Romney, or not Romney—that is the question

Bruce B. writes:

Do you have any clue why Tom Tancredo endorsed Romney? Trusting Tom is about the strongest reason I can see for voting for Mitt but I’m not real sure yet.

LA replies:

Someone who knows more about this than I do says that Tancredo thought it important to stop McCain and Giuliani, and Romney had the best shot of doing so.

If my source is correct, then Tancredo’s thinking is similar to mine: my main reason for supporting Romney is to stop McCain and Giuliani.

Bruce B. replies:

Thanks. This just makes it a harder decision for me. I keep fantasizing that Mitt’s an in-the-closet traditional conservative. I don’t want less than a candidate that’s (sincerely) on the right side of the most fateful political issue of our time. But we need a plausible vehicle for conservatism and I don’t want to destroy the only one I see as having the possibility to be it.

LA replies:

You could do what I do. Focus now on the nomination, to prevent the disaster of a McCain or Giuliani nomination, and leave any final decision on general election concerns for later. During the 2000 primaries I wrote an article at NewsMax strongly condemning McCain, calling him “a dangerous man,” and I defended Bush from unfair attacks. McCain is a terrible person and GWB was obviously the better choice. But in the general election, as more emerged about Bush’s views, I wrote about that and ended up not voting for him.

As I’ve said before, Romney is clearly not on solid ground on the immigration issue and the National Question generally. But he doesn’t yet strike me as positively bad either.

Thus Romney says he supports immigrants bringing their cultures here. I haven’t heard him speak about assimilation, as Republicans used to do. But, again, these seem to be rote phrases that he uses. He does not have clearly worked out and deeply felt ideas in this area. Also, Mormons don’t seem to have the liberal utopian Christian-Jewish type profile, which makes them less dangerous. They don’t seem to have that restless need to transform the world. (Maybe because, as I’ve been told, they believe that each of them is destined ultimately to be the angel of his own solar system.)

(Be sure to see Howard Sutherland’s interesting response to my above comment. Mr. Sutherland points to Mormons in Congress who are major open-borders advocates, he speaks of the internationalist orientation of Mormons in general, and of Mitt Romney’s own establishment background in particular.)

Bruce replies:

This is tough but I think you may be on to something. Use the primary to limit the damage to the party as a vehicle for conservatism (if that’s possible. the paleos would be all over me on that one). Then thumb your nose at them (and let ‘em know why) in the general election. I voted for Peroutka in ‘04 but as a “protest” vote, I’m not sure my intended message was real clear. The libertarians always claim that they offer the clearest message as a protest vote—less government.

“He does not have clearly worked out and deeply felt ideas in this area.”

Interesting. You seem to be seeing “potential” in him. The Mormons history is rather bloody and many, despite their amiable exterior, seem to have a lot of “fight” in ‘em.

- end of initial entry -

A reader writes:

Mormons do go all over the world seeking converts. But on a small scale I think. Nothing like the big missions of all the Christian faiths, schools, hospitals, refuges, etc.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 24, 2008 01:41 PM | Send