Tuesday, June 05, 2012
How to Stomach Your
Vote for Mitt Romney
And change. Really this time. Maybe.
LOOKING UP. You're a grown man or woman. You're enough of a responsible adult to vote-- at least when it matters, and even when it doesn't sometimes. You're more conservative than not, but you carry no water for the Republican party, who never seem to do much more than screw up and bitch out. And, you've noticed how they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to defend the principles of reasonable governance. You pay enough attention to the state of the nation to be disgusted by the jerky, but definite, leftward lurch in public policy engineered by the Obama administration. You've either only attended one Tea Party rally (as a spectator), or none, and you're not interested in dangling bags of Lipton from your tri-corner hat (you wouldn't even know where to buy a tri-corner hat. Amazon, maybe? A costume shop? Are those still around?), but you're sympathetic to them. You recognize that they've got the right idea: Obama is not just another garden-variety bad president. He is both a disaster for the American people and a disgrace to the American electorate, and he has to go. Period. Unless by some extreme unlikelihood his opposition is some nakedly power-hungry wannabe dictator (as cautioned by The Road to Serfdom, a book you haven't read but initiatively understand the gist of), whoever's running against Obama must take office.
But, you can't help but wonder, did it have to be Romney? Does no one in the Party understand the gravity of the situation? Why, why, WHY are they running yet another central-casting generic idiot with less backbone in his record than a spina bifida baby? There's no better Republican ANYWHERE¬? THIS is the guy? And what about ROMNEYCARE, huh?! The model for Obamacare, which is theee thing that's going to bankrupt this country ARRRRGH SMASH!
I'm right there with you. Who can argue now that the Republican Party isn't fundamentally unserious? What's it called when a company fires every single employee and hires all new ones? Is that a thing? That's what the GOP needs. Not likely to happen in a timely fashion, but something to work for down the road.
That fantastic utopian vision aside: Both your conflicting reactions are correct. The GOP is a farce. But Obama is a tragedy. And on balance, better a joker in office than a thief.
The smart course is clear: Hold your stomach and vote for Romney. I'm here with a thought that might make that stomach a lot less nauseous come November.
To start us off, we can show that Romney is a man of (some) deep conservative conviction. From his Wikipedia page:
Romney says that his views on abortion were drastically altered on November 9, 2004, after discussing stem cell research with Douglas Melton, a stem cell researcher at Harvard University. The Harvard Stem Cell Institute was planning research that would have involved therapeutic cloning. The Governor says that Melton declared that the research "is not a moral issue because we kill the embryos at 14 days." "I looked over at Beth Myers, my chief of staff, and we both had exactly the same reaction, which is it just hit us hard," recalled Romney. "And as they walked out, I said, 'Beth, we have cheapened the sanctity of life by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality.' And from that point forward, I said to the people of Massachusetts, 'I will continue to honor what I pledged to you, but I prefer to call myself pro-life.'"
That doesn't sound like the rhetoric of a numbskull official duped into "moderation" by leftist sophistry. And yet he presided over the biggest government takeover of the private sector since the New Deal. Why? Was it temporary insanity? Was it more proof that modern Mormons have shamefully forgotten its own doctrine of civil liberty and its history of persecution that gave rise to that doctrine? Was it yet another indictment of Massachusetts "Republicans"?
All of these are true, to degrees. I think dismissing this as garden variety flip-floppery overlooks that glimmer of hope I promised you earlier.
Massachusetts is a cesspool of liberalism. A festering wound. A Honey Bucket on a hot day, of liberalism.
And, thanks to liberalism's ill-challenged propaganda effort, the
Yes, it's a disgrace that a so-called conservative has his name attached to this monstrosity. But look at the flipside.
For the last four years, we've endured a President who's held his ideological agenda over and above the will of the people. Barack Obama is a man profoundly ignorant of many things, but even he knew the solid majority of the American public did not want Obamacare. He didn't care. In his mind, the math was simple: The people didn't know what was good for them, he did know, so he and his party crammed their superior wisdom down the country's throat. A man like that would never consider that the duty of his office to the will of the people takes priority over whatever he might imagine their welfare to be. He'll never, ever think for a moment that the people might know their own welfare better than he knows it.
Contrast that to Romney.
When MA spoke, Mitt Romney obeyed. Period. This is the criterion for a good elected representative. It is the point of having elected representatives.
I know what you're thinking (as always): "Principled public servant? In a pig's eye! All he was really doing was pandering to the only voter base available in Taxachusetts!"
I don't disagree with that. But, respectfully, you're missing the bigger picture. It doesn't matter how pure the man's motives were. In his case, pandering and principled public service had the same difference: He did what his voters wanted. I bet the gay lobby and the anti-war moonbats wish Obama would "pander" to them a little more. We should all be so lucky to have an elected official who panders to us like this. That's the point.
What if Romneycare isn't the indelible black mark on his record we've assumed it is? What if it's actually proof that Mitt Romney is, either on purpose or de facto, the dedicated civil servant we need?
I admit, this gruel is a bit thin to satisfy a hunger for limited government. But what if.