Romneyesque
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
“Romneyesque,” as an epithet, conveys a willingness to abandon one’s core convictions — in Romney’s case, temperance and modesty on social issues — in order to pander. ~Mark Ambinder
This may be how many people use it, but what it really conveys is not so much a willingness to abandon core convictions as it is the daily reminder in deeds and words that the person has no real, permanent core convictions at all. What separates Romney from most pandering pols is the man’s gall. Specifically, it was the sheer gall of Romney’s sudden and complete transformation from being more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy to claiming that he was a devoted pro-lifer. In a matter of a few years, Romney went from telling us how deeply, personally affected he was by the death of a close relative who died in a botched abortion, which was why he would always and forever support legal abortion, to adopting as close to the opposite position as he possibly could. The only thing that really changed was that he wanted to be elected to the Senate and then as governor in Massachusetts when he told the first story, and then he started setting his sights higher and had to abandon that story.
Romneyites have never tired of arguing that people change their minds, and this is true, but how is it that Romney lived his entire life right up until he began preliminary organizing for the 2008 Republican primaries as a dedicated pro-choice Republican and only then, in 2005, had a revelation that all life is sacred and should be protected by law? I suppose there is a cynical answer that it doesn’t matter if the change was completely opportunistic so long as he sticks to his new position. But there is something that makes Romney less trustworthy than most, and this is the earnestness with which he embraces his new positions, as if he thinks he has outsmarted his audience and made us forget that he believed the opposite just five seconds before. Romney is probably the only politician who could make me have respect for Rudy Giuliani by comparison. Giuliani at least believes what he believes and isn’t interested in changing that for a few votes.
In fact, Ambinder is far too kind to Romney. Perhaps he doesn’t recall all of the shape-shifting changes our protean candidate made, but Romney “reinvented” himself on many more things than just the hot-button social issues, and the changes were substantive and not merely superficial shifts in “tone.” McCain had great fun with this from time to time, calling him the “candidate of change” and joking about Romney shooting at Guatemalans on his lawn. This pointed to the absurdity of Romney’s boast of being a “lifetime member of the NRA” despite having used a gun perhaps twice in his life, once to shoot at “varmints” on his property, and despite being a strong supporter for gun control in the ’90s. It also reminded the audience that Romney, who at that point was posing as a more-restrictionist-than-thou anti-immigration candidate, had previously endorsed amnesty and had employed illegal immigrants on his property.
Romney had begun his career far to the left of McCain, and campaigned against McCain by painting him as the unacceptable squish. Romney had raised fees as governor, but then portrayed himself as the most zealous tax-cutter you had ever met. He had signed universal health care in Massachusetts, but then he turned into an anti-government crusader. In the ’90s he wanted nothing to do with Reagan or his legacy, because these were radioactive in Massachusetts, and then suddenly every third word out of his mouth was Reagan’s name. If he didn’t change some positions, that was because he did not need to. He remained a staunch free trader, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he became a protectionist overnight if he thought it would help him win some elections.
Most of Ambinder’s post is actually a discussion of Pawlenty and the danger that he is becoming like Romney. The truth is that Pawlenty isn’t slick or charismatic enough to pull off Romney’s multiple metamorphoses.
Filed under: politics
You hit the nail on the head about Pawlenty, which underscores the scary part about Romney – he could pull this off.
This otherwise nice piece does not spell the obvious problem here: when someone completely lacks any internal core of principles, he is eager to assume the most repugnant positions. Even ones that go against not only the principles of American Democracy, but against the traditions of Western Civilization at large: http://bit.ly/qFSrq
Au contraire mon frere, Pawlenty is slick and charismatic enough to pull off at least one metamorphose. And that’s all he needs, because he doesn’t have any strong positions as public baggage like Romney had. He’s Zeligesque.
Mr. Dimitrov -
It might well be that “doubling Guantamo” (by which I assume you mean to refer to torture, rather than e.g. indefinite and substantially arbitrary imprisonment) goes against the “traditions” of Western Civilization – it certainly goes against the stated principles of said civilization, but ignoring stated principles is quite traditional in Western Civilization (as well as, I think we may agree, any other civilization that has ever existed which has stated principles available to ignore).
Unfortunately, I cannot think of any principles of American Democracy that the ever flexible Mr. Romney has violated. On the contrary, he has done his best to live up to the highest historical standards of pandering to his perception of the electorate (in the instant case, the electorate being GOP caucus goers and primary voters).
