As he attempts to quell the controversy over his recent comments about the alleged dependency habits of nearly half of all Americans, Mitt Romney may have a bigger challenge ahead: inspiring social conservatives to vote for him. Ever since he entered the presidential sweepstakes, a segment of social conservatives have been hesitant to support him.
Though they welcome converts to their cause, the sincerity of Romney’s evolution, from social liberalism to traditionalism, is still questioned. While many believe he has earned their trust, others haven’t been persuaded—at least not yet–and their apprehensions were heightened by a string of recent events.
First, in an interview with CBS news, shortly before the GOP convention, Romney declared: “My position has been clear throughout this campaign. I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest and the health and life of the mother.”
As is well-known, a “health” exception for abortion can be so broadly defined as to allow for virtually any kind of abortion. (In fact, Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton made this clear).
A spokesman for the Romney campaign quickly tried to recover: “Gov. Romney’s position is clear: he opposes abortion except for cases of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is threatened.”
The “health” exception was dropped, but a number of pro-lifers weren’t altogether impressed. Catholic Culture’s Phil Lawler said of Romney:
“His campaign now says that his latest gaffe-a virtual acceptance of the Roe decision—was a misstatement of his real beliefs. But it’s the sort of misstatement that could only be made by someone who has not devoted enough attention to the issue to recognize the pitfalls in the language.”
There was more to the CBS interview:
“Romney, however, told [reporter Scott] Pelley that the issue amounts to a distraction. ‘Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court. The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts.
It’s been settled for some time in the courts.’” To which Lawler replied:
“The issue is settled, he says. Does that statement fill you with confidence that Romney would seize an opportunity to press the offensive against abortion? Does the GOP candidate sound anxious to appoint federal judges who would be likely to re-open a question that has already been settled?”
As if to underscore Lawler’s concern, Romney then delivered his convention acceptance speech, which—while well-received in some quarters–gave limited attention to social issues:
“As President, I will protect the sanctity of life. I will honor the institution of marriage. And I will guarantee America’s first liberty: the freedom of religion.”
Excellent—especially in contrast to an Administration which glaringly dishonors all three—but don’t the gravity of these issues merit more than a mere three lines?
Governor Romney had an opportunity to expand upon his moral and cultural vision for America at the recent Values Voter Summit, but chose not to attend personally. Instead, he sent a taped message in which he again pledged to “uphold the sanctity of life, “defend marriage, not try to redefine it,” and “preserve the American spirit of one nation under God.”
But, as soon as one thought he might develop those themes—which would have been natural for a values summit—Romney immediately switched back to his seemingly favorite topic, economics. (Watch his video address here.)
In a Los Angeles Times piece about Romney’s message to the values Summit, Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, said that he felt Romney was gaining traction among social conservatives, despite his rocky relationship with them. Then came this revealing comment: “Perkins said the enthusiasm among social conservatives was building, which he attributed more to Obama administration policies than to Romney.” (Emphasis added).
If this election turns out to be close, Governor Romney is going to need every traditionalist vote he can to win. He can’t just expect to back into the Presidency, or assume enough people will support him because he is a successful businessman, or because he isn’t Barack Obama. Romney needs to attract conservative-minded independents and Democrats with more developed and inspiring talks about their deepest held convictions, even as he outlines and highlights his economic plans for a struggling America.
In fairness to Governor Romney, and as Hugh Hewitt shows in his admirable biography of him, the Governor can be much more than a one-dimensional “money man,” and can, in fact, speak eloquently about innocent human life and the social issues– at length and in-depth– when he chooses to. That candidate, however, hasn’t been seen much lately. The question is, when will that Mitt Romney show up in the campaign, and if he does, will it be in time to make a difference?
September 21st, 2012 | 7:14 pm
Gov. Romney’s position on anything is very clear: he’ll take the position that will politically benefit him the most in the short term.
September 21st, 2012 | 9:59 pm
The Romney campaign has been quite a disappointment. The Washington Examiner recently ran an excellent series of articles highlighting the major discrepancies between the “historical Obama” and the Obama of the (legacy) media. How many of these weak-points has Romney exploited? Any?
Just to take a couple simple examples from among many, Obama’s pal Tony Rezko is now serving a federal prison sentence, but Romney doesn’t seem to mind. Rod Blagojevich strongly hinted that he had something on Obama. Why not follow these up? Have the words “Chicago-style politician” ever even passed from Romney’s lips?
Has anyone ever heard Romney even say the words “religious liberty?” Blue-collar, union Catholics who usually don’t vote Republican might have been persuaded to do so following the contraception mandate. The bishops pressed the issue hard: I certainly heard about it several times at my working-class parish in Chicago. This is the Daleys’ neighborhood — hardcore Democratic machine territory. The bishops gave him an opening — but did you hear Romney take Obama to task for offending Catholics’ religious sensibility? I never did.
Then there was the Chic-fil-A brouhaha. Clearly, an easy opportunity for Romney to score some points both with Catholics and other supporters of traditional marriage, and also with libertarians, with a freedom of speech angle. Did he take it? I never heard anything from him about it.
Social issues are where Romney might steal votes away from Obama. Why Romney isn’t hitting these issues hard, I have no idea. Does he even want to win? Many blacks don’t support SSM, many Catholics don’t support the contraception mandate, and many libertarians don’t support regulating businesses on political bases. If Romney can show he’s going to press these issues hard, he might just have a chance.
September 22nd, 2012 | 4:26 pm
Romney said the Chick-Fil-A controversy was not a part of his campaign. His campaign, however, has taken a position against the Boy Scouts’ current policy on homosexuals.
Assuming Romney does have convictions social conservatives would agree with, he cannot speak out on these issues because many of his major donors are the same New York Republicans who pushed through same-sex “marriage.”
The past RNC chairman, Ken Mehlman, also likely has enough klout and allies to block a defense of social conservatism.
If the Republicans were competent at fighting social liberalism, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in.
September 22nd, 2012 | 5:49 pm
Kevin: Romney said the Chick-Fil-A controversy was not a part of his campaign. His campaign, however, has taken a position against the Boy Scouts’ current policy on homosexuals.
Romney is savvy enough to give way on issues where his opinion makes no difference whatsoever, while delivering fundamentalists the goods where it matters. He has absolutely no core beliefs whatsoever – that’s why he can run to the left of Ted Kennedy in 1994, and to the right of Rick Perry in 2011. Thankfully, this notorious charlatan will lose.
September 22nd, 2012 | 8:14 pm
I am impressed with how badly he’s doing. Not even Fox News, voter suppression, and super PACs will eke him out a victory. I’m not sure he’ll even get 47% of the popular vote (har, har…).
September 23rd, 2012 | 12:54 pm
Max, arguably Obama is as prone to switching positions as Romney: he promised to close Guantanamo, yet it is still thriving;he pledged not to use signing statements, yet he does; he criticized the Patriot Act, yet renewed it in 2010; he promised the most open and transparent administration ever, yet has prosecuted more leakers of information than all previous presidents combined; he flip flopped on gay marriage in time for the 2012 election; he gave his word to Cardinal Dolan that the Catholic church would be exempt from his abortion “health care” regime, then reversed himself; and, not to mention, he has reversed himself on the idea that the US ambassador in Libya was murdered because of a film — lo and behold it was pre-meditated terrorism!
The list could go on, especially regarding his many reversals on economic policy.
Sometimes it is best to avoid the excesses of partisanship when commenting on candidates.
September 24th, 2012 | 4:09 am
Publius
Often behind the apparent inconsistencies in their policies, we can discern a politician’s unwavering attachment to certain principles, which one can see, in retrospect as guiding their conduct from first to last. The one relates to means that have to be adapted to circumstances, the other to the ends that are being unrelentingly pursued.
The careers of Richelieu, Bismarck and Lincoln are replete with examples, yet each were men devoted to a single aim that governed their whole conduct, from first to last.
September 24th, 2012 | 9:00 am
Publius: Sometimes it is best to avoid the excesses of partisanship when commenting on candidates.
Interesting, coming from someone who has been consistently very partisan. Only two of what you mentioned are genuine flip-flops. Romney has flip-flopped on almost every issue under the Sun, to the point that he has flip-flopped on who he is.
2002:
“The R stands not so much for Republican as it does for Reform.”
“People recognize that I am not a partisan Republican, that I’m someone who is moderate, and that my views are progressive.”
2012:
“I was a severely conservative Republican governor.”
Show that Obama has flip-flopped on almost every issue, and that he went from being “moderate” and “conservative” ten years ago, to being “severely liberal” today. Show me that Obama ran to the right of Jesse Helms in 1994, while being more liberal than Dennis Kucinich today.
