My colleague Matthew Schmitz has asked whether Romney betrayed social conservatives at Tuesday’s debate, and his answer is no.
As he points out, Romney technically did not contradict his earlier statements about the HHS mandate, and considering that the debate moderator was pushing him to answer a different question, we could hardly have expected him to address the issue in full. Yet as someone who cares about religious liberty, I remain nervous, for there appears to be more than one Mitt Romney.
The Romney of the Republican primaries, the campaign website, and the Catholic media seems solid: He opposes the mandate and believes religious institutions should not have to pay for devices or procedures they find morally objectionable.
The Romney of last night’s debate, on the other hand, would rather assure women of their continuing access to contraception than assure religious groups that they will not be forced to betray their consciences. He does not want to rock the boat.
And this apparent desire to avoid confrontation, to say and do whatever pleases potential supporters, has been evident throughout the man’s political career. No matter the audience (the Massachusetts electorate of 2002, the Republican party base of this summer’s primaries, or the average American swing voter this fall) and no matter the topic (abortion, health care, gun control, the tax code), Romney seeks first of all to sound agreeable.
He’s certainly not the first politician to pander or flip-flop. But when I saw his performance last night in the context of his career, I was left doubting that he’d actually stand up for religious liberty while in office.
October 17th, 2012 | 11:05 am
The impression left by Romney on the social isues, in the second debate, certainly begs for an explanation.
Though it is highly unlikely that contraception ore abortion will ever be criminalized again, the agenda od the poponents of these issues aooear not to be satisied until access is another entitlement of government.
Romney’s support for increasing the public dole, in this area seems lukewrm, in his desire to get the votes of those supporting this policy, which again begs the question of where does Romney reallys stand.
It is unortunate that there is no real choice, as we already know where Obama stands on these and even more macabre positions, of the culture of death.
October 17th, 2012 | 11:12 am
Exactly. I’m disturbed. Given that I am not in a swing state (Texas), I’m seriously consider voting for a third party candidate, or writing someone in, purely as a protest against the Republican party, or at least the Republican candidate, trying to get my vote while pushing moral issues and fundamental issues like religious liberty to the very bottom of the agenda. Sure, Romney did not say he has changed his mind on the HHS mandate, but his unwillingness to attack the president on the religious liberty front doesn’t bode well at all.
October 17th, 2012 | 11:29 am
One context: remember earlier in the GOP primary, Romney answered a bizarre question on contraception and the access of women to contraception. Without defending the substance of what Romney said it’s possible to understand his answer in that context: no to forcing businesses and institutions to paying for contraception but yes to contraception for everyone!
October 17th, 2012 | 11:43 am
You’re absolutely right, Anna. Romney cannot be trusted to do the right thing on his own. However, while you are “left doubting that he’d actually stand up for religious liberty while in office” I’m confident he would. Romney may not have solid political principles, but he responds well to pressure. As long as Christians are his only hope for reelection, he’d make sure he pandered to us in whatever ways are necessary.
October 17th, 2012 | 11:57 am
Joe – Yes, the pressure of Christians and his penchant for pandering are my only hope here. (Pardon the alliteration.) But as president, Romney would be under pressure not only from the Christians who voted from him but also from some powerful members of the GOP (not just those in Congress but donors, strategists, businessmen, etc) who want to downplay/ignore social issues. When he’s torn between those two factions about what issues to actually spend energy on while in office, which will he choose? I’m not convinced he’s willing to side with Christians.
October 17th, 2012 | 11:57 am
Golly, Joe. Sure sounds like you have a lot of faith in your ability to push the president around. It must be nice to believe that you can count on somebody to not have any principles.
Remember, the Romney who switched sides on contraception last night was also the one who required ALL hospitals, Catholic or not, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims while he was governor in 2005, and left in place a 2002 contraception law identical to the one in Obamacare.
October 17th, 2012 | 1:30 pm
But I am certain where Obama would stand in such circumstances. Alas this cruel fate of such a bad choice! But in some way, we have called this upon ourselves.
October 17th, 2012 | 1:38 pm
I don’t recall the exact exchange, and the moderator surely made it difficult to discern exactly what was going on, but let’s not confuse “access” with someone else paying for it. This plays right into the hands of the “war on women” narrative by the Obama left. Contraceptives are here to stay; their use is a matter of conscience. Payment should be by the individual, not society, and it certainly should not be dictated by the government. Pregnancy is not an “illness” that needs treatment or prevention. As for prevention, well …..
