National Review’s endorsement of Romney is not all that surprising. It seems to me that they have come to the conclusion you would expect, given that they, like many others, mistake Romney for someone who is “conservative” and “viable.” As of right now, he doesn’t seem to be viable among Republicans outside New England and maybe Michigan, much less with anyone else, and he is probably the weakest general election candidate of the leading five. As for his conservatism, well, I have said many times what I think about his dubious claim to that label and I won’t repeat it here. Nonetheless, this show of support makes sense for NR, and given the “viable conservative” stadard they’re using it is hard to see how they could have realistically chosen anyone else. Thompson isn’t just non-viable at this point. He’s an embarrassment of sorts. The problems with McCain and Giuliani are obvious, and Huckabee’s galloping Gersonism should fill every conservative’s heart with dread. I’m proudly supporting Ron Paul, and I am confident he would be a far better President than the one we will wind up having, but I would be kidding myself and all of you if I said I believed he was “viable” in a “win the Electoral College” sort of way. The sorry thing about the GOP field this year is that you have some potentially viable candidates on one side and then you have the conservative candidates on the other side. Then you have Romney, who will, if nominated, lead the GOP to a defeat reminiscent of Bob Dole’s loss or perhaps even worse. You could make the argument that conservatives should ignore Romney’s blatant opportunism for the sake of winning the election, but I am telling you that Romney cannot deliver that victory. There is the “Mormon factor,” but it isn’t just that. After the last almost seven years of President Bush, the electorate will want someone trustworthy as President, and I don’t think Romney fits that description.
Responding to the endorsement editorial, Michael makes some interesting points in a new post, developing an idea that he mentioned to me the other day:
Among my small circle, we are now wondering: perhaps Romney is the best viable choice. Not for any of the reasons National Review cites, but for his obvious cravenness. After years of suffering under Bush’s politics-of-conviction, I begin to warm to a guy who seems like he would never allow his approval ratings to go into the 20s in order to maintain the delusion that American military power can transform the Middle East into Middlebury, Conneticutt. I know that a lot of people are looking to Obama or Huckabee for a politician they can believe in. I’d rather have a guy who has no core whatsoever, whose every belief is negotiable. The last thing we need in this country is steadfast leadership from a member of our political class.
I take Michael’s point, and we could certainly stand to have a Republican more interested in normalcy rather than nostrums, to borrow a slightly hokey phrase from the election that, if Brooks is to be believed, the 2008 cycle is starting to resemble. I don’t think people should “believe in” politicians, and not just because they will always be disappointed. It is fundamentally unhealthy for free people to “believe in” their governors. The one thing that keeps me from worrying too much about this aspect of the enthusiasm for Ron Paul is that I know that he would also embrace the sentiment of the Psalmist’s exhortation, “Trust ye not in princes.” Ron Paul makes it clear time and again that the campaign is not about him, but is focused on advancing constitutional principles and liberty, and it is the principles that make the campaign successful. With Obama and Huckabee, it is quite clear that personality and biography are driving almost everything, and these are the only reasons why people are flocking to their standards. Looked at this way, Romney is refreshingly uninspiring, but then most people who are regularly compared to robots would be.
The thing that bothers me about Romney, aside from the sheer dishonesty and naked ambition his candidacy represents, is that he is not a conviction politician, but he pretends to be one and tries to make his newfound convictions into one of his virtues. If he were just an opportunist who bends whichever way the wind blows, that would be one thing, but the insufferable part is that he expects you to acknowledge that he now has deeply-held convictions that give him the authority to ridicule other candidates’ records as lacking in conservative principle. The ad he has aired recently where he pretends that he was some tower of principled strength, never yielding to the pressures of the moment, is an insult to our intelligence. Granted, you typically don’t win elections by advertising your utterly unprincipled power-seeking, but it seems to me that an opportunist should try to center his candidacy around things that he can still back up with evidence. Romney actually does have some experience as a competent manager, and he should stick to that. He has insisted that he is also a thoroughgoing conservative, and this is simply incredible.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 11th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Howard J. Harrison
Are you still in a mood to take pro-Romney rebuttal in your comments thread? You have treated my earlier pro-Romney rebuttal with utmost courtesy. If it grows tiresome to you, say the word and I’ll drop it.
Mitt Romney as you know is a native of Michigan. Another of that state’s native sons was the late, great Russell Kirk, author of the seminal book The Conservative Mind. One of Dr. Kirk’s principal themes involved the essential difference between principle and ideology. Conservatism as Dr. Kirk regarded it required the former and abhorred the latter.
It is impossible to imagine that any serious Republican would label Mr. Romney an ideologue. The man believes in praxis: what works, is. But does he in fact lack principle? Is he really a pure utilitarian? The answer to this question depends on what one means by the verb “to work” in “what works, is.” The original utilitarian John Stuart Mill, if I am not mistaken, defined what “worked” in vaguely amoral terms: his metric was ill-defined. Mr. Romney’s metric is hardly ill-defined. Yes, it is true: there remain legitimate doubts about Mr. Romney and abortion; about Mr. Romney and the Second Amendment; about Mr. Romney and the homosexual lobby—but on all three counts the doubts lie in Mr. Romney’s practice. Does anyone really doubt Mr. Romney’s deep and abiding commitment to the health of the traditional American family? Does anyone doubt his commitment to a strong defense or to a strong national economy? To you and me, abortion and homosexuality are about the family; but to Mr. Romney in Massachusetts in 1994 and 2002, abortion was a decided issue, a dead letter, which he could not do anything to change even if he wanted to. Homosexuality seemed a human-rights issue: we’re not going to have the sheriff send deputies to arrest you because you’re cohabitating with someone of the same sex (yes, I know that that is not really the issue any longer, but 1994 was closer to the time when that actually was this issue). To be effective as senator, governor or anything else, one must choose one’s battles. Mr. Romney chose battles he thought he might win. Though his choice of battles at the time might have been flawed in retrospect, he did not have the benefit of retrospect at the time. To choose battles wisely is a critical leadership trait, not a character flaw.
Regarding Mr. Romney and the Second Amendment, it seems to me that he just does not quite get it—ironic, since the gun culture runs pretty deep in Utah, but he’s from Michigan after all. You know, he’s wrong on guns, but then so are most Americans today to one degree or another (we as a nation have forgotten the very good, deeply historically rooted reasons our Founders demanded a heavily armed citizenry—where laws in some states prevent one from bearing arms in church, leaving the assembled congregation unnecessarily defenseless, we have badly lost our way—and Mr. Romney is no exception to this unfortunate trend). At least Mr. Romney is listening. The right to bear arms is not a core principle to him. If he “flip-flops” on it, this is just a disparaging way of acknowledging that he has listened, learned, and adapted his position, from a position palatable to Massachusetts to a more robust position acceptable to middle America. But his changes of position are too convenient, you say? Well, maybe; but a candidate who really tries to listen to the voters whose vote he wants is perforce going to have “convenient” changes of position. To offer the voters what they seem to want is sometimes a good thing not a bad. It becomes a bad thing when a candidate compromises his core principles, or when he lacks core principles. I do not think that either is true of Mr. Romney.
What I think interesting is that, when Mr. Romney asks us to judge him not by what he said in 1994 or 2002 but rather by what he actually did as governor, some of us ignore the request. Why do we do this? If he requested the opposite, that we judge him not by what he did but by what he said, then we would laugh him right off the platform. Though Mr. Romney’s words do change to suit the audience, one finds remarkably little inconsistency in Mr. Romney’s actions in any of the phases of his life, going all the way back to high school. The fact is, we know what kind of president he would be, because we know what kind of governor he was, and what kind of leader, businessman and father he was before that. Rhetoric aside, Mr. Romney’s record stacks up pretty well.
This comment is long enough, so I’ll leave it here, though clearly much more could be written. This comment is also very rebuttable, as I am aware. An enthusiastic Romney supporter, I do not wish to conceal my preferred candidate’s imperfections, which are substantial. But I do feel that Mr. Romney is one of the best candidates for the presidency the U.S. has seen in a long time, all things considered. All candidates speak of taming the federal budget, but if Mr. Romney cannot do it, then it cannot be done. Principle and praxis, sans ideology, are a powerful combination. They are the combination Mr. Romney brings.
Thanks for the platform. By the way, I think your preferred candidate Ron Paul excellent. His sole flaw I think is pretty obvious, has been repeatedly discussed and does not need review by me here. However, Duncan Hunter (not the topic of this article) gets my vote when the primaries reach my state; and if he’s out of the race at that time, then my vote goes to Mitt Romney, with relish.
December 12th, 2007 at 12:14 am
kranza
“He has insisted that he is also a thoroughgoing conservative, and this is simply incredible.”
Well, hey, he’ll likely drop that in the general!