Romney and the future

Mark Jaws writes:

As much as I wanted to, I simply could not get charged over Mitt Romney. While I agree with you that he was the most talented, well-rounded and decent candidate among the GOP field of candidates, to me that says more about the lackluster field than the star qualities of the former Massachusetts governor. He lacked both the charisma and conviction to convince me that he was a winner. The mere fact that as recently as 2006 he was for the McCain-Kennedy shamnesty bill indicates that his campaign smacked too much of opportunism, and therein (along with his Mormon faith, unfortunately) lied one of the causes of his failed candidacy.

The silver lining is that a failed McCain or Obama presidency may very well whet the appetites of the GOP electorate for a true believer next time around. In the meantime I am working with like minded, traditional folks in the (somewhat kooky) Constitution Party until the GOP comes around and conservatives thinkers can provide a blueprint for the way forward.

LA replies:

This is a reasonable statement, Mark.

I’m not complaining about people who did not get “charged” by Romney. From the very start, almost a year ago, I discussed Romney in ambivalent terms. Remember, I described him as an opportunist you could rely on. That is not exactly a call to a passionate embrace.

What I’ve been complaining about is people who would let the fact that they were not charged by Romney justify their dissing him, neglecting him, and failing to support him when he was the ONLY acceptable candidate, the ONLY viable alternative to McCain. And when they did snap out of their indifference and distaste for Romney, it was too late. I’m talking about the herd of conservative commentators who only began supporting Romney and attacking McCain five days before Super Tuesday, when they should have started attacking McCain as soon as he won New Hampshire three weeks earlier.

Also, on the matter of amnesty, to put things in perspective, Romney’s only comment on the 2006 bill, as far as I know, was a single comment made in an interview in which he said the idea of legalizing people already here was “reasonable.” He was not working for the bill, he was not promoting it. Also, there were quite a few people on the right who actively supported the 2006 bill but then turned against the 2007 bill, William Kristol, for example. Kristol was not being opportunistic when he changed. He’s an open borders supporter who has even said he likes illegal immigration. But the 2007 bill was so appalling that it was unacceptable even to him.

None of this excuses Romney’s (de minimus) support for the 2006 amnesty, but I think it does suggest that the “opportunism” charge is not necessarily correct. But even if it was correct, I return to my sense that Romney, though he may change his views, does so in a straightforward way and remains with his new view.

Bill Carpenter writes:

In response to Mark Jaws’ comments, the limitations of the Constitution Party seem to result from the lack of high-quality philosophical and cultural leadership, a lack that similarly afflicts the BNP, as admirable as Nick Griffin’s achievements have been. Tories in Britain and Republicans in America should have been offering a clearly conservative and patriotic alternative to the parties of the Left. Instead they have crowded into the center, and the educated have not upheld the Right in culture or philosophy. Conscientious citizens, abandoned by their leaders, drift to the fringes where their valid core concerns are blended with nonsense that more cultured judgment would have eliminated. It is an old story. Communists and Nazis built their empires on the failures of leadership by those entrusted with power. If the GOP goes down, the CP will attract higher quality and more numerous and prominent leaders. If not, the CP will serve as a refuge for those waiting for the GOP’s renewal.

Romney is so much the managerial type that he is liable to guide the country in the managerial vein, according to which harmony, cooperation, and smooth-running machinery take precedence over deep fidelity to our national and civilizational callings. He is more your classic right-liberal than a conservative. That said, he might again be the best candidate available at some future time.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 16, 2008 10:36 AM | Send