In 1972, Brazilian biologist Francisco Varela introduced the concept of “autopoiesis,” which explains the process by which cells regenerate and replace themselves. According to the theory, human cells die and are replaced; so every ten years or so, you are literally an entirely different person than you were before. So if you called your car-insurance company to tell them the speeding ticket you got in 1998 wasn’t you, you’d actually be right.
Seeing as how I’m reaching the end of my 30s, I figure I’m due a new body. I hope model 4.0 will be taller and skinnier; if it’s 4G capable, that would be awesome, too. Yet there’s one thing I find problematic about my impending new self: It will be supporting Mitt Romney for president.
This galls Current Me. My dissatisfaction with Romney mirrors that of many conservatives who recognize his long history as a political chameleon. As a kid, I remember the cartoon He-Man confusing me; He-Man and his alter-ego, Prince Adam, looked exactly alike, just wearing different clothes. And yet none of the citizens of Eternia figured it out. Apparently, Mitt Romney thinks in order to disassociate himself from his past political life, he just has to wear a different suit and say the word “Reagan” enough.
Advertisement
But we’ve figured it out. The list is well traveled: This Mitt is the same one who supported TARP; the same one who instituted an Obama-style individual mandate requiring Massachusetts residents to purchase health care; who supported “cap and trade,” assault-weapons bans, and Roe v. Wade.
His puerile attacks on Rick Perry for asserting that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme” were as confusing as Perry’s awkward attempts to explain his position. Romney slammed Perry for allowing the children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition, despite Latinos’ making up 38 percent of Texas’s population — yet all of Romney’s erstwhile liberal positions clearly represented naked political opportunism of an equal order.
Yet Romney is almost a lead-pipe lock to be the GOP presidential nominee in 2012. His titanium chin has plowed its way through the Republican presidential field, making otherwise good candidates occasionally seem amateurish.
And while many of Romney’s positions have “evolved” based on the office for which he is running, many of them have stayed strong throughout. In their 2007 endorsement of Romney, the National Review editors pointed out that in 1994, when he tried to unseat Ted Kennedy, “he ran against higher taxes and government-run health care, and for school choice, a balanced budget amendment, welfare reform, and ‘tougher measures to stop illegal immigration.’”
Romney’s campaigning skills have improved markedly from his first presidential run in 2008; he is currently the only candidate plausible enough to share the stage with Barack Obama in 2012. Not only are his currently held convictions right; if he were actually to make it through the primary, his past liberal positions could make him more appealing to out-of-work Democrats who are looking for a safe home.
And while Romney may not be the ideal candidate, he may just be ideal enough to win. As the old saying goes, when being chased by a bear, you don’t have to necessarily be fast — you just have to be faster than one other guy. The good news for Romney is that he’d be running against an incumbent whose approval rating is slightly lower than that of paper cuts. And this bear economy may just devour Obama as Romney jogs across the finish line.
In 2011, Republicans are sitting at the end of the bar, and it’s 2 a.m. Ryan and Christie have already gone home, and the GOP is looking for someone to keep it company. As Joan Jett’s “I Hate Myself for Loving You” plays, Mitt winks at them from the other end of the bar. Right now, he’s the best the GOP has; how the night turns out is yet to be seen.
In 2012, I will be writing breathlessly about how America will be engulfed in flames should Mitt Romney not be elected president. I will write endlessly about his infallibility and his impeccable conservative credentials. But thanks to science, I can be forgiven. It won’t be me.
— Christian Schneider is a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.
REUTERS -- In what some political analysts characterize as a risky move, Mitt Romney has changed his position on whether or not he's a flip-flopper. He now says he is.
"Yes, I'm a flip-flopper," said the Republican presidential front-runner in response to a question from Bret Baier of Fox News. "In fact, I come from a long line of flip-floppers. I'm proud of it." . . .
It is a year away from the presidential election. No one has yet voted in a primary. There are about a dozen Republican debates yet to be had. Even so, there seems to be an attempt to stampede Republicans into anointing Romney as their inevitable candidate. Whoa big fella. Romney is a flip flopping liberal Republican sharing many of the views of Obama that have driven Republicans and independents nuts over the past several years. Now let me get this straight. We are supposed to support someone that has in the past embraced gun control, cap and trade, and Obamacare light just because he is "evolving" and says Reagan now and then. Don't count on it, and don't count on much support by conservatives and independents who are simply fed up with liberalism whether it be the Republican or the Democrat variety. While our elite commentators flock to the coronation of Romney (who has yet to poll much more than 25% support in most polls), Cain is running about 4 points ahead of Romney in the most recent polls. It ain’t over yet folks.
