Consider Mitt, part 3

Tweet

This is a series for those who have ruled out Mitt Romney because of something they've heard or something about his character that they've been led to believe. Read part 1 and part 2 first.

The hot button issue of abortion is the only area in which Romney admits to having completely changed his position. Even that, in my opinion, is more of a concession than is warranted. He has always been personally pro-life while backing an "effectively" pro choice position in terms of public policy. It's not uncommon for someone to believe that a particular behavior is wrong, but that there is enough disagreement among reasonable people to leave the government out of it. This is offensive for many pro-lifers, and it's understandable why: this is a evocative hot-button issue that deals the death of innocent human life.

So, Romney had two conflicting morally based convictions (as many reasonable people do) that led to contradictory conclusions. I know many reject the notion, but it's possible to value both life and the ability of others to disagree and choose for themselves. Given these competing convictions, Romney sided with the more governmentally conservative approach--keep the government out of people's lives and let them choose for themselves based on their own values. However, despite campaigning honestly that he intended to defend a woman's right to choose, he found that for stem cell research and other issues of life and death, his conscience forced him to side with life. His record in Massachusetts shows that he did so every time a "life" related issue came up. Of course, he never broke any overt campaign promises either. He did what any honorable person would--he kept his explicit word while following his conscience. He has since recognized what he considers to be a mistaken previous policy position, admitted his error, taken responsibility at great political cost (despite that people charge him with doing it out of political expediency!), and spoken frankly on the issue every time it has doggedly come up.

When Romney vetoed legislation involving contraception, many in Massachusetts were angry. His explanation was an apt summary of his position and his philosophy and shows his overwhelming consistency on the topic.

YESTERDAY I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though
described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.
Signing such a measure into law would violate the promise I made to the citizens of
Massachusetts when I ran for governor. I pledged that I would not change our abortion laws either to restrict abortion or to facilitate it. What’s more, this particular bill does not require parental consent even for young teenagers. It disregards not only the seriousness of abortion but the importance of parental involvement and so would weaken a protection I am committed to uphold.
I have spoken with medical professionals to determine whether the drug contemplated under the bill would simply prevent conception or whether it would also terminate a living embryo after conception. Once it became clear that the latter was the case, my decision was straightforward. I will honor the commitment I made during my campaign: While I do not favor abortion, I will not change the state’s abortion laws.
I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
Because Massachusetts is decidedly prochoice, I have respected the state’s democratically held view. I have not attempted to impose my own views on the prochoice majority.
For all the conflicting views on this issue, it speaks well of our country that we recognize abortion as a problem. The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and, in the quiet of conscience people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.
You can’t be a prolife governor in a prochoice state without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. Many women
considering abortions face terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time, the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the child waiting to be born.
In some respects, these convictions have evolved and deepened during my time as governor. In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead — to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited.
I have also observed the bitterness and fierce anger that still linger 32 years after Roe v. Wade. The majority in the US Supreme Court’s Casey opinion assured us this would pass away as Americans learned to live with abortion on demand. But this has proved a false hope.
There is much in the abortion controversy that America’s founders would not recognize. Above all, those who wrote our Constitution would wonder why the federal courts had peremptorily removed the matter from the authority of the elected branches of government. The federal system left to us by the Constitution allows people of different states to make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus
avoiding the bitter battles engendered by ”one size fits all” judicial pronouncements. A federalist approach would allow such disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance.
Except on matters of the starkest clarity like the issue of banning partial-birth abortions, there is not now a decisive national consensus on abortion. Some parts of the country have prolife majorities, others have prochoice majorities. People of good faith on both sides of the issue should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums — with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that democratic majorities will prevail. We will never have peace on the abortion issue, much less a consensus of conscience, until democracy is allowed to work its way. [Quote taken from here.]

Romney hasn't shown flexibility in terms of his values or his convictions in areas beyond abortion either. In terms of gay marriage, Romney has never supported it. True, he has always supported the right of gays to be treated with respect and to not be discriminated against, and his comments in this regard have been quoted out of context and repeatedly twisted to suggest that he supported gay marriage in his gubernatorial campaign. He has been consistent in both his opposition to gay marriage and support of gay rights throughout his life and political career. Some log cabin republicans in Massachusetts feel he betrayed them because he reportedly promised he wouldn't oppose gay marriage, but he never made that promise. He did vaguely say something to the effect that he would "stay low" on the subject. However, the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage didn't allow him to avoid the topic, and when the issue was on the table, he handled the whole thing admirably and appropriately. He respected the judicial authority of the court, but also took immediate action to ensure that Massachusetts wouldn't become the "gay Las Vegas". He supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Romney's position on Americans' constitutional right to bear arms hasn't changed appreciably either. He has become more specific in his personal policy position regarding weapons of high lethality, but never substantially changed. Same goes for illegal immigration. He has been quoted as supporting McCain's amnesty plan, but he never did. He said it, along with several others, constituted a "reasonable" approach to the problem. It was when McCain's and Romney's specific plans became more detailed and received more scrutiny that Romney's opposition to McCain's approach was solidified. That makes perfect sense and deserves admiration rather than ire.

All the remaining issues for which Romney has been labeled a flip-flopper constitute only a progressive refining process of appropriate policy, never shifting core values. Romney's record shows consistency and integrity. When asked about his supposed "flip flops" in the 14th Republican debate on Jan 24, he said to look at his record to see where has always been. Here are some of the relevant parts of his record, in case you want the straight story.