Read part 1 here.
The most prevalent charge against Romney is that he is a flip-flopper. Although all candidates modify their positions, Romney is said to have done wholesale revolutions on key hot-button topics as a matter of political expediency. Just today I read this in U.S. News and World Report:
"Even the tried-and-true Republican issue set is up for grabs. Huckabee wants a national sales tax instead of the income tax, and some Republicans are aghast that one of their own could propose something so regressive. McCain spoke of global warming and fuel efficiency standards for cars in Michigan, of all places, and got whomped for it. Huckabee has even split the evangelical movement along generational lines; after all Pat Robertson did endorse Giuliani. Mitt Romney seems to be the only candidate truly in tune with every segment of the divided GOP electorate--constantly morphing into whatever is demanded in order to win."
So nearly true. He is in tune with every segment of the GOP electorate, but the charge that he constantly morphs or that he'll do whatever is demanded to win is tired and wrong. Unfortunately, with the press and his opponents saying it frequently enough and loud enough, it has kept people assured enough of its truth to neglect researching the facts for the themselves. Romney morphs in the way any thinking learning individual should. But, there are a number of ways he differs from conventional wisdom in the GOP, and he has commented to that effect on several occasions.
I'll also mention that Romney's competitors have changed positions with a frequency and in a manner that should earn as much or more ire from the press; but, for whatever reason, they often get a pass (here are just a few ).
Despite the obviously pejorative use of "flip-flop" as a character attack, thinking people will view change a little more cautiously. Reasonable people ask: to what extent is modifying one's positions an acceptable thing? The acknowledgment that changes in policy are acceptable as a candidate matures or as the issue evolves is not the only concession that is appropriate. Changing positions on certain matters because "the people have spoken" can be an appropriate form of representative government rather than "pandering". And putting certain personal positions on the back burner in order to accomplish something more important is not just expediency, it can be an effective and pragmatic way to accomplish positive governance. In short, one person's "flip-flop" is another person's progressive change or effective compromise. It's not necessarily a bad thing. In some cases, it's a virtue.
Having said that, "politicians" are stereotypically criticized for rehearsing to voters just what they want to hear, and then ignoring their promises once they get into office. Romney once said at a townhall meeting in Iowa that standing on principle versus pandering is the difference between a statesman and a politician. Romney recognizes that distinction. It is most concerning when a change reflects not merely an approach to policy but a shift in personal character. This is what Romney's detractors mistakenly say makes him the most egregious flip-flopper. There is simply no basis for this.
So what about Romney's actual record? Has he changed positions on abortion, gay marriage, gun control, immigration, the Bush tax cuts, etc., as he is constantly characterized? In a word: no. In my next post I'll talk about these specific issues and why Romney's positions and his changes in position have been based on integrity. Such a demonstration does rely on accepting some of Romney's subjective explanations, so some cynics will never be persuaded. However, for those who are reluctant to condemn someone with a demonstrably virtuous life, there is more than enough evidence to show that Romney is sincere and has clearly explained himself in all regards.
No comments:
Post a Comment