September 24th, 2012 | 10:14 am
Max,
How have I been very partisan? I didn’t contest your statement that Romney has flipped on various issues. To the contrary, your allegiance to Obama is the issue, and your inability to contest the fact that he has flipped on a number of issues that I mentioned in my comment. Apparently you feel it is best to attack the commenter than to address the substance of the comment. I’ll just repeat: sometimes it is best to avoid the excesses of partisanship when commenting on candidates.
September 24th, 2012 | 11:40 am
Publius,
Just to take one example of Obama’s “flip-flops,” how profound was the change from not supporting same-sex marriage to supporting it? Was anyone surprised when Obama announced support for same-sex marriage? A “flip-flop” seems to me to be a reversal of a position, like Romney changing from pro-choice to pro-life.
Obama is and always has been a liberal Democrat. His so-called “flip-flops” are not ideological reversals. They are pragmatic shifts on specific policies. But Romney has basically remade himself from a moderate-to-liberal Republican to someone quite far to the right. Now, of course, people do change ideologies (look at Fr. Neuhaus or Ronald Reagan). But I think it’s the consensus even among many conservative commentators is that Romney is trying to be something he is not. (George Will says “conservatism is a second language” for Romney.)
September 24th, 2012 | 2:26 pm
Publius: How have I been very partisan?
Need I recount this sordid history… again? Apparently, yes. A while ago, you claimed that no person opposed to abortion had ever given a speech at the DNC since Roe. When I called you out on it, you quickly moved the goalposts to someone who has given an anti-abortion speech. This is a rather absurd proposition, and wanting to show you that it is, I asked you what Republicans have given a pro-choice speech at the RNC. At which point you moved the goalposts yet again, ignoring the plain wording of my question, and cited a few pro-choice Republicans who had not given any a pro-choice speech. But in the very same comment, you moved the goalposts yet again, and repeated your demand for people who had given anti-abortion speeches at the DNC. This is not only hyperpartisan, it’s also not particularly honest.
Publius: To the contrary, your allegiance to Obama is the issue
How can it be the issue, when I didn’t even mention Obama, let alone my supposed allegiance to him? I merely mentioned the indisputable (so you get no credit for acknowledging it) fact that Romney is an extreme flip-flopper.
Publius: and your inability to contest the fact that he has flipped on a number of issues
Any politician flip-flops on a number of issues, but that does not make them Romneys, who has flip-flopped on nearly every issue, including himself. Again, show me Obama running to the right of Jesse Helms in 1994 and to the left of Kucinich in 2012, if you want to establish equivalence. Show me Obama calling himself a “moderate and conservative” in one year and a “severe progressive” in another.
September 24th, 2012 | 4:40 pm
Max,
Romney is a flip flopper, no doubt. Unfortunately, you refuse to acknowledge the remarkable number of flip flops from your candidate, instead invoking some straw man about Helms and Kucinich. (Romney has flip flopped on himself is an unclear statement that requires some clarification — what the heck does that mean?)
Still waiting for your evidence that Romney and Ryan want to “criminalize” abortion and prosecute “doctors” and “women.” Since they have never said such a thing you won’t find it.
Your refusal to accept the fact the the Democrats are the pro-abortion party and the Republicans pro-life party is remarkable. It is a very simple and indisputable point. And we are still waiting for evidence that Jimmy Carter has done anything to change his party’s position on abortion, other than signing a letter. Also, can you retire the “goalpost” cliche and come up with something wittier?
September 24th, 2012 | 5:07 pm
Publius: Unfortunately, you refuse to acknowledge the remarkable number of flip flops from your candidate,
A strange interpretation, as I said that two of your flip-flop criticisms were valid. And you can be sure that there are more than two, just not in your list. The point is that every politician flip-flops, but not all flip-flop like Romney. In fact, no one flip-flops like Romney. I can’t think of anyone who has been this dishonest.
Publius: instead invoking some straw man about Helms and Kucinich. (Romney has flip flopped on himself is an unclear statement that requires some clarification — what the heck does that mean?)
It refers to the fact that he described himself as a moderate and a progressive, after which he magically turned into a “severe conservative”. He has flip-flopped on who he is, which Obama has never done.
Publius: Still waiting for your evidence that Romney and Ryan want to “criminalize” abortion and prosecute “doctors” and “women.”
I’ve shown it to you many times. The fact that you refuse to see the evidence, does not mean that it’s not there. But it has taught me not to attempt to prove anything to you.
Publius: Your refusal to accept the fact the the Democrats are the pro-abortion party and the Republicans pro-life party is remarkable.
Straw man. I never denied that the Democratic Party is pro-choice, and that the GOP is anti-choice. Rather, I commented on the double standard that you have.
