Intellectual Conservative's resident Mathematics Professor takes another look at Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate.
In a previous article in The Intellectual Conservative (Will I Have to Hold My Nose Yet Again?), I confessed that the not unlikely prospect of Mitt Romney securing the Republican presidential nomination filled me with dismay. I pointed out that every Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan was a faux conservative and that I voted for all of them – with my fingers firmly clamped on my nose. In contemplating a vote for Romney, I rued the fact that my fingers would be similarly deployed.
Nothing has happened in the last few months to change the probabilities. Romney continues to build his organization and position himself for a successful run; none of his so-called major competitors (Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin – each of whom, I pointed out in the article, is damaged goods) has done anything to elevate his or her stature; and none of the minor contenders has been able to break out of that forlorn status of "little dwarf."
So I decided that a closer look at Romney was in order. I read his book No Apology. Here's the good news. Romney makes a convincing effort toward burnishing his conservative credentials. He hits all the conservative touchstone issues in the book and professes his allegiance to virtually all the principles that identify one as a true conservative: limited government, low taxes, deregulation, strong national defense, family values, free market capitalism and traditional culture. He comes across as sincerely patriotic, reverent of the men who founded our country and the ideals they espoused, inspired by and loyal to the Constitution. He apparently understands that prosperity is created by individuals who develop products and services, and form the businesses that deliver them – not by government programs, spending or regulation. He has a track record of successful executive and managerial experience. And best of all, he clearly loves the United States of America and would strive mightily to protect it – unlike the current occupant of the White House.
On the other hand, there are some disquieting revelations in the book – the most prominent of which include: an enthusiastic reaffirmation of Massachusetts Health Care; the fact that he has drunk from the environmental Kool-Aid and is on the global warming bandwagon; an admission that he basically endorses TARP and the resulting bailouts; and his advocacy of a major role for the Federal Government in education.
These positions are disturbing indeed and worthy of concern. They suggest strongly that at the core Romney is a big government Republican in the mold of Nixon, Ford, Dole, McCain and the Bushes. The pejorative RINO does not seem to be inappropriate.
The matter is of course not yet settled. Is it foolhardy to hold out any hope that the eventual nominee could be a true conservative like Pence, DeMint or Santorum? The history of the Republican presidential nomination process is not encouraging. Thus there might be some solace in the observation that Romney could be the best of the rest of the sorry lot that are chasing the GOP 2012 nomination. Perhaps he'll take his own book to heart and govern like Reagan if he does achieve the presidency. One can only hope.
Such was my thinking after finishing Romney's book. And then the March issue of the American Spectator arrived with an article by W. James Atlee entitled "Front-runner Failure." In it, Atlee points out that Romney would be the latest installment in a long line of candidates to whom the Republicans awarded their nomination as a reward "for long years of service, finishing second the last time around, and politely waiting their turn." That description most aptly describes Dole and McCain, but it also applies to Nixon, Ford, both Bushes and even Reagan. With the exception of Reagan, these nominations resulted in either an ignominious defeat or a victory by men that "left the Republican Party weaker than they found it." Atlee's assessment also accounts for the decades of nose-holding on my part. For heaven's sake, why would the Republican Party do it yet again?
A Romney presidency would not signal the end of the century-long slide toward progressivism, socialism and the loss of freedom that our country has endured. A Romney presidency is unlikely to exploit the fact that a substantial part (perhaps even a majority) of the American people has awakened to the horror that we have inflicted upon ourselves. America's star is dimming today; and in order to rekindle it, we must: reverse the cancerous growth of government by reigning in spending, taxation and regulation; reaffirm our commitment to free market capitalism by deemphasizing unionism, statism and crony capitalism, and re-empowering individual entrepreneurs who create prosperity; call a halt to multiculturalism and reassert the primacy of American exceptionalism; and rededicate ourselves to the ideals expressed by our Founders in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Mitt Romney is not the general we need to lead that crusade. Whom it might be and how he or she is to be catapulted to the head of the Republican Party can only be read in the Tea leaves.
I find it fascinated that every pundit seems to write Romney off as well as his health reforms in MA. Tea party polls seem to be all across the board with no consensus that they will not support Romney in the end. Sure there will be the determined ones who will never vote for Romney but I think fair minded conservatives know what the stakes are and will support him in the end.
My big question is, if it isn’t supposed to be Romeny, who else has any ideas to solve our nations problems? Lowering taxes doesn’t move all mountains. Who else has the guts to do what Romney did in regards to health reform? Other states only got on board after they saw it could be done in MA. No other state can claim they have had the same success as MA in covering their citizens. And that was the whole aim, coverage. Though Romney attempted to apply cost savings measures, in the end the bill itself states that it was intended to expand coverage not contain costs.
