February 5, 2012

A column by Michael Gerson, published February 2 in The Washington Post, but carried today by The Seattle Times, evaluates Mitt Romney as a candidate and speculates on his chances against Barack Obama. Gerson’s analysis is a little wide of the mark in places, but he deserves credit for his ability to turn a phrase, including his (presumably tongue-in-cheek) term for Romney’s flip-flopping: "ideological variability." Noting Romney’s tendency to say dumb things (this time his statement that he isn’t concerned about the very poor), Gerson observed: "The granting of Secret Service protection following Mitt Romney’s decisive Florida victory did not prevent him from immediately shooting himself in the foot" and "There are few things more powerful in politics than the confirmation of a stereotype."

Any evaluation of Romney as a candidate should consider the weakness of his primary opponents: taking Bachmann, Perry, Cain or Santorum seriously would be an act of faith and, although Gingrich may not be out of the running yet, he too falls into the joke category. Only Ron Paul is a real political force, but he probably is too much the libertarian to be acceptable to most Republicans. Given the field and Romney’s funding and organization, the nomination should have been virtually automatic. Most seem to think that it is now, but Gerson noted that "political inevitability can be confounded by the smallest things." He referred to the final election, but the principle still applies to the nomination.

One knock on Romney is that he is not conservative enough; "moderate," bizarrely, has become a term of contempt. An article in today’s Post goes a long way toward refuting the charge of insufficient conservatism, declaring that Romney is "the stealth tea party candidate." That conclusion is based in part on Romney’s shifts to the right but also on a much more perceptive evaluation of the Tea Party than in most of the reporting on the "movement." The writer, Theda Skocpol, co-author of a new book on the subject, described what she and her colleague discovered:

Initially, we assumed that government spending is the chief irritant for the tea party, but we soon realized that anger about illegal immigrants rivals that concern. . . .

After all, tea partyers see themselves as hard-working Americans whose taxes should not fund benefits for "freeloaders." Along with illegal immigrants, low-income Americans and young people loom large as illegitimate consumers of public benefits and services. In tea party thinking, they are all asking for more than they have earned.

Romney has responded by taking a strong anti-immigrant stance and, although his recent remark is considered by most to be a gaffe, "Many tea partyers think the poor are coddled by government and nod their heads in agreement when Romney says he is ‘not concerned about the very poor’. "

Obama’s health-care reform law also fits into tea party views on immigration. Much of the group’s indictment of the president rests on the fantasy that he wants to give free health care — not to mention a blanket amnesty and citizenship privileges — to undocumented immigrants, thus securing millions more votes for himself and the Democratic Party.

Romney has, with no apparent sense of shame, pretended that the federal program isn’t virtually identical to the one he approved for Massachusetts, and must go.

It is supposedly a Tea Party principle to oppose government bailouts, but the authors, in interviews, "rarely heard tea partyers condemn Wall Street capitalists for receiving them. Instead, they contend that corrupt government officials and policies to help minorities buy homes were responsible for the financial meltdown of 2008 and 2009." Blame also is shifted from private businesses to the quasi-public Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; Gingrich has suffered from his tie to the latter.

Dr. Skocpol hasn’t been misled by all the hype about the grass-roots nature of the Tea Party

. . . .Indeed, the tea party is about more than bottom-up activism. Long-standing far-right advocacy and lobbying groups, such as Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, have been part of the movement from its earliest days. Such operations are funded by corporations and ultra-conservative billionaires. . . .

The priorities of the wealthy Tea Party backers are low taxation and light regulation. Romney, perhaps because of his former or supposed moderation, didn’t initially attract support from that quarter, but now he’s a true believer, endorsing and "improving" on the backward Ryan plan.

To the extent rank-and-file Tea Partyers have a priority, it is, in Dr. Skocpol’s words, "[p]ushing the Republican Party to the hard right and denying Obama a second term." That hints at a factor not explicitly mentioned: racial hostility.

"In Romney, the tea party has found the ultimate prize: a candidate loyal to the movement’s agenda, but able to fool enough pundits and moderate voters to win the White House at a time when the tea party has lost broad appeal." That may well be so. Apart from Gerson’s point that unanticipated factors may intervene, there are two reasons to think — hope? — that the outcome will be different. Acceptance of Romney by the far right, whether called the Tea Party or otherwise, may not be complete, prompting many to stay home, and independent voters may not be convinced by a Romney reconversion to moderation and conclude that a hard right turn is a really bad idea.