Skip to comments.Romney & American Conservatism
Posted on 05/31/2012 11:10:05 AM PDT by Ohioan
History is replete with examples: Politicians tend to follow popular trends, rather than lead. To the extent that segments of the public
can be pushed in our direction, we increase constructive pressure on all candidates, who are not compulsion driven ideologues, to be more
conservative. The Reagan era is a case in point; the reverse was true in the leftward shift of many formerly conservative Democrats in the
early "New Deal."
This does not imply lack of personal involvement. Our obvious interest has led to careful consideration of the merits, deficiencies &
reasonable possibilities related to each candidate. While Governor Romney was never our first choice, he may prove, in fact, the one most likely to move in the right direction.
(Excerpt) Read more at truthbasedlogic.com ...
This "virtual" endorsement is in recognition of the belief, not that Gov. Romney has not in the past aligned himself with the wrong policies in Massachusetts. His previous policies were certainly not to a traditional Conservative's liking. But I believe that he is reachable, if we follow the course recommended in the article.
Anyway we look at it, four more years of Obama is unacceptable.
So, even though in word and deed Romney has been a liberal his whole past but we are to hang our hope that he might be pushed into conservatism.
Conservatism is your core or it is not.
“Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
— Winston Churchill
Most of those who enter politics are not driven by such instincts. They may be driven by personal ambition; perhaps by some particular issue at a particular moment in time; perhaps only by having been recruited by political organizers, because they are seen as having an appealing personality. Political forces originating with the grassroots--even as unfortunate pressures from the mass media--can push such in different directions. It has happened over and over again.
Let us face it. We are going to lose America if we cannot be more persuasive. Do you have any better idea than to start with Romney now, by seeking to broaden the Conservative base with better grassroots persuasive techniques?
The obvious choice now, is whether to sit back & let a hostile media orchestrate the pressures on candidates, or use whatever honorable means are at our disposal to rouse the sleeping public in the right direction. If we do an effective enough job, both Romney & a lot of other office seekers, will start moving to the Right.
Churchill, as you probably know, started out as a Liberal. He moved to the right in response to events.
Mitt Romney was weaned on politics, he was born into a politically aggressive, liberal, anti-conservative family in which dad was a national figure, ending in a liberal presidential run, and mother was a 1970 liberal Senate candidate.
Romney has always known and lived his liberal convictions, and his anti-conservative drive for revenge against the conservatives of the GOP, the Reagan/Palin/teaparty types who he shuns and insults even as he gains control of their party today.
Romney was anti-Reagan, he left the GOP and from 1989 to 1993 only gave money to, and fund raised for democrat candidates, he voted for Paul Tsongas in 1992, he was giving to and fund raising for Planned Parenthood in 1994.
His father had run against Reagan for the Presidency in 1968, Mitt Romney and his father formally protested the victory of the conservatives at the 1964 GOP convention in which Goldwater was nominated and Reagan gave his famous speech. Romney was anti-conservative in every way during the first 59 years of his life.
Im not a partisan politician. My hope is that, after this election, it will be the moderates of both parties who will control the Senate, not the Jesse Helmses.
These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense, Romney said. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.
I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nations military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.
Do you think that Mitt was just merely confused a little about his core beliefs during the the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and the 2000s, until 2005 when he started his run for President, the second such run in a row for his family?
Similarly, look at how some of those who had behaved just as you describe the Romneys, moved to the right after Reagan won a convincing victory.
The Romneys were & are successful businessmen. Their focus has been from that perspective. They were not effectively challenged, as Obama is now challenging Romney, from a Leftist threat. Obama's attacks will partially wake Romney up to the fact that the parameters of his world are under an ideological attack--not a foreign threat from Russia, but a threat from corrupt ideology here at home.
My point is not predicting how he will respond. My point is that we need to do our level best to push him in our direction. The article discusses how we should proceed to do so.
Failing to address this opportunity/reality is to concede the future to the hard core Marxists around the demagogue in office. That is folly in the extreme.
Mitt Romney moved radically to the left because of Reagan, even leaving the GOP and eventually becoming a supporter of and fund raiser for democrats during HW Bush.
