Mitt Romney and Double Standards

Ramesh writes, in response to my post on Romney's industrial-policy pandering:

Many of Romney’s policy specifics involved removing Washington-imposed burdens on the industry, such as the prospect of new regulations. You can think he exaggerated their impact—I do—but that’s not left-wing. Convening industry reps and government officials to gab about the industry’s problems doesn’t strike me as all that alarming, either: It’s what comes out of the meeting that matters, and Romney didn’t commit to anything statist. Romney’s plan to quintuple research spending was pretty bad, in my view—but plenty of free-market folks are okay with such subsidies. The reason Romney got a “slap on the wrist” is that it’s all he deserved.

I think my tone obscured my meaning. I don't actually think that Mitt Romney's Michigan pander ought to discredit his standing among conservatives, and I think a slap on the wrist from NR is an appropriate response to his proposals for reviving the auto industry. My point was that for weeks and months, conservative pundits - from George Will to the denizens of the Corner - have waxed hysterical about how Mike Huckabee's criticisms of corporate excesses and his discussion of working-class struggles represent, in Will's phrase, a repudiation of "free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America's corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity." Yet now comes Romney, making an actual substantive policy proposal that violates free-market principle, and the response in conservative circles seems, well, muted.

I should note, though, Jed Babbin and Jennifer Rubin, among others, have hit Romney pretty hard on the issue, with Babbin calling his pander "a Khrushchev-style five year plan for Detroit." That's mildly ridiculous, but at least it has the virtue of consistency.

Comments

but plenty of free-market folks are okay with such subsidies.

So great.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 16, 2008 3:13 PM

Don't know if I would let him off as easy as all that. Here's Mark Hemingway from a few posts down on the Corner:

"Romney is also arguing the federal government is not doing enough to help the auto industry enough. 'Detroit can only thrive if Washington is an engaged partner, not a disinterested observer,' he said in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club this afternoon."

An engaged partner? What's that mean? I guess it falls far short of a Marxist call to arms. But I thought the whole idea was to have the federal government as "a disinterested observer."

Moreover, let's say it IS the federal government's job to save the auto industry. From what? There are still tons of auto workers. Only they work in Tennessee and Ohio now. You know. For Honda and Toyota.

That is, let's assume GM and Ford do make dramatic comebacks and ramp up with huge new plants and tons of new jobs. Why in the hell would they open those plants in Michigan? Toyota and Honda didn't. Because, um... they think Michigan sucks as a place to build car plants. And of course, Honda and Toyota kind of know what they are doing.

So if voters from Wyoming and Arizona and Florida inexplicably decide it is their responsibility to create new jobs in the auto industry, wouldn't it makes sense for the guy making those investments to make them where it makes sense? Which appears to be anywhere but Michigan?

This isn't about investing in R&D or reducing regulations. it's about promising jobs to Romney's buddies. Which kind of sucks.

Posted by Sam M | January 16, 2008 3:34 PM

Your last post was excellent, and this one is just as fair and sensible.

Romney used populist language, and actually got into more policy detail than has the pseudopopulist, but widely criticized on the right, Huckabee.

Doesn't mean that anyone deserves to be thrown overboard, but this turn towards Conservative Fascism should at least be noted.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | January 16, 2008 3:44 PM

Romney used populist language, and actually got into more policy detail than has the pseudopopulist, but widely criticized on the right, Huckabee.

Which raises the question that I think Ross has asked before: Would Romney be doing better if had run as the man he actually is, a moderate technocrat?

Posted by Mark Adams | January 16, 2008 4:23 PM

I believe Romney is thinking about research and innovation - not bankrolling the car companies.

He's turned stuff around - and is certainly a capitalist; let him do his thing.

We got to have this guy as our president. I think that the little bit of rhetoric which sounds off to conservative ears actually makes sense in the larger context.

Posted by jmf | January 16, 2008 4:33 PM

The AP had this to offer;

ON DEADLINE: Mitt won, authenticity lost
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080116/ap_po/on_deadline_michigan_1

AND THEN the real bomb explodes in the Huckster's face;

Huckabee: Amend Constitution to be in 'God's standards'
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_Amend_Constitution_to_meet_Gods_0115.html

Posted by Winghunter | January 16, 2008 4:52 PM

"Detroit can only thrive if Washington is an engaged partner, not a disinterested observer."

That is not rhetoric that "sounds a bit off." It's a plan for government-run industry.

I know that Cato-style free-marketeering is probably a loser at the ballot box (alas) but conservatives used to at least pay it lip service and employ it as a useful fiction. Now we have the lead GOP candidate specifically stating that major industries MUST be "partners" with the federal government. Not piggybacking on some R&D. Not getting a few regulatory or tax breaks.

Engaged partners.

That's quite a departure.

Posted by Sam M | January 16, 2008 4:57 PM

My point was that for weeks and months, conservative pundits - from George Will to the denizens of the Corner - have waxed hysterical about how Mike Huckabee's criticisms of corporate excesses and his discussion of working-class struggles represent, in Will's phrase, a repudiation of "free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America's corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity." Yet now comes Romney, making an actual substantive policy proposal that violates free-market principle, and the response in conservative circles seems, well, muted.

So your point is not that Romney should be slapped harder, but that people should layoff Huckabee? Umm, okay.

Posted by Steven | January 16, 2008 6:38 PM

Sam M.

I feel your pain on the engaged partner thing - but I think if you look at it in the context of Romney's focus (r&d), and especially in the context of Romney's entire career, then you might feel persuaded to cut the guy more slack.

Let's not be like a Mitt Romney comparison ad and take one statement and blow it out of proportion.

Why do I love Mitt again?

Oh yeah - he has brains, family values and a ridiculous track record of turning stuff around (I hear a McCain fan chuckling, "Yeah, especially changing his stance on issues."). No, I meant real stuff - businesses, olympics, etc.

He's got my vote. If I found out he had a lover then it might change my mind. The man has not appeared to flip-flop on his commitment to his family.

Posted by jmf | January 16, 2008 6:53 PM

My friends who work for McCain's campaign tell me that McCain secretly considers Huckabee to be his "useful idiot" who he propped up only to take down Romney.

Posted by Steven Rinehart | January 16, 2008 6:58 PM

Look what the nation did for Katrina victims. Michigan is in trouble. Why wouldn't the "UNITED" States want to reach out and lift part of our group that is troubled. Romney is an ecomomic genius and he is not for big government or increased taxes. You just watch how effective he will be for this entire nation and he'll do it with sound Reagan principles.

Posted by Wendy | January 16, 2008 9:21 PM

"St. McCain -- distorting the record and misleading the public? If you listen to former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, that may not be as surprising as the branders want you to believe. In an unprecedentedly frank evaluation of a former GOP colleague. Sen. Santorum, who hasn't endorsed a candidate, said McCain is "very, very dangerous for Republicans" on domestic issues.
"The bottom line is that I served 12 years with him, six years in the United States Senate," he told WABC radio talk show host Mark Levin. "And almost at every turn on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side."
Sen. McCain apparently had a nasty habit of leaving one impression in public on social issues like abortion and marriage, and another behind closed Senate doors, according to Santorum:
"That discussion is held in private, where you're jostling and jockeying to get your legislation into the queue so that you can have your time on the floor to get something done. And I can tell you, when social-conservative issues were ever raised -- whether it was marriage or abortion or a whole host of other issues -- there were always the moderates who said: 'No, no, no, we can't. They're divisive, divisive, divisive.' And more often than not, John McCain was ... with them."
"That's wrong," Santorum added. "And that gives me an insight into what he would really be like if he were president of the United States."
The next night on the Mark Levin show, another even more respected and distinguished conservative voice, Judge Robert Bork, called McCain a "liberal."
Johnny, we hardly knew ye. "
________________________________________

Posted by Wendy | January 16, 2008 9:24 PM

Romney's proposals re: the auto industry are perfectly compatibile with the traditional Federalist, Whig, Republican pro-industry position up until Goldwater and then Reagan. It's true that the post-Reagan Republican establishment is nominally opposed to all forms of government influence in the economy (except, of course, huge amounts of defense spending), but we forget sometimes how much of a departure Goldwater and Reagan were from the Replublican establishment at the time. Interstingly, virulent antipathy to the federal government was historically the position of southern democrats going all the way back to Jefferson.

Posted by Led | January 16, 2008 10:19 PM

why not just vote for DR. Ron Paul, who has consistently voted conservative and not taken money from lobbistys? Also, a candidate who had not had much publicity, maybe he should hire Paris or Britny? what is our country coming to...

Posted by jaa | January 16, 2008 10:42 PM

Ross said, "Yet now comes Romney, making an actual substantive policy proposal that violates free-market principle, and the response in conservative circles seems, well, muted."

Sorry Mr. Doubt That, but even the "liberal" Supreme Court allowed the Chrysler bail-out. Why? First, you miss the difference between "loans" and "grants". All government "loans" and "grants" are bail-outs (even a student loan or a SBA loan is a bail-out for the lack of funds by parents or the individual, respectively, but not all bail-outs are "grants".

Now, how about "grants" to farmers, or the dairy industry, or to victims of natural disasters? Oh, so we are only supposed to help (bailout) the people or businesses of which YOU approve? Your special interest are above the interest of the Nation? Gee, so liberal, so socialist, so convenient.

Posted by Kenneth Howell | January 17, 2008 1:38 PM

How Can any conservative vote for Romney?

He was listed as one of the top ten Republicans in Name Only by Human Events Magazine.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11129

What will he be after the primary?

And would he be another George Bush if he gets elected?

Posted by Steve | January 17, 2008 6:03 PM