Publius: Also, can you retire the “goalpost” cliche and come up with something wittier?
Was I wrong… to point it out? Doing it three times in a single debate is rather remarkable, don’t you think?
September 24th, 2012 | 8:15 pm
Max, “I’ve shown it to you many times. The fact that you refuse to see the evidence, does not mean that it’s not there. But it has taught me not to attempt to prove anything to you.” — You have been unable, despite repeated requests, to point out any quotations from Romney and Ryan where they state that they want to “criminalize” abortion and prosecute “women” and “Doctors.” It is irresponsible to attribute quotes to people that they never said. A simple citation will end this debate. But you can’t find it because it doesn’t exist.
You “can’t think of anyone who has been this dishonest.” Really, no Richard Nixon, no Lyndon Johnson, no Bill Clinton (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky”)? Reading history can sometimes give you a broader perspective on current events, free from ideological cant…
Romney is a flip flopper, that’s clear. But so is your candidate, who reversed himself on Guantanamo, on the Bush tax cuts, on Rendition, on taking Super PAC money, on FISA, on the Patriot Act, on signing statements, on Catholic institutions paying for abortion coverage, on deficit reduction — according to “Politifact,” a neutral media observer of campaign claims, Obama has broken 84 promises from his 2008 campaign.
Come on now, it’s not that hard to admit that Obama is a flip flopper. Just try it and see how you feel…..
September 26th, 2012 | 11:59 am
Publius: You have been unable, despite repeated requests, to point out any quotations from Romney and Ryan where they state
And here’s the problem. Don’t complain about me pointing out that you keep moving the goalposts, when you keep doing it. I’ve told you multiple times that this is what they *want*, not what they have *said*, and I’ve demonstrated as much.
Publius: Really, no Richard Nixon, no Lyndon Johnson, no Bill Clinton
Not even Alcibiades.
Publius: Romney is a flip flopper, that’s clear. But so is your candidate
I presume you mean Obama. I’ve already told you that he has flip-flopped on several issues, though you overstate your case severely. That doesn’t make him as bad a flip-flopper as Romney, who has flip-flopped on nearly every conceivable issue, including himself. Show me where he has flip-flopped on who he is, turning from a “moderate” and a “conservative” to a “severe liberal” over the course of ten years; and that he ran to the right of Jesse Helms in 1994 and to the left of Dennis Kucinich in 2012, and I’ll grant you that Obama is as bad a flip-flopper and Romney.
September 26th, 2012 | 7:21 pm
Max,
“I’ve told you multiple times that this is what they *want*, not what they have *said*, and I’ve demonstrated as much.” OK, so no such quotes exist. Glad we’ve finally established that. You were just reading their minds.
“Romney, who has flip-flopped on nearly every conceivable issue, including himself.” What does this mean? It’s not at all clear what flipping on “himself” means, unless you mean that like Obama, he changes his mind on issues.
You “can’t think of anyone” who has been as dishonest as Romney. OK, no answer to the fact that perhaps Nixon, Johnson, and Clinton fit the bill. Partisanship really does distort perception. . . .
September 27th, 2012 | 6:42 am
Publius: “OK, so no such quotes exist. Glad we’ve finally established that. ”
I’ve told you before, many times, but you “forgot”. Let me just refer to all the other occasions at which you have been explicitly called out for this very same thing:
September 12th, 2012 | 2:50 pm: You didn’t ask who *said* that he wanted to criminalize doctors, you asked for who *wanted* to do it.
September 12th, 2012 | 4:43 pm: Since you repeated yourself, let me repeat myself: I didn’t say that this is what they have *said*, but that this is what they *want*.
September 18th, 2012 | 7:21 pm: Moving the goalposts again? I said he wanted to prosecute women and doctors, and I proved as much, not that he has said it in so many words.
In fact, your very post in which you first raised this matter talked about people wanting to arrest doctors, not what you started to demand when you discovered that this was rather easy to prove: “Who are these “people” who want to arrest Doctors?” (September 9th, 2012 | 9:21 pm)
Publius: ““Romney, who has flip-flopped on nearly every conceivable issue, including himself.” What does this mean? It’s not at all clear what flipping on “himself” means”
Again, something that was explained to you before: “It refers to the fact that he described himself as a moderate and a progressive, after which he magically turned into a “severe conservative”.”
I am still waiting for evidence that Obama flip-flopped on himself. (And before you ask what “flip-flopping on himself” means… for the third time, it’s explained in the paragraph right before this one.)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact