Brownback v. Romney

I guess I agree with Josh Marshall that Sam Brownback's video questioning Mitt Romney's bona fides on "life" issues is pretty effective:

That said, I wonder how convincing any pro-life voters are really going to find this whole line of attack. What's the specific concern about Romney's evident lack of genuine principles on these issues? He seems to me to be eminently willing to govern as a pro-lifer in terms of his judicial appointments which seems to me to be 90 percent of what's at stake here. It's true that his explanation of his position doesn't make a ton of sense, but these constitutional amendments and so forth aren't going to be enacted anyway so who really cares?

Comments

"He seems to me to be eminently willing to govern as a pro-lifer in terms of his judicial appointments "

Are you incapable of distinguishing being willing to say you'll do something, and actually being willing to do it? Because I assure you that social conservatives are quite capable of making this distinction, to the detriment of both Romney and Guliani.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | August 7, 2007 10:02 AM

Romney has explained his pro-choice past by pointing out that he was governor of a pro-choice state. Well, he's running for President of a pro-choice country. I can see conservatives wondering whether he'll put his personal pro-life beliefs on the backburner once he gets through the primaries (or once he's safely in office).

Posted by Freedom! | August 7, 2007 10:08 AM

He seems to me to be eminently willing to govern as a pro-lifer in terms of his judicial appointments which seems to me to be 90 percent of what's at stake here.

Actually, he seems like he'll go whichever way the wind is blowing at the moment. Pro-lifers are worried he'll have another change of heart after the GOP primaries if he feels it'll get him a majority in the general election. Rudy (I'm pro-choice but will only nominate judges who'll overturn Roe) Giuliani is actually a better bet.

Posted by Jinchi | August 7, 2007 10:08 AM

Just wanted to say that brownbacker.com sounds like it should be a porn site

Posted by Anonymous | August 7, 2007 10:10 AM

We're assuming here that the anti-abortion vote is 100% rational.

I don't doubt that there is a portion of anti-choicers who can take a detached view of things and vote for someone who they think will function as an anti-choice official in action if not in thought (assuming Romney or Giuliani is able to convince them that this is how they would govern).

But let's not forget that a very significant chunk of these people make up the constituency that wants to hear candidates talk about their religious beliefs, that talked themselves into the myth that George Bush was a devout Christian because it's important to them to believe in the private convictions of a candidate. For this die-hard constituency, you don't have to be pro-choice in action to be shunned. You just have to be the kind of person that would be pro-choice, i.e., not deeply committed on a personal level to the Cause.

Posted by Jake H. | August 7, 2007 10:17 AM

Hey Matt you are a liberal. Brownback has given you a club to use to beat up on a Republican frontrunner. Use it. Issue of lying and character and all.

Posted by gregor | August 7, 2007 10:21 AM

Don't you understand that the point is to create a "culture of life"? Only Brownback can do this because he sees the dead featuses (feati?) as martyrs for the cause, whereas Mitt used to support abortion and is a John Kerry-style, Massachusetts flip-flopper.

Posted by I wanna ride bareback on sam brownback | August 7, 2007 10:29 AM

Bush's father was a pro-choicer who converted for political reasons, and no one on that side of the aisle will forget David Souter any time soon.

Posted by Steve | August 7, 2007 10:32 AM

I think the distinction between the true believer and the politically-driven believer could be pretty stark.

The future President will be faced with multiple decisions that require balancing competing interests. Part of what will determine the President's decision is the level of intensity with which he/she holds a principled position.

To be concrete:[and with much gratitude for this being full of hypotheticals that I hope never to see]

Neither President Romney nor President Brownback would nominate a clearly pro-choice SCJ. No difference.

Neither would veto an anti-abortion amendment.

But what about funding for international aid groups? Some of those might be denied funds for ties to abortion providers, even if this isn't their prime focus. My guess is that Brownback would seek to withhold funds because the abortion issue looms large in his mind. Romney? He might be able to look past the abortion elephant and decide based on other factors.

The differences between true believers and political believers can have major effects on governance -- usually the trick is figuring out which positions are intensely held, and which are held out of convenience. In the case of abortion, Brownback & probably Romney, we can probably infer that in Romney's case the pro-life agenda would not be front & center in every possible decision he makes.

Posted by anotherAnon | August 7, 2007 10:39 AM

Good point, anotherAnon. I think embryonic stem cell research falls into that very significant gray area as well. I haven't bothered to familiarize myself with all the GOP candidates' various positions on the issue, but Brownback has always made it clear that being anti-ESC research is part and parcel of being "pro-life," while it would be much easier to see someone like Giuliani waffling on the issue in some way.

Posted by Jake H. | August 7, 2007 10:50 AM

Yeah, they know that any Repub President will nominate basically the same judges. Their real concern is whether he will push for more laws requiring brain dead people to be kept on feeding tubes indefinitely.

Posted by Ron | August 7, 2007 10:58 AM

That said, I wonder how convincing any pro-life voters are really going to find this whole line of attack. What's the specific concern about Romney's evident lack of genuine principles on these issues? He seems to me to be eminently willing to govern as a pro-lifer in terms of his judicial appointments which seems to me to be 90 percent of what's at stake here.

In every area of politics, committed activists are looking for people who have a record of long and apparently sincere commitment to the activists' views on the dominant issue, rather than recent and opportunistic conversions and pledges. The latter positions are correctly seen as more shallowly held, and are much more likely to be traded away later in the competition with other political values.

Suppose there are two major conservative prospects in the running for a future Supreme Court vacancy. One is very big on rolling back corporate liability, and finding constitutional reason for blocking government regulation of business, but is rather moderate on the abortion issue. The other has a record of staunchly pro-life writing and decisions from the bench, but is middle-of-the road on the business issues. Which one do you think Romney will back? Do you think pro-life voters have more reason to trust Brownback or Romney?

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 7, 2007 10:58 AM

Others have basically said it, but it takes a lot of political will to push a pro-life SC justice through a possible 55-45 Democratic Senate (or better). Romney might well just appoint another Souter (appointed by Bush Sr., if you'll remember) and say it was the best he could do. They need at least one more true radical on the court, and they won't get it without a true believer as president.

Posted by Sam L | August 7, 2007 11:07 AM

I think the evangelical electorate can't be expected to vote that strategically.

We're talking about a movement who views the placing of religious statuary in government facilities as a serious and important goal.

Narrative and symbolism are very important to them. A lot of their political decisions are fundamentally aesthetic. Romney's flip on this issue doesn't seem to fully satisfy the aesthetic.

Posted by Patrick | August 7, 2007 11:10 AM

The true beleivers see themselves as having been repeatedly screwed by Republican presidents. The seats filled by Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter ought to have filled by reliable votes to overturn Roe--but weren't. I doubt that they'll be very tolerant of someone whose anti-choice credentials are wishy-washy.

Posted by rea | August 7, 2007 11:13 AM

The differences between true believers and political believers can have major effects on governance -- usually the trick is figuring out which positions are intensely held, and which are held out of convenience. In the case of abortion, Brownback & probably Romney, we can probably infer that in Romney's case the pro-life agenda would not be front & center in every possible decision he makes.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I'm no fan of Romney and he comes across to me as a complete opportunist. But I think that is somewhat forced on any Republican candidate due to the complete disfunction within the Republican party. They don't know who they are anymore. Are they the intolerant party of the Christian Right or the main street, country club party of pro-business centrists?

Romney just strikes me as someone who doesn't really give a shit one way or another on abortion. Most people who feel that way (myself included) are nominally pro-choice because they don't see a compelling reason to wade into the area in the first place. I just don't think its something he is remotely passionate about. Where Romney leaves me cold is that I really can't figure out what he IS passionate about.

Most candidates will have positions on a wide-ranging spectrum of issues foreign and domestic: Defense, environment, health care, taxes, social issues, education, etc, etc. Campaigning forces you to take positions on just about every policy issue for which there is a constituency. However once in office, if they are lucky, they'll have the momentum to make major policy and legislative changes in maybe two or three areas of policy if they are lucky. Bush chose to slash taxes for the wealthy, gut regulations on business, and go to war. Those are his three primary policy achievements. Along with those three he also consolidated the power of the presidency and stacked the courts.

What will be the three major policy objectives of a Romney administration? For the life of me I really can't say. Because its so difficult to get a reading on what the man is actually passionate about (aside from his own naked ambition).

I think the three leading Democratic candidates are a bit easier to read. Both Edwards and Obama are taking the lead on issues of poverty and justice. Perhaps that is not surprising given both their backgrounds and professions. The law and using the law on behalf of the poor and common people is what they both spent the bulk of their lives doing. Clinton seems immensely competent on a much wider range of issues but seems to come across most passionately on issues related to children (healthcare, education etc.).

Posted by Kent | August 7, 2007 11:15 AM

This actually isn't that complicated, MY. Like with John Edwards' house, the real question is 'are you who you say you are?' Romney's target voters could perfectly plausibly look at his history of claiming not to be one of them so he could get elected in Massachussets, view his current claims in light of his political interests, and determine that he isn't reliably who he says he is. Of course, people paid to (and good at) analyzing the details of candidates' platforms aren't going to like this method of voter choice, but given that Presidents are going to have to make compromises and face choices none of us can really anticipate, it doesn't seem like it's actually wrong.

As an aside, despite my handle, I vote Democrat. Governor Romney's our best shot at winning the White House in 2008, so if you'd stop convincing Republicans that he's not who he says he is by having a punk elitist Ivy League lefty write nice things about him, that'd be great.

Posted by You Can Call Me Al | August 7, 2007 11:25 AM

Matt, Your analysis is WAY too rationalistic. Voters want to know - is he one of us?.

A Mormon who flips around on the sanctity of life is NOT 'one of us'. Trust me, I know a lot of fundamentalists. They might vote for Romney, but not with positive passion, only defensively against the Democrat.

Passion boosts turnout, disillusion depresses turnout. qed

If voters voted on what would happen in the real world our elections would look a lot different.

Ironically, if Romney gets the nomination (looking more likely as time goes by) his lack of conviction of base issues helps, as does his protean slickness.

Back to the nomination, if Brownback sucks off some true believers does that hurt Romney? That just means they aren't voting for Giuliani or McCain!! Romney has a real chance. Unlike Giuliani he doesn't have a past and he is not scary. Once Giuliani scares people he's toast, and it is fairly likely to happen before the nomination. McCain is on his last legs. As of tis minute I think Romney is the most likely Republican candidate, God help us all.

Against Romney I have to think that Obama is the stronger candidate. Then the authenticity gap is so great that a lot of people who are just put off by plastic will vote Dem. HRC these days has a brushed titanium sheen that is impressive, but not the best weapon against Romney.

On the other hand, if Giuliani gets the nod I would think HRC is the best matchup, because of her ability to take him on mano to womano.

Posted by tomtom | August 7, 2007 11:29 AM

That said, I wonder how convincing any pro-life voters are really going to find this whole line of attack.

If you examine it as a policy wonk issue-based attack then I'd agree - it's not convincing.

If you examine it as another example of tribalism politics, however, it becomes very persuasive. "Don't vote for Romney because he's not REALLY one of US" is a great argument for Brownback to make if the target demographic of voters he's trying to win off of Romney are folks who have a history of voting for the person who is, in fact, most like them. Brownback wants to make the case that he, not Romney, not Giulianni, not McCain, is the most "Republican" of the bunch - that he's most like "you", where "you" is the average cultural conservative Republican who votes in primaries.

This is not hard - this is reptile-brain campaigning, that's all. It flies over the heads of a lot of folks who really, really want to believe that voters are rational people who weigh their choices very carefully and pick the candidate who will provide them with the best outcomes. If the last 6 years (or, hell, the last 3 decades) haven't convinced you that this is not how American citizens elect their politicians, I'm not sure what it's going to take to convince you otherwise.

Posted by NonyNony | August 7, 2007 12:08 PM

This is not hard - this is reptile-brain campaigning, that's all. It flies over the heads of a lot of folks who really, really want to believe that voters are rational people who weigh their choices very carefully and pick the candidate who will provide them with the best outcomes. If the last 6 years (or, hell, the last 3 decades) haven't convinced you that this is not how American citizens elect their politicians, I'm not sure what it's going to take to convince you otherwise.

Having relatively recently moved to Texas from the Pacific Northwest this point is driven home to me every time politics comes up around here. I have many neighbors and job acquaintances who are just simply baffled that I would be a Democrat. It just does not compute. It's not hostility, just puzzlement because around here in the white upscale suburbs and exurban areas, Democrats are the "them" party not the "us" party. The party of the brown and black residents of the inner cities and the hedonistic liberals on the coasts. To vote Democratic is to betray your own. It is the same betrayal as if I told them I was rooting for USC over Texas. It's tribalism and it is rooted deep down in the reptile brain stem.

Posted by Kent | August 7, 2007 1:57 PM

I don't understand why Romney can't be honest about his pandering and say something along the lines of "I'm going to be elected as a Republican, and a major plank of the republican party's platform is a pro-life agenda. Regardless of how my personal beliefs have evolved, I will govern as a pro-life president."

I know that's kind of what he's trying to say, via his discussion about judges, but I think it would be more effective stated directly than obliquely.

Posted by TW Andrews | August 7, 2007 2:16 PM

Lies do not become more effective when stated directly, and there is little reason to suppose Romney's promises to social conservatives are anything else. The problem isn't that he's not saying the right things to social conservatives, it's that they'd be irrational to BELIEVE what he's saying.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | August 7, 2007 4:00 PM

Here is a guy who doesn’t ‘believe' in evolution talking about 'facts'.

Has anyone other than me been able to get past that vacuous preacher-smile and appreciate the irony?

Let's see, abortion, gay marriage and flag burning. Where would those issues rank in importance to the majority of the citizens of this country?

The Republican 'Base' has become a tribute to the vast scientific illiteracy, hypocrisy and ignorance that plagues our country. We don’t need another self riotous dimwit leading this country. We tried it. It was a miserable failure.

Posted by JerryFLA | August 7, 2007 4:00 PM

Ron Paul mops the floor with all of them. : )
www.RonPaul2008.com

Posted by JohnPaulJones | August 8, 2007 2:59 AM