One Man's Pander

"Romney in Iowa," writes Andrew, "An impressive showing. The Republichameleon is not to be underestimated."

Personally, I've been sort of re-evaluating the significance of Romney's flip-floppery in light of John Edwards' campaign. In his case, liberals are primed to believe that Edwards is sincere in his new, more liberal persona, since we tend to think that the New Edwards' stands are correct on the merits, so why shouldn't he find them convincing? Becoming pro-life looks like a pander to me, but to people who find the pro-life view plausible, the view that Romney converted to it is also going to seem more convincing.

And, of course, on a lot of issues it doesn't really matter what politicians "really" think. If Romney wins the White House with a pro-life political persona, then there's every reason to think he'll stay committed to that persona even if he has no real convictions about the issues. It's not, after all, as if there's some even higher office beyond the presidency that one can expect him to reach for.

Photo by Flickr user Seth used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

"And, of course, on a lot of issues it doesn't really matter what politicians "really" think."

Yup. But it does matter what politicians run on.

Being a politician is not a matter of artistic expression. If you run for office in favor of some issue, all the inertia pushes you toward continuing to be in favor of that issue, no matter what you "really" think.

-----

Tangentially, I'll note that while there is a similarity between Romney and Edwards in that they're both running as the champion of their respective party's bases, one of them continually demonstrates excellent general election strength while the other continually demonstrates awful general election strength.

If I were a movement conservative, I wouldn't be supporting Romney for electability reasons, even though I'd appreciate that he was standing with me on the issues.

Posted by Petey | May 21, 2007 10:33 AM

"In his case, liberals are primed to believe that Edwards is sincere in his new, more liberal persona, since we tend to think that the New Edwards' stands are correct on the merits, so why shouldn't he find them convincing?"

It's also worth noting that Old Edwards was responsible to a red state electorate and Old Romeny was responsible to a blue state electorate.

That is of great importance in making their transformations seem believable and heartfelt. Without that, they'd both be in bigger trouble on this count.

Posted by Petey | May 21, 2007 10:37 AM

It's not, after all, as if there's some even higher office beyond the presidency that one can expect him to reach for.

With Mitt Romney, I'm not sure about that.

Posted by Steve H. | May 21, 2007 10:40 AM

Agree with Petey on both counts.

Obviously, though, if cultural issues are your primary motivation for getting into politics, Rudy's greater general election strength isn't going to be very persuasive. I figure that at some point conservative will realize that McCain is conservative on their key issues and he'll get the nomination.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | May 21, 2007 10:44 AM

Eh. Edwards, after losing an election, choose to commit himself to:

1) building a strong campaign

2) anti-poverty academic

While number 1 screams "typical politician who is willing to work for his ambitions" number 2... well, doesn't.

I mean, if he wanted to pander to the Democratic base, wouldn't he have spent the last few years working on repealing NAFTA, or saving the environment, or ending the war? Poverty (shamefully) isn't exactly something that is a massive issue in the Democractic primary.

Posted by Dan | May 21, 2007 10:46 AM

Tend to agree with this. It seems remarkably difficult for politicians to escape whatever characterological assessments -- good or bad -- have been made about them in the past, but fairly easy for them to flip flop on issues.

And in the case where issues tend to stick to a politician in spite of efforts to create distance, it's often because those positions align with preconceptions about a politician's character.

There is certainly an element of self-flattery in this. To the extent that we like a politician, we probably assume that deep down he or she agrees with us on matters of substance. Flip flops that agree with us are welcome. Flip flops away from us can be explained away as matters of political expediency.

This dynamic seems to be the most interesting/confusing in the case of Hillary, whose public perception is at such cross currents in the various Democratic constituencies (to say nothing of Republican constituencies).

Posted by Adam | May 21, 2007 10:49 AM

I think Neil over at Ezra's site has put Romney's numbers in the proper perspective: he's running ads in Iowa, while McCain & Guiliani aren't. I expect Romney's numbers to dip once he starts getting hit from his two main competitors.

Still, the flip-flopping doesn't yet seem to have doomed Romney's campaign. Apparently, people like being pandered to; it makes them feel important.

Posted by mert7878 | May 21, 2007 10:51 AM

Point well taken, Matt, but are Edwards position shifts/flip-flops as pervasive or breathtaking as Romney's? It seems to me that on a number of issues, Romney has turned 180 degrees in the last 6 months. Whereas Edwards has been moving steadily leftward on economic issues over the last 6 years. Maybe his other positions have changed more than I know?

I think we have to hold Iraq as a separate issue, since, depending on your basepoint, between 25 and 60% of the country has made the same move over the same time period.
_____

I think it is useful to distinguish between the personal and public positions of candidates, but it can be taken too far. Ultimately, politicians have to choose their battles, and part of that calculus includes personal priorities. Romney isn't going to go back on his campaign promises on abortion, but he'll surely be less anti-choice than would a true believer. Look at how Bush is willing to go against his base on immigration. Why? Because it's a thing he really cares about (whatever his personal motivations).

Indeed, he's done more to make immigration reform actually happen than he did on Social Security. Despite the huge political capital he sank into that failed effort, he didn't actually get anything done. Whereas with immigration, he's done what is necessary to make it happen. Yes, different landscapes, etc., but I see 2 issues, one where he was interested in forcing the politics, and one where he was interested in pushing the policy, because he wanted to - personally.

Posted by JRoth | May 21, 2007 10:54 AM

Edwards' "new, more liberal persona"??

Other than having come around on the war, how is the Edwards of 2007 more than incrementally different from the Edwards of January 2004?

The problem with Romney's flipfloppery, from my POV, is that he's running for President on the basis of convictions that are barely two years old. To run for President on the basis of such briefly held beliefs is putting one hell of a degree of confidence that he's really got it right this time - and he's asking the entire country to share that confidence in him.

Posted by low-tech cyclist (formerly RT) | May 21, 2007 10:55 AM

If I were a movement conservative, I wouldn't be supporting Romney for electability reasons, even though I'd appreciate that he was standing with me on the issues.

So why isn't the same true for Edwards? Isn't he less electable than the alternatives, even though he's standing with you on the issues?

Posted by right | May 21, 2007 10:56 AM

"So why isn't the same true for Edwards? Isn't he less electable than the alternatives, even though he's standing with you on the issues?"

No. You ought to check out the general election polling done to date.

Edwards consistently polls better than Clinton, and consistently polls tied with or better than Obama.

In fact, Edwards ability to simultaneously be closest to his party's ideological base and also be his party's most electable candidate is incredibly rare. In the last 40 years, the only candidate of either party who's been able to do both things at the same time has been Ronald Reagan.

Posted by Petey | May 21, 2007 11:04 AM

All politicians change their mind from campaign to campaign, but Romney is truly a flip-flopper for the ages. The only thing Edwards has done a 180 on is the war, and that's perfectly reasonable considering how much of the country has also changed their mind about the war. Whereas there has not, last I checked, been some kind of massive migration from the pro-choice camp to the pro-life one in the last couple years, to take just one of Romney's many "evolving" issues.

Posted by Steve | May 21, 2007 11:14 AM

"Romney is truly a flip-flopper for the ages ... there has not, last I checked, been some kind of massive migration from the pro-choice camp to the pro-life one in the last couple years"

In Romney's defense, Presidential election eve conversions on abortion have a proud history in both parties.

Besides Romney, there are Gephardt, Al Gore, Kucinich, Bush the Elder, and more.

Giuliani's refusal to come into line with his party on abortion when running for the Presidency is the big exception here, not Romney's flippity flop.

Posted by Petey | May 21, 2007 11:23 AM

To follow up on Steve's comment, I think the primary difference between Edwards and Romney is that there has been a great deal of new evidence over the past four years to suggest that the pro-Iraq-War position was wrong. Edwards admitted he was wrong and changed his position to reflect the new data and embrace the netroots position. The liberal base loves that sort of thing.

By contrast, the facts underlying the abortion debate are basically unchanged. Romney didn't change his opinion in light of new evidence... he had a "come to Jesus" moment and joined the revival tent. But, come to think of it, the conservative base loves that sort of thing.

Well, OK. From a cynical point of view, a conveniently-timed epiphany is much more suspicious than a reappraisal shared by millions of other Americans. But I'm not sure Romney's transformation will really hurt him with evangelical primary voters. It's being a Mormon that hurts him in the primaries. If he gets to the general election, though, his flip-floppery will surely undermine his ability to win over the blue state voters who liked Old Romney.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 21, 2007 11:28 AM

Does anyone think that Romney looks like HRG on 'Heroes', but without the horn-rimmed glasses?

Posted by Klug | May 21, 2007 11:34 AM

"In Romney's defense, Presidential election eve conversions on abortion have a proud history in both parties. Besides Romney, there are Gephardt, Al Gore, Kucinich, Bush the Elder, and more."

One of the others was Jesse Jackson, as soon as he decided he needed to broaden his appeal to include more white progressives...

Posted by David T | May 21, 2007 11:54 AM

RE: "Romney is truly a flip-flopper for the ages"

Edwards policy position shifts are not even close to the changes in positions Romney has made. As mentioned the strong poverty focus is not something every democratic does when they want to win the presidential election. The two americas speech from 2004 was nice guy populism, he has since moved towards tough guy populism.
As for the Iraq policy change I've come to accept at face value people that say that supporting was a mistake.

Posted by ChrisB | May 21, 2007 11:54 AM

"In fact, Edwards ability to simultaneously be closest to his party's ideological base and also be his party's most electable candidate is incredibly rare. In the last 40 years, the only candidate of either party who's been able to do both things at the same time has been Ronald Reagan"

I basically agree with this, with one exception: Reagan's ability to do this only became apparent on Election Day 1980. Prior to that, he had spent most of the year exchanging poll leads with a clearly unpopular president. You can make the argument that Reagan's base-thrilling far-right-ness was what made centrist voters wary of him, and marked him the least "electable" candidate of 1980 (my guess is Howard Baker, or even Bush the Father, would have held poll leads all Fall). It was the Gipper's great luck that the embarrassing failures of the Carter administration, both domestic and foreign, made voters willing to take a gamble for change -- transforming Reagan from Another Goldwater to The Great Communicator in one balloting day (this, by the way, validates my belief that elections turn on circumstance more than, as commonly believed, candidate personality or issues profile). Once in office, of course, Reagan's successes changed the public's view of him, as well as that of right-wing politics for a generation.

What I'm driving at is, Edwards' position today is actually BETTER than Reagan's pre-election -- Edwards talks the base's talk and simultaneously appeals to swing voters even without the advantage of facing a crippled opponent. I agree he's a staggeringly strong candidate.

And I have to agree with what several are saying: comparing Edwards' evolutions to Romney's overnight 180's feels like one of those Beltway false equivalencies. Yeah, Edwards has moved somewhat left, but it's not like he was Sam Nunn before this. Romney, on the other hand, was firmly in the Pataki/Snowe/Ridge camp, and now he's proclaiming himself John Engler. That strikes me as a far higher level of hypocrisy.

Posted by demtom | May 21, 2007 12:00 PM

"One of the others was Jesse Jackson, as soon as he decided he needed to broaden his appeal to include more white progressives..."

Yup.

Historically, pretty much everyone falls into their party's line on abortion when running for President.

Giuliani really is the outlier here...

Posted by Petey | May 21, 2007 12:02 PM

Earlier today you referenced Neil in describing pro-life as an attitude, and not an actual policy desire. This is what makes flip-flopping to the wingers so annoying; they don't actually care about any specific policy, they just want to know you share their same attitude. So I think it's much worse for Romney than Edwards.

Tangentially, if Giualiani can project the same attitude of disgust towards unmarried sexually active women, then I think he will do fine in winning the Republican nomination.

Posted by Tony V | May 21, 2007 12:05 PM

I recently read an excellent piece on Edwards's evolution. By coincidence I share a name with its author.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/14/12235/5740

Politics for the best pols is always an attempt to balance principle with positioning. (For the worst ones, it's just positioning.)

I don't think anyone who hears Edwards doubts that there's some sincerity to his populist ideals. He believe in something--which is more that a lot of pols can say.

Edwards was pretty damn progressive for Jesse Helms's state, so progressive that Edwards was in for a tough reelection fight (Strangely this fact is often held against him by people who also attack him for centrism when he was a Senator.) He was probably the most progressive Senator elected in a deep red state in the last 25 years. Except for maybe Max Cleland.

That's not to say he hasn't moved left. He has. But, to me, it reads like an evolution of a man freed from the Senate who's done some learning, and who's smart enough to run left. What's more, his evolution on raq and other issues tracks roughly with the general change in mood across the country (and on this blog)--this helps him in terms of both believability and electablity. Romney, by contrast, is going in the wrong direction politically.

Posted by david mizner | May 21, 2007 12:06 PM

"What I'm driving at is, Edwards' position today is actually BETTER than Reagan's pre-election -- Edwards talks the base's talk and simultaneously appeals to swing voters even without the advantage of facing a crippled opponent. I agree he's a staggeringly strong candidate."

I pretty much agree with you, but try to keep a regulator on my Edwards enthusiasm to avoid coming off as a total loon.

But I do full-on believe that the Edwards candidacy is a better vehicle for lefties than anything we've seen in the past couple of generations.

Posted by Petey | May 21, 2007 12:07 PM

"I recently read an excellent piece on Edwards's evolution. By coincidence I share a name with its author."

You've been writing some kickass stuff over there, david.

Posted by Petey | May 21, 2007 12:11 PM

Whoa - Al Gore media BS alert. He didn't have a "Presidential election eve conversions on abortion." He was pro-choice his entire public career, but cast some House votes against federal funding for abortions. He was in the Senate 4 years before his first Presidential run, and never voted against funding in the Senate. By '88, he was firmly pro-choice, anti-Hyde.

Please, folks - stop repeating media lies about our candidates.

Posted by JRoth | May 21, 2007 12:13 PM

In Romney's defense, Presidential election eve conversions on abortion have a proud history in both parties.

Let's not waste any more time focusing overmuch on abortion, as it was only the most obvious example. As I said, and as I presume you agree, there are many, many more examples of issues where Romney has done a 180.

The deeper issue is that if you have a candidate who seems to have no core principles whatsoever, it's hard to imagine exactly what they hope to accomplish as President. For Edwards, it's relatively easy to accept that he wants to do something about poverty. It's not like his Senate career was premised on the exact opposite principle.

But if Romney is going to say whatever it takes to get elected to whatever office he's running for, that may be great news for the conservative movement; as Matt says, even if he doesn't believe any of this stuff, there's no particular reason for him to abandon the positions that got him into office. But then, what's in it for him? If he's not a deep believer in conservatism, why all the effort just to become an unhappy-in-his-skin conservative President? The most obvious reason would be that he simply craves the power of the office, period; but that also serves to explain why many people are concerned about a candidate who seems to stand for nothing.

Posted by Steve | May 21, 2007 12:18 PM

"You've been writing some kickass stuff over there, david."

Why thank you, Pierre.

As for Romney and rest of the GOP field, I don't care what the Iowa numbers are, I think the real story is that McCain's numbers have recovered, and with neither Rudy nor Romney popular with the base, McCain is still the man to beat, even more so if he manages to contrive an autumn "change of heart" on the war. Maybe Fred Thompson or Newt will alter the dynamic, but I'd be feeling fairly confident if I were McCain. Have I mentioned that the press still adores him?

Posted by david mizner | May 21, 2007 12:47 PM

Mit "rad Mormon dude" Romney also leads in New Hampshire.

Naturally I'd like nothing better than one of these rad Mormon dudes to take out all these kewl mayor types but I'm a sour pessimist and I'll believe it when I see it.

Posted by Linus | May 21, 2007 3:07 PM

McCain did an awfully good job of puncturing him today: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/quote_for_the_d_23.html . I think (contrary to the New Republic) that this was a very smart move on McCain's part -- Romney has based his entire campaign on being a totally shameless, multifaced chameleon, but until now none of the other GOP candidates was calling him on it. If they DO start calling him on it, he could deflate awfully fast.

Posted by BruceMoomaw | May 21, 2007 3:18 PM

Edwards, being compared to Romney? There should be a giant werewolf searchlight shining in the sky.

I don't think that Edwards has changed in the same way that Romney has. People like Neil were supporting Johnny "Two Americas" Edwards in 2004 for his progressivism. Let's go to the archives:

The major policy reason I like Edwards is his massive redistributionist program. I don't think anyone else has the detailed program of tax cuts for the poor that he does, plus a free year of public college for kids who do community service.
- Neil, 1/24/04

Edwards may be focusing on poverty even more now (beginning with the job he took after the election), and he has new policy proposals (especially on health care), but nothing on domestic policy even vaguely resembles the moves of Slick Dancing Mitt.

Foreign policy is different, since there many progressives (rightly, I think) remain somewhat skeptical of Edwards' judgment and vision (compared to people like Obama who opposed the war from the start). Part of the issue there is that so many persuasive reasons for opposing Iraq have become evident that his current stance against the war, while presumably sincere, is not necessarily evidence that he's learned all the right lessons (especially given the narrow terms in which he has cast his opposition). That's very different from Romney's circumstances, since he's been changing his positions on standard issues, not on ones where he (and the public) have been learning lots of new things over the past few years.

Posted by Blar | May 21, 2007 8:11 PM