Political Animal
Blog
Nicholas Kristof presents an argument today that I’ve heard before, but which I struggle to understand. As the NYT columnist sees it, Mitt Romney was a “moderate and pragmatic governor,” who, his metamorphoses notwithstanding, may flip “back to his old self” in 2013.
The reassuring thing about Mitt Romney is that for most of his life he probably wouldn’t have voted for today’s Mitt Romney. […]
If we do see, as I expect we will, a reversion in the direction of the Massachusetts Romney, that’s a flip we should celebrate. Until the Republican primaries sucked him into its vortex, he was a pragmatist and policy wonk rather similar to Bill Clinton and President Obama but more conservative. (Clinton described Romney to me as having done “a very good job” in Massachusetts.) Romney was much closer to George H.W. Bush than to George W. Bush.
Kristof says we should “expect” this current version of Romney to revert back to a previous version. I think this is wildly misguided.
The premise here is that the Romney we see running for president is a ridiculous phony. Sure, he’s saying reckless right-wing things, he’s making irresponsible right-wing promises, and he’s completely rejected any sensible positions he once held, but it’s just an act to get elected. Voters should simply pay no attention to what Romney is saying, doing, proposing, and promising, since none this is sincere anyway.
This isn’t a criticism levied by Romney’s detractors; this is a defense offered by Romney’s tacit supporters.
It’s also incoherent.
To accept the premise of the argument, a voter would have to believe that every word out of Romney’s mouth for the last five years — about his policy agenda, worldview, and priorities — has been a deliberate scam. As part of an elaborate scheme to mislead the American public, Romney has chosen to become a closeted moderate. The lie will end and the centrist will reemerge just as soon as the electorate has put the presidency in his hands.
What those making this argument are actually proposing is an incredible gamble with the nation’s future. Sure, Romney says he’ll take a far-right approach to everything from the economy to entitlements, foreign policy to the judiciary, but perhaps we’re witnessing a half-decade-long ruse and everything will turn out fine.
That’s quite a risk with so much on the line.
Let me give Jonathan Bernstein’s piece in the new print issue another plug. The point of the article is important: what candidates say they’ll do is generally what they will do if elected.
Someone might want to send a copy to Nicholas Kristof.
Facebook
Twitter
Barry Ruddell on January 05, 2012 2:02 PM:
Although one has to admit that George W. Bush campaigned as a moderate and governed like a rabid right-wing weasel. With notable exceptions, e.g., Medicare drug coverage, which was tainted by right-wing elements but basically was not an element of the right-wing agenda.
This just leads me to conclude that Romney shouldn't be trusted no matter how he campaigns.
Sgt. Gym Bunn on January 05, 2012 2:03 PM:
Kristof says we should “expect” this current version of Romney to revert back to a previous version.
Yeah, just ignore what Mitt-bot is saying right now. You're ownly witnessing a minor sales transaction with the devil, and how bad can THAT be!?!
slappy magoo on January 05, 2012 2:06 PM:
Baby, I only act like an a-hole so you'll fall in love with me. I'm a good guy deep down, you know that.
When did we become a nation of battered girlfriends?
June on January 05, 2012 2:08 PM:
Kristof does some amazing work on, for instance, exposing human rights abuses that are rife in underdeveloped countries, but his obdurate naivete is something that continues to astound me. How does he hold on to his unrelenting sense of innocence? I can't quite make up my mind whether that's a good or a bad thing, but I do know that when one still gives Mitt Romney, who has proven himself to be operating in bad faith time and again, the benefit of the doubt, that's not a good thing.
Mike on January 05, 2012 2:08 PM:
There is a chance that, if elected, Romney might (and I mean might) become more moderate if he is elected to a second term.
It seems to me likely that Romney would govern in the way he is currently campaigning thru a first term, and that he would basically spend his first term working to get re-elected.
God help us all.
MattF on January 05, 2012 2:09 PM:
'Romney will say anything in order to be elected, and so therefore should be trusted to govern as a moderate.' Can we play 'What's wrong with this logic?'
Trollhattan on January 05, 2012 2:12 PM:
"Romney" and "wonk" cannot be allowed anywhere near one another. Wonk implies an intellectual curiosity and ability to grasp broad themes that Romney has never placed on display, although I'm sure his Patriotic boys will have plenty of anecdotes of dad helping with their philosophy homework.
c u n d gulag on January 05, 2012 2:13 PM:
Mitt will be WORSE than you can imagine!
Why?
He'll want to be reelected, so he'll double-down on the crazy.
And as soon as he's sworn in, he'll have to go to work to eliminate any memories of the Moderate Mitt who ran in MA, and who was once pro-choice, by going ape-sh*t.
And if the Conservative crazies keep the House and regain the Senate, does Kristof really think Mitt will work to rein them in?
Is he 'nucking fut's?
No, every succeeding Republican Administration will be worse than the preceding ones.
Nixon was far worse than Ike.
Reagan/Bush, with Iran-Contra, which was actually worse than Watergate, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise, were worse.
And Little Boots was worse still.
And what, is Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt suddenly going to come back to life to lead that party?
Mitt will be WORSE!
Paul will be WORSE!
or, whoever the Republican who wins in 2012, will be worse than W!
And if they don't, then wait until 2016, when the 'Young Gun' Crazies start their potential Reigns of Error/Terror.
Or 2020.
Or 2024.
Until the return to some semblance of sanity, anyone, if elected, will be worse than the last one.
And that, I will GUARANTEE!!!!!!!!!!!
ManOutOfTime on January 05, 2012 2:14 PM:
Ironically, I do share Mr. Kristof's hope that Willard will flip-flop-flip back to a moderate tack -- so that swing voters will have no reason to switch, and the Tea-Bagger-Evangelical axis will have no reason to show up. I was so mad when I saw his plug for the article on Facebook ...
http://www.facebook.com/kristof
... I had to write a DK diary to get it out of my system, something I rarely have the attention span to do.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/05/1051729/-Tell-Mr-Kristof-you-dont-share-his-Romney-wet-dreams-
Holmes on January 05, 2012 2:14 PM:
Setting aside the Kristof's premise for a second, why does quoting Clinton give that opinion any credibility? We don't need Clinton to know Romney didn't do 'a very good job' as governor. In fact, it was a disaster. He was literally loathed just a couple of years into his term, and that never changed. He left office with an approval rating in the mid 30's.
Stumpy on January 05, 2012 2:16 PM:
Any (every?) Republican candidate has to appeal to the base in primary season and appeal to independents in the general election, so to some extent, the same thing could be said of any serious candidate: rabid conservative now, moderate later. But if Mr. Romney is thinking beyond 2012, then he can't alienate the base once he gets into office by being TOO moderate. Take President Obama for example: he ran the risk of alienating the base his first couple of years by being too "bipartisan,", and now that the General Election is upcoming, he's taking a firmer line and trying to rally his base. At the same time, he's taking advantage of Republican intransigence to appeal to the at-large voter, something Romney would have a hard time doing, since there are always Democrats in congress who don't mind appealing to local voters by taking a conservative stand now and then. Why would Kristof think his observation is anything unusual, or that Romney's tendency to be driven by polls rather than principle is just a veneer over a moderate core?
Robert on January 05, 2012 2:18 PM:
Bull Shit Nick! This one is the REAL Romney, released from the need to pretend he is a Pragmatic/moderate/conservative whatever because he is no longer beholden to the Massachusetts electorate. He HAS come out of the closet and he is a right wing nut trying very hard, just like 'Little Boots' did, that he ain't a sniveling 'moderate' like his daddy.
chi res on January 05, 2012 2:20 PM:
When did we become a nation of battered girlfriends?
Only about Half a Nation, and right about January 2001.
craptcha: eternal?" iniorign
God, I hope it's not "eternal".
SYSPROG on January 05, 2012 2:33 PM:
Are you KIDDING me? Altho Romney WAS a moderate he is a liar, a suck ass and a wannabe. NO F'ing WAY would he 'flip back'. After the last 3 years of OBAMA LIED TO US IN HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES do you HONESTLY think the right would even ALLOW it? I'm really sick of these 'what if' theories. Romney will screw this country every which way from Tuesday. You can take THAT to the bank!
Ed Drain on January 05, 2012 2:35 PM:
In Kristof's defense, Clinton campaigned as a conserative, and governed liberal to moderate. Politician's saying one thing and doing another is as old as time.
Anonymous on January 05, 2012 2:38 PM:
Isn't this just another version of the old garbage about there being no real difference between republicans and democrats that the republicans trot out every election? Except this time it's gone meta -- Instead of giving at least lip service to "centrist" ideas, it's apparently enough to claim that you would give them lip service if only your handlers would let you.
Another Steve on January 05, 2012 2:45 PM:
Oh, for fucks sake! This is exactly the same pernicious nonsense we heard from the MSM punditocracy in 2000 about George W. Bush. Exactly the same, and it played a major role in convincing the clueless 5% who pay no attention to politics until the week before the election who decide all elections in this country to vote for him.
Bush, we were assured, was a moderate Republican governor, so clearly, all this extreme right wing stuff he's spouting is all just a front for the unwashed goobers in the GOP base and there's no reason to vote for that icky Gore fellow.