This leads me to the next question, since when is expanding private coverage “socialized medicine” as Huckabee calls it? Or rather, why aren’t intellectual conservatives calling out Huckabee on his ignorant comments?
Though maybe not a conventional conservative plan, the Heritage foundation still considered it to be consistent with conservative principles.
Ron mentions the failed attempts of RINOs to capture the white house. To be honest, though the list includes some “successful” conservative records, what have any of them done in way of innovative ideas to solve our nations problems with conservative principles? Again tax cuts don’t solve all problems. There are plenty of talk but who is doing it (besides Walker and Christie)?
Romney, may seem the lackluster candidate but I can’t imagine a better fit for our country. Personally, I can’t stomach smooth talking politicians. I despise any form of charm trying to win me over. The American public needs to grow up and actually realize being a likable guy isn’t top priority for being the leader of the free world.
Where does leading by pragmatism rate as a conservative value? Should principles always stand or do we understand that flexibility is necessary to adjust to new circumstances. I’m not talking about abandoning everything conservative in times of crisis. What I am saying is that Reagan himself, the great tax cutter, raised taxes in the end. Was he hypocritical? Did he lose the faith? Absolutely not. He did what was prudent for the time.
Purely ideological, and not practical approaches to solving problems gives us candidates like Palin and Santorum, not bad at listing the talking points of conservatism, but are incompetent and incapable of leading our country through the tough choices.
Since Ron read No Apology I don’t need to explain Romney’s positions. Romney has already laid them out for everyone to learn about. The problem is that fanaticism sells. It motivates the troops more than detailed explanations and methodical problem solving.
I am very scared our nation will realize too late that we have been promoting and electing politicians, not leaders. True, anyone can point to any civil servant’s record and accuse them of being a politician more than leading. However, Romney more than any other I can remember actually has the ability to do what others only dreamed of accomplishing.
Balancing a budget in MA? Done. Covered 98% of MA? Done. Ended inefficient projects and consolidated government? Done and done. One of the only things I think he could have done better was to stay in for another term.
I appreciate your article Ron despite disagreeing with you about Romney’s chances. Once people recognize what Obama has in store for after 2012, our nation will think long and hard and wake up to the fact that Romney is the better choice.
After reading Ron’s article about Romney it further steels my opposition to his candidacy. If he still thinks that he did the right thing with Romneycare then that is enough for me. He would never get my vote. I would sit out the election and I have never sat out any election. I’ve had enough of the McCains, Doles, Bushes, etc. of this world. No more big government guys for me.
The time is ripe for an outsider to win. obama is very vulnerable and this is no time to put a conservative in name only into the White House. Don’t forget what a peanut farmer from Georgia did. A family man from Wisconsin could do the same.1-20-13
So, Mr. Lipsman and hvance have decided already to work for BHO and trash one of the candidates for the GOP. One will hold his nose and the other will stay home casting a half vote for Obama. I don’t propose to trash any candidates, but I will admit that I drove 1,400 miles to visit my mother and vote for Mitt two and half years ago and I’m proud I did. I lived under Governor Romney, not in Mass, but in Michigan. It was Mitt’s dad that led the Democratic state during those years and he did a good job. By living with and respecting all people, including democrats, he gave the citizens pride and comfort. From what I’ve heard about Mitt it seems he has the same qualities as his father and he could bring the country together. On the Mass. health care issue let’s not forget that a Democratic legislature passed this measure and it was done in a State and NOT by the Feds in the dark of night. Besides your choice will be between two candidates, one of which is BHO and his reelection will be the end of America as we know it.
Ivan:
“Besides your choice will be between two candidates, one of which is BHO and his reelection will be the end of America as we know it.”
Of course, Romney is infinitely preferable to the Barackmeister. But Romney is not the change agent that we so desperately need to restore us to a Constitutional Republic that places individual freedom before ‘Government solutions.’ Is there such a person among the likely Republican candidates? I don’t know; but I feel certain that Romney is not the one.
Ivan:
Would you prefer death by a firing squad or by a 1000 cuts? Romney is not the answer. The mood in the country is to not re-elect obama. I am of the opinion that a good orator who espouses conservative solutions to problems would win in a landslide. He/she must not be afraid to call a spade a spade which is what McCain would not do. He refused to be clear about issues. Romney has made his position known in his book what we could expect. Don’t forget that in all likelihood there will be at least one of the legislative branches controlled by conservatives that would negate much if not all of what obama would want if he were to be re-elected.
Mr. Lipsman
I’m NOT looking for a F-in CHANGE agent. We have one of those now.
Hvance
Please name names and stop talking about McCain. He’s toast. Only a lily livered bastard (not that you are one) would attack a canidate without mentioning the alternatives. You don’t like Romney, OK then who do you like? I’m not into “all likelihood”. I want BHO out of there and you seem satisfied to leave him in.
So; apparently the real challenge is to alter the method that both parties use to nominate Presidential candidates. I don’t’ see that happening.
Republicans usually nominate a Presidential candidate by seniority. The public servant with the most ‘time-in-service’ gets the brass ring for that election. The problem with such criteria is two-fold: By the time a potential candidate makes the “A” list, his conservative credentials have been tarnished through compromise.
Secondly; real top flight conservatives gravitate toward business. Their parents groom them for such success. Republican politicians are usually people who haven’t done well in business; they’re already ‘second stringers’. As a result we’re always fielding a weaker product in the general election. Exhibit A in this regard; George W. Bush
Democrats also usually nominate Presidential candidates by seniority. The public servant with the least ‘time-in-service’ gets the nod because of his almost undetectable record; because opponents cannot dispute what they cannot find. All top flight progressives gravitate to government. Their parents groom them as bureaucrats: For them; success in business cannot compare to the power one has as an elected representative. Exhibit A in this regard Barack Obama.
Knowing for certain that progressives cannot alter the way they choose candidates: The last one that was totally honest about how he would govern, Walter Mondale was infamous for his line; “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes. So will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.” Reagan went on to win the general election of 1984 49 states to 1, and that was the last time any progressive presidential candidate EVER told the truth.
Our only alternative is to choose a better conservative candidate. We should begin with some basic criteria. First; I would prefer a Governor as opposed to a Congressman of Senator. Congressmen and Senators, if they serve for any real length of time; usually have a record of compromise with the opposition party. It comes from the ‘horse trading’ that occurs in those chambers. The old; “I’ll vote for your bill if you’ll vote for mine.”
According to this Washington Post article http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/a-three-way-tie-atop-2012-gop.html three of the top five are former Governors; Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney. One is a sitting Governor; Chris Christie. The final one listed is Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich doesn’t pass the Congressman/Senator test. Huckabee is a social progressive, as is Romney. Palin’s difficulty is that she so polarizes the left against her that any substance is completely hidden by the vitrol.
I would personally like to hear more from Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour.
First Bush bashing, shame shame.
Then finaly some names. Newt sucks. In my mind it’s because of his leadership in vilifying men. Look it up. Before 1994 the feds did not go after men in a divorce. Now it’s a fed issue to be a day late on alimony even if the ex is starving your kids.
I gave up on the Huckster when he refered to the leader of Russia as Victor Putin. Then he “Misspoke” again last week.
I liked Palin until the election, but then she reverted to that “female” status for a while. She’s been coming back, but you are right about the vitrol.
Barbour? Maybe, we’ll see.
Ivan:
You think I would be happy with bho in office? You apparently never read my posts or they have slipped your mind. As for talking about McCain I’ll use him when I feel it is appropriate to use him as an analogy in a situation. As for your reference to the character and legitimacy of one of my organs I would like to think that you are sorry for those thoughts.
As for Romney, no, I do not think he would be the answer to lead a conservative movement. Are there those that I would prefer and name? As a matter of fact there are several. The main ones would be Ron Paul, Newt, Palin and Huckabee. Do they all have baggage? Yes, mostly from the msm’s of the world so we need a person who is an orator with solutions. I think Newt and Huckabee would be the best of my favorites but who knows, a sleeper may come out and surprise all of us.
Hvance
Ok, I’ll appologize for my reference to your parentage, but not the reference to your internal organ contition. I don’t judge based on the msm’s opinion. I look at what these people have done and the words they have spoken. And, even if I would like to have a conservative leader I don’t think this person can be elected, so when looking for a candidate that first will beat BHO I want electablity, then I look to conservatism. I learned that in 1964.
Shortly after the fall of the USSR in 1991 I thought to myself “OK, that’s one down. Where is the next enemy coming from?” That question was answered on 9/11/2001 and since that time I have seen the libs, and yes the msm, kiss the ass of every Muslim available. That’s not the only problem, but it’s the biggest one for me. Find a guy that can stand up to the Islamists and the rest will take care of it’s self.