And, Miguel, PLEASE don’t do this protest vote stuff. Our Nation cannot afford 4 more years; the “Great Experiment” will be over, we will quickly slide toward the failing European model and we know where that leads. A protest vote here would not be cutting off your nose but rather slitting your throat to spite your face.
October 17th, 2012 | 1:56 pm
Romney is no Rick Santorum, but Rick Santorum would be trailing right now if he were the GOP nominee. We are faced with a choice between Obama and Romney — think of the potential Supreme Court vacancies before you make any judgments about who will more likely do right by social conservatives. The answer is clear….
October 17th, 2012 | 1:57 pm
“He opposes the mandate and believes religious institutions should not have to pay for devices or procedures they find morally objectionable.”
That’s news to me, though there may be multiple Romneys running around, that would explain a lot. One Romney rightly forced the Catholic Church in Massachusetts to hand out Plan B to the victims of rape. Now, another Romney, or perhaps the same one, disagrees.
October 17th, 2012 | 2:10 pm
It’s also good to remember that while Romney might be wimpy on religious freedoms, Obama’s track record is one of having no practical value for them whatsoever. Conscience problems with a mandate? It simply doesn’t matter. What the feds deem a good for all, must be provided for all, by all.
October 17th, 2012 | 2:25 pm
All social conservatives need to think of this on November 6th — which of these two men do you want to appoint the next justices of the Supreme Court?
October 17th, 2012 | 2:29 pm
There is no way to know in advance what Romney will do once he actually assumes power. We will never know if he doesn’t get there at all. We know what to expect from another Obama administration.
In 1967, as governor of California, Reagan signed into law a bill legalizing abortion. That did not set in stone his position on legal abortion, which changed dramatically.
Lincoln can be selectively quoted such that it sounds like he was indifferent to the plight of the slaves. Yet he did more to end slavery, I think, than anybody else would have done who was actually electable.
Consider also what Romney’s political enemies are saying will happen under a Romney administration regarding issues of concern to us. Actually, some of their “warnings” sound like tidings of comfort and joy to me.
October 17th, 2012 | 6:53 pm
Obama pushed Planned Parenthood on four occasions and, even more disturbingly, tied it to economic success for the country. It did not look like the abortion issue per se even came up (as it did in the vice-presidential debate). Methinks perhaps Obama was attempting to lay a trap for Romney.
October 17th, 2012 | 11:09 pm
Why would Romney have a strong feeling to stick up for a catholic minority at this point on contraception, since there is little from the catholic pulpit sticking up for him?
October 18th, 2012 | 8:36 am
Why are pro life advocates giving Romney a free pass on this ad and the debate comments?
If he said he approves the option of parents to murder their teenagers in some cases would you still vote for him?A life is a life whether an unborn baby or a teenager or an elderly person.
When will we stop using as cover the lesser of evils approach?
In the next election if an option to abort in the first two weeks is added will you still vote for a candidate who espouses this view to win votes?
How far will you go in accepting murder of innocents?
October 18th, 2012 | 8:51 am
So the great surge of ‘Tea Party’ anger culminates in – this Mormon Don Draper. It would be sad if it weren’t so funny.
October 18th, 2012 | 10:21 am
Methinks perhaps Obama was attempting to lay a trap for Romney.
Dr Woof,
By “attempting to lay a trap,” do you mean Obama was trying to trick Romney into saying what he actually believes?
October 18th, 2012 | 10:27 am
Romney was certainly not my choice during the primaries. I’d say I’m voting for him now because Obama is clearly a greater evil that must be opposed.
I suspect we will still have to challenge Romney if he is elected, but his ideas seem like they will be less harmful than four more years of Obama.
I do agree with Anna Williams that the recent behavior makes me feel less happy about what he stands for.
October 18th, 2012 | 12:18 pm
[...] disappointment at Tuesday’s spectacle: On the First Things website, Anna Williams echoed the disappointment of many critics of the mandate in her critique of Romney’s performance during [...]
October 18th, 2012 | 2:06 pm
By “attempting to lay a trap,” do you mean Obama was trying to trick Romney into saying what he actually believes?
David: Not exactly. What I meant is that Obama may have had a carefully pre-planned attack to anything that Romney might have said at this point. Given that the debate direction at that point was not about abortion or Planned Parenthood, that could have worked to Obama’s advantage. Especially given the attitude of the moderator (or, at times, the co-debater).
Like others here, Romney was not my first pick for the candidacy, but given the choice now between him and Obama (and Obama’s totally despicable record as president) I think the best decision should be pretty obvious.
October 18th, 2012 | 2:34 pm
The Obama campaign is lying to women that Romney will take away their access to contraception. He needed to counter that lie. Like it or not, contraception is common and this election is not about denying access to it–only in refusing to force those with objections from paying for it.
Why is anyone alarmed by that? Would you prefer Romney lose the election over an issue not in dispute so Obama can force even more intrinsic evils on everyone?
October 18th, 2012 | 3:23 pm
Judge Carol Jackson ruled in September against the plaintiff arguing the ACA forced him to pay for insurance that covers something he did not want to cover. In her ruling, she said: [the freedom of religion clause] It protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one’s religion forbids, or forbids action one’s religion requires; it is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others. What does this mean? Well, in short it means that either you hire someone who agrees with you and your religious convictions or you don’t. More importantly, it means that no company has the right to force their convictions on their employees. Let me ask this: if your employer demanded that you vote for the communist party candidate, what would your reaction be? Would you accept it? After all how does your employer know how you voted? Isn’t that the same with contraception? Does a Catholic boss have the right to tell a non-catholic employee to not use contraception? The courts with the above mentioned ruling and others have said NO an employer cannot do that. In fact there specific federal employment guidelines that prohibit such acts. Ironically, in the apparently very limited American Catholic memory it was only 100 short years ago Catholics were told NOT to apply for jobs because they were not wanted. Catholics and Blacks are the reason the laws preventing discrimination based on color or creed have been enacted.
Wake up! Your faith is not being attacked because your tax dollars pay for contraception. I suspect many of you are like me and get most of your federal income tax back when you file your returns so it is not like you contribute a whole lot anyway. I would prefer my tax dollars not be spent on a super inflated military. I would prefer my tax dollars go toward educating the young. I would prefer my tax dollars go providing for the sick and elderly and the treatment of veterans of the current, recent and past wars.
So I would like to see a check box when I file my taxes. Do you want a portion to go to the military? NO. Do you want a portion to go to building roads and bridges? YES. Do you want a portion to go to Planned Parenthood? YES (some of you will say NO) and etc..
That would be true democracy. then you could move to defund whatever you did not like.
October 18th, 2012 | 6:54 pm
I have never voted for a Republican for President and will certainly not do so this year.
Catholics deserve to have a candidate who will protect the unborn, and who will not desert them seconds after birth. I believe all citizens have a duty to assist their less fortunate neighbors and I gladly pay taxes to do so.
I will write in my vote for Joe Schriner, who is the only candidate I am aware of who has a platform that consistently reflects Catholic principles. In my lifetime I hope to see a political party that will run candidates Catholics can vote for without compromising any Catholic values.
October 18th, 2012 | 8:39 pm
For whatever it is worth, I must honestly report that although under no circumstances will I vote for Obama, I will reluctantely vote for Romney. I could cite many facts to support my reluctance; however, the greatest reason behind my aversion to Romney is just that: I feel a profound aversion to him. I look at him and listen to him and I just know– I just feel that something isn’t right. I suppose I will hold my nose when I vote for him.
October 21st, 2012 | 6:47 pm
I think that Romney was correct to point out that he has no plans to attempt to ban contraception. This was important. Clearly I think that the Obama campaign wants to give the impression that Romney, and his fellow republicans,want to take away access to contraception. Romney needed to point out, in unambiguous terms, that this is not the case. He needed, politically, to do this. This in no way implies that he has flipped on his support for thwe Catholic Church’s objection to the Obama administration wanting to ensure that the Catholic Church provide contraception to its employees.
Once he’s convinced the public that contraception is not going to be banned, or even restricted, (as opposed to abortion), the public will be more open to his argument that the Obama Admin. is infringing on the Catholic Church’s freedom of religion, vis a vis contraception.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact