JONATHAN CHAIT OCTOBER 6, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Politico has a good piece today on a subject I've been banging on for a while -- the mortal blowinflicted upon Mitt Romney's presidential hopes by the health care debate. In 2008, a system consisting of a regulated individual markets, an individual mandate, and subsidies for low-income workers was considered a perfectly sensible thing for a conservative Republican to have supported. Romney boasted about it on the campaign trail and took essentially no flack for it. Now, such a system is The Death Of Freedom.
The further problem is that the 2008 version of Romney was itself a radical remaking of his prior political identity. Romney took a great deal of abuse for his shift, but ultimately conservatives swallowed it, and he emerged from 2008 in a strong position. His post-election speech to the CPAC positioned him as a front-runner. But now health care has killed it. The Politico story quotes some conservatives demanding Romney apologize. He can't do that, of course, without raising all the flip-flopper questions that haunted him four years before.
Here, via Politico, is the bright side for Romney:
Romney could get a break, if public opinion on the law ticks upward, as Democrats once said it would, and if independent voters begin to view it as a positive.
In 2008, the Massachusetts law fit into his personal narrative as a can-do candidate, one who is skilled at taking on intractable problems – such as health care and the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Despite criticism from his Republican opponents in 2008, Romney still drew applause on the campaign trail when he mentioned the legislative achievement. And at a time when economic issues dominate, Romney’s background as a businessman could prove most important.
Not very bright, huh? Romney's problem on this issue isn't with independents. It's with the GOP base.
I'd also be curious to hear from some conservatives about how they see this. In 2008, nearly all of them were fine with Romney's health care plan. (National Review endorsed Romney for president.) Now, to a man, nearly all of them believe the imposition of a regulate/subsidize/mandate scheme represents one of the worst catastrophes in American history. How do they account for their dramatic change of mind? Were conservatives all simply wrong and ignorant in 2008, and now they've opened their eyes? Or is something else at work?
13 comments
It's not just that Obamacare is similar to the pre-2009 conservative approach to healthcare reform. Obamacare was actually more conservative than the prior conservative version of the plan: more restrictive of abortion coverage, reducing not only public but private-sector access to abortion; more reliant on private insurance as opposed to gov't plans, such that it is likely to reduce use of public services in the long run; less reliant on direct subsidies to low-income families and more reliant on conservative tax-credit schemes; and it achieves much greater cuts to government welfare spending than conservatives have ever proposed.
- rhubarbs
October 6, 2010 at 10:15am
"Romney's problem on this issue isn't with independents. It's with the GOP base." If the TP candidates take enough of a beating in 2010 (knock on wood), and Obamacare becomes significantly more popular with independents, then Romney's disadvantage with the base could be overcome by his advantage with independents. It would be a repeat of 2008, with conservatives unhappily backing the strongest candidate.
- Simon Greenwood
October 6, 2010 at 10:22am
Once they get the nigg*r out of office, they're take some whiteout to the signature line, pencil themselves in, and hail it as a major conservative breakthrough and deride the kenyan-in-chief for being such a liberal, know-nothing sop.
- GSpinks
October 6, 2010 at 10:29am
- It will be great fun watching Republican candidates as they try and prove the tactics for the mid-terms can be applied to '12. This is the end of the beginning, when they could maximize appealing to the far right and still make gains. But it will continue as candidates have to raise money and organize. So the first few primaries will determine if there is enough sanity in the GOP to nominate someone who can compete in a national race. Will someone have the courage and influence to say, "We have to stop this or a 3rd party will beat us." and will it work?
- michaelg
October 6, 2010 at 10:59am
You could put together a very interesting Romney-Health care timeline made up of his actions and statements from his term as governor through present day that would be very interesting. It would have more back-and-forth than a Nadal-Federer match.
- W_Bombay
October 6, 2010 at 11:19am
Well, Obamacare is anathema to the right, so anything that smacks of it has to be policy-non-grata, as well. Mitt Romney got caught in the vise grip of political events. Who knew? I am of course arguing here that conservatives who set the tone are cynical and mercenary. Does the name Jonah Goldberg resonate here?
- liberal reformer
October 6, 2010 at 11:23am
And you can tell how very interesting I would consider such a timeline by my repeated use of the phrase "very interesting."
- W_Bombay
October 6, 2010 at 12:00pm
- My point is Romney would be a poor fit for what is driving the GOP without his health care reform record. None of his various configurations are a match for the insurgents on the right. He can probably find the money but I don't see the tide of new voices in or out of office cheering him on. Since there will be another round of house and senate races the GOP will probably have to ride the that movement as no single candidate has the clout to lead it. Even those who have good argument for jumping in seem to be waiting for permission.
- michaelg
October 6, 2010 at 12:03pm
Ummmm, EYE think something else is at work.
- VBKim
October 6, 2010 at 12:24pm
"How do they account for their dramatic change of mind? Were conservatives all simply wrong and ignorant in 2008, and now they've opened their eyes? Or is something else at work?" Maybe they don't so much mind seeing people sicken and die, as long as they live in Massachusetts?
- boyski
October 6, 2010 at 2:22pm
As far as I recall, back in 2008 you could barely get the Mittster to admit he'd ever been governor of Massachusetts!
- ironyroad
October 6, 2010 at 5:24pm
Romney is a poor fit for the 2012 version of the GOP because he simply isn't crazy enough. Look, I have little if any respect for the guy. I have a very strong suspicion that, among his closest friends, he's probably a reasonably tolerant, generally urbane, well-read, intellectually interested and even interesting fellow. So, when he tries to portray himself as a gun-loving, social conservative mouth-breather, it just comes off as false. Umm, because it is. But even so, he's just not completely nuts - which seems to be the principal litmus test for Republican candidates this time around. He doesn't seem to have it in him to dream up fantasy threats to American Liberty, like the Newtster, for example. He seems not to want to justify his various policy positions as being divinely ordained, like Huckabee or Palin. And yes, he actually had the misfortune to have thought seriously about a pressing matter of policy - health insurance - and to have done something reasonably adult and responsible about it when he was Governor of Massachusetts, rather than just demonize and caricaturize the whole issue. I suspect he may not even think Obama is a Commie, pinko, Maoist, fascist, Stalinist, socialist, Castro-loving, Kenyan, anti-colonialist, Muslim terrorist. He's got no chance!
- jegan
October 6, 2010 at 6:05pm
Mitt has something I am greatly saddened is missing in the current GOP: Actual pragmatism and competence. I would not like him to be President by a long shot, but if I had to I would pick him. Of course, he will not get through the primary in which the ultimate goal is who is the most batsh-t crazy!
- MikeB.
October 6, 2010 at 9:09pm