As pretty much everyone has heard by now, Mitt Romney did a
sudden U-turn and decided that the grass really was greener on the White House
lawn. He is back in.
I am for this. No, I
have not lost my mind, nor do I have a tactical reason why I would want Romney
to throw a stun grenade into the list of potential Jeb Bush (and Chris
Christie) campaign contributors. I have absolutely no doubt that, when it
comes to the 2016 election, the amount of money available will beyond the human
mind’s capacity to count. 2016 is,
literally, going to be for all the marbles, and a Republican sweep will, in
less than two years, fundamentally change the way government and the economy is
run for the foreseeable future. If you
have an economic interest in that particular trade, there is no question you
will be investing heavily.
So, why would I want Mitt back in? Because I see a challenge
for him that few in the Republican Party are capable of taking on. He has nothing to prove, and he does not need
to genuflect to the most radical wing of the party. Nor does he owe anything to
Democrats. He can run on who he is and what he really believes in. If Mitt Romney believes he would be the best
President of the current field, both Republican and Democratic, let him tell us
why. He is obviously not a bomb-thrower like Ted Cruz, or an off-the-beaten
path guy like Rand Paul. But what
distinguishes him from people like Jeb or Christie, or Walker or Kasich?
This is where Romney could do both his party and his country
a real service. Last week, I talked
about both party’s needs to challenge their respective orthodoxies. If you look at polling data, what you will find
is that both Democratic and Republican younger voters are substantially less
enthusiastic about their parties “core truths” than boomers and senior voters
are.
Here are two issues that Romney can lead the way on: The
environment and privacy.
Let’s begin with the environment—and specifically, not
climate change. I am omitting climate
change because, while a majority of younger Republican voters believe it is
occurring, it is a non-negotiable point of resistance and ridicule from both
the ideological base, and the corporate contributors who pay to keep the lights
on and the limos purring. You cannot win
an argument on climate change, no matter what the consensus in the scientific
community might be. So, drop it. If I’m Mitt Romney, I say “I’m first and
foremost a business man, and in business, you don’t throw massive amounts of
money at something unless you are sure it both exists, and there are viable
ways to deal with it. I will keep an
open mind, but we aren’t there yet.”
But, concern for the environment is something that resonates
with a large portion of the electorate, and the one thing that the GOP seems
absolutely set on is drilling, fracking, piping, clear cutting, emitting and
dumping as much as possible, and regardless of the damage it does. Mitt can offer another way. “I love this
country, and I love the outdoors, the beautiful mountains and forests. I ski, I hunt and fish, I do it with my
family, and I want others to be able to do the same, and not just those who
have been as fortunate as I have. So,
let’s start talking about conserving what we have. Our national park system is the greatest in
the world, and we ought to be preserving it.
It is an asset that is owned by all of us, and I won’t support policies that will spoil that. We own vast tracts of public lands, and,
again, as a businessman, if we are going
to exploit those, I want it to be done
prudently, with as much attention to keeping the natural beauty as
possible. And, I want to see transactions
at fair market values. We just can’t be giving things away.”
And, “Let’s talk about regulations. Yes, we over regulate, and as a businessman,
I can’t back a rule that creates a huge expense for a small and uncertain
benefit. To people who want me to stop a
dam because of a toad, I won’t do it. But,
that said, regulations have a purpose, and we have to do better on our land, water,
and air even if that costs money, even if business or the consumer has to pay
for it, and even if it costs jobs. I
know that’s not popular, but it is the truth. It’s common sense that if your
next door neighbor decides to build a smelter next to you, and he dumps waste
on to your land, or into your water, that’s his responsibility to clean
up. We should hold businesses to the
same standard.”
That was fun. I enjoyed being a ventriloquist. More importantly, those are obviously radical ideas in the more ideological
parts of the party, but they aren’t at all in the nation. Environmental policy is perhaps the most
nuanced, most likely to have crosscurrents, and people don’t sort out that
easily by party identification. Think of
gun-owners who prize the forest. Talk to them quietly, engage their intellect,
and people get the idea that this is an area that requires clear thinking,
careful analysis, and difficult tradeoffs.
Mitt Romney could take the leap, be the grownup in the room, and start
the discussion.
The same is true with privacy, something we should all care
about, but again, is particularly of concern to younger voters. Government surveillance and big business data
mining are putting all of our lives under a constant microscope.
Yes, there is money to be made, and terrorists to be rooted
out. But it’s creepy to go on line and
see a pop-up advertisement for the very same pinstriped Brooks Brother’s
slim-fit shirt you looked at yesterday—on a website devoted to baseball. And it is unreasonable for every telephone
conversation, every web search, every
text, every email, and every random exchange of words in both public and
private spaces to be an open book to some governmental agency. I am always puzzled by people who are OK with
it—so long as their guy is on the other end of the computer screen. I have been profoundly disappointed by
President Obama’s unwillingness to deliver in this area. I expect to be
profoundly disappointed with the next President, of either party, because every
politician in a position to make decisions fears the implications, and the
accusations of malfeasance, of another attack.
And, sad to say, many like the power.
As a free people, we shouldn’t be passive on this. Most of us don't feel safer, we feel
violated. We understand there will be some tradeoffs, and imperfections, but huge and bipartisan
majority of us will appreciate the effort.
Rand Paul raises these issues but he isn’t in a position to
truly influence policy. Mitt Romney could,
if he were willing to take the risk. Romney
could propose limits on the commercial exploitation of personal data (no
profit, no need to pry) and restrictions on where and what the government can
look at.
Will he? I should note that Romney’s recent announcement that he’s
back has been met by many with a mix of indifference, resistance, and outright
hostility, and maybe that’s as it should be, if he remains on Planet Status
Quo. There are newer and fresher faces.
But if he’s willing to mix it up and try to engage the
electorate—not the pundits and the party pols, but ordinary voters—on things
that they know are complex, but they care about, he might find things heating
up.
December 14, 2014
Michael Liss (Moderate Moderator)
Join us on Twitter.
