The Romney Flip Flop Fallacy: A Rebuttal
From The
Right
Philip M. Nelson
philip_nelson@byu.net
1. Consider the sources of this argument.
Those that have invested the most in the idea of the Romney
"flip-flop" come from two groups: 1) Enemies of conservatives; and 2)
Enemies of Mormons. Anti-conservative
and anti-Mormon forces have combined against Romney, even though many
evangelical
anti-Mormons might otherwise be considered part of the religious right. These strange bedfellows are only united in
their opposition to the two things I support most.
The fact that Romney stands at this same
intersection means we should try to start by giving Romney the benefit
of the doubt. Any conservative pondering
the issue should
look at evidence and not allow the accusations to harden into
conventional
wisdom. I don't trust the agenda of
those driving the "flip-flop" story. I have seen many writers
use misleading, partial quotations to try to play gotcha against
Romney; their
agenda is not pure, and it is certainly not pro-life.
Any conservative should be principled enough to allow Romney
to defend himself on this issue and should be leery of all "news"
coverage of the topic, given the sensationalist, leftist media bent. Here is the text of an excellent speech he
gave at the "National Right To Life Convention." Romney
was well received at this event, and
to me he comes across as very sincere and believable. http://www.mittromney.com/News/Speeches/National_Right_To_Life_Convention_Forum
3. Romney likely did not flip.
Romney's enemies insinuate with quotations taken out of
context that Romney went from pro-abortion to anti-abortion. However, I have never seen even a shred of
evidence that Romney was pro-abortion, like a hard-core NOW or
NARAL
democrat. The most egregious evidence
suggests he promised not to change the status quo in Massachusetts,
which
allowed abortion quite liberally. It
appears that any change in Romney's position was from one of
acquiescence to
abortion, to one of actively fighting against it. No
one can argue that he has fought for
abortion. Every bit of hard evidence for
Romney's supposedly "pro-abortion" position is a crumb, surrounded by
hype and twisted headlines. If anyone
who reads this can show me otherwise, please do so.
A flip-flop implies three stages: A, flip to B, flop back to
A. There is no evidence of Romney going
back-and-forth on this issue. The change
appears to be from "less strong" opposition to abortion, to "more
strong" opposition to abortion.
That is not a "flip-flop."
He changed in the correct direction, and sometimes, converts are
the
most persuasive in winning other converts.
Some believe Romney was always strongly anti-abortion, and just
temporarily fooled people into believing he was not, in order to run
for office
in Massachusetts. But everything I have
seen shows that as a Republican candidate there, he merely
acquiesced—up front—to
the will of the people in a super-liberal state and agreed to let the
abortion
laws stand pat. If he was personally
strongly anti-abortion the whole time, so much the better now that he
is trying
to represent the whole country—one that agrees with him on this issue.
Even among conservatives, there is vehement disagreement
about how strong our opposition to abortion should be.
As the liberal media so often points out, some
crazy extremists even bomb abortion clinics.
Consider the outrageous "ministries" and "preachers"
that profane and berate outside of LDS general conference every
year. I'm
always astonished to see that they think the church is not pro-life
enough! They think that because we have a
rape/health-of-the-mother
exception on abortion, we are all deserving of damnation!
Why can't we harness their energy on this
issue and work together toward what I see as a common goal? Many conservatives have changed their
thinking to some degree on this issue as it has boiled to the top of
national
debate through the years. We're likely
not going to get a foremost anti-abortion crusader elected—if there is
even
such a thing as a sufficiently pure-blooded person on this issue. Ultimately, all of our thinking on this issue
is nuanced. We should allow Romney some
leeway to not be exactly where we are on this issue, as long as he is
definitely pro-life and anti-abortion.
Though clearly not definitive (see Harry Reid), the fact
that Romney is a member of the LDS church in good standing—and that he
served in
a high profile calling as a stake president—provides evidence that he
has a
good character, good judgment, and a sound moral foundation. Those who point to an occasional liberal or
fallen church leader are attempting to force the exception to swallow
the
rule. There is no way Romney could have
served honorably while encouraging abortions; that would be grounds for
excommunication. However, Stake
Presidents deal with real-world situations—maybe even rape and incest
situations—where the church does not condemn abortions.
