Tag Archives: Romney

The Scariest Thing About Mitt Romney

This morning’s New York Times asked an important question: is there a “Romney Doctrine”?

The article detailed the multiple ways in which Romney has ignored the advice of seasoned members of his foreign policy team, and rejected the more nuanced positions that Bush junior came to embrace in his second term (after learning lessons the hard way). Instead, Romney–who has zero foreign policy experience–has repeatedly engaged in hard-line, uninformed saber rattling.

Of all the things we are learning about the man who could very well become the most powerful person on the planet, this lack of appreciation for the complexities of the world America inhabits is the most worrisome.

Given Romney’s approach to campaigning–a full-throated pander to the most retrograde elements of the GOP base–it is certainly possible that his foreign policy positions are simply as self-serving as his domestic ones. This is, after all, a man whose only obviously genuine belief is in his own entitlement to be President. But unlike uninformed, simplistic statements about domestic issues, a presidential candidate’s foreign policy pronouncements are news around the globe.  They become part of the intricate diplomatic calculus that the United States must engage in every day. When those statements are unreflective or contrary to current U.S. policies and interests, they complicate and disrupt ongoing international discussions.

If Romney the candidate is unaware of the effect of his bellicose statements, what evidence do we have that he would be more thoughtful as President? Thus far, we have seen no signs of self-reflection or intellectual curiosity–and certainly, no hint of recognition that there might be deficits in his understanding of a complex world.

The more we learn about Mitt Romney, the more convinced I become that he would be a disaster as President. Not because he is an evil man, but because he is an empty one.

Comments

Romney Sells What’s Left of His Soul

If there is any lingering doubt that Mitt Romney has sold what passes for his soul to the extreme right, his appointment of Robert Bork as his “legal advisor” should remove it.

I remember when Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate in a vote that included several Republicans. I was a pretty partisan Republican at the time, but even so, I found his nomination both mystifying and appalling. It’s fashionable among people who are unfamiliar with Bork’s writings and positions to bemoan the “nasty politics” that denied him a seat on the high court, but that sanitized version of history is simply inaccurate. While politics undoubtedly played a part, the reason Bork was rejected was that his views were far, far out of the legal mainstream.  His diatribes have–if anything–gotten more extreme since.

As law professor Jamin Raskin reminded readers in a recent post to the American Constitution Society blog,

  • Bork condemned as “lawless” and “a new low” the Supreme Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons, which banned state execution of juveniles — a practice that he would allow despite the fact that no other country in the world sanctions it. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.
  • Bork rejects the Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey upholding a woman’s right to choose an abortion.  He is adamant that Roe v. Wade be overturned and states be allowed the power to prosecute women and doctors who violate criminal abortion laws.  As Bork states, “Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of the judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned.  The Court’s integrity requires that.” (See The Tempting of America)
  • He attacked the Supreme Court for its 7-1 decision in U.S. v. Virginia barring the state-funded Virginia Military Institute from discriminating against women. He argued that the “feminized Court” had reached its conclusion based on “sterile feminist logic” and rejected the mainstream view that sex-based classifications by government trigger heightened scrutiny.
  • Bork deplores the Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas striking down state laws that criminalize gay sex and has advocated amending the Constitution to declare that marriage is between “one man and one woman.”  (He even championed for a while a constitutional amendment permitting a simple majority of Congress to overturn the Supreme Court’s constitutional holdings, but appears to be backing away from this position.)
  • Bork lambasted the Court’s decision to uphold affirmative action as constitutional, despite the consensus of most universities, and even the United States armed services, that such programs are needed to counter historical discrimination and promote diversity in these institutions.
  • He has an embarrassing record on voting rights, vehemently opposing the fundamental constitutional principle of “one person, one vote” and defending the constitutionality of the poll tax and literacy test in state elections. 

I read Bork’s “Slouching Toward Gomorra” when it first came out; in it, Bork essentially took the position that he and other members of an “enlightened” elite should decide what other (lesser) Americans could read. Despite the effort of many on the Right to rehabilitate Bork’s image, the man’s own works testify to his profoundly anti-democratic views. If there is any doubt of the utterly radical nature of Robert Bork’s positions, the evidence is in his own articles and books, his own words. It is unnecessary to consult secondary resources.

The obvious question is: Why on earth would Mitt Romney choose Robert Bork–as extreme and polarizing a figure as can be found–to be his legal adviser, the person he would listen to when choosing Supreme Court nominees, the person he would consult about the constitutionality of policy proposals?

Why, when he has secured the nomination, would he embrace someone beloved only by the farthest fringes of the lunatic Right? If it’s time to shake up the Etch-A-Sketch and try to look reasonably moderate, this is a seemingly inexplicable choice.

I can think of only two possible answers to that question: either Romney really is an extremist who only played a moderate in Massachusetts; or he is making a final, desperate Faustian bargain in an effort to earn the trust of today’s reactionary GOP base.

Either explanation makes him a fraud. Bork makes him a dangerous fraud.

Comments

Etch-A-Sketch and Old White Guys

There’s been a lot of talk–gleeful and rueful–about the “Etch-a-Sketch” comment by one of Mitt Romney’s advisors. (For those who missed it, the advisor was asked by a CNN reporter whether he worried that Mitt had been pushed so far right during the primary process that he would be unable to attract moderates during the general election; he responded that he wasn’t concerned, because the general election was like an Etch-A-Sketch–you shake everything up and start over.)

The remark underscored one of Romney’s biggest problems: the widespread perception that there is no “there” there–that he is Mr. Inauthentic. But I think it displayed an even more fundamental disconnect.

Today’s GOP has become a party of old white men who don’t understand how people communicate in the world of twitter and Facebook. We saw this during the last campaign–John McCain was often (aptly) described as “an analog candidate for a digital age.”

Romney’s advisor wasn’t wrong, exactly, about the nature of the primary and general campaigns–he was simply behind the times. It used to be that candidates could target voting blocks and special interests with direct mail appeals that flew under the radar of the electorate at large. It used to be that primaries could be conducted as largely “in house” contests–and it was usually only political junkies who would read the traditional media’s reporting on those primaries.

We don’t live in that world anymore. Facebook, Twitter and You Tube, among others, have altered the political landscape; people see a ridiculous remark, or are angered by a political position, and post it. Posts go viral. Literally millions of people are drawn into arguments that would have been “inside baseball” in days gone by.

And speaking of days gone by–nothing says old-fashioned and out of touch like a reference to Etch-A-Sketch.

Romney’s problem isn’t just that he’s willing to say anything to anyone. It’s that he and his team of old white guys don’t understand the world they now live in.

Comments

Remembrance of Things Past

The Republican candidates for President continue to appeal to the current GOP base with what passes for policy in the party these days: Romney has just promised to cut funding for the arts by half; Santorum promises not just a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, but also to retroactively “annul” those marriages that have already occurred (good luck with that, Rick); Gingrich wants poor children with no “role models” or a “work ethic” (i.e., black kids) to clean public school toilets, and Ron Paul wants the US to withdraw from contact from the rest of the world. They all pooh-pooh climate change and vow to reverse current measures to protect the environment. They all promise to control my uterus, and to charge me big bucks if I am impertinent enough to demand birth control. They all want to eviscerate labor unions and cut what’s left of the social safety net.

And none of them will ever, ever, ever raise taxes on rich folks. Promise.

I remember when the Republican Party didn’t resemble the Gong Show. I remember when Republicans were fiscally prudent adults who paid for the wars they waged, were pro-equality (okay, maybe not the southern ones), and were concerned about the health of the planet.

Young people to whom I defend the “old” GOP tend to be skeptical of my recollection, but I have proof of a sort. The other day, cleaning out some files, I came across a summary of the national Republican Platform of 1956. To today’s GOP, it would read like the Communist Manifesto.

A sampling:

  • We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs–expansion of social security–broadened coverage in unemployment insurance–improved housing–and better health protection for all our people.
  • We favor a comprehensive study of the effects upon wildlife of the drainage of our wetlands.
  • We recognize the need for maintaining isolated wilderness areas.
  • We favor a continuously vigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws.
  • We must continue and further perfect…programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers.
  • We must extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable.
  • We must continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex.
  • We must revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker and the public.

I miss that party. RIP.

Comments

Crushing Their Dreams

In last night’s GOP debate in South Carolina, Mitt Romney once again promised that, as President, he would veto the Dream Act. 

I’ll admit that I find opposition to the Dream Act incomprehensible. I was really disappointed when Dick Lugar responded to the rightwing challenge from Richard Mourdock by withdrawing his long-time sponsorship of that measure. And I am constantly surprised and disheartened by those who are so rabidly anti-illegal-immigration that they see nothing wrong with punishing children for the acts of their parents.

The Dream Act would provide (conditional) permanent residency to undocumented residents of “good moral character” who graduate from US high schools, arrived in the US as minors, and lived in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the bill’s enactment. If they complete two years in the military, or two years at a four-year institution of higher learning, they can obtain temporary residency for a six year period. Within that six year period, they may qualify for permanent residency if they have “acquired a degree from an institution of higher education in the United States or has completed at least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a bachelor’s degree or higher degree in the United States” or have “served in the armed services for at least 2 years and, if discharged, received an honorable discharge.”

People for whom illegal immigration is a high-priority issue almost always defend that position by insisting that it isn’t the race or ethnicity of the people involved–that it is a question of rewarding law-breaking. Okay, I get that. But if the point is to punish those who break the law, why punish children who made no such decision, who had no choice in the matter? Most of these children know no other home but America, speak no language but English, and want nothing more than to be contributing citizens. It is heartless to insist that they must be deported to countries with which they are totally unfamiliar.

Not to get all biblical about it, but why visit the sins of the fathers on the children?

Why crush their dreams?

Comments