I have a mixed take on Mitt Romney. On policy, I have been quite critical; in multiple ways I considered his 2012 Presidential campaign a strategic failure, not so much for the 47% kerfuffle (about a significant plurality of households not vested in federal cost containment as net beneficiaries) but as a pro-interventionist hawk (vs. positioning himself against the unpopular Bush/Obama Gulf region policy) and RomneyCare being the Massachusetts precursor to ObamaCare, a mixed message on the then unpopular further federal intervention in the traditional state-regulated healthcare marketplace. I also think his political skills are suspect; he tailors his platform to his view of his constituency. that may sound obvious: doesn't every politician pander to his perceived audience? The controversial issue of abortion is a good example in contrasting Romney as a state-wide candidate in Massachusetts, a deep blue state, and as a GOP POTUS candidate.
Romney ran in 1994 for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat (loss) and for governor in 2002 (win). Romney's pollster had determined that a pro-life politician could not win statewide office in Massachusetts. Romney is a devout Mormon, and the Mormon church like the Catholic Church condemns abortion in general, Romney espoused a position like many prominent Catholic Democrats that he would not impose his personal opposition on abortion on accommodative public policy, citing an in-law's relative who had died pursuing an illegal abortion. He supported taxpayer-funded abortions, Roe v Wade, and stem cell research while opposing pro-life restrictions. However, as Romney transitioned from single-term governor to a GOP national candidate, he conveniently experienced an epiphany on stem cell research. Finally, his response as Utah US Senator to the Dobbs decision reversing Roe: "The sanctity of human life is a foundational American principle, and the lives of our children—both born and unborn—deserve our protection. I support the Court’s decision, which means that laws regarding abortion will now rightfully be returned to the people and their elected representatives."
On the other hand, I viewed Romney as a gifted administrator, a turnaround specialist who had succeeded in the private equity market and in turning around the Utah Winter Olympics. He made an impact in governing a state with a heavily Democratic legislature. He has a mind for detail. I think we missed an opportunity to have the most gifted POTUS in our lifetime, although I don't underestimate the problems in reforming a supersized USG and entrenched vested interests and bureaucracies Of course, those of us who are pro-liberty are more concerned with right-sizing the government which will organically limit the nature and extent of government inefficiency than in improving the processes of an oversized general government. Romney, to me, never committed himself to shrinking the mandate of big government at the expense of the private sector; he simply seemed to see himself as better able to manage an oversized government and no doubt carve out his own mandates for bigger government scope.
I think one of his contributions in his Senate term succeeding Hatch was being one of the few Republicans who could push back on Trump's egregious misconduct, the only Republican Senator to back both impeachment convictions. Trump blamed Romney for losing to Obama, pointing out his harsh self-deportation policy for unauthorized residents, only to run his own campaign on virulent nativism. However, failed GOP POTUS nominee Romney has never drawn support among his fellow legislators, intimated by a successful incumbent with a strong hold on the party base as his sole vote to convict Trump on the first impeachment charge (over Ukraine) revealed.
Still, as one of the few bipartisan, pragmatic leaders in Congress, Romney will be missed. As a libertarian, I am wary of uniparty consensus, but I am suspect of the hyperpartisan kabuki dances like the approaching government shutdown impasse. Don't get me wrong; I am no fan of the mammoth federal debt and ongoing unsustainable trillion-dollar deficits, but the Republicans in the Trump era have all but conceded surrender in efforts to increase ever larger defense budgets. And Trump himself increased the national debt by almost 40% in his one term {however much of that was during the pandemic with a Dem-controlled House)..
I have little doubt that other libertarians like Tom Woods are tapdancing over Romney's approaching political grave. I have previously blogged about how I was once in a Facebook group of his when on one of his holy days of obligation, i.e., Ron Paul's birthday, when he wrote a post (only slightly paraphrased), "I thank the Lord you (Ron) are the real deal and not a phony like Mitt Romney." I am no Romney follower (although I supported him over Obama). I do not like cheap shots: I have little doubt over Romney's sincerity and honor in his politics, even while I disagree with some of his views. I also think Woods exaggerated Romney's impact on the GOP. Woods refused to back down and treated me as some Romney operative who had infiltrated his group and urged his followers to go after me. I left his group and stopped following/promoting his podcast, as he played the victim card, moaning how ungrateful people like me were spurning his selfless gifts to mankind.
I know Romney would have been a better POTUS than Trump. He wouldn't have been as corrupt and abused the power of the Presidency like Trump, including redirecting defense dollars to build his wall when Congress refused to grant him the funds. He has been a public servant of integrity and will be missed.
