Having never been an intense follower of US politics, I surprised myself with how captivated I became over the current US elections. Perhaps it’s the perceived simplicity of a two-party system, or the drama and fanfare that has, in recent years, become almost a staple of US political campaigns; for whatever reason, I decided to change my indifferent attitude and turn my attention to what appears will be one of the closest American elections ever. As Obama has already been in the spotlight for some time, I felt I wanted to start my political education by looking at Willard ‘Mitt’ Romney; a candidate I really knew nothing about. Who was this man and what made him such a threat to Obama, who was now struggling in the polls he had once led. I decided to research Romney’s position on two of the, arguably, most important issues concerning Americans – the economy and healthcare – and as a third topic, look into his position on abortion, as the recent controversy surrounding the topic made me curious to really understand what he stood for. However, the more I researched Romney, the murkier his appearance became…
Despite having a limited understanding of economics, especially specific economic plans tailored towards a recession-plagued America, I think its safe to say, as Romney’s website does, that ‘any American […] will immediately recognize the severity of the break that Mitt Romney proposes from our current course.’ Put very simply he wants to cut costs, cut taxes, cut the deficit and prioritize trade. But, as my research took me beyond the most immediate news reports and interviews, Mitt started appearing quite incoherent. He is critical of the Obama’s administration handling of the recession and, especially, the stimulus package they passed in 2009.He claims the stimulus package failed and last Friday in Iowa stated that ‘a new stimulus […] will not stimulate the private sector any better than did the stimulus of four years ago.’ However, in 2009, admittedly a few days before Obama was sworn in and the stimulus package was yet to be signed, Romney was claiming that he fully sanctioned a stimulus package to salvage the economy. When asked by CNN’s Late Edition what he thought of Obama’s planned ‘$750 billion economic stimulus package’, Romney responds by not only saying that he wished the previous administration had already authorized a stimulus package before it left office, but goes further by saying that ‘I think there is need for economic stimulus’. Another economic issue Romney has taken different views on has been tax pledges. While campaigning in 2002 for governor of Massachusetts, Romney refused to sign a pledge circulated by a Massachusetts based anti-tax group. The Boston Globe reported that Romney stated ‘I am not in favor of increasing taxes… At this stage, I am inclined to make that position as clear as I can but not to enter into a written pledge of some kind […]’ But, in 2006, Romney signed a considerable taxpayer protection pledge presented by Americans for Tax Reform. Not only did he sign the pledge, but highly publicized it, stating ‘I’m proud to be the only major candidate for president to sign the tax pledge’ while issuing a press release and radio ad about the signature. While on the subject of tax, Mitt appears to have changed his mind on Bush’s 10-year tax cut plan as well. In 2003, the Boston Herald reported that ‘Romney refused to take a position on Bush’s massive, 10-year tax cut plan’, while four years later, when McCain was opposed to Bush’s tax cuts and Romney was up against McCain, he stated ‘I supported them [the tax cut plan]’ to The State newspaper. Of course, given the dynamism of the economy, it is fair to allow any politician to change their mind on some policies or plans over the years; however, Mitt’s wavering was to become a staple of my research.
Despite having a limited understanding of economics, especially specific economic plans tailored towards a recession-plagued America, I think its safe to say, as Romney’s website does, that ‘any American […] will immediately recognize the severity of the break that Mitt Romney proposes from our current course.’ Put very simply he wants to cut costs, cut taxes, cut the deficit and prioritize trade. But, as my research took me beyond the most immediate news reports and interviews, Mitt started appearing quite incoherent. He is critical of the Obama’s administration handling of the recession and, especially, the stimulus package they passed in 2009.He claims the stimulus package failed and last Friday in Iowa stated that ‘a new stimulus […] will not stimulate the private sector any better than did the stimulus of four years ago.’ However, in 2009, admittedly a few days before Obama was sworn in and the stimulus package was yet to be signed, Romney was claiming that he fully sanctioned a stimulus package to salvage the economy. When asked by CNN’s Late Edition what he thought of Obama’s planned ‘$750 billion economic stimulus package’, Romney responds by not only saying that he wished the previous administration had already authorized a stimulus package before it left office, but goes further by saying that ‘I think there is need for economic stimulus’. Another economic issue Romney has taken different views on has been tax pledges. While campaigning in 2002 for governor of Massachusetts, Romney refused to sign a pledge circulated by a Massachusetts based anti-tax group. The Boston Globe reported that Romney stated ‘I am not in favor of increasing taxes… At this stage, I am inclined to make that position as clear as I can but not to enter into a written pledge of some kind […]’ But, in 2006, Romney signed a considerable taxpayer protection pledge presented by Americans for Tax Reform. Not only did he sign the pledge, but highly publicized it, stating ‘I’m proud to be the only major candidate for president to sign the tax pledge’ while issuing a press release and radio ad about the signature. While on the subject of tax, Mitt appears to have changed his mind on Bush’s 10-year tax cut plan as well. In 2003, the Boston Herald reported that ‘Romney refused to take a position on Bush’s massive, 10-year tax cut plan’, while four years later, when McCain was opposed to Bush’s tax cuts and Romney was up against McCain, he stated ‘I supported them [the tax cut plan]’ to The State newspaper. Of course, given the dynamism of the economy, it is fair to allow any politician to change their mind on some policies or plans over the years; however, Mitt’s wavering was to become a staple of my research.
I next moved on to healthcare, which is causing a stir of its own this election round. One of Obama’s most controversial policies has been the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare). Possibly the biggest renovation of the American healthcare system since Medicaid, the principle focus of Obamacare is to provide affordable health insurance to all Americans. Romney’s official position on Obamacare is that ‘on his first day in office, [he] will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible.’ What Romney opposes is, basically, the extent of control the federal government will have over the healthcare system and the increase in taxes used to pay for this new system; instead, he supports a decentralized healthcare system. However, upon closer inspection, it seems that Romney implemented something very similar to Obamacare while he was governor of Massachusetts: the Massachusetts health care insurance reform law (or Romneycare). Essentially the main aim of both health care plans are the same – to secure health insurance for the large amount of uninsured Americans; the difference being that Obama’s is on a federal level and Romney’s on a state level. Although there certainly is a difference between applying the same policy to the federal and state level, what leaves me slightly baffled is the outright condemnation that Romney heavily dishes out on Obamacare, while having implemented a very similar and successful health care plan six years ago. Due to the resemblance of both plans – which Romney himself points out, acknowledging he is glad the President is ‘copying’ his idea – it becomes hard to see what Mitt really feels is the best way to tackle the issue of healthcare in America on the federal level, as he is now opposing the very plan he created.
Lastly, I turned to abortion, one of the most commented policies, but hardly the most important. On his website, it clearly states: ‘Mitt Romney is pro-life’ and his wife, Ann, also made her position abundantly clear by saying ‘I am pro-life, I am happy to say that’ on American TV show, The View. However, just seconds after announcing her pro-life position on TV, Ann went on to say: ‘Mitt has always been a pro-life person. He governed, when he ran, as, um pro-choice.’ Here, Ann was referring to Romney’s time as governor of Massachusetts, so I went after some clarification. While running for office in 2002, Romney stated: ‘I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts’ pro-choice laws.’ Three years later, while governor of said state, in 2005 he said: ‘Massachusetts should become a pro-life state.’ Also in 2002, Romney approved the drug RU-486, also known as the ‘abortion pill’, while, again three years later, he vetoed the adoption of a bill that would enable rape victims to have access to emergency contraception. As far back as 1994, during a debate with Ted Kennedy, Romney further emphasized his pro-choice belief: ‘I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it.’ This is in direct contrast with what his official website claims, that he believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned. While it is fine for Romney to have begun his political career as pro-choice, and become pro-life, it is his current wavering on the issue that I find unsettling. In October he declared to The Des Moines Register, ‘there’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda’. This directly contradicts what Romney wrote in 2011 for the National Review Online, where he outlined three abortion-related pieces of legislation he would support if elected President, including supporting the Hyde Amendment (which largely bars the use of federal funds being used to pay for abortions). A television ad for Romney that was recently released attempted to clear up some of the misunderstandings. The commercial shows a mother researching Romney’s position on abortion, and says, apparently relieved that ‘Romney doesn’t oppose contraception at all. In fact, he thinks abortion should be an option in cases of rape, incest or to save a mother’s life.’ This further contradicts his stance in 2005, where he didn’t support emergency contraception for rape victims. Although it is clear that Romney’s position has changed overtime, and that he is currently running on a pro-life position, this is another example of Romney’s apparently wavering stance, which has left me disconcerted.
After looking up these issues, one thing is clear: Romney is not indecisive. However, he is giving the impression of being so, and this is what is harming his campaign. His has clear stances on all the issues outlined above, albeit many contradictory with his past political record, and yet, every now and again he makes an inconsistent comment, or slip up, and these have been recurring too often, making him seem less credible. Not only does it undermine his dependency, but it also points to a worrying trend – that ‘he has appeared as a fawning PR man, apparently willing to do or say just about anything to get elected’, as an Economist article puts it. While he was Governor of Massachusetts he was decidedly more liberal than when he was running for President in 2008, and now, in an attempt to appease both the conservative extremists in the Republican Party and those that are less extreme, Romney is having a difficult time finding his own voice in the sea of political positions he is expected to represent. The same Economist article illustrates the questions that have been left in my head after doing the research: ‘nobody knows who this strange man really is. Why won’t he talk about his business career openly? Why has he been so reluctant to disclose his tax returns? How can a leader change tack so often?’ In short, who is Mitt Romney and what does he believe in?
By: Amanda Felberg
Photo taken from: <http://www.wwrl1600.com/image/wwrl1/UserFiles/Image/cartoon%20romney%20flip%20flop.jpg>>
Author
The Author
