Posted on 01/05/2012 5:41:02 AM PST by Kaslin
Much of the conservative punditocracy has declared that Mitt Romney is the consensus conservative candidate. If he is, he's the least consensual consensus candidate in modern political history -- the man can't break 25 percent with a sledgehammer. While his supporters shout from the hills that Romney essentially tied for the win in Iowa, his glass remains three-quarters empty, with no-name Rick Santorum winning as much of the vote, Ron Paul winning nearly as much, and Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry combining for as much. The last time a Republican candidate captured the nomination for the presidency by winning Iowa with this low a vote total, his name was Bob Dole. A couple of years later, he was hawking Viagra.
Nonetheless, the word is out: The fix is in. Unbelievably, not a single anti-Romney television ad was run in the state of Iowa. And while a few conservatives -- including yours truly -- have come out and opposed nominating the most left-wing Republican in the field, many more conservatives have endorsed Romney's candidacy.
Now there are good reasons for supporting Romney in the GOP nomination race. Some people argue that he has the most appeal to independents, because he is the least openly conservative. Others state that he doesn't have personal baggage and is thus less likely to become fodder for late night talk shows. Still others contend that his vanilla personality means that the focus of the election will remain on President Obama and such focus will make Romney a shoe-in. Finally, there are those who say that Romney has had his convenient road-to-Damascus conversion to conservatism and we should now trust him.
These arguments, at the very least, are understandable. What is not understandable is the contention by so many conservatives that Romney's record is conservative. It isn't. He's always been an advocate of a carefully managed, large government rather than a freedom-ensuring small one; his record in Massachusetts shows him to be an advocate for liberal policies like the individual mandate and activist judges. There can be no doubt that among all the Republicans running, his record is the most left. Even Jon Huntsman looks like Ronald Reagan next to Romney.
Why, then, do so many conservatives say that Romney represents true conservatism?
Because it's convenient.
Whenever there is an open Republican race, many professional conservatives fear alienating the candidates. Instead of holding their feet to the fire, they find the person most likely to win and back him. If that person happens not to be particularly conservative, the pundits rewrite conservatism to fit the candidate. This preserves their access and their credibility with their audience. As professional prognosticators, it certainly looks better to have endorsed George W. Bush in 2000 than Steve Forbes. If pundits can convince us that not only did they support George W. Bush but also that George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" was actually conservative rather than warmed over big government liberalism, they can eat their cake and have it, too.
This is deeply problematic, of course, since the professional pundit class is supposed to stand for something other than convenience. Yes, defeating horrible politicians like Barack Obama is the top goal -- but that doesn't justify redefining conservatism entirely. Support Mitt Romney if you must -- but don't urinate on our leg and tell us that it's raining. Mitt Romney is not a conservative. If you want to support him, go right ahead. But don't lie about your rationale. It undermines the conservative standard.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., long ago pointed out that folks who cannot live by certain standards tend to undermine those standards. When the standards are lowered, the behavior that such standards were originally intended to stop increases dramatically. In the case of unwed motherhood, for example, when society ceases to consider such behavior morally wrong, the behavior increases exponentially.
The same holds true in politics. When we deliberately broaden conservatism to encompass government-forced purchase of health insurance or raising taxes or appointing liberal judges or enforcing same-sex marriage or using taxpayer money to bail out business or pushing trade barriers, we destroy conservatism from within. If we do that, why would our politicians even bother to pay lip service to the standard?
They wouldn't. And we'd end up with ever more liberal nominees. Which is precisely what has happened since the halcyon days of Reagan.
Standards matter. If you want to support Mitt Romney, that's your prerogative. But don't sell out conservative principles in the process.
Hah! Yeah, Cain has always done something or another that kept him away from home a lot.
And I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t as warm around the old home fires as it used to be.
Mrs. Cain may have bought the bus with her savings.
A childish principle, taken to extremes. There will never be a totally good candidate so voting for some "evil" is inevitable. The appropriate guide is to vote for the best candidate available.
Well, when the choice is between somone who would destroy us intentionally, or someone who would destroy us unintentionally, as McCain would have done, as Romney is most likely to do, then we need a third choice - hoard gold, weapons, and nonperishable necessities.
Totally agree, not only is the dealing in reality, it’s the moral way to deal with human beings.
Do you really believe Romney is the same or worse as Obama? The only other option is to stay home and not vote.* If conservatives do that then still guarantees an Obama win.
*I live in NJ so my vote doesn’t count anyway!
I, too, refuse to vote for Romney. He loves government, and flip flops back and forth on issues.
He has no real conviction but one: He is convinced he should be president. All other positions are subject to modification for political gain.
I don’t know if you are listening to Rush, but he just said that he thinks the GOP establishment is convinced that they cannot beat Obama, and are supporting Romney because they think he’ll be the best campaigner for the downticket races.
There is no “more conservative” when you’re comparing socialists. Regardless of their individual shade of gray, they still stand against individual liberty. Isn’t that enough?
The disease of socialism is what’s killing America, not a deficiency of Republicans. George Dubya squandered his majorities. Crybaby Boehner can be tossed about like a tumbleweed by a gentle political breeze. Electing Willard Romney the open socialist would convince the GOP squishes to do even less, and they’d take the blame when everything inevitably collapsed.
Big-government Democrats and Republicans have been driving America toward a cliff for years. The difference now is that we’re about to run out of road.
If you pull the Republican lever without thinking, you’re letting the GOP establishment use you as their tool. They don’t deserve that. Only God deserves your unquestioning loyalty; with everyone else, trust, but keep your wits about you.
If Romney gets nominated, give your time and money to worthy candidates in the House and (especially) Senate who can fight whichever socialist wins.
I’m sure as hell not going to allow the Democrats to use me as a tool.
I completely agree but what does this have to do with choosing a president?
If you're Ann Coulter 90% of the time you're arguing that you are the true conservative. That's your go-to argument, so it's the one that you'll use even if it doesn't entirely apply in a particular case.
You could say something similar for George Will. That's the argument he started out with, and it's what he'll go with when he's in doubt. Being highly-skilled wordsmiths, they don't have much trouble convincing themselves that they're right.
2008 also has something to do with it. For a lot of pundits that time around, Romney was the conservative alternative to McCain. Having made that committment then, they aren't going to undo it now. Judging by appearances pundits who've already made up their minds aren't likely to change their minds about Romney -- or Gingrich.
Also, the lesson of the Bush years is that nobody's a purist. Nobody electable is going to be the kind of purist that the tea party wants. If you swallowed "compassionate conservatism" you might not strain at Romney. If you didn't, you might feel that you have license to make a similar choice this time.
So am I supposed to ask you who I can vote for? I see no connection between who I vote for and if I will be going to Heaven. However, I do believe that because I am a child of God and a believer in Jesus, I want to please HIM and I think Jesus would never want me to do anything to help Obama or a Dempcrat.
Ben Shapiro laying down some science.
I never said you had to ask me who to vote for, and I’m not saying that you’re going to hell if you vote a certain way. It was a poor choice of words; all I’m trying to say is that the GOP establishment least of all deserves the unconditional loyalty you’re giving them.
Everybody has to compromise sometimes. I learned that as soon as I was old enough to vote because I grew up in a blue area of a blue city located in a blue state. But compromise only goes so far before it becomes caving.
If your principles play absolutely no role in deciding whether to support a candidate, that’s a mistake. That is the exact same thought process that John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and the other squishes use in deciding whether to support legislation.
Support Romney if you want. Just remember that Bush squandered his majorities, and Romney is far more liberal than he ever was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.