"And while Romney may not be the ideal candidate, he may just be ideal enough to win."
and
"Right now, he’s the best the GOP has; how the night turns out is yet to be seen."
So...what does that say about the current state of rightwing ideology that "the best the Republicans can come up with" is "a guy who can win", but who, perhaps excluding Huntsman, is the furtherest from a "pure conservative"?
Another establishment CINO endorses Romney. Mr. Schneider tells the conservatives to shut up and accept the RINO. It will be interesting to read what Mr. Scheider has to say in November of 2012 when the RINO loses. Nominating Romney insures another four years of Obama. The base will not vote for another McCain. A real Democrat will always beat a faux Democrat.
In fact, Romney canceled Cap & Trade initiatives when governor--& has blasted it as "bad for business" ever since.
At least Romney's record is a lot more conservative than was Reagan's.
Unlike Reagan, Governor Romney never signed into law the most liberal abortion law in the nation, he didn't pass No-Fault Divorce, or raise taxes 11 times,--he didn't hike a mega national debt & expand the size of the federal government brokering deals with Tip O'Neill,--he didn't pass Federal mandated "Emergency Treatment Act" Healthcare, or sign into law the Mulford Act or the Brady Gun Act--he didn't create market based Cap & Trade,--or grant amnesy to 3 million illegals transforming the once "Golden State" of Reagan/Wilson budget suplusses into a Pelosi California bankrupt.
Republicans forever give slack to conservative icon Reagan for having had to deal with the Red leaning California of the 1960s--ditto as president, a Democrat congress for 8 years. Zero slack is afforded Romney for having to broker deals in Ted Kennedy's far-left Massachusetts.
Romney balanced his Massachusetts fiscal budget with a 2 billion rainy day fund to spare. Reagan failed in that Federal government feat.
Reagan vetoed his Tip O'Neill congress 78 times in 8 years.
Romney vetoed his Massachusetts legislature over 800 times in 4 years. Virtually all were overridden--including the entirety of his 8 "Romneycare" vetoes.
Thanks Ardis, Your points are very substantive and hopefully will help us conservatives appreciate the conservative Romney is. I have the feeling he will be even more conservative and provide more fundamental correction than Reagan was/did. I hope those conservatives who are so upset will come to see it too. Keep up the good work and keep articulating these vital points. The conversation needs them.
A full 70% of us in the GOP don't want Romney. We are sick and tired of being told we have to get behind the establishment pick because "he can win." Who is the great arbiter of electability that picks for us who can win and who can't? If we are unable to get a full-throated conservative elected now, it will never happen. Now is the time for choosing. I, for one, will not settle for a mushy moderate simply because you tell me he can win.
Let's be honest, finally, about this trite and insidious meme. It is absurd! Using the same logic, about the same percentage "don't want" hermain Cain. And what iz perry's average now? 14%? So that means fully 86% of voters "don't want" governor Perry. And let's not even mention how much voters "don't want" Bachman, santorum, Gingrich, huntsman, etc! The fact of the matter is that while many of these have had their day in the sun, none have shown greater lasting support that governor Romney, who's support has changed little during the shifting flirtations of voters with the other candidates. Many of those voters will come to the governor after they have finished flirting with the unknown quantities and finding them wanting. And factor in the more moderate leaning voters that are not very politically active this far out, but still vote in the primaries, and his "ceiling" will inevitably increase, as it most certainly is not going down, based on the campaign history so far. So please, stop with the absurdity!
Those elected to office should represent the views and needs of their constituency. This may entail some minor shifting as an official progresses into larger, broader constituencies. If the candidate is changing views merely to clear his or her path to power, then it is a problem. But if they are attempting to realign their positions with those they will be serving, then it is a good thing.
"If the candidate is changing views merely to clear his or her path to power, then it is a problem. But if they are attempting to realign their positions with those they will be serving, then it is a good thing."
There is no difference between option a) and option b).
While I would agree that Mr. Romney isn't a modern day uber-conservative, he does fit the model of a 1980 Ronald Reagan. Many forget that Reagan was a former Democrat, was a Republican Governor in a heavily Democratic State, had led the Actors Union, and was largely agnostic around the issue of abortion/choice/pro-life. The fact that he came into office after a very challenging economic time (18% interest rates, 13% + unemployment; rampant inflation; energy crisis) simply meant that taking a center right position gave him the mandate to restore American Exceptionalism that had been dormant during Carter's "Malaise Period."
