Mitt Romney speaks during a rally in Tempe, Arizona, 04/20/12. (photo: Reuters)
14 October 12
he
way a presidential candidate campaigns for office matters to the
country. A campaign should demonstrate seriousness of purpose and a set
of core beliefs, and it should signal to voters whether a candidate
shows trustworthiness and judgment. Those things don't seem to matter to
Mitt Romney.
From the beginning of his run for the Republican
nomination, Mr. Romney has offered to transfigure himself into any shape
desired by an audience in order to achieve power. In front of massed
crowds or on television, he can sound sunny and inclusive, radiating a
feel-good centrism. His "severely conservative" policies and disdain for
much of the country are reserved for partisans, donors and the harsh
ideologues who clutter his party's base. This polarity is often
described as "flip-flopping," but the word is too mild to describe
opposing positions that are simultaneously held.
The best way to judge candidates is not by the popular
way they describe their plans near the end of a campaign; it is by the
most divisive presentations of themselves earlier on. A candidate's
political calculations when fewer people are watching is likely to say
far more about character than poll-tested pleasantries in the spotlight.
That's what is disingenuous about the "Moderate Mitt"
in recent speeches and the first presidential debate. He hasn't
abandoned or flip-flopped from the severe positions that won him the
Republican nomination; they remain at the core of his campaign, on his
Web site and in his position papers, and they occasionally slip out in
unguarded moments. All he's doing is slapping whitewash on his platform.
The immoderation of his policies, used to win favor with a hard-right
party, cannot be disguised.
This week, for example, in the swing state of Iowa,
Mr. Romney tried to cover up his strident anti-abortion agenda. "There's
no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that
would become part of my agenda," he told The Des Moines Register's editorial board.
But that carefully worded statement was designed to mislead, because
the threat to women's rights doesn't necessarily come from legislation.
He would cut financing for Planned Parenthood, and he has said he wants
to overturn Roe v. Wade and would appoint justices who would do so.
And, though he has conveniently forgotten, he does support anti-abortion legislation - what he called in a 2011 essay
the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to ban abortion when a
fetus can feel pain. In 2007, he said he'd sign a bill prohibiting all
abortions. He has also tried to paper over his positions on his $5
trillion tax cut, pretending it would be cost-free, and he now says he
wants to cover pre-existing health conditions, though his plan does so
only for those who have insurance coverage.
At last week's debate, Mr. Romney presented himself as
a bipartisan leader able to work with Democrats. But that's not how
Massachusetts Democrats remember his tenure as governor, as Michael Wines of The Times
reported last week. He ignored or insulted Democrats and failed to
achieve most of his big-ticket proposals, like reform of the Civil
Service and pension systems. His decision to support a universal health
care system in 2006, long advocated by Democrats, was seen at the time
as a purely political calculation, at least until Republicans rejected
the idea in 2009 when President Obama proposed it.
There isn't really a Moderate Mitt; what is on display
now is better described as Convenient Mitt. Anyone willing to advocate
extremism to raise money and win primaries is likely to do the same to
stay in office.
No comments:
Post a Comment