There’s this notion in the elite press that Mitt Romney’s flip flops are a good thing–we’ve written about it here and here. In the latter post, I pointed to Nicholas Kristof’s take:
I’d much rather have a cynical chameleon than a far-right ideologue who doesn’t require contortions to appeal to Republican primary voters, who says things that Republican candidates have all been saying and, God forbid, actually means it.
This has never made much sense to me. It’s based on the hunch that the “real” Romney–you know, the Massachusetts Moderate–would be the guy in the Oval Office and not the guy who is currently running for the Republican nomination.
That’s why Paul Krugman’s take is a breath of fresh air (2/24/12):
So should those who don’t share the right’s faith be comforted by the evidence that Mr. Romney doesn’t believe anything he’s saying? Should we, in particular, assume that, once elected, he would actually follow sensible economic policies? Alas, no.
For the cynicism and lack of moral courage that have been so evident in the campaign wouldn’t suddenly vanish once Mr. Romney entered the Oval Office. If he doesn’t dare disagree with economic nonsense now, why imagine that he would become willing to challenge that nonsense later? And bear in mind that if elected, he would be watched like a hawk for signs of apostasy by the very people he’s trying so desperately to appease right now.
The truth is that Mr. Romney is so deeply committed to insincerity that neither side can trust him to do what it considers to be the right thing.
I think this illustrates just how insane the acceptable parameters of political ideology are in this country, that if Romney were indeed to pursue what are considered “moderate” policies within those parameters, he would apparently be seen as “sensible” by persons like Krugman.
We’re talking about a difference akin to that between a murderer, and a mass murderer. The lesser of two evils is, by definition, evil.
And when it comes to the variances among oligarchically vetted political philosophies, it’s almost always a matter of degree, and not kind, isn’t it?
Romney may be displaying the same characteristic as his father did, when people replied that he only needed a light rinse, when he said he had been brainwashed! He has shown as sort of “lost at sea” persona that has seemed to appear either confused or phony and insincere–yet it may be only an unease at campaigning or an unfamiliarity with people.
For a moment there I thought I was reading about President Obama: “For the cynicism and lack of moral courage that have been so evident in the campaign wouldn’t suddenly vanish once Mr. [Obama] entered the Oval Office. If he doesn’t dare disagree with economic nonsense now, why imagine that he would become willing to challenge that nonsense later? And bear in mind that if elected, he would be watched like a hawk for signs of apostasy by the very people he’s trying so desperately to appease right now.” I guess Krugman overlooked the possibility that Romney is playing eleven-dimensional chess with his opponents, as Obama’s apologists keep assuring us about him.
Doug Latimer, you’re not making a persuasive argument. Of course, both a murderer and a mass murderer are evil. But, especially in politics, we’re always choosing between the “lesser of two evils.” Keep in mind, that it was eminently obvious well before biblical times, that “we are all sinners.” If I was the mayor of a small town, and was forced to choose, in some maniacal arrangement, between letting free, a person that had killed one person, or a determined mass murderer, the choice of the former would be overwhelming and instantaneous. On the matter of Romney’s lies, I also feel strongly. What matters to me, is not the lies told by republican candidates. I’m vastly more interested in the lies told to me, by so-called democratic candidates. We don’t have the luxury of pointing fingers at the republicans, since we know they’ll almost certainly act like republicans. But it only encourages dishonesty among democratic candidates and leaders, when our writers keep talking about republican misconduct. Now that Obama is headed for the race of his life, liberal leaning commentators are more and more reluctant to bring Obama to task for his lies, exaggerations, empty promises, grandstanding, etc. I don’t care what Romney is doing. I know what he’ll say. Tell me what Obama is saying, examine his statements, follow his arguments, and keep a record of Obama’s bullshit. That’s what democrats need to know.
A CORRECTION
One cannot be “watched like a hawk.” One can only “watch … like a hawk.”
John, I don’t think you understand what I’m trying to say. We can no longer afford to choose between varying degrees of evil. Indeed, in a moral sense, we never could, for people have always suffered and died when we do.
But now even base self-interest argues for going far beyond the constraints of the political boundaries in this country. To do less assures us of the end of the world as we know it, and condemns us to a world we should hope to hell we will never know.
It’s likely too late, but that is never an excuse for not doing what our conscience demands and our courage allows, never being satisfied with the limits of either.
As for Dear Misleader’s sins, you could do worse than checking my blog for a running tally of his perfidies.
Politics is often very sad and confusing. People keep looking for the correct answers. If that is what they think that they need, then perhaps running I.B.M’s WATSON for leadership would solve that quandry.
I don’t know if there are ever correct answers, but I think what is missing from all leadership is to find people that listen and then ask the correct questions.
Krugman does a lot to raise the bar at the Times…
Romney this. Romney that. Oh, wait, now here comes Santorum, but look out for Newt…
All I hear in the press — and, sadly, this includes the alternative press as well, and I have not been shy to point it out there either — is who is saying what about whom concerning the race for one single freaking federal office. After a while, it sounds more like we are choosing the next bride for the Prince of Wales rather than any serious political office. Sorry if you disagree with me.
Meanwhile, there are 435 offices in the US House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate, which are not really federal offices since they are selected state by state. There is some real power for the people. But who’s discussing those races? The power of the people is vested in the Congress (according to the legend) and yet the press (in all of its flavors) does little if anything to call attention to these positions which is the real seat of power.
Blame the press? Blame the voters? Blame the inadequately educated, largely ignorant public?
How about killing this whole thread and replacing it with something important — like the people who will by this time next year be designing and carrying out the next round of cutting and slashing of our ever-diminishing social services? Or, is there still sufficient time to get the word out — at least to the alternative press — to start getting serious about political coverage if they want to be respected as journalists.
This article does have a point.As a conservative I will vote for any of these candidates over Obama because
1)He was never qualified
2)His ideology is opposite my own.
3)He was twice as slippery as Romney could ever hope to be
4)He has done a lousy job
But that aside Romney has not shown himself to be a conservative.He is I fear what many say he is.A Mass moderate.I feel we need a conservative to right this ship of state.I never felt Bush was a conservative and almost every economic mistake he made showed it.So I fear Mitt will carry this play every side of the field into the office with him.He will win the Republican nomination.He will be a far better president that Obama who has arguably been the worst we ever had.
Obama derangement troll is Obama derangement trolling….
No Difference is correct. If we re-elect the same group of self serving Congressmen, we will have four more years of gridlock, unless, of course, we get Mitty boy or Newty or Ricky into office. They we will have an unchecked, unchallenged free for all and it won’t be pretty for anyone, with the possible exception of those corporate voices who now have a vote and are so self serving they just can’t wait to make their claim.
Well elizabeth we actually wont have an unchecked,unchallenged free for all.We had that super majority for two years under obama and look what it got us.
T.Rowl B’Gone Says
Cut it anyway you want.Obama was a worse president than even we conservatives prognosticated with him going in.And that is saying a hell of a lot.
Obama derangement troll is Obama derangement trollingâ┚¬Ã‚¦.
T.Rowl B Gone Says……….My heartfelt apologies.I broke the first commandment of Lord obama.Never look at the man behind the curtain and the job he has done as wizard in this wonderful land of Oz.Skrew that! His record is an unblemished line of shite.As far as the eye can see and beyond.Let him dare run on his record.Let him dare.He will run as fast and far from that record as he can.Confuse and confound,throwing up smoke screens and blaming others for his failings.Trolling?????Like hell.No need to troll the depths.His failings are floating like scum for all to see .Hilary as twisted as she is would of been far better.Man I can’t wait to read her book after this is all over.She has been a good soldier and i respect her for it.But her allegiance will be over someday soon and look out.
Obama derangement troll is still Obama derangement trollingâ┚¬Ã‚¦.