Reputed Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney has been called âthe weakest frontrunner we have ever seen,â by the editor of the National Review. Romney just published an electoral platform book last year and has already changed the subtitle to eliminate the suggestion of a vision for American âgreatnessâ. This sets him up as the anomalous candidate who tries to be both the unforgiving doomsayer and the glistening pitch-man.
The strange and unfortunate redaction is part of an attempt to placate radical Tea Partisans, with a bias against any program that invests government revenue in building a better future. Romney is, amazingly, tacking toward the Paul Ryan dogma, whereby âAmerica is brokeâ and âwe just canât affordâ to live up to the ideals we hold dear.
Romney, of course, doesnât want to appear to be against American greatness, but he is now making decisive, concerted efforts to move his policies toward something that would allow him to cast President Obamaâs effort to build a stronger future for the nation as a reckless campaign of unaffordable spending.
The problem Romney will face, which he seems blissfully unaware of at this juncture, is that President Obama will also be campaigning, and âaside from being a brilliant campaignerâ he has long been building the vocabulary and the policy credentials as a visionary centrist, who aims to do what is necessary to both fulfill the past promises made by our government to its people and build a stronger, smarter, more prosperous future.
Romney doesnât seem rhetorically equipped to make such a case. His one serious achievement, both highly popular in his state and in line with what most voters want, his healthcare reform program, is so similar to key provisions of the Affordable Care Act that: 1) he canât run against âObamacareâ in any credible way, and 2) he canât talk about his only serious public policy achievement with any degree of passion.
It seems like an unintelligent move for anyone serious about elective office âto oppose any positive mention of oneâs only meaningful public policy achievement and to oppose investing in the future greatness of the nation one hopes to serveâ, but in the twisted logic of the Tea Party mania that is sweeping his party, this is becoming standard.
The billionaire Koch brothers are pouring tens of millions of dollars into the Tea Partisan propaganda mill not because they want balanced budgets or a better quality of life for ordinary working American families. They are doing it because they want people to vote against their own interest, and they want to hurt Democrats who would oppose shifting taxpayer money from schools to oil companies.
Romney is asking American voters to believe he is worthy of the most challenging task of leadership in this world, by exhibiting in stunning and unnerving fashion his abject cowardice in the face of this hostile campaign against the interests of the American people. He is afraid of what that billionaire-funded Tea Partisan propaganda mill will do to his candidacy if he does not adopt their vague and destructive policy platform.
What is perhaps worse is that Romneyâs moral cowardice in the face of Tea Party irrationality suggests the Republican party will continue its slide to the irrational right, where pseudo-conservative posturing nudges millions of voters to support the very policies that will impoverish their families and their communities.
Independent voters generally like to refrain from partisan attacks or partisan campaign analysis, but now, already, more than 18 months before the 2012 election, the Republican field appears ready to commit to a know-nothing campaign of thoughtless opposition to the very policies that make America a shining example of democracy and will help to build a brighter future.
What, we must ask, about such an approach, could any rational person support? Why should non-aligned voters side with radical policies that will undercut funding and undermine quality in their childrenâs schools, lock in a lower level of education, skill and ingenuity, for an entire generation, deny hard-working families the right to the Medicare and Social Security they have been paying for, and make of the United States a hobbled giant unable to fulfill even the most basic obligations of a civilized modern democracy?
Mitt Romney offers nothing to answer this question except the absurd dogma that choke off the flow of capital to schools, to hospitals, to police and fire departments, to every aspect of our civil society, will make magic happen, and everything and everyone will behave as if they are better funded. America is not broke; the wealth of middle class American households has been extracted by a system of deregulation that favors profiteering over good-faith business value.
The candidate who should win in 2012 must be able to put forth programs that regulate and foster innovation, that trim but donât roll back economic recovery, that make sure taxpayer money is not given away to unproductive entrenched interests, but rather invested in collaborative projects of ingenuity that help to build a better, freer more prosperous future for actual families.
To put it another way: if conservatives make the argument that America cannot afford to invest in the bigger, more dynamic society of tomorrow, if they argue we cannot or should not keep the promises we make or aspire to big ideas, then they only succeed in making clear why they should not be given the reins of power.