As this you-tube video shows, some ignorant
opponents have attacked Romney as being a bad church member, but I
believe
Romney understands the church position better than them—and probably
better
than me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G9hydflwEQ
If Romney did any "growing in office" on the
abortion issue, it happened the very first time he was faced with an
actual life-related
decision as Governor as Massachusetts, and he came down on the correct
side, in
my view. He drew harsh criticism from
pro-abortion activists at the time. He
also drew criticism when he stood by his promise to maintain the status
quo on
abortion—in opposition to leftist efforts to further liberalize
Massachusetts
abortion laws (e.g., by attempting to codify the Roe v. Wade holding). Thus, in some ways, Romney's pledge to keep
the status quo ended up being an anti-abortion stance, though
it is so
often billed as being somehow pro-abortion.
From this first veto and throughout his public life, Romney's
governing
actions have been consistently pro-life.
This article by Rep. Peter Hoekstra details some of Romney's
actual
record: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=20672
8. Romney's recognition of precedent
demonstrates a conservative instinct.
Many have twisted Romney's previous position (acquiescing to
Roe v. Wade being the law of the land) into a pro-abortion
position. But
doesn't every state or federal judge who is bound to apply that
precedent fall
under the same indictment? Conservatives
always suffer from this one-way ratchet. We believe in upholding
precedent because we don't like judicial activism and we prefer the
rule of law
to constant revolution, predictability to leftward "progress,"
etc.
But if it is only the conservatives that resist the temptation of all
judges to
rule according to their policy preferences, the result is systematic
leftward
drift. And this is exactly what we've seen! (See
The Tempting Of America: The Political Seduction of the Law, by
Robert
H. Bork). Thus, although there may be
some danger in any office-holder pledging to uphold and execute the law
when
there are such monstrous laws on the books (or at least such monstrous
interpretive farces in the law books, if not actually in the statute
books), it
is not necessarily the conservative position to attack Romney for
making such a
pledge because respect for precedent is an inherently conservative
impulse. And Roe v. Wade is
precedent until congress confirms more
conservative Supreme Court appointments.
We should evaluate all the candidates' positions on the
issues, taking care to evaluate Romney as if he were not LDS,
and keep a
tally of issues we care about. This may
be a good check on any tendency to unfairly amplify a perceived
weakness
because pundits have harped on it. It
may be the pundits that have driven this, but I observe that Mormons
hold
Romney to a standard ten times higher than that to which we would hold
any
other politician. It is not practical to hold a politician to the
sort of
standard we have for a general authority, and that seems to be what LDS
people
do. Romney is a businessman, and a politician.
By definition, a politician reflects and
represents his or her constituency.
Should we look for leadership and character?
Yes.
But we cannot expect perfection, even from a Mormon candidate. After all, our "perfect" candidate
may only be 99% perfect for the person in the next pew.
Romney categorically would NOT have been a viable national
candidate if he had squeaky clean conservative Mormon credentials; you
don't
see any governors of Utah ever jumping into a presidential race, for
example. So in a sense, our own unfairly high standards may doom
the
prospects of any Mormon candidate. Either a great man like Elder
Dallin
H. Oaks runs, but not even all Mormons vote for him because they think
they're
throwing away their vote on an unrealistic dream, or a
businessman/politician like
Romney runs, but because he has had to make trade-offs to become
nationally
viable, not all Mormons vote for him because, that time, they decide to
be
purists. A catch-22 indeed, if we allow
it to be.
There appears to be a sophisticated smear campaign against
Romney, and I know a lot of Mormons who are taken in by it.
People have
learned how to use the idealism of conservatives (and especially
Mormons)
against us. I believe that rational, methodical analysis can
prevent this
emotion-based attack from working.
The other options are definitely "alternatives"
when it comes to social issues. Guliani
v. Hillary is a realistic possibility if conservatives decide to get
picky with
Romney on this one issue. Obviously that
match-up does not advance the pro-life cause.
Romney may not be perfect, but neither were the Georges Bush,
Bob Dole,
or even Ronald Reagan. Romney seems the
best choice in this race—by far! ■