. He represented Romneycare's passage as a great victory (as you can see in the photograph above) -- which is to say, he engaged in salesmanship, and what he was selling was, by Duane's own admission, a lemon. And, if the story Duane tells is true, Romney knew perfectly well what he was then doing -- which means that he is a scoundrel.
I myself doubt that this Mitt Romney is anything of the kind. He is a Mormon and, by all accounts, the real deal -- which is to say, he is a man of high moral principles. He gives the impression of being an earnest man. Friends who know him tell me that he really is an earnest man. I cannot believe that he would be willing to promote in states other than Massachusetts a program that he was not, in fact, proud of -- a program that he regarded as a compromise measure that he supported only because the alternatives, given the character of the Massachusetts legislature, were far, far worse.
In short, I believe that Mitt Romney is what he once said he was -- "a progressive" in his "views" -- a man badly mistaken (and not apt to change his mind) but not immoral.
This may be what we have to settle for this year. But, if we do, we should do so with our eyes open. Otherwise, in the aftermath, in our enthusiasm for the man, we may well drift into defending what is indefensible.
- Comment (79)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Paul, if your argument is right, then isn't Mitt Romney misrepresenting himself when he claims to be "severely" Conservative? And if he's misrepresenting himself, isn't that, you know, dishonest? Sort of lying out of political opportunism? Somewhat inconsistent with being earnestly moral at all times?
Sep '10
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Then I think the wise and prudent course is to nominate Marco Rubio for VP and pray that combined with Paul Ryan at the congressional helm, they can steer a steady course. If President Romney resists, then -- in the words of Roman General Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the armies of the north:
Aug '10
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
I readily admit that Romney is not a movement conservative. However, unlike Rick Santorum he is a proven budget cutter as evidenced by his work in Massachusetts, the Olympics and the private sector (few people know that after starting Bain Capital he went back to Bain Consulting and saved it after the founders had run it aground).
I'm not sure how much can be cut from the federal budget in our current political climate but I am convinced that Romney can be the most effective budget cutter.
Mar '11
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Professor, you've pretty much summed up my main problem with Romney. He seems earnest, principled, capable, and pointed in the wrong direction.
Obamacare will not be repealed -- it will be "fixed." There will be one (and likely only one) effort to slay the beast, then we will be earnestly told that it really is all for the best and a little trimming here and there can tame it.
Going off the cliff at 35 miles per hour isn't much different from going off the cliff at 75 miles per hour. It just means the wreckage will be closer to the foot of the cliff.
Apr '11
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Romney clearly doesn't share all of Prof. Rahe's principles, but that doesn't make him without principles.
In particular, the idea that it is worth losing battles for the freedom and prosperity of others in order to avoid personal compromise, allowing the untainted warrior to win in the future (although, as with Goldwater, these victories generally never come), does not seem to be a principle that Romney embraces. Rigorous purity belongs in some think tanks and some corners of universities, but it is not a moral failing to live in this world while avoiding becoming of it.
Romneycare is manifestly not suitable for all states; Massachusetts' context was very favorable; it desperately needed to slow the growth in medical costs (which it appears to have done, although MA cost growth is still faster than other states); it is wealthy, with relatively few uninsured; and its people are strongly inclined to even worse solutions. Vermont might be similarly suitable, but Texas is clearly not.
Elements of Romneycare, though, like the Connector, might be suitable for more states to imitate after a President Romney transforms Medicaid into a block grant system. That's how models work.
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Yes, but he is a politician.
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Frozen Chosen: I readily admit that Romney is not a movement conservative. However, unlike Rick Santorum he is a proven budget cutter as evidenced by his work in Massachusetts, the Olympics and the private sector (few people know that after starting Bain Capital he went back to Bain Consulting and saved it after the founders had run it aground).
I'm not sure how much can be cut from the federal budget in our current political climate but I am convinced that Romney can be the most effective budget cutter. · 7 minutes ago
You might well be right. I hope that you are. He at least understands budgets.
Jun '10
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
It's not impossible to make the case for social conservatism to the American people. It's going to take debate, persuasion, and to a certain extent advertising to do so effectively. In this regard both Romney and Santorum share the same burden, which is to make their case to the American people and not have surrogates do it for them. I support Rick Santorum because I think he's right on principle and his conservative instincts seem to be evolving in a right leaning direction. Nevertheless, if Mr. Santorum proves to be an inadequate messenger, I'll be forced to shift my support to the next best candidate.
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
James Of England:
Romneycare is manifestly not suitable for all states; Massachusetts' context was very favorable; it desperately needed to slow the growth in medical costs (which it appears to have done, although MA cost growth is still faster than other states); it is wealthy, with relatively few uninsured; and its people are strongly inclined to even worse solutions. Vermont might be similarly suitable, but Texas is clearly not.
Elements of Romneycare, though, like the Connector, might be suitable for more states to imitate after a President Romney transforms Medicaid into a block grant system. That's how models work. · 2 minutes ago
When Mitt Romney recommended it as "a model for the nation," he surely meant more than that. He did not say that it might be a model for some other state. He said that it was "a model for the states." Then, he told us that it was "a model for the nation." There were no qualifications uttered.
Apr '11
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Percival: Professor, you've pretty much summed up my main problem with Romney. He seems earnest, principled, capable, and pointed in the wrong direction.
Obamacare will not be repealed -- it will be "fixed." There will be one (and likely only one) effort to slay the beast, then we will be earnestly told that it really is all for the best and a little trimming here and there can tame it.
I agree that there's likely to be one, and only one, attempt to remove the bulk of Obamacare, including the mandate, by reconciliation. Once it's removed, it's hard to see why you'd make another attempt, and it seems very likely that there will be 50 votes for it in the Senate and a majority in the House.
The fight over the remaining bits will take a while, but is bound up with the other healthcare reforms; reforms that Romney is clearly keen to pass. Santorum and Romney differ in their reform packages, but there is much more that unites their reform packages than divides them. Newt's "repeal" repeals less of the substance, but this seems like ever less of a problem.
Apr '11
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Paul A. Rahe
James Of England:
Romneycare is manifestly not suitable for all states; Massachusetts' context was very favorable; it desperately needed to slow the growth in medical costs (which it appears to have done, although MA cost growth is still faster than other states); it is wealthy, with relatively few uninsured; and its people are strongly inclined to even worse solutions. Vermont might be similarly suitable, but Texas is clearly not.
Elements of Romneycare, though, like the Connector, might be suitable for more states to imitate after a President Romney transforms Medicaid into a block grant system. That's how models work. · 2 minutes ago
When Mitt Romney recommended it as "a model for the nation," he surely meant more than that. He did not say that it might be a model for some other state. He said that it was "a model for the states." Then, he told us that it was "a model for the nation." There were no qualifications uttered. · 2 minutes ago
Professor, do you have a copy of the speech where he said it? In the endlessly recycled single sentence quote there's a qualification, and certainly no "model for the states" contrast.
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
My gut feeling is that Mitt is probably culturally conservative, but just not interested in ideology. I suspect that when he did Romneycare, the involvement of AEI and Heritage experts led him to believe that he would get a conservative seal of approval -- it allowed him to check that particular box in closing the deal. I'd prefer a candidate whose own internal compass was reliably conservative, but I think that Romney could be an effective president if he listens to today's conservative voices. I part company with those who would prefer 4 more years of Obama to Romney. There's just too much at stake, in my opinion.
Nov '11
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
My thoughts exactly.
But let's not be unfashionably judgmental.
Instead, let's just say that whatever is Mitt's internal moral condition, it permits him considerable, ahem, "flexibility."
Speaking of going down fighting the good fight, I do NOT accept that we must accept Romney to avoid Obama.
Going from Obama to Romney would be like going from whiskey to beer.
This spendaholic entitlement-sucking nation does not need a new enabler. This spendaholic nation needs to hit bottom, the sooner the better. If this spendaholic nation will elect Romney as its new enabler, that will mean the spendaholic nation has not yet hit bottom. Better to re-elect Obama, go on a whiskey bender, and hit bottom sooner than to switch to RomneyBeer so as merely to postpone the inevitable.
Tough love.
Edited on Feb 21 at 9:26amDec '10
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
James Of England: Romney clearly doesn't share all of Prof. Rahe's principles, but that doesn't make him without principles.
In particular, the idea that it is worth losing battles for the freedom and prosperity of others in order to avoid personal compromise, allowing the untainted warrior to win in the future (although, as with Goldwater, these victories generally never come), does not seem to be a principle that Romney embraces. Rigorous purity belongs in some think tanks and some corners of universities, but it is not a moral failing to live in this world while avoiding becoming of it.
The conservatives demand red meat. Romney is the reddest meat we're getting.
Oct '10
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Is the argument between whether Romney thinks the Mass example is good for (potentially all) other states, or whether he thinks it should be imposed Federally? Because I can't see the latter contention really holding up. For example, while he's enthusiastic about what the mandate accomplishes, his enthusiasm is state-based: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu-VNAgfIsU
(Actually, on a second viewing, I'm not sure. The editing is suspicious.)
Edited on Feb 21 at 9:34amFeb '12
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Prof. Rahe: It seems unrealistic to support Mr. Romney without compromising our conservative objections to big government solutions. The passions of the campaign and, if he wins, the battles with Democrats in Congress, will lead far too many conservatives to defend Mr. Romney's position not because of its merits, but simply because it is being attacked by the opposition. Keeping "our eyes open" won't be possible.
Oct '10
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
James Of England
Professor, do you have a copy of the speech where he said it? In the endlessly recycled single sentence quote there's a qualification, and certainly no "model for the states" contrast. · 31 minutes ago
It's only a line from Newsweek, so take it for what it's worth, but:
Which is the endlessly recycled line you talk of. But the qualification doesn't seem to help much.
Edited on Feb 21 at 9:44amFeb '12
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
I couldn't agree more with you, Astonishing. As you wrote, "Better to re-elect Obama, go on a whiskey bender, and hit bottom sooner than to switch to RomneyBeer so as merely to postpone the inevitable."
Feb '12
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Would it be more accurate to say Mr. Romney is "not interested in fighting"? I'm not sure how one can be culturally conservative but "not interested in ideology" - unless you mean that he is not interested in the ideas behind cultural conservatism. But if a politician is culturally conservative without being interested in the reasons for it, then his cultural conservatism doesn't matter very much.
Mar '11
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Paul A. Rahe:
This may be what we have to settle for this year.
The polls seem to be suggesting otherwise.
Given that Mr Romney and Mr Santorum poll roughly similarly against Mr Obama, I've decided to go with the one who is a real conservative - at least there will be a clear choice in November.
Edited on Feb 21 at 9:56am