We have had very few Conservative Presidential candidates, who ever got a major party nomination, over the past 100+ years. There was Calvin Coolidge & Ronald Reagan. Arguably, John W. Davis, who was the Democratic nominee in 1924 was also.
The point is not how truly Conservative a candidate is, but how effective a grassroots effort can be. We need to stop abdicating to the Leftist agitators, who have learned how to move the politicians to the Left. If we do not learn how to fight back on more & broader fronts, all that we believe in will be toast. The demagogue in the White House does not share any of our core values.
To understand why, in general, business executives are at least somewhat hostile to Conservative ideology, you need to consider Perspective & Focus. The typical business executive's focus is on maximizing profits, and they feel threatened by anything "controversial," as a danger towards building acceptance for their product or service. In addition, they largely move in circles with the same focus, which reinforces their own distaste for any controversy that does not directly involve their business. And yet further in addition, at the higher levels, they are staffed by a middle management that has much in common with a Governmental bureaucracy.
This does not mean that the situation involved in trying to move some of them to the right is hopeless--far from it. But it does call for patience, politeness & understanding, which are included in the points in the article.
As the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, Romney is better seen as a challenge & opportunity, than an enemy. Again, we dare not agree to four more years of a demagogue already drafting unconstitutional executive orders that would make him our Fuhrer.
Well, such a theory has a major flaw. He is the enemy.
Again, we dare not agree to four more years of a demagogue already drafting unconstitutional executive orders that would make him our Fuhrer.
As bad as another four years of Obama would be, there is something infinitely more dangerous to the republic, and that is a "conservative" electorate with no principles left. THAT is how you create the moral and political climate for a Nazi Germany or a Soviet Russia.
That is all very dreamy and it probably entertains you to indulge yourself with that kind of hazy creative writing, but it is gibberish, the only thing clear is that you are determined to refuse to look at Mitt Romney and the Romneys.
You want to take what exists and try to mold it into something it isn’t, to escape from reality and truth, and to exercise what you see as a creative thinking talent.
The title of your post sort of reminds me of “oil and water.”
You have effectively boxed yourself into a hopeless mindset. Gov. Romney has clearly moved to the right. He is certainly far from a complete Conservative, but he has been moving in our direction. If you insist in treating people in leadership positions, merely as the enemy, when they do not agree with you, and ignore the possible ways to bring them around to our way of thinking, you concede the battle.
If we are only interested in rallying those who agree with us, the cause is hopeless. We have to reach out, and it is certainly more practical to reach out to Mitt Romney, who as I discuss in the article is a "problem solver" in terms of business--and therefore has had to deal before with sometimes unpleasant facts--than most others who have embraced the fallacies that the Left has promoted in the Academies & Media for three generations.
A willingness to look at unpleasant facts is essential to the course, I suggest. The realities are all on our side, but the Media, et al., have poisoned most people's visions.
In the recent debates, on balance, Mitt Romney was certainly as Conservative as some of the other candidates--and, in my opinion, more so than Santorum, who came across as reckless on foreign policy, and ignorant on the Constitutional divisions between State & Federal function.
You can continue insulting the Romneys (and, for that matter, this Ohioan), and accept the existing ideological lineups, which is a classic error, if you like. Some of us understand both the issues, and why certain people line up as they do on those issues, and intend to continue to reach out rather than seek to make what we do not like, permanent.
Is it really true that Romney, because he was business-oriented, proclaimed that he was more supportive of the pro-homosexual agenda than Ted Kennedy because Romney wanted to avoid being controversial?
Or, do you think maybe he was just being honest?
How do you think he feels about the Mormon tradition of polygamy? If, because he is business-oriented and wants to avoid saying anything controversial, can you expect him to disclose now how he really feels about polygamy?
How can you trust a man who is afraid to tell the truth?
B. In the debates, Romney clearly distanced himself from whatever he may have said in Massachuseetts, formerly. The effort I propose would continue to push him in the positive (i.e., in favor of traditional morality) values.
