Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
An interesting aspect of the Republican nomination for President has been the idea that Mitt Romney is not a conservative candidate, or at least not conservative enough. This has been the drumbeat of the mainstream media, as the non-Romney candidates have been rotated through the media spotlight. First it was Michele Bachmann, then Rick Perry, then Herman Cain, then Newt Gingrich, and now Rick Santorum. The justification for Romney not being the obvious choice around which Republicans are to rally is that Romney does not really mean what he says or he was too liberal when he was governor of Massachusetts.
The idea that Mr. Romney flip-flops on issues and therefore is not to be trusted is an argument that galls me. Ludwig von Mises, in his 1927 book, Liberalism in the Classical Tradition, explained that the West could be defended only by winning the battle of ideas. He called upon those who believe that market capitalism is the only system capable of creating wealth for the masses to convince others of the importance and truth of such beliefs.
If we are to engage in persuading other people to change their minds about issues, ought we then to chastise them if they come to believe us and call them flip-floppers and state that we can never believe anything they say in the future because they have been persuaded by us?
I am more than willing to believe that Mr. Romney is firmly pro-life, for example, despite the fact that at one time he was pro-choice. The priest at our Catholic church in Hillsdale began studying for the Lutheran ministry when he felt called to become a Catholic priest. I have not heard anyone in our parish call him a flip-flopper.
There are a number of issues in which Mr. Romney has shown his conservative principles, including his strong defense of the 10th amendment, his turning a billion dollar deficit in Massachusetts into a $2 billion rainy day fund when he was governor, and his reining in of an activist legislature by vetoing more than 800 bills. His tax proposal, the highpoint of which is a 20% reduction in all marginal tax rates, shows he understands that incentives matter in people’s willingness to produce, work hard and innovate. Romney’s plan does not attempt to use government tax policy to favor one set of industries over another, but lets the market decide what will be successful.
The fact that the Democratic Party in Michigan has given its members freedom to vote for Mr. Romney’s chief opponent in tomorrow’s Republican primary and return to the Democratic party for its caucus voting gives a hint that it is Mr. Romney that is likely to be the strongest threat to President Obama in November. The longer the media can give the impression that Republicans cannot be happy with Romney the more expensive and divisive the Republican nominating process will be.
Those who wish to end the Obama march towards further government intervention in the economy and the rest of our lives should not be confused by the media hype that the strongest candidate in the Republican field is somehow not conservative enough or not principled enough. There may be reasons that Republican voters may choose among the various candidates, but no one should be deterred from voting for Romney because of the picture of him painted by the mainstream media.
- Comment (53)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
The most electable Republican ever doesn't know much about NASCAR....
but he has friends who own NASCAR teams.
Aug '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
The fact of the matter is that Romney keeps his campaign promises, which is why he is reluctant to say anything on the campaign trail he may not be able to follow through on once elected.
Most politicans say what the voters want to hear and then renege when in office, claiming that "the situation has changed." Mitt is loathe to take that approach so he is trying to keep his powder dry to be able to respond to changing circumstances when in office.
Let's face it, for a politican to say what he will do a year from now is sheer foley because the situation on the ground will be different.
Jan '11
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
Stuart Creque
The problem with the transactional case is that Goldberg assumes that Romney is a party to the transaction. Unless some type of promise is extracted from him before we give him our votes, why would we expect Romney to listen to us and support us once he' s in office and our votes are no longer needed?
I hope that the heartburn Romney's getting from the base gives him pause as to how he'd govern. I'd actually relish tossing him aside in 2016 if he doesn't perform. In fact, I think it would be great for the movement.
May '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
Has this ever happened before? That a sitting, elected President gets the boot from their own party after the first term?
Only once, it appears.
If you have that much doubt about Romney, elect someone else.
Edited on February 27, 2012 at 11:44pmFeb '11
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
I see a novel theory propounded here. That is, that people think Romney isn't a conservative because the mainstream media is misleading them.
I don't waste any of my time on the so-called mainstream media, period. I think Romney isn't a conservative because he keeps getting caught saying and doing non-conservative things. For example, when he expressed his desire to index the minimum wage to inflation and when he invented Romneycare.
Furthermore, I see in this theory a feeling I've noticed continually from Romney supporters since whenever. That is, people who don't support Romney are stupid. Specifically, that we are being led astray, pied piper-style, by the mainstream media.
