February 1, 2008
Romney as Tactician/Manager
My biggest complaint about Governor Romney has been that he sells himself as a manager and a tactician. He does not talk about core beliefs -- he talks about competence.
The Wall Street Journal lead editorial says it far better than I do. To be fair, I think I stole the thought from Kim Strassel to begin with. President Reagan had strong principles that he could rely on to make difficult decisions. President George Herbert Walker Bush was a tactician/manager. When the data said he must raise taxes, he did. I think President Bush pere was one of the finest human beings to occupy the office, and I've little doubt that Governor Romney is decent and honest and patriotic as well. But I don't see core beliefs. And neither does the WSJ Ed Page.
Washington's problem isn't a lack of data, or a failure to calibrate the incentives as in the business world. Congress and the multiple layers of government respond exactly as you'd expect given the incentives for self-preservation and turf protection that always exist in political institutions. The only way to overcome them is with leadership on behalf of good ideas backed by public support. The fact that someone as bright as Mr. Romney doesn't recognize this Beltway reality risks a Presidency that would get rolled quicker than you can say Jimmy Carter.GOP2008 Primary Posted by John Kranz at February 1, 2008 1:56 PMAll the more so because we haven't been able to discern from his campaign, or his record in Massachusetts, what his core political principles are. Mr. Romney spent his life as a moderate Republican, and he governed the Bay State that way after his election in 2002. While running this year, however, he has reinvented himself as a conservative from radio talk show-casting, especially on immigration.
The problem is not that Mr. Romney is willing to reconsider his former thinking. Nor is it so much that his apparent convictions always seem in sync with the audience to which he is speaking at the moment. (Think $20 billion in corporate welfare for Michigan auto makers.) Plenty of politicians attune their positions to new constituencies. The larger danger is that Mr. Romney's conversions are not motivated by expediency or mere pandering but may represent his real governing philosophy.
The code word of free trade amounts to the code for vulture capitalism that Republicans prefer to fuel Wall Street corporate profit making that ignores fair trade as its source.
The election turned "economic" suddenly to emphasize this need and the fear that Republicans were gravitating toward Huckabee which did not satisfy Wall Street because of his ethics, and stance as a moderate.
Vulture capitalism was never meant to be a right of Americans, and is inconsistent with the philosophy of equal opportunity that fair trade represents. The stimulus was merely a well timed political tactic of Bush to focus Republicans upon the economy not the ethics of the election in order to favor Republicans, and continue to fuel the special interest advantage of the Republican machine.
It worked so well that Huckabee dropped to 3rd place, and Romney succeeded to 2nd place.
But is anyone really fooled?
Posted by: Pat at February 1, 2008 3:35 PMYes, Pat. I was completely fooled.
In Governor Huckabee's world, no doubt we'd have to look up our "right" to capitalism to see if it had been granted. Thankfully the right to trade seems to have made the jump from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution, with the Federal Government proscribed from regulating all but interstate commerce.
I appreciate the comment, Pat, but we are pretty fond of Capitalism 'round here.
Posted by: jk at February 1, 2008 4:11 PM | What do you think? [2]