Don’t miss the long, interesting, and ultimately very sad look at the careers of George Romney and his son Mitt on today’s Globe’s front page. I came away from it in a place that I did not expect: pity for Mitt. Mitt’s father George was, as the article makes apparent, someone who held strongly to his principles to the point that he was willing to lose because of them.
George Romney was a rich man speaking up for those who were not; a white man speaking up for minorities. He was, in short, a moderate out of sync with his party’s increasingly rightward tilt….
With Mitt watching earnestly from his seat — in a moment captured by an Associated Press photographer — his father implored the delegates to adopt a plank supporting civil rights for black people. The Goldwater delegates refused. George also failed in a bid to pass a plank calling on the party to reject “extremists.” It was mostly an effort to get the party to push out the far-right John Birch Society, which Romney and other moderates feared had increasing influence on the party….
George Romney was aghast at the party’s direction, predicting that nominating Goldwater would lead to “the suicidal destruction of the Republican Party.” The convention ignored Romney. As Mitt watched from his seat in the Cow Palace, his father received 41 votes to be the party’s nominee. Goldwater won with 883….
After Goldwater lost the general election in a landslide to Lyndon B. Johnson, he wrote an angry letter demanding that Romney explain why he never endorsed him. George responded in a 12-page letter that included a warning that perhaps is even more relevant today than when it was written:
“Dogmatic ideological parties tend to splinter the political and social fabric of a nation, lead to governmental crises and deadlocks, and stymie the compromises so often necessary to preserve freedom and achieve progress,” George wrote.
Remarkable. And how tragic that what Mitt appears to have learned from his father was not that principles are important, but rather that principles can cost you an election. Emphasis mine.
Presidential ambitions, as well as a keener focus on the kind of national politician he wanted to be, were key factors in the policy shifts [from Mitt’s 1994 and 2002 Massachusetts campaigns to his presidential campaigns], according to a Romney adviser who participated in numerous discussions about the policies.
“The change in the philosophy, ideology, was driven by the fact that he was exploring national office and he came to the realization that to be successful seeking the nomination, you had to become conservative,” said the adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not an authorized spokesman. “As he got deeper into the process it became readily apparent to him that something had to happen.”
The adviser couldn’t say if the changes in positions were heartfelt “because I don’t know if the original positions were heartfelt.” The bottom line, he said, was that Romney viewed social matters such as abortion as “nuisance issues” but that he remained constant and firmly rooted in his economic beliefs. “He was driven to get into politics on economic and fiscal issues,” the adviser said. The danger of flip-flopping was central to the discussion of each change. “Certainly there were considerations about changing positions; that is the oldest attack in the book,” the adviser said. But the consensus was that there was “no way” to win the Republican nomination unless changes were made.
Romney’s view seems to be, basically, “nice guys finish last.” Or, alternatively, “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.” Mitt Romney, unlike his father, is obviously unwilling to accept the possibility of sticking to a dearly-held principle and losing an election because of it.
George, who failed in his national ambitions precisely because he was unwilling to compromise his principles, probably would have been a pretty good president. The same cannot be said about his son, who may just pull off the win that eluded his father as a direct result of his unwillingness to demonstrate exactly the traits that made his father so admirable. It puts one in mind of the great Beatles song, written by George Harrison:
We were talking
About the love that’s gone so cold
And the people who gain the world
And lose their soul
Bob Neer says
Isn’t his cravenness democracy in action? Another way of looking at George Romney is as a person who thinks his judgment is better than that of the people who he is asking to elect him. Result: he lost.
marc-davidson says
I hope that’s not the case. That sounds pretty cynical.
Maybe that says a lot about our nation, that our elected officials might be incapable of leading.
David says
Clearly, you don’t know Bob like I know Bob. 😉
marc-davidson says
There’s plenty of reason to be cynical. It just seemed like a rather hard and hopeless indictment of the mess we’re in.
Sorry if I’m oblivious to some inside information.
Bob Neer says
What is wrong with democracy? If most Republicans believe that we should return to 16th century understandings of science, shouldn’t they be able to have representatives to present their views?
michaelbate says
He was a good and decent man. He certainly would have been a better president than Nixon, whom he was running against in 1968.
I enjoyed the Globe article. With the ever-increasing rightward tilt into lunacy of the Republican party today, I wonder if Goldwater himself would have been considered a “liberal” by today’s Republicans.
dave-from-hvad says
The pity is that our political system is set up so that people with principles, such as Mitt’s father, find it impossible to get elected to high office. That Mitt has apparently recognized this and decided that the solution is to abandon all principles does’t make me pity him. I do pity our country if he wins, though.
JHM says
Paddy McTammany has me doubts
about that sort of profession.
Yet if it be so indeed, perhaps a quick glance over here may cheer one back up a little.
Happy days.
pogo says
George Romney (and other strong conservatives from a more principled era, like William Buckley) fought to exclude the far paranoid right-wing organization funded primarily by Fred Koch from the GOP.
A generation later, the Koch family maintains their political “compass” but the Romney scion has abandoned the principles of his father.
johnd says
I’m sure there are a lot of Independents who will love the story and side with Mitt.
goldsteingonewild says
ie, let’s stipulate he changed his mind on certain issues purely to become more appealing to the party.
that’s true of several other pols, si? warren, obama, etc.
if yes, then my question for david:
how do you draw the line b/w a “tragic” abandoning of “principles” (mitt)…
…and, cough, a policy position change that’s, um, let’s call it a “reasonable accommodation to the wisdom of the party” by (insert favorite pol here)?
jconway says
Its because social issues like gays, fetuses, and guns matter more to the bases of both sides than national security or economic questions. Its ok that Obama flip flopped on killing American citizens, GITMO, ending the wars responsibly, and Wall Street Reform so long a he is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. Similarly the vast majority of Republicans agree with Romney that these are ‘nuisance issues’ as opposed to their national security aims which remain American empire (read Kagan’s book he admits this!) and radical laisez faire economics.
Romney was always on the same page as conservatives on economics and security, and in his mind I am sure there is little difference between pro-life and pro-choice since its an issue he cares little to discuss or put thought into, so reversing the checkmarks to get elected is the price to pay to fight for the other radical Republican policies.
Christopher says
…that it is better for those who aspire to elective office bend their views to what the people seem to want, no matter how outrageous, than to show some leadership and think for themselves?