The Economist--that figurative fortress on the high ground of market economics, that most respected voice in defense of the free marketplace--they like a lot about Mitt Romney's history of leadership success, both as CEO of Bain and as Governor of Massachusetts. But they are trying to figure out what happened to that Mitt Romney, and who he really is today. They'd like to be able to endorse him, but...
But we’re getting out ahead of ourselves, aren’t we? Let’s start with their opening statement of reasons for concern about who Mitt Romney really is today, but also the reasons they liked who he was, and for their early enthusiasm about his candidacy. The Economist:
WHEN Mitt Romney was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he supported abortion, gun control, tackling climate change and a requirement that everyone should buy health insurance, backed up with generous subsidies for those who could not afford it. Now, as he prepares to fly to Tampa to accept the Republican Party’s nomination for president on August 30th, he opposes all those things. A year ago he favoured keeping income taxes at their current levels; now he wants to slash them for everybody, with the rate falling from 35% to 28% for the richest Americans.
All politicians flip-flop from time to time; but Mr Romney could win an Olympic medal in it (see [Briefing] article). And that is a pity, because this newspaper finds much to like in the history of this uncharismatic but dogged man, from his obvious business acumen to the way he worked across the political aisle as governor to get health reform passed and the state budget deficit down. We share many of his views about the excessive growth of regulation and of the state in general in America, and the effect that this has on investment, productivity and growth. After four years of soaring oratory and intermittent reforms, why not bring in a more businesslike figure who might start fixing the problems with America’s finances?
---“So, Mitt, what do you really believe?” The Economist, Leaders section (8.25.2012)
And by the way, in that early going, there were many of we independents giving him a fair hearing, as well. I, too, liked the same things about Governor Romney. But then, sooner or later, we all saw and heard the same things the good folks at The Economist did, didn’t we? But let’s hear it from them:
But competence is worthless without direction and, frankly, character. Would that Candidate Romney had indeed presented himself as a solid chief executive who got things done. Instead he has appeared as a fawning PR man, apparently willing to do or say just about anything to get elected. In some areas, notably social policy and foreign affairs, the result is that he is now committed to needlessly extreme or dangerous courses that he may not actually believe in but will find hard to drop; in others, especially to do with the economy, the lack of details means that some attractive-sounding headline policies prove meaningless (and possibly dangerous) on closer inspection. Behind all this sits the worrying idea of a man who does not really know his own mind. America won’t vote for that man; nor would this newspaper. The convention offers Mr Romney his best chance to say what he really believes.
You can judge for yourself whether Mr. Romney’s speech at the GOP convention cleared everything up for you. Suffice it to say, it left me with only more questions about him, and less confidence in him. But it’s also true that I support Barack Obama’s re-election. I thought he did as effective and honorable a job as could be done having inherited two questionable wars, a growing budget deficit, the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression, and an obstructionist Republican Congress intent on denying him every initiative whether it was good for the country or not. Yes, there were things I was unhappy with him about, but on the whole, a good job. (And as we are discussing, I’ve not yet seen or heard anything that would make me consider throwing him over for Mitt Romney.)
This article in The Economist goes on to provide more detail about their particular policy concerns, but I’ll leave you to click on the link to read more about that, and you may read more still in the larger, related “Briefing” article later in this same edition. But allow me to end with the articles final comments, and then a few of my own:
Playing dumb is not an option
Mr Romney may calculate that it is best to keep quiet: the faltering economy will drive voters towards him. It is more likely, however, that his evasiveness will erode his main competitive advantage. A businessman without a credible plan to fix a problem stops being a credible businessman. So does a businessman who tells you one thing at breakfast and the opposite at supper. Indeed, all this underlines the main doubt: nobody knows who this strange man really is. It is half a decade since he ran something. Why won’t he talk about his business career openly? Why has he been so reluctant to disclose his tax returns? How can a leader change tack so often? Where does he really want to take the world’s most powerful country?
It is not too late for Mr Romney to show America’s voters that he is a man who can lead his party rather than be led by it. But he has a lot of questions to answer in Tampa.
And so, I can only repeat the question I posed above: Did Mr. Romney’s speech in Tampa clarify things for you? Are your concerns now allayed? Are you feeling more confident about Mitt Romney as our Presidential leader?
Of course, depending on your political orientation, and your notion of honorable and effective government, you might be greatly relieved, or despondent, or even terrified to remember Grover Norquist’s comments during the 2012 GOP primaries. The influential Mr. Norquest—many would say, powerful—author, Congressional recruiter and enforcer of the so-called “No-Tax Pledge,” remarked that it didn’t matter who won the primary, so long as he won the general election. Because with the GOP majorities in the House also expected in the Senate, it would be the GOP Congress that would control legislative initiative and passage. “ We just need a President to sign this stuff,” he said—and also suggested that a President Romney would do what he is told. Yes, Mr. Norquist was and is that arrogant, that full of himself, that he actually said that with a complete sense of authority and impunity. (For more details about all that just Google “Grover Norquist, We just need a president…”)
I don’t know if that makes you feel better or worse about a Romney presidency. For me, it’s clearly more a feeling of surrealistic foreboding.
But hey, let’s think a little crazy here. No, really crazy. Let’s just assume that no one could be so bereft of personal integrity as to flip-flop so often on such material matters of principle and policy—and especially not a religious man who had previously conducted himself quite honorably, at least within the context and expectations of his vocations and roles. Since I’ve now openly crossed into the realm of the surreal, why not contemplate a Mitt Romney authoring a quiet, self-effacing strategy--a conspiracy, really-- to undermine or frustrate the greatest hopes and aspirations of the ascendant Right Wing of the GOP. Let’s imagine him insinuating himself into the playbook of Mr. Norquist and the Right Wing leadership, casting himself as the pliable, witless stooge of a president that they seek.
Of course, we would have to assume a failed re-election bid by Barack Obama—which, right now, would appear to require the President’s purposeful effort to craft the worst possible campaign directions and strategies, and then make them worse still. I’m just saying. Then, President Romney, seeing it as his patriotic duty to restore a more balanced, responsible Republican Party, makes common cause with Congressional Democrats and the remaining few moderate Republicans to frustrate the purposes and legislative success of the GOP’s Right Wing majority. He restores his previously unerring bearings, and his former mantle of leadership and success. He restores broad respect for more centrist thinking, politics and collaboration. The country’s electorate now sees clearly its waywardness, and in the future votes more responsibly for statesmen and deal makers, more moderate progress builders of both parties.
Ah, down the rabbit hole with Alice. But I ask you, which is more surrealistic, my sojourn in restoration reverie, or the unnerving realities of today’s extreme political characters—caricatures, really—and the dysfunctional political environment of their creation? It’s a close call, isn’t it?
Link:
No comments:
Post a Comment