Mitt Romney can negotiate with “good Democrats” and “good Republicans.”
Jessica Rinaldi / Reuters
He did it in Massachusetts as a one-term governor, and with that extensive “executive experience” under his belt, Romney therefore is ready to be the type of national leader America is so “desperately longing for.”
“The real course for America is to have someone who is a leader, who can identify people in both parties who care more about the country than they care about getting re-elected,” Romney said during the Oct. 11 GOP debate in Hanover, N.H.
“There are Democrats like that. There are Republicans like that. I was the governor of a state that had a few Democrats. People in this room know how many we had in Massachusetts.”
When moderator Charlie Rose of PBS asked Romney, “So it’s essential to deal with Democrats and be prepared to compromise on the big issues of our time?” the default frontrunner of the 2012 presidential race said:
You have to stand by your principles. At the same time, you know that good Democrats and good Republicans who love the country first will be able to find common ground …We have got to help the middle class in this country. The only way that will come together is if you have people on both sides of the aisle who listen to a leader who has the experience of leading. And that’s what America is looking for and desperately longing for.
Romney is very well-rehearsed. His answers are evasive in a way that most people don’t see, as opposed to the other candidates in the GOP race, who don’t even attempt to frame their soundbytes as anything whatsoever related to the original question. He is smooth and subtle in how he intertwines his campaign talking points with the actual questions being asked.
That is to say, I was impressed, not only with how he handled this question, but with how he handled all of the questions, particularly those coming from his challengers. Nonetheless, I was curious what that jumble of words actually meant.
Specifically, I was curious how Romney, as president, would deal with “bad Democrats” and “bad Republicans,” particularly considering that in the hypothetical scenario of a Romney Administration and the current reality of political partisanship, Romney would have to deal with both pissed off Democrats and the Tea Party.
(This is all based on a set of obviously exaggerated assumptions, but if Romney is willing to make an ass out of himself by assuming the American public will elect him as the next president, then I think it’s fair to make a few assumptions of my own.)
Obviously, given the past two years of partisan obstruction, the Democratic Party would not be persecuted if (another hypothetical scenario) it loses the Senate in 2012 and rings in the new year (2013) with a partisan, uncompromising, obstructionist agenda aimed only at making Romney or Rick Perry or (if pigs sprout wings) Herman Cain a one-term president; if, as the minority party, Democrats filibuster any and every piece of legislation Republicans propose; if they draw up bill after bill after bill aimed at repealing whatever signature acts passed by the Republican majority and the Republican president; and if they threaten to hold the country and the economy hostage, let the government shut down and allow the United States to default on its loans by opposing any and all budget bills that fail to satisfy every whim of every wing of the Democratic Party.
They would be viewed by the general public as ideological obstructionists, perhaps, and the party might suffer from historically low approval ratings, as Republicans have, but the strategy would nonetheless achieve the overarching goal of making the American public skeptical about the Republican agenda.
After all, “Public opinion can change,” and “it is affected by what officials do,” as the leader of the Republican Senate has so eloquently, and shamelessly, admitted. The Democratic Party’s blind opposition to Republican legislation would have “a lot to do with how the public (feels) about” those bills, and so “(Democratic) unity in the House and Senate (would be a) major contributing factor to shifting American public opinion.”
In short, “instead of sticking their fingers in the wind and opposing unpopular initiatives,” as Matthew Yglesias wrote of Republicans in 2010, Democrats could “reduce the popularity of initiatives by opposing them. The blanket opposition (would make President Romney’s/Perry’s/Cain’s) initiatives look ‘partisan’ and then it (would lead) necessarily to (Republican) infighting that further reduces support. If you don’t care at all about the welfare of human beings, this is a very smart strategy,” politically speaking.
After running the numbers in a political if hypothetical cost-benefit analysis, Democrats would be correct to cast themselves as obstructionists, as the benefits would more than offset the costs of shaping public opinion against the Republican agenda. It has happened over the past two years. If Democrats did the same over the next two years, it would be no less effective.
But let us dispense of the market-based, reap-what-you-sew hypothetical scenarios and deal with reality.
How would Romney handle today’s Republicans, who are increasingly “bad” not only in their unwillingness to compromise with Democrats, but in their staunchly ideological anti-government, pro-Wall Street, anti-revenue, pro-tax cuts, anti-education, pro-creationism, anti-middle-class, pro-caste system, anti-unemployment insurance, pro-corporate loophole, anti-disaster relief, pro-disaster agency privatization, anti-health care, pro-Medicare destruction, anti-environment, pro-pollution, anti-oversight, pro-deregulation platform?
There may be some “good Republicans,” but they’re not the ones calling the shots. They’re not the ones killing GOP-sponsored appropriations bills. They’re not the ones saying a federal default is both acceptable and ideal. They’re not the ones willing to shut down the government if public broadcasting doesn’t lose its ability to compete fairly and openly for national grants.
In a political utopia, presidents would only have to deal with “good” Congress members, “good” parties and “good” politically active constituents. They would only have to negotiate with politicians who are honest and fair – forgive the paradox – and who “love the country,” as Romney phrased it.
In reality, everyone loves the country, every politician agrees that if you “come together” from “both sides of the aisle” and “listen to a leader” then the problems will be solved. But “coming together” is a myth, the two sides of the aisle are separated by a bottomless chasm of molten hellfire, and “listening to a leader” only happens in sci-fi fantasies where doomsday is immanent and divided government must unite against alien attackers.
If, as Romney says, “the only way” that people will “come together” is if you appeal to “both sides of the aisle,” and if both sides of the aisle then “listen” to the leader in power, then he’s living in a fantasy land that in no way resembles what Washington, D.C., has become.
If Romney is so naïve to believe that “good” politicians will join him in turning Washington into a non-partisan, solutions-oriented and ideology-devoid beacon of progress, prosperity and political productivity, then he’s living on another planet.
It’s the same planet Obama lived on before he realized that common sense is no longer common, that the collective fog of ideological warfare is thicker than any individual vision of American prosperity, that non-partisanship is no longer an option, and that sanity is no longer a prerequisite for holding public office.
[Cross-posted at MuddyPolitics.com]
If Romney is actually serious about his rhetoric, he will find that his party does not work well with others; it is governed by fear, anger and rhetoric disconnected from reality.
Romney would be able to work with some Democrats, as many would be willing to take his ideas seriously.
Of the GOP candidates, Romney is pretty close to being logical.