C. How Romney views "polygamy" is not a contemporary American issue, accept among Mormon bashers. Since Mormons tend to be Conservative, I am very unsympathetic to Mormon bashers.
If you are so concerned with denouncing polygamy, do you propose taking "Proverbs" out of the Bible--or reject it because of Solomon's marital behavior? This is all a non-issue, being injected into the campaign to divide us.
Why the antagonism to someone who is definitely moving in our direction? Might he back-track? Not if we do our job right. That is the whole point.
Truth is not divisible. The same principles that apply to business conditions that Romney understands and knows ow to deal with, are equally applicable to all other socio/economic conditions. What is essential is that we better hone our ability to make those points clear.
You can take it that way, if you like. To continue your metaphor, the article offers the soap or chemical required to address the situation.
“How Romney views ‘polygamy’ is not a contemporary American issue, accept among Mormon bashers.”
Whether you accept or reject Mormon bashers, how can anyone trust a man who is afraid to tell the truth? You speak about manipulating a President of the United States like it is akin to repositioning your favorite chair in the living room. Why would I want to place a jellyfish in a position of leadership?
Are you really that crippled by fear of the alternatives?
I did not speak about "manipulating" a President. But politicians have always responded, in various degrees, to shifts in the public perception of issues & objectives. That does not equate to his being a "jellyfish."
Of course, my main point was, and is, that his adequacy as a genuine "problem solver," gives us the opportunity--if we hone our arguments well--to actually persuade him to a more Conservative position.
Certainly, if you believe as I do that the Conservative position--the values & principles of the Founding Fathers & an ethos that goes back at least to Magna Carta;--that such offer the best path to a healthy society; then what we need to do, is to persuade more Americans to that--or back to that by the right appeal to their reasoning ability.
That Romney has good reasoning ability--as witness his work on the 2002 Winter Olympics, for example--makes him a good prospect. But, again, the ball is in our court, to take the proper initiatives.
What we need to do might be somewhat analogous to someone presenting him with a very accurate cash flow projection with respect to those 2002 Olympics, only verbally in terms of the demonstrable dynamics of human interaction. (The actual economic growth of America under the founders' principles is such a demonstration, if the linkage is compellingly explained.)
Extreme naivete, at best.
Even if you believed that Romney had “moved,” as foolish as that would be, considering his record, still, the positions that he takes right now remain those of a judicial supremacist, pro-choice, anti-republican, anti-unalienable rights, democrat.
The core of who and what he his remains unchanged.
And the chances of him changing from that at this late date are for all practical purposes nil.
LOL, rambling ignorant nonsense, what ever you are hearing in your own head, is laughable to the rest of us.
Well, here’s the problem. My iPad has good reasoning ability, but like your man Romney, it has no spine. My iPad will work the will of anyone who controls it, just like your man Romney. You may see that as one of his virtues.
But, the problem is that, unless you’re a bigwig in the Mormon “church,” you aren’t going to be controlling or even influencing Romney.
So you do not trust Gov. Romney. That does not really address my position. (Frankly, I do not completely trust almost anyone. People are all inherently flawed. That does not mean that we should not take our best hold on a situation.)
And do you deny that Romney did well for the 2002 Olympics--as a "problem solver?" (Also, I notice that none of your insults address his competence in dealing with economic questions.)
Keep up the silliness, if you like. But why don't you try to actually consider what is the best course for American Conservatives over the next five months?
But your insistent bashing of the Mormons is very self-defeating. If people from different denominations cannot work together to restore American values, we are done for. The anti-American, anti-God, anti-all people of Faith, cadre in the media & academia will continue to have their way, unless we solve the problems that prevent intelligent Conservatives from working well together.
Do you think the ACLU would have been able--as one example--to undermine Faith in American civil life, to the extent that they have, if we worked together better. (For more on the anti-Faith, anti-institutions, in general, antics of that organization, see Leftist Word Games & Religious Freedom.)
The Federal Government--the Government in which Romney is seeking a high position--has no role whatsoever in the management of any Church, or in choosing anyone's precepts, dogma, or whatever, in matters of Faith. Your opinions of Mormons are irrelevant to the present campaign.
Mitt does not view Capitalism as a positive. His Olympic effort is totally irrelevant and has been fluffed up.
To see how Mitt views government vs free-market you have to look at his ACTUAL record in MASS.
Everything Mitt did in MA was carried out to enhance the Power of the State over the Individual. Mitt's actual record in MA pushed his state far down in economic performance.
Mitt's actual record in MA is a direct example of someone who worships at the Alter of State Power. It is utterly delusional to think Mitt will be "pushed" at all to Conservatism.
Mitt and his vile supporters are most excited when they are out utterly destroying Conservatives. Starting in mid-Sep 2008 Mitt and his vile staff and supporters started with a scorched Earth policy against Sarah and any other Conservative who could be a threat. To have him expect to receive my vote is an insult to everything I believe in. I will not vote for rabid Statists -- whether they be Rats or GOP-e.
Ansel12's post #6 perfectly explains Mitt's political DNA.
I don't care. There is a marxist kenyan in the White House and I want him out. You can twist yourself into a pretzel enabling him if you want but understand there are only two electable candidates. One of them will be in the WH next year. You seem to prefer the kenyan. Most conservatives are willing to roll the dice with Romney. So be it.
But that said, let's look at what Sand 88 says:
Mitt does not view Capitalism as a positive.
What do you think "Bain Capital" is all about? Do you actually believe that a man who has made immense sums of money via Capitalism; who says he favors our free enterprise system, over & over again, is actually planning to sabotage it? Why?
His former Left-leaning social policies in Massachusetts can at least be explained--though not to his credit--as offering the people what they seemed to want. To his credit would have been to try to lead them to want something different, of course. In short what I propose should be our (Conservatives at Free Republic's) role, in the immediate future.
But, anyway, the flat out rejection of the genuineness of Gov. Romney's apparent move to the right, accomplishes nothing but to undermine the possibility that we can gain ground both with Romney & with the broader public--the sort of move that is always the key to many politicians, who usually follow, seldom lead.
It is a silly article that doesn’t say anything particular other than that you want to jump on the band wagon to promote Romney and put it into your own words, which seems to please you to no end, but it is not a meaningful or insightful blog.
Have a drink with your blog tonight and enjoy yourself.
In my #28, to which you responded by accusing me of trying to "jump on the band wagon to promote Romney"--hardly based on any point that I have made--I challenged you to offer your own proposal:
"But why don't you try to actually consider what is the best course for American Conservatives over the next five months?"
I do not have a blog, but I have been moving people to the right since High School. My article speaks not only from a study of political history & technique, but from personal experience. But again, do you have a better suggestion than trying to work with the hand that the Republican Party is dealing us, this year? If not? ---well in deference to the policy at Free Republic, not to insult others, I will not offer you an alternative.
I’m with JR on this, you can stuff your Mitt Romney, we will be seeking ways to counter what he has in mind for the destruction of conservatism in America, we will be uniting to lessen the damage of his revenge seeking against the right.
Simple. Because once he was in power, he did nothing but grow the power and size of the government in MA. He severely damaged the business climate in MA.
Mitt's actual record is one of someone who's instinct is always to turn to the State for solutions for every "so called" problems mentioned by the whiners and the MSM.
Just because Mitt has made immense sums of money does not at all translate into Mitt believing that "others" are deserving of immense sums of money; or that Capitalism is the greatest mechanism of advancing civilization.
A person has either have an inherent love of Liberty or an instinct to use government Power to shape society. Mitt's entire life in government is one of increasing the power of the State over the Individual. It is naive to believe that he will change or that he can be influenced.
With Mitt or Obama the end-game of rabid Socialism is inescapable. I am under no illusion that our Republic can be saved, short of some type of total collapse of the bloated, cancerous, and sadistic government that exists at all levels.
