Mitt Romney, With Courage
Back when it was just becoming evident that the odds of Mitt Romney becoming the Republican presidential nominee were decisively high, many of us worried that the resulting candidacy would be depressingly programmatic; that Romney, with a businessman's eye for the bottom line, would hew to a bland, poll-driven agenda that neither offended nor inspired, doing just enough to stand a reasonable chance of eking out victory in November (although, to be fair, even that scenario would have been preferable to the 2008 McCain campaign, perhaps the most sustained display of Tourette Syndrome in American political history).
The legitimate side of the this concern stemmed from the inescapable observation that Romney tends heavily towards risk-aversion. But there was also an unreasonable aspect to it. Left generally unarticulated was what kind of alternative conservatives would have preferred.
If, like me, you're a Tea Party sympathist happy to live in a country where we're once again discussing the Tenth Amendment and the shortcomings of the Federal Reserve, your vision of a dream candidacy is probably pretty simple: You want Barry Goldwater. Specifically, you want a sleep-deprived Barry Goldwater addled by six cups of brackish black coffee and feeling like he could really improve his mood if he could just punch a hippie. Yeah, me too. But that guy doesn't win presidential elections. He might get elected Governor of Wyoming, but he doesn't win presidential elections.
The truth of the matter is that at this (still admittedly early) point in the election cycle, we have to conclude that Mitt Romney has done a pretty good job of marrying his natural disposition (temperate, cautious, even courtly) with a broad defense of conservative principles. And, every now and again, he even has the pluck to refuse an opportunity to kiss the ring of a Really Bad Idea that has enjoyed bipartisan support. Take this, from National Journal, for example:
As part of an ongoing broad attack on President Obama's clean-energy efforts, including his economic-stimulus program that produced a default on a $535 million federal loan by solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra, a Romney campaign spokesman said last week the GOP's presumptive nominee is firmly opposed to extending the tax credit for wind projects.
“He will allow the wind credit to expire, end the stimulus boondoggles, and create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits," Shawn McCoy, a spokesman for Romney’s Iowa campaign, said in an interview with The Des Moines Register. “Wind energy will thrive wherever it is economically competitive, and wherever private sector competitors with far more experience than the president believe the investment will produce results.”
You had me at "economically competitive."
Of course, there's a lot of hand-wringing accompanying this pronouncement, as wind power is a big deal in Iowa, which, by every indication, will be a swing state in the fall. And perhaps it is bad politics, though if the fate of the Republic lies in the hands of a few thousand advocates of 250-foot-high bird eviscerators, then I might start to consider writing off the entire American project.
Regardless, it shows that Romney is capable of having guts, at least on the economic issues that are most in his wheelhouse. And if there's anywhere that we need a little moxy right now, that's it. You have to have these kinds of arguments patiently, frequently, and with good cheer in order to move the needle of public opinion.
Of course, you also have to make them with just the right kind of sentiment, so here's one gentle note for the Romney campaign: the "level playing field" part of this response is the political winner. We can talk about economic inefficiencies all day (and they're legion -- according to the NJ piece, as many as half of Iowa's wind jobs are dependent on federal largesse), but the only people voting on the basis of the deadweight loss are either already in the Romney camp or are part of Gary Johnson's magical mystery tour.
The moral argument, by contrast, has broader appeal and is relatively straightforward: at at time of widespread economic pain, we're taxing working Americans (or, more accurately, taking out debt in their name) to fund products without a viable market, allowing political connections rather than merit to determine financial success.
I don't think it's excessively optimistic to believe that, even after three and a half years of the Obama Administration, the American people still feel -- deep down in their guts -- that that's dirty pool.
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Jun '12
Re: Mitt Romney, With Courage
Actually, I want Ronald Reagan as he was in his prime. Taking apart lefty arguments, but doing so with a smile, good humor, and a gentle "well, there you go again."
Edited to add: Just to make it clear, the above does not mean that I won't vote for anyone that isn't the Second Coming of Reagan. I intend to vote Romney, as the most conservative candidate with a realistic chance of winning.
Edited on August 8, 2012 at 6:57pmApr '12
Re: Mitt Romney, With Courage
If he has the cajones to pick Rubio or Ryan, then I am all in.
Dec '10
Re: Mitt Romney, With Courage
Courage? More likely a very calculate risk.
In the long form of his first "These Hands" commercial Romney demonstrated how far his courage goes. Responding to the "you didn't build that" claptrap he said (starting at 1:17)
Solid body blow! Work the body, open up the defenses!
He's on the ropes! Glass jaw extended and vulnerable! Go for the knockout!
Back to defensive positioning? Doesn't go for the knockout punch? "And it's wrong" is barely even an assertion. He had the perfect opportunity to drive home the point and he couldn't even muster the courage to wiff the shot. This tendency to pull the punches at exactly the wrong time is what drives me crazy about Romney. I'll still vote for him, but I won't mark my ballot with enthusiasm.
May '12
Re: Mitt Romney, With Courage
What is with all the hating on Barry Goldwater around here lately? I wasn't around when he ran for president, but I do enjoy reading his work and reading about him. My understanding is that it was his position on civil rights legislation that was his undoing, not because he passionately promoted putting the federal government in its Constitutional limits and keeping it there. If that is a losing platform then we have lost the battle to keep our republic and the decline will proceed full pace.
Jun '12
Re: Mitt Romney, With Courage
My friend, if you were referring to my first comment, you misread me badly.
I'm not hating AUH2O, though I too am too young to remember him (I think I'm only about a year older than you).
I just prefer Reagan.
Preferring Reagan being equivalent to hating Goldwater is like saying if I like Pringles I must hate Lay's.
Re: Mitt Romney, With Courage
Brilliant point. Which is why I'll stay in Wyoming...
May '12
Re: Mitt Romney, With Courage
ConservativeWanderer
My friend, if you were referring to my first comment, you misread me badly.
I'm not hating AUH2O, though I too am too young to remember him (I think I'm only about a year older than you).
I just prefer Reagan.
Preferring Reagan being equivalent to hating Goldwater is like saying if I like Pringles I must hate Lay's. · 6 minutes ago
No, not at all. I was referring to Troy's description that anyone espousing similar limited government principles only shot at elected office is governor of Wyoming - a fine state. Your comment, as usual is a good one, very practical position.
Re: Mitt Romney, With Courage
Brent ~
I'm afraid you're misreading my piece (which makes pretty clear that I'd be happy with Goldwater redux). Per C.J.'s comment above, I consider being able to get elected Governor of Wyoming as high a political compliment as one can pay (I threaten to move there about once a week). Also, I didn't say that Wyoming was the only place where this would work -- but it's representative of the deep red areas where this style plays politically.
My broader point is that the firebreathing conservatism many of us like -- whether it's Goldwater or Gingrich -- is a tough sell to a national audience, and it was always unfair to expect Mitt Romney to act like Allen West (of whom I'm also very fond), partially because he couldn't pull it off.
BrentB67
No, not at all. I was referring to Troy's description that anyone espousing similar limited government principles only shot at elected office is governor of Wyoming - a fine state. Your comment, as usual is a good one, very practical position. · 2 minutes ago
Dec '10
Re: Mitt Romney, With Courage
Troy Senik, Ed.: My broader point is that the firebreathing conservatism many of us like ...
5 minutes ago
Forget firebreathing; I'd take a little life breathed into his rhetoric. Listening to Romney is like a dead fish handshake. It's like the show stopper number of a musical if the singer takes a deep breath to belt out the final note then whispers it instead.
Jul '11
Re: Mitt Romney, With Courage
Anyone willing to face the evil democratic machine and the lying media has to have some serious guts. KP, his personality is boring but he is a very smart man.
Nov '11
Re: Mitt Romney, With Courage
The King Prawn: Courage? More likely a very calculate risk.
....
Back to defensive positioning? Doesn't go for the knockout punch? "And it's wrong" is barely even an assertion. He had the perfect opportunity to drive home the point and he couldn't even muster the courage to wiff the shot. This tendency to pull the punches at exactly the wrong time is what drives me crazy about Romney. I'll still vote for him, but I won't mark my ballot with enthusiasm. · 2 hours ago
That's an argument about style: you want him to be more aggressive. Troy is making a point about substance: Romney hasn't shifted left or felt the need to pander nearly as much as many feared he would.
Fighting more aggressively is more satisfying to conservatives and might help win the election, but it wouldn't tell us much about how the man would actually govern. Refusing to pander to bad bipartisan ideas in the general election campaign is a promising sign about the policies he'd pursue.
Edited on August 8, 2012 at 9:47pmDec '10
Re: Mitt Romney, With Courage
Leigh
That's an argument aboutstyle: you want him to be more aggressive. Troy is making a point aboutsubstance: Romney hasn't shifted left or felt the need to pander nearly as much as many feared he would.
Fighting more aggressively is more satisfying to conservatives and might help win the election, but it wouldn't tell us much about how the man would actually govern. Refusing to pander to bad bipartisan ideas in the general election campaign is a promising sign about the policies he'd pursue. · 1 minute ago
Taking on wind subsidies could be pandering to the base, and it's pretty small beer at that.
Oct '10
Re: Mitt Romney, With Courage
Troy Senik
Regardless, it shows that Romney is capable of having guts, at least on the economic issues that are most in his wheelhouse. And if there's anywhere that we need a little moxy right now, that's it.
Although I don't think ruthlessness would be a big seller on the campaign trail, that's what I'm hoping to see in a Romney White House. His experience at Bain and the Olympics make it clear that he's got the necessary skilz to take a troubled organization in hand, cut out the deadwood, restructure and redirect it.
We will never make lasting progress in reducing the size of government, without a President who can successfully dismantle huge swathes of the liberal bureaucratic architecture being incrementally cemented into place for decades. Romney is actually more uniquely qualified to do that job than either Goldwater or Reagan ever were -- if he's got the kind of moxy and will make the kind of commitment which taking on such monumentally difficult, but sine qua non, work will require.
Oct '10
Re: Mitt Romney, With Courage
The King Prawn:
Back to defensive positioning? Doesn't go for the knockout punch? "And it's wrong" is barely even an assertion.
Where is it, exactly, that you think he should have gone here?
Aug '12
Re: Mitt Romney, With Courage
Oh please. I want Paul Ryan right where he is. He is needed in the House. He has so much wonky talent and can explain complicated financial things so clearly. As someone said, why would he move from one of the most important jobs in Washington to one of the least important?
We have had something like five years of storytelling and PR skills deeply invested in creating a special image for an unprepared and inexperienced newcomer that might make him seem like something special. We've had the logos and the halos, the Greek columns, and the neverending storytelling. And it was new and exciting, but the newness has worn off, and the tinsel faded. There's a great deal to be said for plain old competence. I'll take that every time.
Jan '11
Re: Mitt Romney, With Courage
All of August and maybe even September means nothing. The real heat will be only in the few week runup to the election. Romney is smart by not making mistakes, the Obama campaign is floundering.
It's a hard uphill battle to fight an incumbent, a protective press, and the inevitable voter fraud that will come, but he may pull it off