While I wish Romney would be more forceful in defending his health care reform in Massachussets, I think it speaks to a larger issue around individual mandates. These mandates have always existed at the state level (you need insurance to drive a car in Minnesota), but never, ever, ever at the Federal level.
If Romney can speak about individual mandates emanating from the individual level up.....instead of from the federal gov't down...he would tap into what inspires most Americans; that we will step up when asked, but we'll do it when properly motivated. Getting off the couch and walking, eating better, reducing smoking and drinking, taking care of your own kids, participating in your local communities, providing safe and productive schools, etc.... are the real Individual Mandates that I believe in. The 47% of Americans who pay no personal income taxes represent a real threat to the American way, and they are easily swayed by rhetoric of those on the left who promise to 'take care of them' with no requirement to 'pay it forward.' We have an opportunity in this next election to push forward with a new Conservatism that's rooted in The Individual Mandate that each of us Americans have by being American. This propulsion of energy and enthusiasm should allow us to get through the next 30 years with a renewed focus on everyone doing their part vs. this class warfare b.s. we hear from POTUS lately.
Romney isn't the messiah, and he's got a lot of work to do yet in the Primary...let alone the General Election. All the 'whispers' about Mormanism being a cult will keep being whispered, and it's up to the far right to provide him some protection from those who are too wiling to use religion as THE wedge issue, instead of one of many chapters in a larger narrative.
Ronald Reagan never backed 2nd Amendment infringement measures such as the laughable assault weapons ban, which essentially banned guns that "looked bad" in the eyes of Diane Feinstein. Romneycare is 800 pound monster waiting to marginalize turnout and prevent the ouster of an incompetent idealogical manchild. Settling for the polished skills and rectangular chin of a seasoned moderate so early in the game is unnaceptable.
We don't need an anybody-but-Obama, we need an anti-Obama. Romney is W 2.0. Selecting him as our candidate means acquiescence on Obamacare. Who expects Romney will repeal the greatest assault on individual liberty in American history when he instituted the greatest assault on the individual liberties of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massaschusetts?
Short answer, he won't.
Christie, his big supporter, refused to side with the 26 states fighting Obamacare in court.
We've had enough of business as usual. Romney is Nixon with a smile. Keep pushing him on us, and we will continue to refute him. Romney hasn't budged from the low to mid 20's and he is still the front runner? How? He's a flat-liner at best.
Keep pushing Romney on us. Do you remember 2010? You are pushing against a force greater than you care to realize. We DO NOT want Romney and you are wasting your breath while exposing your true color, yellow.
I'm also noticing that all the people at NRO who supported that horrible debt ceiling "deal" over the summer are pushing this man on us. That should tell you something.
Buckley towers has been infiltrated by the Rinos, where are your principles?
I think that what is kind of depressing about this election cycle is that there is a real sense that this could be a sea change kind of election. There is an opportunity here to not just win back the presidency but the really move the ball much further down the field. So when you face that possibility, it is a bit disheartening to nominate a guy that is a safe choice in terms of electibility but seems incapable or unlikely to harness the moment and restore important atrophied constitutional principles of Federalism and limits to government power. There is a sense that the bases are loaded and we all want to see a power hitter come to bat but we are pinch-hitting a singles guy. Good batting average, but it's not going to blow the game open. (Sorry for mixing my sports metaphor from the beginning...settling for a field goal might have been a more consistent analogy).
@egraymond
As for your characterization of Reagan, you hit mostly superficial similarities and minimized the large differences. Reagan was not known as a competent technocrat who leaned conservative. Bush was the Romney of 1980. Reagan was recognized as the unapologetic (and dangerous to some) game changer that he was. So I'm a bit depressed about the prospect of Romney. I think he is indeed a strong bet vs. Obama. But I think the country really needs and is ready for a more dynamic reformer. Its a shame to squander the opportunity.
And, BTW, nobody who is agnostic on the Pro-Life issue would write "Abortion and the Conscience of America" as Reagan did. Read it. That was an absurd assertion on your part just for the record.
Three months before a single primary vote is cast and we are already getting the drum beat "it's over." (Amazingly, that was the captcha for this comment.)
This is exactly how the Rockefeller Republicans in the GOP and the commentariat saddled us with George W, Bush. But NRO is no longer one of the only alternatives to the MSM. So don't be too hurt if it doesn't work out that way this time.
Keep posting squishy conservative articles about how great Romney is. The rest of us will still cast our votes in the primaries, thank you very much.
Follow
