I still have not decided who I am supporting in ‘08, but lately I have been making some headway toward Mitt Romney. As a subscriber to the Weekly Standard, there was an issue a few weeks ago that provoked my thoughts.
Mitt’s proven experience in the private sector seems to set him apart from the rest of the candidates. This certainly has given him some leverage this election cycle since we are facing a huge budget deficit, trade deficit, and broken health care and social security systems. He thinks like a businessman because he is one, not a politician who tries to make up for years of inexperience with flashy talking points.
Fred Barnes writes,
The Romney way is very simple. It consists of attacking a problem or considering an issue or policy through vigorous debate, with dissenting opinions encouraged and outside advice eagerly sought, and relying on as much hard data as possible. At the end of the process, the leader makes a decision that may or may not coincide with the “vision” or “concept” or “framework”–Romney’s words–that initiated the discussion in the first place.
Romney has years of experience in consulting start up firms, growing his own business endeavors, and, most famously, saving the Salt Lake City Olympics. These are accomplishments to which other politicians cannot even compare. Sure, Guiliani made NYC a safer place to live and reduced those on welfare by half — all important to ensure growth and development, but his ability to do that during his tenure as mayor cannot compare to years upon years of successful business endeavors.
Romney’s success in the private sector is arguably worth more than the other politician’s limited success in the government because the private sector is wholly based on competition and the market. There are numerous substitutes in the private sector if a job is not done well, but the government does not necessarily have to always follow economic supply and demand principles to get a job done. As conservatives, we know that government decisions are often inefficient and usually represent misallocated resources. The private sector in our economy thrives off competition. Romney has continuously made good business decisions and been successful in the marketplace.
We need someone who can fix problems in 2008. Looking toward my future, I see an urgent need to fix health care and social security. We need somebody who can be a diplomat, yet stand firm in our conservative ideals, in foreign affairs. The other candidates seem weak in one area over another, but Mitt seems to have qualities that are strong in both domestic and foreign affairs.
So, what is holding me back? I have trouble accepting his previously socially liberal agenda. Pro-choice, pro-gay rights, etc. This weakens him as a candidate and I imagine if he were to be the nominee, the Democrats would do to him what we did to John Kerry in ‘04. When I make this criticism of Romney, a friend of mine always reminds me of this thought…he says, as conservatives our mission is to bring other people toward our side, and how can you fault someone for realizing his own faults and changing his mind for the better? That’s a good point and I think one that is valuable to all of us struggling with those same thoughts.
I still have a few months until I have to cast my vote, and it is likely that there will already be a frontrunner. However, I keep getting picked on for being so involved with politics, yet I have no candidate I am rooting for in ‘08. Our President in 2008 is an important decision for members of my generation so I find it important to make a careful and deliberate decision.
But, if I had to call it right now, I’ll go on the record saying I think its a Romney/Huckabee ticket.
