As someone who has “flipped” from one position to another (left to right, atheist to Christian), I have some sympathy for Mitt Romney. (To be sure, I had little to gain in the academy from either flip.) But Kathleen Parker’s account of how Mitt Romney approached the question of embryonic stem cell research makes him seem serious-minded and admirable:
The politically expedient choice was obvious, but Romney took a more thoughtful approach and sought to educate himself before staking out a position. Enter William Hurlbut, a physician and professor of biomedical ethics at Stanford University Medical School. For several hours, Hurlbut and Romney met in the governor’s office and went through the dynamics of conception, embryonic development and the repercussions of research that targets nascent human life. It was not a light lunch.
The result of that conversation and others was a pro-life Romney, who kept his campaign promise to honor the state’s democratically asserted preference for abortion choice but also began a personal path that happened to serve him well, at least theoretically, among social conservatives. Was his conversion sincere? No one can know another’s heart, but Hurlbut is convinced that it was.
“Several things about our conversation still stand out strongly in my mind,” Hurlbut told me. “First, he clearly recognized the significance of the issue, not just as a current controversy but as a matter that would define the character of our culture way into the future.
“Second, it was obvious that he had put in a real effort to understand both the scientific prospects and the broader social implications. Finally, I was impressed by both his clarity of mind and sincerity of heart. . . . He recognized that this was not a matter of purely abstract theory or merely pragmatic governance, but a crucial moment in how we are to regard nascent human life and the broader meaning of medicine in the service of life.”
Would this were the kind of “focus group” all our political leaders employed as they pondered the big questions of public life.
Joseph Knippenberg is Professor of Politics at Oglethorpe University.
November 30th, 2011 | 1:34 pm
I’m not a Romney fan, but, there is nothing wrong with a considered change of mind. We should expect politicians to educate themselves on various subjects and adjust their positions based on their education and experience.
November 30th, 2011 | 10:32 pm
Romney’s former rational positions on healthcare, and the need for civil discourse are the very reason he does not appeal to today’s republican party which appears to have been co-opted by the whack-a-moles. His flip-flopping to appease the radical right lowers him to their level.
December 1st, 2011 | 8:37 am
While it’s certainly understandable that many are skeptical of Romney due to his flip flops, but, for good or bad, this is common, obviously, for politicians. He’s certainly (with the conceivable exception of Gingrich) the most intelligent, and probably the most stable.
December 1st, 2011 | 1:50 pm
The term “flip-flop” became current in presidential election discourse because John Kerry was constantly saying different things on the campaign trail to different audiences, basically at the same time. But that is NOT what Romney has done, in evolving his positions about abortion. He has called for reversing Roe v. Wade, which would allow each state to legislate a rule on abortion that reflects the conscience of its own citizens. Undoubtedly the majority of Massachusetts voters would leave abortion law pretty much where it is, while many other states would place significant restrictions on it, such as allowing it only in cases of rape, incest, or severe health threats to the mother. Even George W. Bush took a compromise position on Federal funding on fetal stem cell research, allowing it to proceed if it used existing liines of stem cells, but not if it involved new abortions.
The news stories about Romney’s service as an unpaid, part-time Mormon pastor in Boston years ago related that, in that capacity, he had strongly discouraged a woman from having an abortion, in line with Mormon teachings that abortion should only be contemplated if the pregnancy threatens severe physical or emotional harm to the mother. Romney clearly did not favor the kind of unrestricted abortion policy that Pro-Choice advocates insist on. But there is a difference between persuasivly teaching that viewpoint to fellow church members, and making it into a legal standard that governs the lives of people who are not of his faith.
The fact that people in the Left are seriously opposed to Romney as president demonstrates that THEY believe his conservative social principles grow out of his sincere commitment to Mormonism, and that he will follow those principles if he is elected. It is hypocritical of people to claim that Ropmney is not really committed to those principles, even as they criticize his solid loyalty to Mormonism, which is the source of his commitment to conservative social values.
December 1st, 2011 | 8:04 pm
This way of looking at it might be plausible if Romney had not also “changed his mind” on almost every position in which he found a previous position to be less expedient. Is there any flip, among his many, about which we could speak as you did of your own: “he had little to gain by it”?
December 2nd, 2011 | 2:39 am
I think that Raymond Takashi Swensen makes a good point, regarding Romney’s Mormonism. I agree, and would add that, considering the criticism, even bigotry (e.g., Perry’s pastor asserting that Mormonism is a “cult” a very unkind and bigoted statement) that the Mormon Church has been subjected to, Romney’s firm adherence to it, is a sign of his integrity.
December 2nd, 2011 | 12:26 pm
When I think of flip-flop, I think of someone flipping first, then flopping. In other words, you may start out pro-X, then anti-X, then pro-X.
In all honesty, I have flipped and then flopped on many things in my life, including substantial beliefs about core issues. I wish I had been more consistent, but I have not been. So I don’t judge this phenomenon as harshly.
I do wonder if some of the flipping and flopping, though, is influenced by the audience one is addressing. I do tend to judge that more critically.
Was Romney pro-life first, then pro-choice for the Mass. elections, then pro-life again? If he switched for expediency, then I admire him less.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact