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 for the overall setting, part 2 for a discussion of change, and part 3 for specifics on the flip flop issue.
Some dismiss Romney summarily by saying you can never tell where he stands on a topic and you can never know for sure what he'll do. I've seen repeated analysis of dissatisfaction with the Republican field by ticking off the shortcomings of the various Republican contenders. These journalists all revert to some version of these unsubstantive character jabs in reference to Romney, because that's all they've got. His real record and character approximate "too good to be true," so they go ahead and run with the notion that it's all a lie. He's been characterized as a chameleon, not only as someone who panders, but as someone has no core principles and who "will do anything" to win.
Again, I have no stock in Romney. I don't defend him out of loyalty. I've never met him and I own him nothing. However, after looking carefully at Romney I've learned that this is all a media-driven straw man. Responding to this pack of absurdities is a tall order, as the slander has snowballed to default status when discussing Romney. It has root in the flip-flop charges, takes unsubstantial refuge in the idea that Romney has "reinvented" himself as a conservative for the presidential campaign, borrows from isolated misstatements from Romney that have been labeled "lies", and gives play to all sorts of indistinct character attacks and pejorative labels with no real basis whatsoever.
I've already discussed Romney's actual history and positions in regard to sensitive morally charged issues, as well as mentioned that "reinventing" oneself according to the circumstances is not necessarily a bad thing. But let me opine a bit more.
One of the facets of Romney's enormous competence is his ability to be pragmatic. Yes, he relegated some issues that are dear to the heart of conservatives to the back burner while running in Massachusetts. By doing so, he was able to accomplish a great deal that many thought would be impossible--he garnered the respect of a politically adversarial legislative branch, and shocked the nation by getting the job done in covering the uninsured. It's a measure of sophistication and good judgment that Romney is able to see what is possible and how compromise in a situation will benefit all involved. And it's just snarky sound-bite reporting and lazy journalism to assign and perpetuate negative labels for it.
There have been tepid acknowledgments among the main stream media of evidence that Romney's core principles are strongly anchored, but they are seldom repeated (unlike the character attacks). For example, being willing to "do anything" to win would most certainly have involved walking away from his highly ridiculed faith. He could have easily attributed his past involvement to familial heritage and taken up a "personal conviction" in something more mainstream. But he most certainly has not, choosing instead to lose big chunks of voters who view his every move with a priori skepticism and distrust.
In one of the recent debates, a clip was played where President Bush suggested a candidate must have firmly rooted core principles behind his or her candidacy. Each candidate was given an opportunity to respond, and Romney had by far the most compelling answer. He spoke of the process by which he got into the race. His family met and discussed the opportunity and chose to support him in his desire to do something good for the country. They were willing to endure the campaign unpleasantness in order to help get America back on track for our children and for our future. Perhaps some criticize this answer for the absence of professed allegiance to conservative policy. However, it acknowledges as no specific policy position ever could, the central and important role of the family to Romney and to this nation.
His family have been with him campaigning all the way along, as testament to the veracity of why he says he's in this race and what they all believe about our country's potential and optimistic future. That some criticize Romney's run as a power grab shows complete disregard for the clear evidence every member of his family presents. Romney already has the success and money to avoid public service for self-advancement. And if he were the selfish sort, I don't think he'd measure up as the hardest worker out of all the campaigns in both parties, as he certainly has. Some simple-minded folks will say he just wants the power without ever realizing what a sacrifice this campaign has been for him, or what a thankless job public service usually ends up being. A lesser man would be sitting on a beach somewhere enjoying his hundreds of millions rather than tolerating the pervasive insults and accusations of a rancorous opponent and press corp.
Returning to the original charge that Romney has been both liberal and conservative and that his views change depending on the audience, I'll end by saying this: Tailoring a message to the needs of the audience is good communication. Understanding and meeting the needs of a diverse population is a virtue and is not the same as pandering to a niche crowd. And flexibility and creativity in meeting our nation's problems is exactly what our leaders need in order to overcome years of divisive partisan gridlock. You can believe Romney's policy positions by looking at his executive actions, just as you can appreciate his character by looking at his family and personal life. Let's not let the media turn the world upside down by mislabeling virtues as weaknesses!
Next post in this series will talk about Mitt's inadvertent misstatements (often uncharitably called "lies") as well as a few more specifics on his policy (e.g. stimulus in Michigan, benchmarks in Iraq, illegal immigration, etc.).
No comments:
Post a Comment