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:
Oct '11
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
I have a theory.
In any debate, consider the spectrum of choices available to the Republican party. Eliminate those that are clearly stillborn. (E.g. we're not going to push for Congressional term limits this year.) Assign to each a value that represents the positive benefit of that choice (to the nation or the party; this works for either analysis.)
My theory is that the Republican party will reliably invert this scale and chose, from its limited set of viable options, to pursue the one with the least value. It's second choice will always be the second-worst viable option, and so forth. Romney, Santorum, Gingrich.
I offer no analysis of the reasons things work this way, only the observation that the interplay of forces always ensures that they do. Perhaps this is what it means for a mob, versus an individual, to be conservative.
We're choosing Massachusetts Mitt for the precise reason that, of the three putatively acceptable candidates, he is the least likely to win and least likely to govern well if he does. I realize this conclusion is somewhat counter-intuitive and uncomfortable, but both history and the present seem to bear it out.
Oct '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
Did I miss Romney's full-throated defense of finance capitalism when the Bain attacks came up? Or his big speech about the capital gains, investment and the sources of prosperity and wealth when his taxes became an issue? Has he reprised his excellent 2007 remarks about religious belief and politics in the light of current controversies? I guess the MSM must have suppressed these to make it look like he is less than serious as a conservative candidate.
May '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
The party does seem to make bad choices, generally speaking, but I'm not sure we need to be this cynical...
The theory that fits better in my mind is that of the difference between the ruling elite vs. the common people. The ruling elite who just want to stay in power and not rock the boat too much or make too many hard choices or difficult stands. This faction usually gets their way politically because they, well, have a greater interest in it and follow things more closely and are more connected to the process. They influence the process well before the average plebe ever gets a vote.
The common person is not necessarily better educated or smarter, but they are much more connected to the real world...
Edited on February 28, 2012 at 4:18amMay '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
...So when it comes to knowing who they want to support, at first, since they don't follow politics as a day-to-day thing (they have jobs and families etc., you know), they may not engage very deeply or pick a nominee right at first. And I think the elites rightly look at this and wonder how they can trust the electoral process to bring out the right person.
However, the common people, I believe, generally choose better leaders to address real-world problems, even if it requires rocking the boat. Perhaps that's just a romantic notion I have. Nevertheless, it's based on the clear idea that just by following the lines of vested interest, the party elites will choose a leader that's better for them, and the common people will choose a leader that's better for them-- and by extension, for a lot more of the country than the leaders chosen by the elites.
I don't believe in rule by the mobs, or Communism or class warfare. Nevertheless, it's definitely true that the ruling class, whether Republicans or Democrats, have led us badly. We're fighting for a choice this time around.
Edited on February 28, 2012 at 4:22amOct '11
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
Chris Deleon
The party does seem to make bad choices, generally speaking, but I'm not sure we need to be this cynical...
The theory that fits better in my mind is that of the struggle between the ruling elite vs. the common party member. The ruling elite who just want to stay in power and not rock the boat too much or make too many hard choices or difficult stands. This faction usually gets their way politically because they, well, have a greater interest in it and follow things more closely and are more connected to the process. They influence the process well before the average plebe ever gets a vote.
I think you've identified one of the more significant forces that pushes the party towards the behavior I've identified. We can't consider the party as an individual with reason - I certainly didn't mean anything like "the party carefully calculates that Romney is the worst choice and therefore chooses to nominate him." That would be to anthropomorphize a non-sentient entity. No particular individual thinks as I've described, but the end result of all our thinking is that outcome.
May '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
I agree the end result of the group process appears to some individuals as less than rational or ideal.
Nevertheless, I maintain it is too cynical to say that they (nearly) always tend to choose the worst choice, followed by the second-worst choice. That would be almost to imply an evil Fate is in control of the whole process.
Edited on February 28, 2012 at 4:25amOct '11
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
Chris Deleon
... it is too cynical to say that they (nearly) always tend to choose the worst choice, followed by the second-worst choice. That would be almost to imply an evil Fate is in control of the whole process.
Cue ominous theme. George Soros slinks in from stage left, in Sith robes and a Guy Fawkes mask.
Seriously, tho - how else to explain the past three years of legislative maneuvers by McConnell and Boehner? Medicare Part D and NCLB? McCain in '08?
As for the actual mechanisms that drive these lame choices, I'll nominate two. You already cited the tendency of the highly placed to work to preserve their station. There's a similar tendency in the rest of us: an innate aversion to risk what we still have, to pick the "safest" choice. Our group dynamic does not "average" our choices, it leads us to a "lowest common denominator". (Sorry for the cliche, I need a better metaphor for timidity.)
It could be worse - the group interaction of the immature left drives them to follow the most extreme voices, however irrational.
It isn't fate. I'm with Pogo on this one.
Apr '11
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
Professor Rahe, Romney's suggestion that Massachusetts would serve as a model for other states demonstrates only that he understands the nature of the 10th Amendment. He describes the creation of laboratories of democracy.
Apr '11
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
John Young and I'm sorry for not quoting this (iPhone), none of the Anti Romney posters are new to their views. The only convert in the thread is Joseph, and he's moved the other way.
Apr '11
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
Romney moved on life at a time that made his gubernatorial term harder, and didn't move all that far (he had always denied being pro choice) Santorum moved on labor and trade at convenient times and was far more conservative in his spending during the first two years of each of his terms. Mollie is right; it is clearly another dynamic at play. Chris is right that it comes down to believing Santorum and not believing Romney. I.e. it is a gut judgment.
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
And it doesn't demonstrate that he he is urging the other states to take it as a model and imitate what he has achieved? Surely, you jest.
Apr '11
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
Romneycare is terrible policy and Romney was probably wrong to support it. I had thought you were casting aspersions on his support for the Tenth.
Dec '10
Re: Romney: Conservative or Flip-flopper
Romney STILL supports it. What does that tell you about his ability to admit mistakes and to learn from them?