Some Republicans, resigning themselves to what looks like an inevitable Mitt Romney nomination, are growing philosophical. Yes, Romney falls short ideologically. But maybe we don’t need an ideologue. Maybe a management consultant as president is exactly what we need. From Michael Gerson:
Maybe, at this moment, the Republican Party doesn’t need a clear decision on its identity (which might not be possible anyway). Romney has this advantage: In supporting him, no Republican is called upon to surrender his or her deepest ideological convictions. Romney is temperamentally conservative but not particularly ideological. He reserves his enthusiasm for quantitative analysis and organizational discipline. He seems to view the cultural and philosophic debates that drive others as distractions from the real task of governing — making systems work.
His competitors have attempted to portray Romney’s ideological inconsistency over time as a character failure. It hasn’t worked, mainly because Romney is a man of exemplary character — deeply loyal to his faith, his family and his country. But he clearly places political ideology in a different category of fidelity. Like Dwight Eisenhower, Romney is a man of vague ideology and deep values. In political matters, he is empirical and pragmatic. He studies problems, assesses risks, calculates likely outcomes. Those expecting Romney to be a philosophic leader will be disappointed. He is a management consultant, and a good one.
Has the moment of the management consultant arrived in American politics?
via Mitt Romney’s improbable achievement – The Washington Post.
I would just like to remind the public that pragmatism is an ideology. And that just doing “what works” begs the question of “works to do what?” The answer to the “what” question will be determined by another ideology that lies just below the surface.
{ 49 comments… read them below or add one }
“pragmatism is an ideology”
Yes, that is the point most are missing here and it is one of if not THE root philosophy of America. America, based on that root philosophy, would have never adopted the findings of Newton regarding planetary motion today…because the old system “worked” though false.
This philosophy drives nearly everything in America from political to church growth, and this philosophy fights fiercely against anything that seeks to replace it (as we are seeing now). MR is not a man of vague idealogy as the article suggests, it’s hidden under subtleness and subterfuge.
Even what you hear from the talking head “conservatives” speaks to pragmatics. How many times have you heard, “I just want to elect the most conservative candidate (wait for it, here it comes, the root pragmatic) that is electable.”
And so, now, philosophical conservatives, if we may speak that way, are likely to be stuck with their party basically saying, “Here now is your candidate, now eat your peas (to borrow a phrase tongue-in-cheek)”.
Gerson’s piece = pig plus lipstick.
(I can’t type an actual plus-sign for some reason…)
Tracing Gerson’s commentary over the last month or so has been revelatory. The man is an obvious shill for Romney establishmentarianism, but the ideological bankruptcy of the establishment and its candidate is now clear for all to see in Gerson’s argument. For Gerson and the establishment, power is the purpose. If “we” don’t have it, “they” do, and that is “bad.” Now, we’ll do the exact same things with that power, but we’re the “good” guys, so having that power is “good”. So, anything that threatens to upset the apple cart of power is “dangerous” or “too ideological” and who needs ideology anyway? “We” just need a better managerial outlook for taking care of all that power “we” are going to have to do things that are important to us. We need to be practical, here, people.
The Republican Party is ideologically bankrupt? Thank God. Go Romney.
Unfortunately, I think we’re working with two different definitions of ideology.
Traditionalist conservatives usually employ the term pejoratively, speaking of ideology as the idolatry of a single idea, “one truth about that world” that becomes the only truth about the world, and to which all other truths must bow down. The classic (albeit hyperbolic) example of an ideologue is Karl Marx. For Marx, it was the truth of class-conflict in history. An historical truth? Sure. The engine of history? No. By such lights, ideology is inimical to a prudent understanding of the complexities of human experience informed by both tradition, revelation, and reason. Many would locate the birth of the modern tendency towards ideology in the post-Cartesian world of the Enlightenment, when many intellectuals in the West sought to shake of the “chains of tradition”, raze the foundations of philosophy, and come up with altogether new and perfect systems which provided rational explanations for all phenomena. Figures such as Renee Decartes, Francis Bacon, Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, John Stuart Mill, and Herbert Spencer stand out as notorious ideologues.
However, it has become somewhat common for others (incorrectly, I would submit) to use ‘ideology’ as a synonym for ‘philosophy’; more horrifying is the prospect of identifying ‘ideologue’ and ‘philosopher.’ Unsurprisingly, Gerson does this.
The problem with Romney is not only pragmatic, but a pragmatist. Chesterton’s indictment of such is apposite:
He may not be an ideologue, but to say that someone isn’t an ideologue is to damn with faint praise. The truth is that he may be something little better: a spineless charlatan who is a stranger to principle of any sort, who has always done what is most politically expedient, and who — mind you — ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in 1994. I mean, I’ll probably vote for him. But I’m not excited about his prospects.
Prediction: Romney gets nomination, loses to Obama in November. The latter, though polling in the toilet currently, will rally his core constituency and the mushy middle with his ostensible achievements (“ending” war in Iraq, assassinating bin Laden, national healthcare), projecting the aura of nobly-struggling quasi-wartime president who is serious about “doing something” about our flagging economy. Even if a healthy dose of laissez-faire is what is truly needed, people don’t want to hear a president say that his plan is to “do nothing” about the economy; dynamism and activity, even if it’s just creating a commotion in the proverbial broom-closet, beats laissez-faire six ways before Sunday. Obama will open the war-chest and ignite enough of the insipid, yet-effective, hope-and-change drivel left over from yester-election to put him over the edge. He’ll win the popular vote and the electoral vote handily, especially if Ron Paul decides to send some sort of message (the same sort of message sent before by the likes of Perot and Nader), because he, Obama, better projects the charismatic and visionary qualities of a forward-looking “leader.” Romney is boring, and Mormon, but, as Hemingway notes, he has the best organization. In short, the reasons that he will win the Republican nomination are the same reasons that he will lose the election. He’s a known quantity: what you see is what you get, and what you see is pretty uninspiring, but pretty safe. He doesn’t have the skeletons in the closet that Newt has (I don’t think anyone else is a serious contender — Paul and Santorum are about to fade), and the fact that he’s flip-flopped on important issues just makes him like most other politicians whose careers have ever gone anywhere, including Newt.
So, that’s my prediction. We’ll see if I’m right. Unless something big happens to derail Obama (like him getting impeached for the ATF “Fast and Furious” gunrunning scandal, or possibly for the “recess-appointments” made while Congress was still in session), I see him getting another four years. And although this isn’t the outcome that I would prefer, I’m not going to get all Chicken-Little about it. In fact, I’m seriously thinking about just checking out until November. I would really like not to have this election dominate my thinking in 2012.
I’d like it if the president would just be about the business that the Constitution laid out for him, being the executive power of the Government.
Why do all the presidential candidates promise changes in public policy that really only Congress has the power to change?
I am actually fine with temperamentally conservative, but not particularly ideological. (I’m not, however, convinced that is what Romney really is). Someone who is temperamentally conservative is less inclined to go off half-cocked into a war or radical revision of government. I know some are convinced that these are extreme times that call for extreme measures, but I am not so sure. I want the budget under control, but beyond that most of what I want for America can’t really be accomplished politically. Things like marriage and children being valued more and less consumerism and untrammeled greed. Those are spiritual and cultural problems and not amenable to political engineering. Republicans (and that is what I am) seem to want some hero riding in on a white horse to save the day and turn the country around to recapture some lost glory. Me, not so much. I want a more modest government. Would Romney accomplish that? I really don’t know, but I am not in love with the alternatives.
I can’t get it out of my head that Ron Paul could possibly be the only one to defeat Pres. Obama–simply because he, in some ways, is closer to the POTUS position on some issues that evoke a decidedly liberal position, but on the other hand appeals to many folks who are fed up with “business as usual” in Washington, D.C.
Sincerely, it staggers me that the evangelical-, Lutheran-rich GOP (“God’s own Party”) is coalescing behind a LDS leveraged buy-out expert who’s taken every position on every issue (including abortion) and whose only concrete accomplishment is that he made (and continues to make – without working) a ton of money. He is, by my lights, the epitome of what the Tea Party hates about politics. Deep hatred of the first black Christian in the White House seems to be the only real GOP ideology these days.
Thank you Trent for that great understanding of “ideologue”. I remember once hearing RC Sproul speaking about the difference in being pragmatic and holding to pragmatism. When one holds that position it is likely that you will do whatever is expedient at the time while holding no principle. And this follows no matter what political party one associates with. I know for myself my hopes are waning for Newt, however I continue to think he has a true grasp of where we are as a nation and the importance of righting our ship. If I may suggest a couple of links:
http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/judicial/how-to-end-judicial-supremacy/
http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/is-newt-like-churchill/
Forgot to add @9; the GOP frontrunner invented the despised “Obamacare,” yet now claims he wants to repeal it. The irony that this man will get the nomination is so rich.
Those of you who now talk about Newt, Paul, etc., know, deep down, you’ll have to vote for this guy.
The term you want is “Technocrat”, not manager…..
In the real world, balancing a budget using the available revenues is pragmatic. Doing things that will assist in improving the economy, so that those revenues can increase, is also pragmatic. For government, especially given its lack of means, the pragmatic thing to do to improve the economy is to get the heck out of the way.
If Romney’s managerial style accomplishes these pragmatic goals, he will be very successful.
DonS said (@13):
So begins the magical thinking.
Anyhow, Gerson’s an establishment hack, like SK noted (@3).
Vote for Romney. Because, you know, he’s Republican?
Yes, tODD @ 14, isn’t it sad that such basic common sense is “magical” when one attempts to apply it to government?
Actually, I agree with DonS here. Huzzah!
Yes, it’s “sad”, DonS (@15), but that doesn’t mean that, between now and November, plenty of Republicans won’t try their hardest to convince me (and, more to the point, themselves) that Romney will be a President who will “get the heck out of the way”. Sure he will. Because, you know, he’s a Republican?
Yes, tODD @ 17. We do try to convince ourselves every four years
, as do the candidates, when they run. We can always hope, because the guy that’s in there now we KNOW isn’t going to move us in the right direction.
DonS (@18), right, because there are only ever two choices.
Um, yes, tODD. At least only two that have any shot of actually getting in.
And thinking like that (@20), Don, is why you Republicans deserve Romney. Enjoy him.
Thinking like what, tODD? That a third party candidate isn’t going to win? Hmm, and your evidence to the contrary is …. what, exactly?
Johnathan@9
” Deep hatred of the first black Christian in the White House seems to be the only real GOP ideology these days.”
Lay off the ‘Everyone who dislikes Obama is Racist or ant-Christian’ or whatever ad hominem attack is politically correct today. I would not care if the guy was Anglo-Saxon royalty, I dislike his policies, I think they are destructive, and I have deep misgivings about his character and his past.
This does not make me, or anyone else who dislikes him a racist. His race or ethnicity has nothing to do with it.
‘Those of you who now talk about Newt, Paul, etc., know, deep down, you’ll have to vote for this guy.’
No, we won’t…. if Paul does not get the nomination, I will sit out the election and not vote. As I said earlier on another thread, a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. I won’t do that again, even if it means not voting.
If we are not smart enough as a country and as a people to see through the propaganda and really change things, then we get the government that we deserve. If that happens to be Obama for another four years, so be it.
I hear you Patrick Kyle @23, but you’ll vote, in the end, for Mitt. Ron Paul, with the deepest of misgivings, will endorse Mitt, who will go on to lose to Obama. But the nearly octogenarian Ron Paul will have made it possible for his son Rand to lead the Paul bandwagon in the GOP primaries in ’16, when the presidency is again open. Ron Paul, about whom there’s much to admire, should run as a 3d party candidate. But he simply can’t afford to destroy Rand’s chances in ’16.
That’s an interesting take, Jonathan @ 24. I hadn’t thought about a possible motivation he might have to mainstream Rand in the Republican party. I hope that happens — Rand is a lot better than Ron at convincing Republicans to adopt libertarian ideas.
Ron Paul, however, doesn’t strike me as being politically conventional enough to swallow his principles and endorse Mitt. I don’t see that happening. And, if he runs as a third party candidate, he will draw more votes from Obama than he will from Romney, imho.
‘but you’ll vote, in the end, for Mitt’
Again, no, I won’t.
As to Rand Paul, there is alwayss that hope, but in the mean time let’s see what he does and where he stands, before we give out advanced endorsements and praise.
Check out Romney’s top ten donors.
Goldman Sachs
Credit Suisse Group
Morgan Stanley
HIG Capital
Barclays
Kirkland & Ellis
Bank of America
PriceWaterhouseCoopers
EMC Corp
JPMorgan Chase & Co
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00000286
I’m voting for Pat Paulsen over Obama or Romney. Even though he’s dead, he’s more qualified than either of them.
DonS said (@25):
Really? So, the Tea Party — are you as much as admitting that they are an insignificantly small force when it comes down to it, or were they more likely to vote for Obama?
tODD @ 29: I think I already answered this question @ 25, but I think Ron Paul’s support comes more from disaffected youth, who voted for Obama the last time, than from those sympathetic to tea party values.
Todd makes a point. The tea party started out fairly organic and the language was “conservative first principles”. But then as 2011/12 has rounded the corner “conservative talking heads” slowly equivocated that to “the best conservative ‘that can be elected’”. Hypotheticallly in a two choice only system that could be anybody just slightly to the right of the sitting president. The orginal idealogy that motivativated the 2010 ground folks was subverted to “well the one that can get elected”. That was shift or equivocation.
Now the conservative grass roots if you will are faced with a dilemma, “get back in line and do what you’ve been handed” or vote other wise. Basically folks like Rove came in with 2010 energized roots movement and said, “Thanks for the infusion of energy but we leaders will take over from here.” But of course the roots level left has been faced with this dilema too of there system boses handing them the candidate they will vote for. So it has cut both ways.
A third party has been kind of like everybody wanting to go to heaven but no body wants to die.
larry @ 31
Everyone is going to die, which makes your comment of no importance.
A third party has never been successful, and most likely will never take root in the future. So where does this leave us?
The youth voted for Obama, and they most likely will vote anyone who mirrors Obama, in the next election. Drugs, including, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana have the positive effect of tapping their fingers to nominate, (VOTE FOR) ANYONE who will give them the freedom from the AUTHORITIES to do whatever they like, that includes DRUGS will flash lights for they CHOICE, just like it did four years ago.
Whimper, whimper
come on Luther fans. get it on bang a gong, get it on….with a bang
Cheers!
And Grace (@32), under the influence of what drug(s) did you write that comment?
Hey Dust at 33
Are you for Ron Paul the guy who contends that drug use should be made legal?
Think ABOUT THOSE WHO VOTED FOR OBAMA, what were their reasons? Then THINK ABOUT THOSE WHO WOULD VOTE FOR RON PAUL, and what would the “REASONS” be?
tODD @ 34
YOU WROTE:
Are you accusing me of being under the influence of drugs? I would watch it buster, I don’t take those types of insinuations, or allegations lightly!
Is this what you want to be on record on this blog?
You HEARD IT HERE “FIRST”, folks. People ‘vote for Ron Paul and/or “OBAMA” because they’re on drugs, or they want drugs, or they’re prostitutes, or … [mumble mumble] ‘AMBER ALERT! AMBER ALERT! AMBER ALERT! AMBER ALERT!
I see how it is, Grace. It’s fine for you to accuse others (@32) of being under the influence of drugs when they vote for Obama or Paul, but you don’t like it when the same accusation is leveled at your nigh-incoherent claims about, and I quote:
Are you sure you want to be on record as claiming that you wrote that while sober?
tODD @38
Grace protested (@39):
Okaaaay. Then please explain what you meant when you mentioned drugs “tapping their fingers to nominate, (VOTE FOR) ANYONE” and “DRUGS will flash lights for they CHOICE, just like it did four years ago”.
Grace @ 32 -
How can you be so cattily dismissive of Larry’s point? His comment is analagous to “people want their cake and to eat it too,” and you coming along saying “Everyone likes cake, which makes your comment of no importance.” You’ve completely missed the point.
It would have been better for you to simply say “Oh, Larry! Everyone likes pie!” Then your comment might have actually made sense.
Quick question:
What is the most famous and successful third party in American history, “[a] third party [which] has never been successful, and most likely will never take root in the future?”
Answer:
The Republican Party.
“So where does this leave us?”
Sanity: 4,325,216 Grace: 0
So, I’m a longtime reader of Dr. Veith’s blog, but for the longest time I never read the comments because I usually never left the RSS-feed page, which doesn’t display them. Some time ago I started reading the comments, often with interest. Still more recently I started participating in the comment-feed discussions myself. I have to say that while Dr. Veith’s blog manages to stand head and shoulders above blogs in the same vein (I’ll call them “observation of society compendia with a theological bent”) on account of the good provost being both a gentleman and a scholar (I had the good fortune of meeting him in person at a conference of the CCLE in Sheridan, WY, last June, which only reinforced this impression of him), the comments are just as embarrassingly uncivil and tactless as the worst of them. I may have been guilty of contributing to this atmosphere, so in the event that my making this comment is hypocritical, I do apologize.
Sorry. Just had to clear the air. I subscribed to this comment feed after commenting once, and although I intended to comment at least one other time (I accidentally closed a tab in my browser and lost something of a soliloquy – in terms of length, at least) I have been, for the most part, a spectator this time around. I have found it to be little different from watching my seventh- and eighth-grade students bicker and throw sarcastic potshots at each other.
Time was when one interlocutor in a conversation (especially one in which there were multiple parties involved, rather than just two) would let the stupidity of an opponent’s point indict itself, rather than smugly trotting it around and blockquoting it in fits of snarky, self-satisfied glee. Online commenting seems to be quite the game-changer, though, as evidenced by this thread, which has now devolved into petty sniping that even my middle-schoolers would find tactless and immature.
It seems a good rule of thumb in these online discussions to say only those things that you would say directly to the other person’s face. Or perhaps you should pretend that it’s your mother saying those things that you find oh-so-stupid, and then check your response.
With that said, I would like the most gleefully snarky of all who have participated in this thread thus far, Todd, to explain to the rest of us rubes who “deserve Romney” what it is that we should do on November 6, if not unenthusiastically vote for the Republican nominee, whomever he is. Perhaps then we could get a real conversation going once more.
I don’t like Romney. I distrust him. As I said before, he may not be an ideologue, but he seems to have swung perilously far in the other direction, towards that of pragmatism. But this evaluation matters nil: he is the lesser of two evils, and our system, such as it is, presents us with a polarized array of options, i.e., two. Two actual options with which to work on the national scale. We don’t have a Parliamentary system. Perhaps if we did, Ron Paul would have a shot. But for now, the most effectual good (and it is a small amount) will likely be achieved, by throwing support behind Romney, who, although he is no true conservative, will likely be able to repeal Obamacare (yes, I know about Romneycare; do not feel the need to educate me on this point), which will be impossible to repeal after 2013, when people start collecting benefits from it. I don’t think I need to explain how it is that a government entitlement program as expansive as Obamacare becomes permanent. Sir Alexander Frasier Tytler said it best:
The difference between Romney and Obama is marginal at best, but it might just be the most attainable goal in our post-federalist system to unseat Obama before attempting a larger overhaul. Voting for Paul will not, I do not think, siphon away more votes from Obama than it will from Romney. I don’t know of any data suggesting otherwise, but would love to see it if it’s out there.
It’s important to have principles, but taken too far, “principled thinking” leads to ideology. Likewise, it’s important to be pragmatic; take this too far, though, and you have pragmatism. A vote for Ron Paul, at this point in time, would be to take the ideologue’s road, and to make the supposed “perfect” (ostensibly Paul, for purposes of this conceit) the enemy of the “good” (which in this instance is more like “ok” or “mediocre”), with the result that the “worst” prevails, and we get another term with Barack Obama. This is how the game is played, as much as we might whine and rage and gnash our teeth at it, and dream of greener pastures…
Don’t look at me. I sided with the Anti-federalists. And then the South.
Anyway, I think I have moderately low expectations for what is possible both from government in generalest, the U.S. government more generally, and from the 2012 election in particular. Moreover, I think some of the more extreme voices in this debate thus far would do well to read the chapter from Dr. Veith’s book The Spirituality of the Cross entitled “The Sacred and the Secular” for some prudent guiding principles viz. politics and activism.
That’s all I have to say for now.
For what it’s worth, and perhaps in an attempt to turn the conversation in a somewhat more productive direction, responsive to Trent’s prodding above, polls have noted that the U.S. military seems strongly to favor Ron Paul in the Republican primary. David French, who served in Iraq a few years ago, and is a regular contributor to National Review Online’s “The Corner”, explains why he thinks that is, here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287960/ron-pauls-appeal-among-military-david-french
Trent (@43), I hope it won’t offend you if I use blockquotes one more time. You asked me to:
Well, you could, you know, vote for the candidate you think has the best policies/ideas/experience, regardless of his chance at winning. Which would require you to consider more than two options, possibly even writing in a name!
Of course, you have already ruled out this possibility, saying that Ron Paul doesn’t “have a shot”. Which is curious logic. You know what? In 2008, by the time election day rolled around, McCain didn’t have much of a a shot, either. So I guess your logic compelled people just to vote for Obama, so they could say they voted for a winner? Or did you vote for McCain out of principle?
I didn’t vote for either. I wrote in Ron Paul, because I thought he was the best option. I voted out of principle.
But hey, enjoy Romney. He’s different from Obama. After all, he’s a Republican?
Trent @43
I read with interest your last post. I don’t believe the race is near finished – Romney the winner, as presidential candidate within the Republican party. The Republican convention will begin on August 27th in Tampa, which gives us seven more months to choose the candidate. A great deal can happen in seven months.
I believe there are four main contenders, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. I don’t believe Ron Paul has a chance. He is 76 now, he will be 77 August 20th of this year, and 78 in 2012.
I believe the most intelligent of the men to be Gingrich.
I believe Mitt Romney to be the worst of the four.
Below is a small portion of the CNN Transcript between Piers Morgan and Newt Gingrich last night:
Another interesting answer which Newt Gingrich gave when interviewed by Piers Morgan on CNN last night:
Newt Gingrich makes it clear that he has gone to God for forgiveness.
Todd,
It really wasn’t your use of blockquotes per se that I found to be poor form. I think you know that, too.
It fun to play the cynical, skeptical critic who hovers above it all making cheap laconic quips about the dunderheads caught up in “the system.” I’ve done it, too. I’m generally inclined that way, both because I’m a naturally proud person who think that I probably understand things better than “most” (lovely abstraction, that) and, I would suggest, because our modern American political context does offer much about which one may be justifiably cynical. But this po-mo modus operandi, while it seems cool and esoteric, is really not. American politics is system-bound, and the system is flawed, to be sure. But the constraints which it imposes are real – inveigh against them though we may. This is what you either fail to understand, or else whimsically deny, as your commentary continues to demonstrate:
Again, what you lack in logic, you more than make up for in glib, patronizing sarcasm (and yes, if my mother were ever as glibly and patronizingly sarcastic as you continue to be, I would tell her so – just so I don’t violate my own standard here – but she never is). Why would I vote for a candidate regardless of their chances of winning? Why would I vote for a candidate who has no chance? I vote effectually, not symbolically. Life is to short to go around making statements every four years. Voting for the “lesser of two evils” does not show that one is ignorant that there are “more than two options”; it more likely shows recognition of the fact that some of the options are virtual.
For dropping the word “logic” like you do, your comments evince a surprising dearth of it. Such was not the case in 2008, when John McCain, the Republican nominee, ran against Barack Obama, the Democrat nominee. Incidentally, McCain had a decent shot; the polls were far from projecting Obama as undisputed leader going into the last two weeks. Voting for McCain then, in 2008, is not at all analogous to voting for Paul this November – or ever, unless he somehow secures the nomination, this year or later (though he is getting old). The two scenarios are not similar enough to warrant the analogy that you try to make, not by a long shot. So, no, “my logic” didn’t compel people to vote for Obama; it did, however, compel me to point out your inductive fallacy.
I didn’t vote for McCain, either. I didn’t have a stamp. I didn’t vote.
See, there’s that dratted system again. It’s flawed, but it’s the one we’ve got. I mentioned earlier that if we had a different system – namely, a parliamentary system – a third party run by Paul would make slightly more sense. But even then, it would be largely untenable, for reasons which a friend of mine laid out in a similar conversation some months ago. He’s a lobbyist here in Washington, D.C., and pretty savvy when it comes to thinking prudently about politics (quick get ready to discredit him because he’s part of the beltway establishment! Poison the well!)
I personally don’t hold out much hope for a longer-term solution, as desirable as it may be. I think there are deeper-seated problems of culture afoot that even the mighty Ron Paul would be powerless to remedy, problems of scale and national identity. I happen to think that some of these problems have been in the cards from our country’s birth. But I digress. All this is not to say that I am, therefore, a hopeless person, just that I locate my hope elsewhere, and that I have low expectations for what nationalist politicking can achieve. But as far as national (I won’t say federal) politics is concerned, it’s realpolitik for me. Slow the slide; play the cutthroat game; don’t make every issue a hill to fight and die on (some are worth it – most are not). Politics is the art of the possible.
So, in sum, while I’m not sure I will “enjoy Romney,” as you so snidely suggested I do, I am quite sure that I will enjoy life, largely in spite of the goings-on inside the Beltway. I will enjoy life even if Obama is president for four more years. I could vote for Paul; I could vote for Romney. It doesn’t really matter, or change the fact that Romney, barring some unforeseen shift in the tradewinds of fortune, is going to bag the nomination (I read your contributions with interest as well, Grace, but I don’t think we’re going to see any surprises on the way to the nomination in August), and then probably lose to Obama, for reasons which will only become increasingly clear as November approaches. So you enjoy Romney, Todd. That’s a weird way of putting it, but, hey, you said it – not me. He is different from Obama. Not a lot, but different enough. I’ll probably vote for him, and then forget about him. The franchise isn’t a sacrament; it’s just part of the mess of pottage that is our birthright as Americans. We sure conned us a hairy man to get it, too, so we may as well enjoy it while we can, before the birds come home to roost.
You must have either a strangely perduring faith in the American people’s (heretofore unforeseen) propensity to elect write-in candidates for president, Todd, or you must have a weird predilection for schadenfreude on a grand scale. To vote for Paul when the current political climate is the way that it is – and with the context, long in the making, which we must abide within even as we seek to prudently modify the same – may seem like a “principled vote”, but it is by definition and in more ways than one a vain vote, one which sacrifices the chance for small and perhaps even oblique measures which would do some good (such as the repeal of Obamacare – one of several points which you refrained from commenting on) in favor of taking a symbolic “stand” for something currently unattainable. Calling such a practice “voting on principle” sounds debonair, but betrays an ideologue’s cast of mind and an unmanly resentment of the limitations with which the conservative-minded in this country have to work.
Trent,
I have to disagree with you on one of your assumptions. I think it is key. Here it is:
This seems eminently reasonable and, on its surface, it is. But, here’s the problem: how much more electable would an individual be if everyone who could/would support them on principle decided to support them regardless of “electability.” Why is Romney “electable?” Primarily because he’s been declared to be electable by people who support him for being electable. But, there’s no there there. Paul or Gingrich or Santorum would instantly be “electable” if everyone who actually identifies with their philosophy of government actually set aside “electability” as their primary motivation for supporting a candidate.
Now, I have to concur with much of your later statements. Whatever happens this election, life will go on. It may get better, it may get worse (a lot worse), but that is not my primary concern in life. However, I will still vote on principle, if I decide that a vote carries meaning. Even a losing vote does carry a message. Ron Paul probably won’t win the nomination and Romney does stand a good chance of blowing an excellent opportunity, but voting for Paul and having enough others do the same, signals that the old Republican-Democrat dichotomy is largely false and that maybe, just maybe, something will give. We’ll see.