Rich Yeselson argues that the media’s quest for the real Mitt Romney is an ill-fated exercise in muddled, quasi-mystical thinking:
Meanwhile: most election observers aren’t like me. They don’t think that a few words can adequately reveal the totality of Mitt Romney. It seems as if they all want to know who he really is. The authenticity obsession about Romney has become a national, wasteful pursuit like the Iraq invasion and occupation without the laughs.
I couldn’t agree more. Of course, Rich is talking about the search for autobiographical Rosetta Stone that will reveal Romney’s true personality. Was it a bad car crash in France? Is it Mormonism?
This kind of touchy-feely “analysis” shouldn’t be confused with an assessment of Romney’s record, and the ways in which it contradicts his current rhetoric. (Not that Rich is making that mistake.)
Politicians pander to the electorate all the time. We all know Romney used to be a tepidly pro-choice governor with sympathy for gay marriage. Yet, he’s trying to rewrite history and paint himself as a “severely conservative” governor.
In light of this contradiction, it is fair to wonder what Romney believes about choice or gay marriage. Was he pandering then? Is he pandering now? Or both? Maybe the real Mitt Romney is a semi-liberal Republican pretending to be a conservative, or vice versa. More likely, the real Mitt Romney is a brazen opportunist who will say anything to get elected.
Ultimately, what matters is not what’s in Romney’s heart of hearts, but what his record predicts about how he’d be likely to govern. Someone who has a record of changing his positions based on short-term political advantage is unpredictable. You just never know what’s going to be advantageous for him to say next.
I hope you found this article important. Before you leave, I want to ask you to consider supporting our work with a donation. In These Times needs readers like you to help sustain our mission. We don’t depend on—or want—corporate advertising or deep-pocketed billionaires to fund our journalism. We’re supported by you, the reader, so we can focus on covering the issues that matter most to the progressive movement without fear or compromise.
Our work isn’t hidden behind a paywall because of people like you who support our journalism. We want to keep it that way. If you value the work we do and the movements we cover, please consider donating to In These Times.
