Editorial: Preliminary Endorsement for President 2012

Public domain photo courtesy of ronpaul.wikia.com

 There have been times in my life where I've sometimes cast a protest vote. I mentioned one such incident in a past post when I was on the UWM  School of Business MBA Admissions Committee in the late 1980's. My service term was ending with that meeting; we were deadlocked 3-3 over a candidate whose GPA and GMAT scores (primary consideration for program admissions) fell well below our minimums, but she had the Dean's backing (in fact, she had allegedly already been awarded a stipend to attend). We three dissidents argued that we had routinely rejected comparable applicants with similar or even better qualifications, and this was a violation of equal protection principles. The chairman then explicitly noted that my term was expiring and I would be replaced by someone whom would rubberstamp the admission for said student. At that point, I switched my vote from 'no' to 'present'. All 5 of the other committee members were furious with me; my fellow dissidents thought I had abandoned a point of principle, but the committee chair and two junior female faculty on the committee supporting approval realized exactly what I was doing and why I was doing it: the applicant would have been approved by a clear majority the next meeting, and probably no one would have questioned it. But my unusual 'present' vote red-flagged this applicant's approval.

I would say that most newspaper editorials do not give a conditional endorsement. In fact, I was preparing to issue a full endorsement of Mitt Romney (something I may still do in the future) when Tim Pawlenty announced his support of Romney. But I decided to hold back and watch in fascination at the volatile polling, in large part a reflection of the debates or external events (e.g., the elaborate entrance of Texas Governor Rick Perry) caused overnight shifts in non-Romney candidates (Trump to Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Gingrich). Romney, through it all, remained remarkably stable, consistently polling in the low 20-percentiles as the others emerged from single-digit to the lead to single-digit; he has attempted to stick on the message of the economy and act and look Presidential and the unflappable front-runner. That the populist conservative vote would rather go to an unpredictable, chronically flip-flopping, foot-in-the-mouth former Speaker with almost no supporters among his former GOP Congressional colleagues really means that Romney has failed at effectively marketing himself to the base. It's not enough to merely vocalize conservative policies: he needs to make clear that the future of America depends on rejecting the kinds of wrong-headed progressive policies which have destabilized the European economy: the exact penny-wise, pound-foolish laws that Obama and the rest of his progressive Congressional allies have recklessly been pursuing.

The issues I have with Romney have less to do with his executive experience and Presidential qualifications as with his messaging and strategy. In many cases, it seems throughout his political career, Romney has pandered in a fairly transparent way; it's like he felt the need to take a particular position, say, for instance, abortion in blue state Massachusetts when he ran for statewide election. I think he would have been better off simply to say something like, "I personally oppose the practice of abortion, but there are constitutional issues and certain political realities in relevant public policy.. I will do what I can to promote constructive alternatives to abortion."  As a pro-market classical liberal, I've also been disappointed by what I see as pandering to the populist base on issues like immigration and China. I think he's been so wary of touching the third rail of American politics (senior citizen benefit programs, i.e., social security and Medicare) that essentially he throws 60% of the budget off the table; he then does the same thing with the 20% of the budget that deals with national defense in order to placate military conservatives. If he throws 80% of the budget off the table at the get-go, how does he get to a balanced budget? You can talk balanced budget amendment all you want.

Now my issues are really more with the fickle GOP base which is spoiling for a long-overdue fight with Obama than in looking at someone  whom has the knowledge, skills and know-how to turn around, in a bipartisan fashion to turn around from a government which promises more than it can deliver in a sustainable fashion. It's a shame--the Republicans have a deep bench of highly capable public sector executives, e.g., Bobby Jindal, Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Jeb Bush, etc., and what we end up with is a polarizing, former Speaker, a former food executive and talk show host, a shrill Congresswoman with no track record or public sector executive experience, and a former senator whom suffered a blowout loss for reelection in a purple state.

So we have "debates", which amount to little more than a recitation of well-rehearsed talking points and planned one-liners at the expense of other candidates. That being said, other than a couple of inspired responses to hecklers, Romney has had difficulty finding the right message to appeal to the populist base. The issue with the base is that Romney has been caricatured as a "finger-in-the-wind" politician whom is willing to concede or deal away anything of principle to get elected; Romney has allowed himself to be defined as an incrementalist whom will do nothing significantly offset or rollback federal government scope creep.

In yesterday's post, I quoted GOP strategist Alex Castellanos on this past Sunday's MTP whom had this to say: "The best thing about Mitt Romney is not that he's been a cautious man. The truth about his success is he's been a transformational figure. He transformed the Olympics, he transformed, you know, Bain Capital, built companies, transformational change in Massachusetts." Romney needs to sell transformational change and demonstrate, as GHW Bush famously expressed, "that vision thing". He needs to simplify the message, strip his rhetoric of arcane, unnecessary detail, paint his picture of a can-do American, built on virtuous self-reliant citizens, not dependent on the illusory promises of an overextended federal government. with the same passion and optimism as Reagan spoke of a shining city on a hill. He needs to set up certain tangible objectives, e.g., "We will reduce federal spending to a 2007 level; we will reform entitlements in a way that ensures senior citizens won't live in poverty." There is no more reason that Romney needs to get bogged down into details than the spendthrift incumbent, whom has yet to present a plan that amounts to anything more than a rounding error of the current federal budget. I am personally so sick and tired of the mainstream media which fails, across the board, from scrutinizing massive, unsustainable current program expenditures or unresolved entitlement funding issues of the morally bankrupt Obama Administration.

I have written several commentaries, trying to aid the Romney campaign; this blog doesn't have enough pageviews to draw the attention of a national campaign.

I recently wrote that whereas I respected Romney, my views are really closer to those of another libertarian/pro-liberty conservative, Ron Paul. (Technically, Gary Johnson shares many of the same views plus has public sector experience as a former New Mexico governor; I do think Ron Paul has been a more effective, long-term consistent advocate for individual rights and limited government.) I think Ron Paul has been unduly provocative in terms of some of the ways he approaches foreign policy; I prefer my approach: a more balanced, economical, scaled-back approach with more reliance on regionally-enforced security. I like his more consistent, everything-is-on-the-table fiscal reform (including Defense).

I think a victory by Ron Paul in the Iowa caucuses will send a message to the other candidates, including Mitt Romney, that the lessons of the Tea Party go beyond economic policy. I will keep an eye on the Romney campaign to see if the campaign makes necessary changes to warrant my final endorsement (I still have concerns about Ron Paul's lack of public sector administrative experience).