People have talked for months, perhaps years, about Mitt
Romney’s inconsistencies, about how they feel uncertain as to what
position Romney would hold on a particular issue. The story is
getting old and tired, but allow me to summarize: for Romneycare,
then against the very similar Obamacare; pro-choice, then
anti-abortion; pro-gay marriage, then favoring a constitutional
definition of marriage.
There are other criticisms of Romney out there: too
cautious, too plastic, too “moderate.”
But somehow I remain about as confident in Mitt Romney’s
predictability as in Newt Gingrich’s, which is to say not as
confident as I’d like but more than confident enough to support him
in the general election.
Mr. Gingrich is a good speaker and debater, if prone to
occasionally engaging his mouth before his brain. (To be sure, he
seems quite focused on rhetorical self-discipline of late.) He’s a
tremendous self-promoter; yes, all politicians must be, but Mr.
Gingrich is particularly adept.
And he certainly plays a conservative on TV.
But Mr. Gingrich has had at least as many and at least as
large changes on policy views as Mitt Romney has.
He was for an individual health care mandate before being
against it (while blaming his view on the Heritage Foundation,
which does indeed have some responsibility here). He was for some
version of cap and trade before he was against it. (Cap and trade
would be even more damaging to our nation than Obamacare is.) He
was, apparently for profit, for Freddie Mac before he was against
it. And I still don’t really understand his positions on U.S.
involvement in Libya.
Despite all this, and despite not being able to entirely
disagree with Jon Stewart’s assertion that Newt has a certain
“dickishness,” I can’t say that I prefer Romney to Gingrich by
enough to commit to him. I can say that the argument that Gingrich
is somehow the true conservative while Romney is the
faux-conservative rings hollow.
One of the most common questions you’ll hear these days in
political discussions among Republicans is whether they’re more
focused on electability or on principle. (I’m focused on the
former, whereas I was focused on the latter in 2008.) The common
wisdom throughout this cycle has been that electability is Romney’s
strong suit and Gingrich’s Achilles’ heel.
However, even this question is now a head-scratcher. In a
CBS News poll released Tuesday, “31 percent of likely Iowa
caucus-goers said Gingrich had the best chance among the current
GOP field to defeat President Barack Obama in 2012. Twenty-nine
percent said Romney had the best chance.” Given that Iowa’s likely
caucus-goers are much more conservative than the general
population, one must somewhat discount their view on who is most
electable in terms of its being representative of the broader
electorate.
A
pair of recent national polls by Rasmussen Reports shows
Gingrich ahead of President Obama by two points, but Obama ahead of
Romney by two points. It was the first poll by a major polling
company during this entire cycle that showed Gingrich beating
Obama, and it was the worst showing for Romney versus Obama in
several weeks (among the polls included in the
RealClearPolitics average).
However, a poll taken of voters in the very important
state of Florida during the same time frame by the liberal-leaning
Public Policy Polling showed Romney one point behind Obama, but
Gingrich six points behind.
Dick Morris has taken on the issue, to suggest that if your
focus is conservatism, you probably are for Newt, whereas if your
focus is on the economy and jobs, you probably are for Mitt, saying
of Romney that “this guy really understands jobs… He would
probably be the best president we ever had when it comes to the
economy.” He also notes that a conservative Congress would keep
Romney in line if he were to drift leftward.
But “Gingrich on the other hand is a reliable social
conservative and a very creative one.” Morris says that while Newt
can get too creative for his own good, Gingrich would be “the most
intelligent president we’ve had since John Kennedy.”
Morris’s point is that the choice of candidate “really
depends less on the candidates than on you. Is your chief priority
in this thing turning the economy around and bringing us back to a
really good, healthy long-term posture of economic growth? Or is
your priority undoing the left-wing radical social-engineering
agenda of the Obama presidency?”
My kingdom for a candidate who is truly credible on both,
but my chief priority is giving Jimmy Carter II the same amount of
time in office as Jimmy Carter I.
For voters like for me whose motivation is nothing more
and nothing less than making sure Barack Obama is not re-elected,
Morris offers this: “Clearly Romney would have a better chance of
winning than Gingrich would. The very things that make him
difficult as a sell in the primary, the Romneycare, abortion, and
that stuff, make him more acceptable in a general election.… But I
believe that with Obama messing up as he’s doing.… Gingrich also
could beat Obama, so I don’t think that it’s an automatic vote for
Romney simply because he would have the better chance.”
And here is the crux of the matter. If you believe that
Morris is right that Romney and Gingrich may both be electable, but
that Romney’s chances are measurably better, is it really worth
increasing your risk of a second Obama presidency in order to get a
president who is, in my view, only slightly more conservative? I
think not, but I will keep listening to the debates and the
candidates’ other public statements to see if perhaps my perception
of the electability of either man changes substantially.
A couple other points on electability: The strength of
voters’ desire for a less polarized relationship between Congress
and the White House, i.e. the “can’t we all just get along” crowd,
could be a major factor. Voters, especially independents and
moderate Republicans, who are old enough to remember the
Clinton/Gingrich years, the government shutdown, the intense
partisanship (which continues unabated today) may lean toward
Romney’s more cooperative persona. Hard-core conservatives who are
itching for a fight they can win may side with Gingrich.
Furthermore, one has to wonder whether a Gingrich
nomination would bring Bill Clinton into the race, not just in
people’s minds, but also in terms of letting Clinton hit the
campaign trail for Democrats regaling crowds with his personal
stories about Gingrich. It is a remarkable thing to say, but our
current president and, sadly, even our prior president, make the
Clinton years look like a paradigm of good government and fiscal
discipline, blue dresses notwithstanding. Clinton will work hard to
make sure that he, rather than Gingrich, gets the credit; it would
be an incredible ongoing debate to watch. I doubt Republicans want
to run even a little bit against Bill Clinton but a Gingrich
nomination would make that scenario likely.
Hard-core conservatives may be a majority in many GOP
primaries and caucuses but are a distinct minority in a general
election. If Gingrich wins the nomination on their strength, they
will have to stick with their man as he moves slightly to the
center prior to November 2012. Romney is probably acceptable to
moderates as he is… which is why conservatives are so hesitant to
support him. Again, we will have to decide whether we want the more
conservative candidate or the more electable candidate. I wonder
what William F. Buckley would say about this match-up.
When the nominee is chosen, even if whomever of the two (I
do believe this is now a two-man race) I end up supporting doesn’t
win, I will gladly support the other. Both are good men despite
their much-discussed flaws, both far better for our nation than our
current president, and both deserving of the support of all
Americans whose motivation is to return our nation at least
slightly back down the path of limited government and
liberty.