And then, after election day after 2004, so help me God, as dogs returneth to their vomit, they went right back to it for weeks and weeks and weeks. I vividly recall reading a column by Jon Alter in Newsweek assuring me it would be so before the post-election nausea had worn off. Yep, every reason to be he'll be far more moderate in his second term.
Took the image of him leaving the dude ranch on Air Force One to sign that abominable Schiavo law to finally shake them out of it.
That Kristof, of all people, said this is just staggering.
DAY on January 05, 2012 2:50 PM:
Mitt's as phony as his laugh.
FlipYrWhig on January 05, 2012 2:50 PM:
Um, Mr. Kristof? What if Mitt The Massachusetts Moderate was itself an act?
Rick B on January 05, 2012 2:51 PM:
There is no possible situation in which a person would campaign for years presenting the issues and arguments he needs to attract the groups who will elect him, then take office and switch to different policies from those that got him elected. He would instantly become a powerless President unable to accomplish anything, and would certainly be destined to be a single term President.
Willard Mitt Romney has spent years remaking himself into a person who could attract enough Republican votes to be elected President. To suggest that the process of remaking his own personality and appearance is so ephemeral as to be something that could be discarded upon taking office is worse than naive. It is bad fantasy of the type that someone searching for a con man to fleece him might display.
Anyone who believes Kristoff's argument simply fails to understand politics and the nature of power.
Go back and reread c u n d gulag at 2:13 PM. He describes the trend in the Republican Party quite well.
Tyler Woods on January 05, 2012 2:55 PM:
Every candidate for President aligns himself (or attempts to) closer to his party's base in the primary and then becomes more moderate in the general election. This is not a revelation, and it is almost certain to happen to any candidate, especially Romney. If you don't think that's going to happen, then stop writing about politics Mr. Benen and start reading about it.
In regards to Romney's character, I think you may have nailed it in your derision:
"every word out of Romney�s mouth for the last five years � about his policy agenda, worldview, and priorities � has been a deliberate scam. As part of an elaborate scheme to mislead the American public, Romney has chosen to become a closeted moderate."
This sounds about right to me. He has been campaigning for the nomination since 2007.
Rabbler on January 05, 2012 3:37 PM:
ANY president actually elected in 2012 will be worse than Obama-1 because of the system. Any will be better than Dubya, of course. Ultimately, the system now in place can not be beaten from within. Just sayin...
fignaz on January 05, 2012 3:52 PM:
Let's indulge in a little thought experiment here & give Kristof the benefit of the doubt. Romney goes moderate once elected. So what? Will that metamorphosis magically transform the Republicans in the House & Senate into rational, constructive legislators willing to address the challenges facing us based on facts & what's best for the country as a whole as opposed to a blinkered, inflexible ideology shared by a vocal & aging minority? I think not. They will hold his feet to the fire as long as they hold power or can continue to manipulate & abuse procedure to compensate for the power they lack. The only outcome which could make a moderate Romney plausible or even possible would be Democrats taking both the House & Senate with hefty majorities.
N.Wells on January 05, 2012 3:53 PM:
Romney is a wealthy vulture capitalist who will say anything to get elected, and who is utterly beholden to rabid tea-party extremism.
What guarantee do we have that he does not want to apply his asset-stripping skills to completing the Republican pillage of the American economy?
windshouter on January 05, 2012 3:53 PM:
If Mr. Kristof believes this about Mr. Romney, then it is best for the country if Mr Romney loses (badly), even if somehow you think he'd be better than the President. The country is not going to be governable if the Republican party moves toward untenable rhetoric, gets pandered to by it's leaders and then betrayed by the same leaders once in office. Democracy is going to work much better if the Republican base sees their ideas fail electorally or in actual practice because that's the only way adjustments get made.
sick-n-effn-tired. on January 05, 2012 4:28 PM:
@ Robert - I think you nailed it . Think of what Scott Brown is doing now that Elizabeth Warren is challenging him . Oh look he's becoming a moderate , what a surprise.
Dan Burke on January 05, 2012 4:48 PM:
Just the opposite of Barack Obama, who has been consistently saying and doing the things he has said and done for years. And yet many of his detractors claim he is a radical, socialist, ideological appeaser rather than the moderate, capitalist, pragmatic leader he has always claimed to be.
toowearyforoutrage on January 08, 2012 1:00 PM:
That's great! I can vote for Romeny because he'll govern an awful lot like Obama does now!
I'm so happy! I can vote for a guy who MIGHT govern moderately, or a guy who HAS governed moderately.
Wait...
Um, isn't it kind of stupid to vote for a guy who promises to run things the way an experienced president already HAS?
Obama in the hand is worth two Romneys in the Bush.