In other words, we're too dumb to see reality. Perhaps that explains the anti-Santorum ads I've had to suffer through here in Michigan which, to be polite, seem only loosely acquainted with the truth.
I think I know the difference, and hence, I will not be voting for Romney tomorrow.
May '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
There are many principles which do not change based on the situation on the ground. Yes, some specifics such as the exact measures to take on a given economic or foreign policy situation may change. But remember that the original post was about Romney's changing position on abortion. Surely the situation on the ground doesn't justify a change in one's position on an issue like this?
His change on abortion, viewed charitably, is not a result of a change of the situation on the ground, but (according to him) an epiphany after coming to terms with the realities of abortion. We like that kind of change. However, the circumstances surrounding it, and the timing, do make it look less convincing, which is the real issue-- not that he changed, but that we've got reason to doubt he really means (or meant) it.
Dec '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
Chris Deleon
Has this ever happened before? That a sitting, elected President gets the boot from their own party after the first term?
Only once, it appears.
If you have that much doubt about Romney, elect someone else. · 29 minutes ago
Edited 28 minutes ago
One thing to remember about the notion of tossing an incumbent out of office is that in his first term, that incumbent will have the power to give lots of people lots of goodies -- jobs in the Administration, a favored ear, things large and small that give the recipient a vested interest in keeping the incumbent incumbent.
Chris is right: if you don't trust the man to govern in a way that earns your vote for his re-election, don't vote for his election in the first place.
Oct '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
Chris Deleon
No candidate is ever perfect, but relative to McCain, Romney was more conservative. Most Republicans saw Romney as the conservative alternative to McCain in 2008. I'm sure Santorum was one of them.
In the intervening period, the passage of Obamacare has made many more people realize how un-conservative Romneycare really is. It also makes it hard for Romney to strike a contrast to Obama.
Now, in 2012, we have more conservative options than either McCain or Romney. Again, noperfectoptions, butbetter(that is, more conservative).
Again, polls are just polls, but I don't buy the argument that Romney is more electable. Given that, I'll take Santorum over Romney as the better, more believable and more conservative option. · 2 hours ago
Edited 1 hour ago
Rick Santorum would be an utter disaster. He's said many insane things in the past, he openly voted against his own principles--principles he clearly held at the time. Unlike Romney, who portrays himself as a squish selling himself to conservatives, Santorum portrays himself as a conservative who sold out to squishes. That's not an improvement on Romney's position.
Oct '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
Look, Democrats love Santorum. They love him! Why? Because they think they can use him to crush the GOP. With Santorum on the ticket, they'd have a chance at reversing 2010, or so they think. I think the Democrats are correct: Santorum would lead our party to ruin.
Oct '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
And to be clear, I don't have confidence in Romney's ability to win the presidency. At this point, I think we need to choose the least-damaging of all the candidates, and that would be Romney. He's our best shot at beating Obama, and he won't damage other races if he loses. We had a terrible field this cycle.
Aug '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
Chris Deleon
There are many principles which do not change based on the situation on the ground. Yes, some specifics such as the exact measures to take on a given economic or foreign policy situation may change. But remember that the original post was about Romney's changing position on abortion. Surely the situation on the ground doesn't justify a change in one's position on an issue like this?
His change on abortion, viewed charitably, is not a result of a change of the situation on the ground, but (according to him) an epiphany after coming to terms with the realities of abortion. We like that kind of change. However, the circumstances surrounding it, and the timing, do make it look less convincing, which is the realissue-- not that he changed, but that we've got reason to doubt he really means (or meant) it. · 1 hour ago
I guess I was thinking more of economic issues. These guys can put out whatever plan they want on the campaign trail but invariably it will change once they're in office...
Oct '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
Chris Deleon
Conventional wisdom that I strongly challenge on two grounds: · 2 hours ago
Judging from my own conservative/middle friends, Santorum is off-putting. You can have a candidate that fires up the base, if they have the charisma to reach other voters. Reagan, yes. Paul Ryan, yes. Santorum, no.
Oct '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
I don't think that they can get a tenth the purchase with Romney that they will with Santorum. One of Romney's weak points is his nondescript dryness and this same quality will make it difficult for the MSM to make him a conservative monster. The base knows he's not a fire-breathing conservative and the general electorate will sense it too. I think Mitt will make even Mormon underwear a yawn. He's the epitome of a Suit.
Oct '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
Kowaliczko Tom: I hope that the heartburn Romney's getting from the base gives him pause as to how he'd govern. I'd actually relish tossing him aside in 2016 if he doesn't perform. In fact, I think it would be great for the movement. · 2 hours ago
Yes, short of a brokered miracle this sounds like a plan.
May '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
Best I can tell, Romney has been a flipper, not a flip-flopper: once flipped, as on abortion in Mass., he's stayed put. It puzzles me to no end when conservatives mock and taunt those who move in their direction.
Feb '12
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
wow - 28 comments popped up quite quickly. but many are multiple posts from the same posters, who clearly feel passionately about not supporting Romney. evidence, i guess that his negatives are rising. two points seem to be repeated most often: Romney's position on the abortion debate, and legacy legislation from his term as governor. On the first point, the best piece written on the abortion debates in the US was George McKenna's article "A Lincolnian Position on Abortion" about fifteen years ago in the Atlantic (Monthly). I find Romney's alleged flip flop entirely consistent with McKenna's principled yet pragmatic position. A conservative can stand for agency and yet rely on moral persuasion to make the case that some choices are better than others (and that some choices are morally wrong). To take such a position does not do violence to conservative thought and should not lead to excommunication from conservative ranks. Perhaps one can fault Romney for not preaching in the public square about the moral question. But it would seem from his clerical experience that he did indeed preach morality, if not trumpeting it loudly. Some people would prefer this.
Feb '12
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
On the second point, the candidate has vowed to repeal Obamacare yet maintained that the legislation in Massachusetts made sense in Massachusetts but would not be suitable for the federal government. As a Canadian, i know firsthand the impact that public health care can have on recasting the relationships among state, society and individual, especially over decades. But the most significant damage done in Canada was not by provincial legislation (where it all started) but by federal usurpation of provincial jurisdiction such that provinces lost the opportunity to innovate, legislate, and respond to the provincial voters. It seems that some opponents to Romneycare would ban states the opportunity to develop legislation in accordance with their authority to do so. The best protections against poor legislation are i) the constitution and ii) the voters to elect people to repeal legislation they do not desire. For Romneycare, that would mean people in Massachusetts. For Obamacare, that would be the courts and the people at large. To suggest that Romney could not or would not repeal Obamacare, or indeed could not make an argument to do so seems irrational to me.
Feb '12
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
One could argue that having demonstrated a willingness to pass legislation in Massachusetts makes him a potentially more effective critic rather than a mere knee jerk. In the end, however, I think the GOP has already shot itself in the foot for 2012. The willingness to canoodle with anyone but Romney has essentially weakened the eventual Republican nominee, regardless of who it will be. apologies for the multiple posts, but 200 words is a tough limit.
May '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
See Dave Carter's recent post, http://ricochet.com/main-feed/One-Order-of-Optimism-Please-Hold-the-Hemlock , for the antidote to this view.
This is not Republican voters' fault. We have many reasons to be dissatisfied with Romney, but an arguably weak field will naturally result in some swings as people take a look at each individual candidate.
On the other hand, to take the optimistic view, we had a field of good candidates, most of whom might be able to win, but none of whom was able to gather critical mass, including Romney.
The description of this process as "canoodling" is of course very condescending. It's the natural process of an electorate trying to figure out the field, and finding some candidates lacking, then moving on. It's a primary.
I certainly didn't go through the whole string of ABRs. I liked Perry and Santorum, and defended a few others from dishonest attacks.
Edited on February 28, 2012 at 3:53amMay '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
Yes, many of you Romney supporters always supposed the rest of us to be irrational, instead of stopping to try to engage the arguments we're making.
Even Romney once suggested Romneycare could be a model for the nation, but now disavows it based on federalism. Romney will have a hard time convincing the general public, who are not necessarily steeped in the ideas of federalism, that Romneycare was/is great but now Obamacare must be repealed. In fact, I don't buy the federalism argument at all, even though I generally support federalism. It seems like the first handy excuse to me, given his past suggestion.
Any government mandating purchase of health insurance, and furthermore mandating the terms of the policies and the things that will be covered, is simply not a free-market or conservative approach; nor will it bring down costs without severely curtailing access.
HSAs and high-deductible insurance plans are the conservative, free-market solution, not Romneycare, and not Obamacare, which was based on Romneycare, do please remember!
Edited on February 28, 2012 at 4:07am