Romey's Opportunism

I've been aware of the buzz around Mitt Romney's very late in life conversion to cultural conservatism, but it seemed to me that either nobody noticed how recently this had happened or else that I'd completely lost my mind. I'll tell you that, for example, I lived in Massachusetts in 2002 and very clearly remember his campaign strongly emphasizing his pro-choice views. Then I left the state in the spring of 2003, and a bit more than a year later there was suddenly talk of him running for president. At any rate, you won't frequently see me recommending Weekly Standard articles, but Jennifer Rubin has a nice piece running through all of this. Look, for example, at the Planned Parenthood question sheet he filled out in 2002:

Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES

Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES

In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill." Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES

As you can see in the Medicaid answer, he wasn't even a moderate on the issue -- Romney was taking a strong, strong pro-choice stance. Maybe pro-lifers just enjoy being lied to, but I think it's got to be obvious at this point that you can't trust anything Romney says on the subject of what he thinks about political issues. It doesn't seem like a quality you'd want in a presidential nominee.

Comments

the occasional typo in your text is no big deal, matthew, but it's hard to believe that in your heart of hearts, you want to name this piece "romey's opportunism" and not "romney's!"

more seriously, i wonder why it is that politicians haven't yet grasped that in the internet era, completely remaking yourself while pretending you aren't just isn't going to work....

Posted by howard | January 28, 2007 11:34 PM

This kind of complete Extreme Makeover: Politico Edition treatment might work in a state where basically nobody can read, but Massachusetts?

Posted by dj moonbat | January 28, 2007 11:37 PM

Maybe pro-lifers just enjoy being lied to, but I think it's got to be obvious at this point that you can't trust anything Romney says on the subject of what he thinks about political issues.

Or he could be telling the truth: he was pro-choice until the actual responsibilities of being Governor of Massachusetts brought him closer to social issues on a number of occasions (stem cells and gay marriage in particular) and he decided the conservative position had more merit.

He certainly wouldn't be the first pro-choice politician to have a reversal of philosophy during his political career. While it may seem opportunist now that he's running for President, it was the opposite of opportunist while he was governor and basically forced him to leave office after one term.

Posted by right | January 28, 2007 11:38 PM

In what way are governors "close" to social issues such as abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage in ways that non-governor political scions are not?

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | January 28, 2007 11:54 PM

Or he could be telling the truth: he was pro-choice until the actual responsibilities of being Governor of Massachusetts brought him closer to social issues on a number of occasions (stem cells and gay marriage in particular) and he decided the conservative position had more merit.

Surely if that were the case he would have a much more compelling story of his conversion (or at least have been upfront about such a conversion taking place), like Brownback does.

Like Veenstra, I fail to see how being governor teaches you anything about microbiology or gay relationships.

While it may seem opportunist now that he's running for President, it was the opposite of opportunist while he was governor and basically forced him to leave office after one term.

Given that he was widely speculated to be after the Presidency back when he was governor, there was never any "opposite of opportunist" stage.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 29, 2007 12:05 AM

Despite his money and organization, Romney will fade quickly, as he has no natural constituency in the GOP. The Southern base will NEVER, EVER support his candidacy, especially with Brownback and now Huckabee in the race.

Posted by brklynlibrul | January 29, 2007 12:08 AM

A Massachusetts flip-flopper. Where have we seen THAT before?

Romney should just go all the way and say "Abortion - I was for it before I was against it". Who knows, he may even be able to get 252 electoral votes with that.

Posted by Al | January 29, 2007 12:13 AM

I think people are counting too much on Southern intransigence. After all, Dole was nominated. Other than Giuliani and Romney, nobody much scares me. But then, in 1999, Bush didn't much scare me.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 29, 2007 12:22 AM

After all, Dole was nominated.

???

Posted by Al | January 29, 2007 12:30 AM

Or he could be telling the truth: he was pro-choice until the actual responsibilities of being Governor of Massachusetts brought him closer to social issues on a number of occasions (stem cells and gay marriage in particular) and he decided the conservative position had more merit.

Just out of curiosity, how many bridges do you actually own?

Posted by Antid Oto | January 29, 2007 12:32 AM

Just out of curiosity, how many bridges do you actually own?

In fairness, he does have to get his cars over an awful lot of Florida swampland.

I was also amused to see Al recycling the "before/against" crap. Yep, John Kerry supported one appropriations bill and not the other one, just like George W. Bush. Boy, that Bush is one unprincipled Texas flip-flopper! Why I beat he secretly windsurfs!

Posted by Scott Lemieux | January 29, 2007 1:14 AM

He certainly wouldn't be the first pro-choice politician to have a reversal of philosophy during his political career.

No reason for liberals to be snotty about this. It's totally possible (and logical) that he might have changed his mind. It's also terribly convenient for him to have done. But it's not all so simple. Mitt might have a problem because he's the Norm Coleman of the pres. race, but that doesn't translate into an insult to the whole movement. Of course he's a hypocrite. But hypocracy fairly defines the 'conservative' movement nowadays. Mitt is relatively honest and sincere, IMO. Let him lose in a fair way, He's the Charles Lindburgh of the decrepit 'conservative' movement. He's not an asshole in a personal way, just in a public sense.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 29, 2007 1:48 AM

Hey, if MY can change his mind on the war why can't Romney change his mind on abortion?

Posted by James B. Shearer | January 29, 2007 2:46 AM

I wouldn't expect all "the movement" to vote for Romney in the primaries, after all there are better candidates for them (and many of them aren't completely fond of Mormons either.) But, there is no meaningful "pro-choice faction" in the Republican primary voting population. As a result, Romney possibly is taking the only politically sensible route. If he didn't reverse his stance, he would have no chance at all in the primary.

As for "late life conversions," it is certainly possible, but I'd agree with those who would expect more publicity of the "conversion angle" if that was the case. After all, it seems that the "repenting sinner" meme works quite well overall.

Finally, it's clear that "the movement" is in a bit of a bind. It's hard to see ever that things could have been much better in power terms than they were over the last few years, both houses and the president. Many of those in the top echelons of Congress were avowedly anti-abortion and you had a President who was "born again" and people like Ashcroft running prayer sesssions.

And where was the big bang legislation on abortion? Even the Supreme Court nominations were cautious compared to the power assymmetry. You have to wonder what all that adds up to.

Posted by Meh | January 29, 2007 5:05 AM

A "strong, pro-choice position" IS moderate . . .

Posted by rea | January 29, 2007 6:44 AM

"I think it's got to be obvious at this point that you can't trust anything Romney says on the subject of what he thinks about political issues. It doesn't seem like a quality you'd want in a presidential nominee."

I know that on the one hand everyone sort of knows this, but on the other, people still want to believe that politicians take their political views from personal beliefs and from arguing with colleagues and so on, just as we do ourselves, but to repeat: all politicans in the US who are and wish to remain successful are empty vessels for the interest groups in the constituencies they represent, at least as far as the main twenty issue is US politics goes. So when they shift their constituency, going from local to national, or as their constituencies themselves change socially, they lose their previous consistency. Al Gore started off pro-tobacco and anti-abortion and ended by anti-tobacco and pro-abortion as his constituency changed, and you can find similar examples again and again and again. It's not consistent personal beliefs which get you far in US politics, it's, well, the willingness to be indifferent to, and act as an empty vessel for, the promotion of policies by a changing cast of interest groups.

Posted by otto | January 29, 2007 6:49 AM

Did you catch the first episode of Romey Season 2?

Posted by otto | January 29, 2007 6:51 AM

No, I think Matt may be referring to "Romey and Michelle's High School Reunion," in which the former Massachusetts governor and his BFF Michelle attend their high school reunion, and Mitt makes up a bunch of implausible, but politically expedient, stories regarding his views since high school on abortion, gay marriage, and other controversial social issues. It's quite a hoot.

Posted by pilgrim | January 29, 2007 8:01 AM

Why are you surprised? Gore started out as a conservative leaning southern Democrat, and moved over to the pro-choice side when he started being serious about presidential politics. Both parties have their sacred cows, and contenders for the nomination have to bow before them.

Posted by James Robertson | January 29, 2007 8:22 AM

Finally, it's clear that "the movement" is in a bit of a bind. It's hard to see ever that things could have been much better in power terms than they were over the last few years, both houses and the president.

Right. And the Supreme Court was nudged -- possibly to within a single vote -- of being willing to reverse itself on Roe.

Pro-life voters aren't the stupid rubes they're often made out to be. They realize the big dance on abortion is wholly a matter of Supreme Court composition. Romney's done what he needed to do to get himself a hearing from this crowd.

Posted by Jasper | January 29, 2007 9:07 AM

I've never understood the conservative boomlet for Romney. It's obvious he's a whore who will say anything to get elected, and this will destroy him. I'm surprised he's lasted this long.

The really weird thing is the conservative embrace of Romney, who's a poser, while they reject McCain, who is much more of the real thing.

Posted by Dave | January 29, 2007 10:00 AM

The really weird thing is the conservative embrace of Romney, who's a poser, while they reject McCain, who is much more of the real thing.

Well, for one thing, the "conservative embrace" of Romney is not widespread, since many social conservatives belong to Protestant sects that consider Mormonism a Satanic cult.

And for another:

"I've never understood the conservative boomlet for McCain. It's obvious he's a whore who will say anything to get elected, and this will destroy him. I'm surprised he's lasted this long."

See, holding genuinely conservative views on many issues does not preclude being a stinking hypocrite or prostituting oneself, as Senator McCain has been amply demonstrating.

Posted by mds | January 29, 2007 10:09 AM

Those of us who don't like McCain don't like him for the same reason that we dislike Meehan, Shays, and Feingold - the four of them have no regard for the First Amendment, and thus, are unworthy of support. In a better world, liberals would share the same view on this issue, and the assault on free speech that is McCain-Feingold would be held in contempt across the spectrum. I have no interest in banning exotic dancing, but it's a very strange situation when exotic dancing is protected speech, but buying an ad that mentions a candidate by name isn't.

Posted by James Robertson | January 29, 2007 10:11 AM

It's good that someone mentioned the Supreme Court, because Mitt Romney reminds me, in terms of pro-life political reaction, of Harriet Miers. With both candidates, you had prominent social cons winking and nudging to their followers to signal that he or she was one of 'them'.

The movement didn't buy it in Miers case, and I haven't seen any poll suggesting they're buying it in Romney's case. Although front-runner McCain may have pissed off some of the pro-life opinion makers, that seems like more of a personal than ideological thing, and it's not clear to me that the pro-lifers are good at taking orders. Refusing to take orders served them well in the Miers debacle, sticking the rest of us with Alito.

And the notion that Romney served the cause by being a stealth conservative in MA seems dubious, as anything he accomplished for social cons can be easily undone by future MA governments.

I kind of wish Romney would win because it would be totally easy to beat up on his credibility with stuff like this.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 29, 2007 10:12 AM

I find it really bizarre that some people think McCain will be blocked from getting the nomination because of campaign finance reform.

Yeah, I know it bothers the crap out of people who think money is speech, but there aren't very many of you, even in the Republican primary. I could see him losing because of his general vaguely maverick persona, but CFR is a really dumb instance of apostasy for anti-McCain folks to remind people of.

Though, again, I kind of wish someone from the DeLay Party won the nomination on a platform focused on opposing CFR. That would just be too delicious. That's even less likely than Romney winning, though.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 29, 2007 10:24 AM

Here's the thing - Let's say I want to take an ad out during the 60 days priot to an election. I have nowhere near enough money to do it. Say I get 10 friends who agree with me, we each chip in enough, and we buy an ad in (pick your media outlet here).

Why should we be banned from mentioning a candidate by name? How does that promote more and better speech during the runup to an election?

Posted by James Robertson | January 29, 2007 10:43 AM

The right wingers have been worried because solidly conservative John McCain is too liberal for them. He's just an old 'conservative', whereas they've left all that behind and are more into authoritarians now. So like Democrats contemplating Hillary, they were eager to give attention to a challenger. And thusly all the wingers like K-Lard over at The Corner jumped on the Romney bandwagon the moment he announced that he believed in insanities like a clump of 12 cells being perfectly identical to me and you. And it slowly dawns that Romney is not actually insane, was saying quite sane things up until very recently, say, about the time he decided to run for the presidency.

Posted by steve s | January 29, 2007 11:53 AM

I'll add that McCain-Feingold is also the reason that I will not support McCain's run for President.

But I think that, even for people who don't care that much about the issue of the damage McCain-Feingold did to the 1st Amendment, the problem is that McCain is much too likely to support liberals on goo-goo, media-pleasing issues. Global Warming is a similar issue.

Posted by Al | January 29, 2007 12:04 PM

I have lived in Massachusetts all my life. I think (despite his answers on this questionnaire) he was already fudging his position on this issue a little bit in 2002, but I remember his strong pro-choice stance when he challenged Kennedy in 1994. And no, I don't enjoy being lied to.

Posted by James Kabala | January 29, 2007 12:48 PM

Why should we be banned from mentioning a candidate by name? How does that promote more and better speech during the runup to an election?

People talk about a marketplace of ideas, a competitive ecosystem of memes, but the problem is that this marketplace of ideas is crowded out by a marketplace of dollars. Ideas end up succeeding and spreading not because they are useful to believe but because they are useful to make other people believe.

That is why I think there ought to be a distinction between Push and Pull in our campaign laws--and a distinction between Speech and Money comes pretty close to that.

When you pay for an ad in, say, the NY Times, you aren't paying for the use of NY Times printing presses. They don't just print up a million of your ads and drop them on your doorstep for you to distribute. You're paying to have your content stuck in the middle of NY Times content. If someone reads the NY Times, it is because they wanted to read it, and they Pulled it towards them by paying the subscription. If someone reads your advertisement in the NY Times, it is because you wanted them to read it, and you Pushed it towards them. Pulled memes are those that benefit the receiver, Pushed memes (usually advertisements) are those that benefit the sender.

That may or may not be the theoretical basis behind McCain-Feingold, but in practice it's almost as though it were, because distinguishing Push from Pull is usually a matter of seeing who pays for what.

Global warming seems like a much better example of something McCain will regret in the primary. Torture might be another factor--McCain kind of pissed-off both sides there. I'm not really certain how either of those will play out--a lot of evangelicals are coming out on the "left" side of both of those. Is it really likely that Romney, Giuliani, Brownback, or any other candidate will make campaign finance reform, global warming, and torture the focus of their attacks on McCain?

My suspicion is that folks like you are gonna have to hold your nose and take McCain (unless someone new comes along), just as there's a good chance I'm gonna have to hold my nose and take Clinton, though I think my alternatives to Clinton are both more ideologically pure and more electable than your alternatives to McCain are.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 29, 2007 12:50 PM

The right wingers have been worried because solidly conservative John McCain is too liberal for them.

This is wrong. The right wingers are worried because (a) he's really old, and (b) he's tied to Bush and the Iraq disaster. They want a fresh face who can plausibly distance him/herself from the Bush administration. Romney fits that bill more than most (although he's yet to break with them on Iraq).

Posted by right | January 29, 2007 1:02 PM

Nice of Al to come along and help prove my point.

Posted by steve s | January 29, 2007 2:30 PM

Read the stories about WHY Romney flip-flopped on abortion. It was b/c of a meeting with Harvard stem cell scientists, and the whole thing just reeks of phoniness.

No word on whether Romney is also against fertility treatments, which is the only logical position, since it produces many excess embryos, most of which end up getting thrown away.

Posted by ohiomeister | January 30, 2007 11:43 AM