We have two paths. On is the current path where we switch between two parties every 4 or 8 years and go into a long socialist decline that will eventually make us into a third world sewer. The other path is the one to Liberty and prosperity. My reading of history has convinced me that Liberty can only be brought about in a rapid manner (a few years max) Some great crisis (government collapse, currency collapse, etc) will make events occur that will severely negate the power of the Federal government. The States will essentially take receivership of an failed bloated bureaucracy. At that point, if reason holds, the EPA and most other evil departments will be dissolved and the associated workers will leave to look for real work.
We can never legislate and transition back to a state of limited government. I cannot think of an instance where it has happened.
It is the nature of government to grow until it consumes enough of its citizen's wealth and Liberties, then it collapses. That's why electing Mitt, or believing in Paul Ryan's foolish "economic plan" or hoping for the right decision from SOCTUS will make any difference. The end-game is set in stone.
In short, you do not trust Gov. Romney to do what he says he will do; but your plan of action is something in the future.
Now we have some clarity as to where you are coming from.
Some of us choose to keep working in the right direction, without waiting for the chaos that is rapidly approaching because of the acceleration of hopelessly flawed policies over the past 20 years. (Hopelessly flawed from an American perspective--deliberate from a Marxist, Fabian or "One-worlder" perspective.).
But the essential point is this; that you are allowing your theories to induce you to attack others who are trying to make things better in ways that you think not likely to work. Fine. Do not join us.
No, some of you are just old rinos pushing Romney.
It’s just that some of you are more vain and self absorbed about it, and less skilled at coming up with reasons to support him, this is one very dull thread.
I was working for Goldwater from December, 1960, before the newly elected JFK was even sworn in, being a founding member of a non-partisan Conservative group in Cincinnati, called "Here We Stand." When Kennedy came to town in September, 1962, to support Democratic candidates in the fall election, and spoke in our town square, he was faced with the embarrassment of a crowd in which dozens of peaceful attendees carried Conservative signs, issued by me, from my law office, overlooking the event, which embarrassed him in the news media--which showed the signs--etc..
In 1974, I ran in the Congressional Primary against a moderate Republican who had the support of the local organization & a far, far better ballot name, who spent almost five times what I had to spend and only narrowly beat me. That did not endear me to those you call "rinos."
I could go on, decade by decade. But I am not one of those "lesser of two evils," go along types--and have not been.
But Obama represents a far greater evil than did JFK, or the Rockefeller Republicans, or Jimmy Carter, or LBJ, or Bill Clinton. We have no alternative but to make the best of Romney, and he is at least trying to move in our direction.
Polite & patient persistence is what is called for.
Perhaps, if you had a better point, people wouldn't ignore it.
We are now in approximately our 100th year of drifting leftward in this nation, with only a couple small gyrations to the right - which most statisticians would simply classify as noise, and you are essentially asking that we keep trying the same methods "grass roots efforts" to move the elite monolith to the right.
When grass root efforts try to work with big money corruption, grass roots has consistently failed over the long term.
The political machine (singular not plural) which gives us a Romney and an Obama) must be defeated as it cannot be moved anywhere.
When you lump a spokesman for entrepreneurial capitalism--even one who in the past chased after some of the Socialist idiots in Massachusetts--with an outright advocate of Marxist class warfare, you do not make a point; rather demonstrate your substitute of a personal bias for actual analysis.
Romney has supported a lot of things that I do not like, in his past political career. But I propose to patiently appeal to his ability as an avowed--and actually proven--problem solver, to consider all of the facts that make those past policies a mistake.
I'm inclined to run out patience before I run out of life.
I also, don't think politeness is a benefit when the other side is extremely rude, and;
I'll choose resistance over persistence, since the later is playing right into the beltway elitists hands.
We have went from a common cold to bronchitis to pneumonia and today our freedoms lie in dire straits clinging to life.
It's time to throw the bums out, not try to work with them any longer.
While many Conservatives, themselves, miss the point; the same human dynamics which make the free market the ultimate engine for economic growth, support the maximizing of individual responsibility & minimizing of government across a wide spectrum of human interaction. (For an obvious example, consider why Switzerland has a far lower crime rate than Socialized--disarmed--Britain. Or consider how much better Church administered Welfare worked in Jefferson's Virginia, than what we have in America, today.)