FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Core Romney

by CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

Our ideas are only intellectual instruments  which we use to break into phenomena; we must change them when they have served their purpose.

Claude Bernard, An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine

It is a mark of the truly great man or woman who admits that he or she was wrong, irrespective of how often called upon to make such an admission and when a person is in the public eye for many years it is easy to say things that upon reflection are no longer reflective of one’s core beliefs.  And that helps explain Mitt Romney who is endlessly accused of what is unkindly referred to as flip-flopping.  His flips and flops are not the product of lack of character or conviction nor of expediency but are the result of sober reflection over the years and a thoughtful realization that earlier positions were wrong.

There are, as would be true of all of us, many examples of Mr. Romney changing  his mind upon sober reflection.  The most recent example followed the Supreme Court health care decision. The Obama health care initiative was modeled  after the Massachusetts law that Mr. Romney successfully saw enacted while serving as governor of Massachusetts.  That plan, like the Obama plan, imposes a penalty on those who decline to purchase health  insurance, subject to some exceptions.  When he was governor Mr. Romney explained that that penalty was not a tax but a penalty.  When the U.S. Supreme Court said the identical provision in the health care law was a tax, Mr. Romney immediately recognized the error of his earlier ways and said it was a tax.  (In taking that position he was forced to contradict a close advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom, who mistakenly said, soon after the opinion was handed down, that he continued to think it should be called a penalty, fee or fine rather than a tax.)

Some years ago Mr. Romney supported a path for illegal immigrants to become citizens, but a year later he said there should be “no special pathway to citizenship.”  When he ran for the Senate in 1994 and for governor in 2002 Mr. Romney was pro choice.  During a 2002 gubernatorial debate he said:  “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard.”  During the2012 primary election season he said he supported the reversal of Roe v. Wade that protects a woman’s right to an abortion. (It is too soon to know if the July 12, 2012 Boston Globe story that says he left Bain Capital three years later than he’s been telling everyone will cause him to change his public position with respect to them.)

All of the foregoing changes of position are easily understandable and I am indebted to the various people who have taken the time to catalogue these and other examples of how Mr. Romney has gone through life with an open mind and changed it when it seemed appropriate.  There is, however, one position he has taken that has not been addressed by any of the commentators and on which he should be asked to say what he would do if elected.  With respect to the health care law and abortion, among other things, he has clearly stated what he will do if elected. He has not said, nor has he been asked, what he will do about trees.

His interest in trees first came to our attention when in January of the 2008 primary season he told an audience that it was a thrill to be in Michigan in the winter “where the skies are cloudy all day, trees are just at the right height. . . .”  And in November 2011 he again repeated his pleasure at being in Michigan where “The trees are at the right height. The grass is the right color for this time of year, kind of a brownish-greenish sort of thing.  It just feels right.”  His fascination with the height of Michigan trees continued when on  February 21, 2012 he told an audience  during a stump speech that he loved Michigan and explaining his affection said that “The trees are the right height.”  Confident of his assertion he later reaffirmed his admiration for Michigan trees to another group using identical wording. The thing that should concern us all is if Mr. Romney changes his mind and decides that the Michigan trees are NOT the right height, will he order the forest service and the park service to take steps to bring all trees in Michigan to the “right height,” an effort that could have huge fiscal implications.  A related question is whether the “right size” for Michigan trees is unique to that state or would he attempt to impose his views on trees in other states.  For a number of years he felt the Massachusetts model of health care should be adopted by the federal government and if he took that approach with trees it would impose a huge burden on the entire nation.

Mr. Romney has not addressed the trees in any meetings with the press  thus far.  Perhaps it will come up at one of the debates.  As a casual observer and not an official advisor to his campaign, I would hope that as he considers the question he not lose sight of the forest for the trees.

Christopher Brauchli is an attorney living in Boulder, Colorado. He can be emailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 01, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
Hillary: Ordinarily Awful or Uncommonly Awful?
Pam Martens
Clinton Says Wall Street Banks Aren’t the Threat, But Her Platform Writers Think They are
Jason Hirthler
Washington’s Not-So-Invisible Hand: It’s Not Economics, It’s Empire
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
Marx on Financial Bubbles: Much Keener Insights Than Contemporary Economists
Pete Dolack
Brexit Will Only Count if Everybody Leaves the EU
Evan Jones
Ancillary Lessons from Brexit
Aidan O'Brien
Brexit: the English and Welsh Enlightenment
Jeremy R. Hammond
How Turkey’s Reconciliation Deal with Israel Harms the Palestinians
Margaret Kimberley
Beneficial Chaos: the Good News About Brexit
Phyllis Bennis
From Paris to Istanbul, More ‘War on Terror’ Means More Terrorist Attacks
Ishmael Reed
OJ and Jeffrey Toobin: Black Bogeyman Auctioneer
Ron Jacobs
Let There Be Rock
Ajamu Baraka
Paris, Orlando and Turkey: Displacing the Narrative of Western Innocence
Robert Fantina
The First Amendment, BDS and Third-Party Candidates
David Rosen
Whatever Happened to Utopia?
Andre Vltchek
Brexit – Let the UK Screw Itself!
Jonathan Latham
107 Nobel Laureate Attack on Greenpeace Traced Back to Biotech PR Operators
Steve Horn
Fracked Gas LNG Exports Were Centerpiece In Promotion of Panama Canal Expansion, Documents Reveal
Robert Koehler
The Right to Bear Courage
Colin Todhunter
Pro-GMO Spin Masquerading as Science Courtesy of “Shameful White Men of Privilege”
Binoy Kampmark
Who is Special Now? The Mythology Behind the US-British Relationship
Mark B. Baldwin
Russia to the Grexit?
Andrew Wimmer
Killer Grief
Manuel E. Yepe
Sanders, Socialism and the New Times
Franklin Lamb
ISIS is Gone, But Its Barbarity Still Haunts Palmyra
Mark Weisbrot
A Policy of Non-Intervention in Venezuela Would be a Welcome Change
Cesar Chelala
How Tobacco Became the Opium War of the 21st Century
Joseph Natoli
How We Reached the Point Where We Can’t Hear Each Other
Andrew Stewart
Skip “Hamilton” and Read Gore Vidal’s “Burr”
Christopher Brauchli
Educating Kansas
George Wuerthner
Ranching and the Future of the Sage Grouse
Thomas Knapp
Yes, a GOP Delegate Revolt is Possible
Gilbert Mercier
Democracy Is Dead
Andy Piascik
The Hills of Connecticut: Where Theatre and Life Became One
Charles R. Larson
Mychal Denzel Smith’s “Invisible Man, Got the Whole World Watching: a Young Black Man’s Education”
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Four Morning Ducks
June 30, 2016
Richard Moser
Clinton and Trump, Fear and Fascism
Pepe Escobar
The Three Harpies are Back!
Ramzy Baroud
Searching for a ‘Responsible Adult’: ‘Is Brexit Good for Israel?’
Dave Lindorff
What is Bernie Up To?
Thomas Barker
Saving Labour From Blairism: the Dangers of Confining the Debate to Existing Members
Jan Oberg
Why is NATO So Irrational Today?
John Stauber
The Debate We Need: Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein
Steve Horn
Obama Administration Approved Over 1,500 Offshore Fracking Permits
Rob Hager
Supreme Court Legalizes Influence Peddling: McDonnell v. United States
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail