« Right Wing Facebook | Main | Supporting the Troops »

Flopper-in-Chief

22 Oct 2007 01:24 pm

Near the top of his Mitt Romney profile, Ryan Lizza gives a good summary of the former governor's many political transformations. A man in New Hampshire introduces himself as a hunter and asks Romney what he's going to do about global warming. Romney notes that "to do that it’s going to take nuclear power, clean coal, more efficient vehicles, and then we’re going to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gases." Lizza comments:

It was a good answer, but also a strange one. Not long ago, Romney released a glossy pamphlet detailing his positions on major issues. He sounded like Al Gore when talking to the environmentalist in New Hampshire, though his policy book’s treatment of global warming reads more like something from ExxonMobil. In it, Romney refers to the “debate” over “how much human activity impacts the environment”—code words for the global-warming-denial crowd. He offers no plan to “dramatically” curtail emissions of CO2, just an aside that “we may well be able to rein in our greenhouse-gas emissions.” As the governor of Massachusetts, Romney, in December, 2005, pulled out of a Northeast-state agreement on carbon reduction—a plan that he had supported the month before.

This is a habit of Romney’s. Politicians tend to pander, especially during the primary season. Romney’s chief opponent, Rudy Giuliani, also has a history as a pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights Republican. But while Giuliani simply downplays his record on those issues, Romney sells himself as a true convert. He not only shifts positions; he often claims to be the most passionate advocate of his new stances. It’s one of the reasons that his metamorphosis from liberal Republican to committed right-winger seems so jarring. In 1994, in his race for the Senate, he didn’t simply argue that he was a defender of gay rights; he claimed to be a stronger advocate than his opponent, Edward Kennedy. Today, he’s not just a faithful conservative but the only Republican candidate who represents “the Republican wing of the Republican Party.” He brings a salesman’s bravado and certainty to issues. At a debate in May, when asked how he would respond to a hypothetical situation involving the interrogation of a terrorist at Guantánamo Bay, he said, “Some people have said we ought to close Guantánamo. My view is that we ought to double Guantánamo.” Elected as a pro-choice governor in 2002—YouTube is flooded with his passionate advocacy of abortion rights—he now presents himself as the most resolute anti-abortion candidate in the Republican field. A Mormon, he sometimes adopts the religious language of Evangelicals when he is addressing conservative Christian groups. To economic conservatives, he pitches himself as the candidate most strongly committed to slashing spending and taxes. (He’s the only major G.O.P. candidate to have signed a formal anti-tax pledge, the sort of move that his spokesman dismissed as “government by gimmickry” in Romney’s 2002 gubernatorial campaign.) To national-security conservatives, he is the most hawkish. (He says often that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, of Iran, should be indicted under the Genocide Convention, and his campaign has named the former C.I.A. counterterrorism chief, Cofer Black, the vice-chairman of Blackwater, as an adviser.) But, while giving customers exactly what they want may be normal in the corporate world, it can be costly in politics.

The weird thing is that having flip-flopped and pandered a lot, Romney's campaign seems to feel almost liberated. At this point, it's not worth worrying that any particular thing will earn their candidate a reputation as a liar, a flip-flopper, and a panderer, because his stances on just a few high-profile issues show very clearly that he is a liar, is a flip-flopper, and is a panderer. Thus, they can feel free to pander and flip-flop on everything all the time. This is a stark contrast to, say, Giuliani or McCain who want to try to both trim their sails on some issues, while seeking credit for being straightforward and honest on others. Team Romney, though, always knows that for their guy Expediency Conquers All.

Share This

Comments (14)

He's a REPUBLICAN --who convinced the people of MASSACHUSETTS to elect him GOVERNOR.

As George W noted, you can fool some of the people ALL of the time -- and those are the ones you want to focus on.


This sounds like a massive weakness for Romney, but only in the right hands. For example, HRC seems so calculating -- certainly she is perceived that way by the people who will cover the race -- that she would find it particularly difficult to exploit Romney's syntheticity in the general election. (While HRC might be better positioned to run againt Giuliani than some of her rivals.)

Not a HRC fan at all -- I'm just sayin'.

In a sense by flip-flopping, lying and pandering Mitt Romney is being authentic to his true self. Deep down at the very core of his being, Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper, liar, and panderer. There is nothing underneath.

Commenters #1 and #3 seem to have exhausted the depths of the vacuum that is Mitt.

Too much of the "true Party" membership of both the Democrats and Republicans holds to hoary "true beliefs" that the average America voter doesn't buy for a minute. And place too much stock on the value of rigid, stubborn, inflexible minds who proudly say everything they believe was fixed in stone by age 6, or culminated in the 70s for Democrats, early 80s for Republicans based on the Very Words of Reagan himself.

That "hold to the true faith" principle makes for blind ideological trainwrecks like the Libertarian Party, NAACP (it's still Selma!! lynchings!), Communist Party, Dennis Kuchinich, Nader, Rick Santorum.

The best - or at least the most creative & competent recent Presidents were flexible men willing to change earlier beliefs for what was good for the country, willing to compromise. Eisenhower, Nixon (before his moral flaws got him), Reagan (who went from some California values to the White House with his gay friends and some liberal beliefs intact), and Clinton who would rethink positions and triangulate.

Did each have a reputation, along with FDR, as a reputation as a liar, a flip-flopper, and a panderer?

Absolutely.

Willing to compromise their priciples a bit in negotiations with the opposition to form a consensus to move America forward?

Absolutely.

The two worst recent Presidents were the stubborn, "my way or the highway, I never question myself" Jimmy Carter and Dubya Bush.

Mitt Romney has spent a lifetime negotiating, compromising, tearing up beloved business strategies when confronted with proof they weren't working - while staying true to certain core values, as did Reagan and Bill Clinton...and found that was successful.

FDR made blunders, then with a certain dismissiveness, told the public he was "correcting his tack..a bit..sailing on a better course...". It worked.

I want someone as President who will change policy when confronted by facts, or voters opinions changing with time...not Bush II or Carter style "steadfastness, resolution never to admit error, stay the course..." management. It's a killer in private business, a killer of an effective Presidency.

I see Romnney, Hillary, and McCain as liars, panderers, occasional flip-floppers willing to change their minds.
I see Rudy as having the same stubborness, faith in convictions formed decades ago, and inflexibility as Bush.

As an important part of Team Liberal (TM), it's generally expected that Matt will promote the talking points that Mitt Romney is a liar, panderer, and flip-flopper who will say anything to get elected. Particularly since these points appear to be entirely true.

However, as a much less important member of Team Liberal, I can't help pointing out that the same could easily be said for Bill Clinton... and Bill ultimately governed as a pragmatic moderate, which is probably the best we can expect from a Republican Presidential nominee. The scary Republicans are the ones who believe their own bullshit. Mitt Romney clearly does not. This makes him objectively less heinous than Giuliani. Since he also fares worse in the head-to-head polls against top Democrats than Giuliani, it would probably be a blessing if Romney wins the nomination.

Of course, I could be wrong, and Romney may be planning to force all of our our daughters into polygamous marriages with his seventeen sons, ban caffeinated beverages, and compel us all to wear special underwear. But I somehow doubt it.

In other words, I'd keep my powder dry for Multiple Choice Mitt right now and focus my fire on the Madman of Manhattan. Just a suggestion.

Romney has the most impressive background of the GOP field, particular his work in the private sector. I also find his transparent phoniness refreshing, in its own way.

Buth, I think he has a huge problem with the Republican base. Its a bit of an anthropology exercise to figure out how those people think, but my take is that the problem is not so much the flip-flopping per se, but the fact that Romney comes across as being overeager to please. This is one of the qualities that they disliked so much in Bill Clinton.

"The best - or at least the most creative & competent recent Presidents were flexible men willing to change earlier beliefs for what was good for the country

I agree with you. But this applies to Mitt Romney how?

All I see is a guy that will do anything to get elected, and once elected will do anything to stay elected. What does Mitt Romney think is good for the country? How do I know, if all he does is lie about what he thinks? Eisenhower, FDR, et al. were pragmatic, but they were also principled. I have yet to detect any such principles in Romney. I could genuinely see him starting wars just because the wind happens to be blowing the right way.

I do admit that Romney would probably be the best president of the Republican candidates, a Bill Clinton Jr. if you will (meaning he is more conservative than Clinton and even less principled, an odd combination). However, that's hardly saying much. I mean jesus christ their frontrunner is Rudy Guiliani.

Re Chris Ford's comment "The best - or at least the most creative & competent recent Presidents were flexible men willing to change earlier beliefs for what was good for the country, willing to compromise. Eisenhower, Nixon (before his moral flaws got him)
------------
NIXON??? Ha ha ha ha
----------
"...Reagan..."
--------------
Oh sure. Reagan ran as a "FISCAL CONSERVATIVE" and then personally approved TRILLIONS in debt.
As did his PERSONALLY-SELECTED Vice-President/Successor and the SON of his Personally-Selected Vice-President/Successor.

We will have around $10 TRILLION in federal debt when George W leaves office -- and roughly $8 TRILLION was personally approved over the signature of "fiscal conservatives" Ronald Reagan, George H Bush, and George W Bush.

Roughly $400 BILLION PER YEAR of our taxes have to go just to pay interest on the Reagan/Bush debt alone.

I think I'll wait 20 years until Chris Ford has colon cancer, no medical care , and is having to rummage in dumpsters for food before I tell him
"I TOLD YOU SO!!"

Like I noted earlier, you can fool some of the people ALL of the time.

Look. Matt's right about Mitt.

Romney signed the most ambitious health care plan in the U.S. just a year and a half ago. It required everyone to get health insurance, forced employers to pay fees to the government for not providing insurance to their employees, and subsidized the poor.

Hillary came out with virtually the same plan, and he criticized it as "socialized medicine" inspired by "European bureaucracies." This isn't some ridiculous sophistry like what the Bush team did to Kerry or even a condemnation of pragmatism/changing one's mind. The man is a profligate panderer, and we have no idea what we'd get if he were elected.

Matt's conclusion is as funny as it is true and I have no doubt Romney's strategists have said as much privately in hotel conference rooms.

Romney reminds me of ad agency guys who are in charge of pitching new accounts. He even looks exactly like one. They're known as schmoozers and great presenters. Once they've won the account they move on to the next pitch and leave the hard work of actually figuring out what to do to others.

One thing to keep in mind about his presentation to the Evangelicals the other day: these people deeply believe in transformation. That your life will be profoundly changed by accepting Christ as your personal savior. Reagan had a similar bit of sub-text going with his origins as an FDR Democrat.

Reagan really did come to believe what his handlers at GE told him, but for Romney it's just a sales pitch, as Matt says. It comes naturally to him. But he's not a flip-flopper, at least not yet. All he does is flip since he announced. As a previous commenter noted, there isn't much difference between the Clinton-Edwards-Obama plans and the Mass. plan he signed. But having dismissed his own plan as socialism, could he flop back to it in the WH?

Romney's phoniness is a variant of GWB's. When he was on the trail with Lee Atwater during his dad's 1988 campaign, it was Atwater who convinced him he could get over with the bullsxxt. When I watched him during the 2000 campaign, the smirk always seemed to come out whenever he said something absolutely ridiculous that nonetheless received a big reaction. And imagined him thinking, "Damn, Lee, you were right!"

Now GWB is thoroughly confused, totally incapable of thought. All he has to fall back on is those bromides Cheney & Rove fed him. From Chicago, at least, it looks like the entire DC establishment is running on fumes, stumbling toward 1/21/09.

One more thing about ad agency new business guys. An old joke:
Three agencies are competing for a big account. At the end of the first agency's pitch, the client asks what time it is. The agency presenter looks at his watch and tells him the time.

Same thing with the second agency, only this time the ad guy tells a story about what a great handmade watch he has before he tells the client the time.

The third guy simply asks the client, "what time do you want it to be?" And wins the account.

That's Mitt.

We know what Mitt Romney would do - whatever the polls show is most politically expedient for him to do. That's what scares me most about Mitt Romney. Say what you will about John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, or Hillary Clinton - at least they've demonstrated that they won't ALWAYS just flat out abandon what they deem to be their correct judgment whenever the polls tell them to do so.


Comments closed November 05, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.