“Romney went from telling us how deeply, personally affected he was by the death of a close relative who died in a botched abortion, which was why he would always and forever support legal abortion, to adopting as close to the opposite position as he possibly could.”
Romney’s story about what actually “turned him pro-life” really is amazing. He claims that a discussion of stem cell research with a local expert about a year before he ran for president suddenly made him turn to an aide and state that he just realized he was really pro-life.
What a pathetic human being.
“Giuliani at least believes what he believes and isn’t interested in changing that for a few votes.”
this is entirely untrue. i give you Rudy Guliani being interviewed by Charlie Rose stating that he believes that the NRA is wrong on gun control:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV1HuPofNws
and here he is in the 2008 republican primaries speaking to the NRA in support of their interpretations of the 2nd amendment and their philosophies behind gun control:
http://cnettv.cnet.com/giuliani-talks-nra/9742-1_53-50052348.html
giuliani is just as shameless as Romney.
It’s silly to think that any successful politician has any serious core beliefs. The goal of a politician is to get elected. Part of getting elected is saying whatever it is you need to say to get elected. The best you can hope for is that those who do get elected, carry out, to some extent, whatever agenda it is that you support. To think that any successful politican is in the political business for anything other than getting elected and reelected is dangerously naive. Of course there are plenty of aspiring politicians out there who cling to core beliefs but they don’t get elected to anything because they fail to grasp that politics is a business like any other.
I assume most successful politicians don’t have serious core beliefs. They wouldn’t have made it very far in mass democratic politics if they did. The ones that flaunt their dishonesty and unprincipled nature are the ones I cannot stand, and Romney is one of the worst.
Wait a minute. First, having serious core beliefs isn’t a goal in and of itself. The belief is obviously more important.
Second, if by successful politician, you mean serious contenders for the Presidency, then fine, they’re all shape-shifters, including Obama. But for one person to represent 300 million, don’t they have to be able to wriggle around every issue? Do you really want a true believer in that office? (See Bush 43)
Third, go down the chain of power and you’ll find more and more people who are dedicated to serving the public, not themselves. Politician is not a universally negative descriptor. There is plenty of good done by them.
Whoops, it appears TPaw did have some actual positions to run from.
Not to belabor the point but it has been my experience that regardless of how low you go down the political food chain the number one goal of virtually each and every elected official is self-preservation, i.e., reelection. Whether it’s a U.S. senator at the top of the food chain or a member of the lower house of the state legislature, it’s all about getting reelected and continuing to get called the honorable this or that, and getting a fawning staff, and all the other perks we bestow on our elected officials. I honestly believe that term limits would go a long way towards addressing this love of the perks of office over doing what is right. However, none of the controlling interests, i.e., the politicians, big business, the unions, etc., have any interest in pushing for this since the last thing they want is a change in the status quo. Business, the unions, the trial lawyers, etc., don’t mind the politicial class getting its piece so long as they get what they want. The rest of us? We don’t matter.
Belabor away! When is the last time you talked to a state rep, city councilperson or member of a school board? Most are very part-time work. And they certainly are not glamorous positions. Thankless is more apt.
Actually, I speak to these people on a daily basis. However, I will grant you that perhaps my perspective is skewed because I live in New York where state representatives, both lower and upper house, make a base salary of almost $100K a year, which is typically supplemented by a “leadership stipend” that gets most of them well over the $100K mark. In addition, they get a daily per diem, when they are in session, of $150 a day cash to do with what they please. Staffs for the upper house usually total about 10-15 persons and the lower house 5-10. The same is mostly true for the New York City Council. And oh yes, these are all officially part time jobs so many of the legislators take on additional employment where they get to use their positions in government to earn additional compensation. Few enter office as multi-millionaires but most leave that way. School board members are all looking to get involved in the political system to get on this gravy train some day.
That is skewed! MN state reps and senators make $31,000. They get a per diem, but are only in session 120 days out of the two year term.
Two points of contention, how do most state reps leave office multi-millionaires with $100k a year? Certainly you can’t make a couple of million dollars in outside income without attracting attention. Find out how many school board members there are per state rep. I’m guessing it is around 15-20. They all can’t think they will be state reps. Throw out NYC in all this. Certainly an outlier!