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:
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Duane Oyen: The concept I love is the idea that you work toi get the best out of bad alternatives in place to block worse, and then you are supposed to go out and trumpet that, while trashing your program.
"We did health reform in Massachusetts to block single payer, and there are all kinds of problems with the whole idea, but the other side's idea was even worse!
"Vote for me, I avoid the worst disasters."
All true, and utter political nonsense. I question the sanity of those who seriously suggest that Romney should be apologizing to conservatives for Massachusetts. · 1 hour ago
Duane, Duane -- he recommended it vociferously and repeatedly to all the rest of us. He could have touted it as a success in Massachusetts and left the rest of us out of it. But he did not.
Why do you jump to the assumption that he is a scoundrel? Is decency in his case not far more likely?
Apr '11
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Paul A. Rahe
James Of England
Paul A. Rahe
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. ·
Professor, do you have a copy of the speech? In the endlessly recycled single sentence quote there's a qualification.....·
In past posts, I repeatedly linked to the newspaper/magazine that reported his remarks. You will have to look at some of my previous posts. ·
You made claims about the context there which are not supported by the links.
Newsweek reports, out of context, a statement that could have one of two meanings. Romney endlessly clarifies his position, both before and after the article, and yet you choose to read into it meanings that contradict all of those clarifications, his position back to 1994, and the meaning of the word "model" as used by lawyers. Then you assert that the context included no qualifications when you have no basis for this claim. Shoddy.
Dec '10
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Larry3435: In 2008, the Democrats came up with a candidate who looked good, had a nice family, and could speak in platitudes (Hope and Change, anyone?), and THEY proclaim him the Savior and trip all over themselves in their rush to his apotheosis.
OUR side comes up with a candidate who looks good, has a nice family, and can speak in platitudes, plus he's actually smart and experienced, and WE trip all over ourselves in a rush to throw him under the bus. · 25 minutes ago
I agree, conservatives are more self-critical, because we value truth more than the Left. For evidence, just look at the lie Obama told about supporting traditional marriage in the 2008 election, and the most hard-core lefty gay rights activists still knew for whom to vote. Everyone except the most naive knew he was lying and no one called him out on it, least of all his ideological fellow travelers.
Conservatives are less willing to overlook deception. Call it a purity test if you want, but the reason many conservatives are responding badly to Romney is he and his supporters have been trying to get us to lie to ourselves about Romneycare.
Apr '11
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Duane wouldn't suggest that it did. He would suggest, if I understand him right, that Prof. Rahe's suggestion that it's worth losing in order to remain pure and maybe win in the future is in direct contradiction of the Buckley rule. It is, indeed, the sentiment that the Buckley rule was intended to correct.
As Rob often says, the last time we did that in a Presidential race, we got Medicaid and Medicare, and never one a single one of the fights Goldwater stood for. The conservative movement was founded, which is nice and all, but we still have all the laws Goldwater opposed today. Bankrupting America was a pretty high price to pay for the empowering of the movement.
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Duane Oyen:
I again remind everyone of the Buckley Rule- vote for the rightward-most candidate with a chance of being elected.
WFB never said "Vote for the most principled conservative so that we can sweep up the ashes after the lefties have destroyed the country!"
Was that oversight because WFB was dumb, or was it because he was unprincipled? · 1 hour ago
You are not arguing here with me. I do not think Romney is conservative at all. But I do prefer managerial to utopian progressives, and I will vote for him if someone better cannot be found. But what I refuse to do for any candidate is to engage in wishful thinking.
It is highly unlikely that Romney sucked it up, made the best deal he thought he could, and then touted it to the rest of us as a model we should follow. He is too decent and earnest to do that.
It all makes sense if you assume that he believed what he said.
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
James Of England
Paul A. Rahe
James Of England
Professor, do you have a copy of the speech? In the endlessly recycled single sentence quote there's a qualification.....·
In past posts, I repeatedly linked to the newspaper/magazine that reported his remarks. You will have to look at some of my previous posts. ·
You made claims about the context there which are not supported by the links.
Newsweek reports, out of context, a statement that could have one of two meanings. Romney endlessly clarifies his position, both before and after the article, and yet you choose to read into it meanings that contradict all of those clarifications, his position back to 1994, and the meaning of the word "model" as used by lawyers. Then you assert that the context included no qualifications when you have no basis for this claim. Shoddy. · 7 minutes ago
Shoddy? Oh, really. I quoted precisely what he said -- as you can see from genferei's post (#39 above). I quoted no qualifications because, if Newsweek is accurate in its report, he made no qualifications.
If Newsweek quoted Romney out of context, show us. The burden of proof is on you.
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
James Of England
Duane wouldn't suggest that it did. He would suggest, if I understand him right, that Prof. Rahe's suggestion that it's worth losing in order to remain pure and maybe win in the future is in direct contradiction of the Buckley rule. It is, indeed, the sentiment that the Buckley rule was intended to correct. · 9 minutes ago
Ah, James, there you go again. You really are practiced in the art of misrepresentation.
I never said anything about purity, and when I suggested that it might have been better for Romney to stand up for principle and lose the healthcare battle in Massachusetts, I was not speaking of the 2012 election. I was suggesting that it is not good when our guys make the case for the programs favored by the other side. It is especially bad when they present their handiwork as "a model" that we should all follow.
Sep '10
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Astonishing
Going from Obama to Romney is switching from whiskey to beer. 58 minutes ago
Enough of this! I like whisky. And beer's not too bad either. If whisky were running, I'd vote for him.
Nov '11
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Paul A. Rahe
. . . . I do not think Romney is conservative at all. But . . . I will vote for him if someone better cannot be found. . . .
I won't vote for Romney, because four years of Romney would be a disaster . . . in the long run a worse disaster than four more years of Obama.
After four more years of Obama, his responsibility for the national disaster would be clear to almost all, and the country could start fresh, embracing a true conservative to lead us out of the wilderness.
But after four years of Romney, we would still be on the same course (perhaps at a slower pace), while blame for the ongoing disaster would remain unclear. Lacking a firm principled conservative leader, the right would be confused and divided against itself, while the left would present a united opposition. Thus, Romney's leftist initiatives would pass; his conservative initiatives would fail.
It's not unlikely that four unfocused Romney years would be followed by four more years of Obama, with a theme something like: "You tried four years with that evil conservative Romney, and look what he did to you. Come back home to Obama, and let him finish the job."
Sep '10
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Astonishing
After four more years of Obama, his responsibility for the national disaster would be clear to almost all,and the country could start fresh, embracing a true conservative to lead us out of the wilderness. · 1 minute ago
This is a dangerous dream. The battle between left and right will never be over, and neither side will ever overwhelmingly convince the other of its error.
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Astonishing: Think about this. Romney has promised to get Obamacare repealed. He has promised again and again. He knows that, if he breaks that promise, he will be toast. He will be bound by his promise.
Even if he fails us on many other counts domestically, that will be a profound improvement.
Let me add that Romney is genuinely good on defense.
I am not going to lie to myself about his propensities -- and when his partisans try to square the circle by making the proud father of Romneycare into a conservative, I will point out the flaws in their arguments.
But I have not the slightest doubt that we would be safer in his hands than in the hands of Barack Obama.
This year -- more than any year in recent memory -- it would be most imprudent not to support the Republican nominee.
Edited on February 21, 2012 at 9:36pmSep '10
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Adam, William F Buckley once appropriately described George W Bush as "conservative but not a conservative." This is could be used to describe Romney (and Santorum) and why so many on the right are still searching for a candidate. We want a conservative running for President.
Nov '11
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Bruce in Marin
Astonishing
After four more years of Obama, his responsibility for the national disaster would be clear to almost all,and the country could start fresh, embracing a true conservative to lead us out of the wilderness. · 1 minute ago
This is a dangerous dream. The battle between left and right will never be over, and neither side will ever overwhelmingly convince the other of its error. · 1 minute ago
I chose the modifier carefully: "almost all."
Such moments do occur, albeit rarely, and only in moments of crisis.
But if the dream is dangerous, the times are even more dangerous. The problem is, we do not recognize the danger.
Unfortunately, sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better. If that's true, the sooner the moment of crises occurs, and the more starkly it presents itself, the more likely The People are to see the danger, and the sooner the nation can begin to turn itself around. Our spendaholic nation will not stop until we hit bottom--the sooner the better.
Romney presents nohting better than the possibility of a well-managed gradual decline. Better to hit bottom fast and get it over with.
Nov '11
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
If he did not keep his promise (which. like Professor Rahe, I don't doubt), I for one would vote for his primary challenger in 2016.
Jul '10
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Astonishing
Paul A. Rahe
. . . . I do not think Romney is conservative at all. But . . . I will vote for him if someone better cannot be found. . . .
After four more years of Obama,his responsibility for the national disaster would be clear to almost all,and the country could start fresh, embracing a true conservative to lead us out of the wilderness.
I'm not sure that the best way to undermine the Left's narrative is to concede power. Doesn't seem to work all that well in educational institutions, anyway.
And what if the unicorn doesn't show in four years?
I'll just stay indoors, thanks.
Astonishing
It's not unlikely that four unfocused Romney years would be followed by four more years of Obama, with a theme something like: "You tried four years with that evil conservative Romney, and look what he did to you. Come back home to Obama, and let him finish the job."
Barry is gonna follow Grover Cleveland's path?
Seems pretty unlikely to me.
Dec '10
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Leigh
If he did not keep his promise (which. like Professor Rahe, I don't doubt), I for one would vote for his primary challenger in 2016. · 3 minutes ago
I think Prof. Rahe pointed out upthread that Mitt Romney is a politician, and therefore not particularly bound by any political promise.
I also think that primarying an incumbent President is one of the most difficult tricks to pull off in American politics, because the incumbent has a whole lot of people in his own party whose continued position and power relies solidly on his re-election.
I will vote for Romney in the general election if he's my choice against Obama. I am nowhere near supporting him yet for the nomination, nor even resigning myself to his ever-less-inevitable inevitability.
Nov '11
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Paul A. Rahe: Astonishing: Think about this. Romney has promised to get Obamacare repealed. He has promised again and again. He knows that, if he breaks that promise, he will be toast. He will be bound by his promise.
Even if he fails us on many other counts domestically, that will be a profound improvement.
* * *
But I have not the slightest doubt that we would be safer in his hands than in the hands of Barack Obama.
This year -- more than any year in recent memory -- it would be most imprudent not to support the Republican nominee.
Yes, he will surely repeal Obamacare . . . and proudly replace it with an almost indistinguishable Romneycare. The right will be too divided to prevent it.
Yes, we will be safer in Romney's hands . . . while he's in office. But, as in Europe, Romney's presidency will institutionalize, from the right, the norm of the entitlement state.
In the long run, that's a much greater danger than four more Obama years.
Nov '11
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
I won't help to make things worse, so they can get better. If that has to happen, I'll leave it in God's hands.
Would not a crisis just as likely simply give a re-elected Obama an excuse to impose who knows what tyrannical action? Isn't that what history would indicate?
Europe may be enough to show that stark choice. Romney may not be philosophically conservative, but he can do math. So can even some Democrats in Congress, if Paul Ryan's hints are to be believed. There's just a chance that we'll be able to stop before we hit rock bottom altogether. Just a chance, but don't we owe it to future generations to take it?
If I have to, I'll take "well-managed gradual decline" and fight to make it as gradual as possible -- so that the elderly can live out their days in peace, so that the children of today can have the chance to at least see what a free country is like, and perhaps still have some say in its future.
Nov '11
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Palaeologus
Astonishing
It's not unlikely that four unfocused Romney years would be followed by four more years of Obama . . .
Barry is gonna follow Grover Cleveland's path?
Seems pretty unlikely to me.
Okay, maybe that's a stretch, but in any case, it's important to know how to count by fours:
The next four years will be very difficult for whoever is president. Whoever has the job is more likely to get blame for making things worse than credit for making things better. Romney lacks the backbone or the principles to administer the strong medicine that's needed. What that adds up to is a Romney administration of four mushy, unfocused years of gradual decline, which would set the table nicely for Obama's return or some other leftist in 2016.
And if somehow Romney could get himself re-elected in 2016, then add another four mushy declining Romney years, followed by a leftist in 2020.
So the next chance to solve things would not come until 2024.
Too late!
If we can't get a real conservative in 2012, a second disasterous Obama term would give us a clear shot to elect a true conservative in 2016.
Sep '10
Re: In Which I Defend Mitt Romney Against His Admirers
Astonishing
Bruce in Marin
This is a dangerous dream. · 1 minute ago
But if the dream is dangerous, the times are even more dangerous. The problem is, we do not recognize the danger.
Unfortunately, sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better. If that's true, the sooner the moment of crises occurs, and the more starkly it presents itself, the more likely The People are to see the danger, and the sooner the nation can begin to turn itself around. ... Better to hit bottom fast and get it over with. · 23 minutes ago
You are counting on a timely crisis, which nobody can mistake, and from which The People will turn to us for deliverance. I think this is a romantic expectation. What we're most likely to get is another four years of turning the ratchet toward the left, complaints from our side, resignation from most. Then we get to fight the same fight in 2016. I'd rather try and move the ball a bit before we punt, if possible.