Inadvertent disclosures like this one are often treated as a window onto what a politician really thinks—or in this case, what a politician will do. But the very fact that these comments weren’t intended to be public might be reason to discount them. One of the reasons that campaign promises are a reliable guide to politicians’ future actions is that supporters can use those commitments to hold politicians accountable. The proposed changes Romney discussed in that talk are interesting—but his unwillingness to discuss them publicly might tell us more about how committed he is to seeing them through.
Remember that we’re in the age of the partisan presidency. Romney should offer a well-defined policy vision, and the press should take note if he doesn’t. Still, let’s not pretend that we’re too far in the dark about what either Romney or Obama will do as president—they’ll pursue the priorities of the constituencies represented by their respective parties. Jonathan Bernstein, riffing off of Garry Wills, makes that point here; Seth Masket, focusing on Obama, makes a similar point here.
This is something most reporters do understand, and it shapes coverage. There has been such scrutiny of Romney’s views on immigration partly because reporters want to know how he’ll handle the horse-race challenges the issue poses for the GOP—but also because the party is to some extent divided on the issue, and it’s not obvious where Romney will come out.
Still, the basic insight could be applied more broadly. Romney has been vague about his deficit reduction plans because Republican voters hate all the policy options that would do the most to close the budget gap. So what would he do as president? Probably not try too hard to reduce the deficit (which is not to say that he wouldn’t push to cut discretionary spending—Republican voters do like that).
Don’t let it get pathological. Reporters should tell their audiences when Romney ducks or stonewalls or otherwise avoids taking a position. But let’s not make the power struggle the story, as is already happening. And let’s not turn this into a chase for situations that confirm the narrative, to the extent that we obscure or miss the positions that he does take. Buried in many of those stories about Romney’s vagueness on DREAM Act issues are his plans for adjusting the green-card system, and for expanding legal caps on high-skill immigrants. Those don’t happen to be the particular topics that the media is focusing on, but they’re still newsworthy.
Or consider that Face the Nation interview. The attention was on the immigration exchange, but as Jon Bernstein notes, the discussion also featured Romney—who’s generally kept his distance as the rest of the GOP embraces Paulite views about the Federal Reserve—dabbling with inflation hawkery and opposing monetary stimulus. Romney won’t be setting central bank policy himself, but the next president will be appointing a Fed chairman after 2014, and that choice will have important consequences.
And finally, keep in mind Dickerson’s closing point: “So is Mitt Romney trying to get away with something? At the moment, yes, but there’s plenty of time left in the campaign for him to get specific.” This campaign might feel like it’s already lasted forever, but most swing voters haven’t even tuned in yet. There’s lots of time for Romney to put some meat on those policy bones, and to reset the latest narrative about his campaign.
- 1
- 2
I'm not impressed with this piece. Romney HAS flip flopped egregiously, CJR writers should stop pretending otherwise. And he has dodged on important policy details egregiously. One major area Greg Marx misses is Romney's detail-lite health care proposals, an area where any expert knows the devil is in the details. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had presented detailed health care proposals 18 months before the election. Romney still has a one of two page outline. I've only read two good pieces so far on Romney's health care positions, Noam Levey's piece in the LA Times and my piece in Medscape. Here they are. I urge other reporters to press the Romney campaign on this vital issue.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/23/nation/la-na-romney-healthcare-20120423
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/764555 (free login required)
#1 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Thu 28 Jun 2012 at 02:01 AM
I like how folks pretend that there is any substantial difference between Romney and Obama, Dems and Reps, etc. How novel.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 28 Jun 2012 at 10:42 PM
@Harris Meyer,
To be clear -- I think that the coalescing narrative that Romney is refusing to offer policy details is, on the whole, merited. Hence, "If a candidate won’t say what he wants to do... that’s an important story" and "Reporters should tell their audiences when Romney ducks or stonewalls or otherwise avoids taking a position." I was offering some points I think reporters should keep in mind as they press him for more details -- but I think they should press him for more details.
On flip-flop, of course Romney has flip-flopped. Many times, in fact. The problem with the "flip-flop" meme is that it's been used to levy a characterological critique against Romney that obscures the way in which his shifts have been in response to shifting constituencies (much as other politicians adopt new views when their constituencies change).
And many thanks for the pointers to the health care stories. On this issue, I think party dynamics are important -- in '08, to be a serious candidate for the Democratic nomination you had to have a very detailed health care plan that showed you were going to pursue the issue. I don't think Romney's feeling the same pressure from his base to, for example, explain how he's going to pay for these tax credits. But in light of this week's events, I expect the media will start pressing him harder on this subject.
#3 Posted by Greg Marx, CJR on Fri 29 Jun 2012 at 02:42 PM
Greg, thanks for responding. But I do think that Romney's egregious flip flops tell us something important about his character. There are always crosscurrents in a political party's base. But in my memory I can't recall a party nominee who has engaged in more frequent and extreme "policy adjustments" than Romney. I don't think the powerful crosscurrents in today's Republican Party excuse this at all. Even "flexible" politicians like Bill Clinton sometimes pushed back against the party base. We haven't seen that AT ALL from Mitt Romney, nor do I expect to. Obama's DREAM Act order would have been a perfect moment for Romney to back off his extreme anti-immigrant rhetoric -- by callling on congressional Republicans to pass a DREAM Act-lite bill a la Marco Rubio's sort-of proposal -- and return to his earlier immigration moderation, but he has declined that opportunity.
#4 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Fri 29 Jun 2012 at 07:34 PM
I find it amazing how outright press hostility and attacks on honesty and character
http://consortiumnews.com/2000/020100a.html
were par du course for a guy who wasn't such a liar and really made some great achievements during his career (and would have been vastly better than the man the supreme court awarded the presidency to)....
and yet the press is flummoxed now on how to cover an actual pathological liar who is actually lacking in character and who actually has no connection with anybody's public, his or Obama's. Is there any reason for using the kiddie gloves on Romney now, as apposed to 2000 with Al Gore?
Not that I care for political assassination via press gossip for anybody - republican or democrat - I just find it curious that suddenly the press are holding their tongues when it comes to outright hostility toward a political candidate who really lies all the time. Elephant got your tongue, folks?
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 30 Jun 2012 at 12:52 PM
Excellent Thomas Edsall piece on how Romney's flip flopping is both a political and character issue.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/playing-it-dangerously-safe/?hp
#6 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Mon 2 Jul 2012 at 02:58 PM