Sunday, December 4, 2011

Mitt the Pragmatist

Mitt Romney is stuck in the polls. No matter how many sterling performances he turns in during the presidential debates, a large proportion of conservatives do not trust him. They fear that he is not really one of them; hence they are hoping someone else will grab the nomination away from him.
Having apparently changed his mind about abortion and health care, Mitt stands accused of being a flip-flopper. Many people worry that he has no central core. They perceive him as a man without convictions; who, once in office, might abandon whatever promises he makes.
I, however, doubt this. To illustrate why I feel this way, let me refer back to George H.W. Bush. Do you remember how when he was running for office, he was accused of lacking a “vision” for the nation. His detractors suggested that he had no strong beliefs and therefore was not presidential material.
In fact, Bush did have strong convictions. It was merely that these were different from those of most Americans. Bush, it must be remembered, came from the upper class and he saw things from this perspective. His vision—what he most believed in—was stewardship. As the recipient of inherited advantages, he believed he had a responsibility to preserve what made America great.
But most Americans inherited neither wealth, nor power. They did not want to preserve what was good so much move up the economic and social ladder. From their perspective, they did not see how defending the nation’s traditional institutions would provide them with the opportunities they sought. They expected something more.
To return to Romney; his background is also different from that of most Americans. The son of a self-made industrial leader (George Romney), he grew to maturity with a great deal to live up to. While having a powerful parent intimidates most people, Mitt felt confident enough to compete. If anything, he was apparently determined to do better than his dad.
And, in fact, so far he has. Now he hopes to succeed where his father did not—in a quest for the presidency. But this would be based on a commitment he inherited from his dad. One thing the two had in common was a desire to be pragmatic. Their shared goal was to make things work; which Mitt has done—with a vengeance.
This was revealed in his pursuit of a successful business career. Mitt jumped into the marketplace with two feet and did what it took to make companies profitable. Then, he saved the Salt Lake City Olympic games from financial disaster. Where others made a mess, he used his intelligence and people skills to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
After this he became governor of Massachusetts. A Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, once more his pragmatism rose to the fore. While his healthcare plan has drawn justifiable criticism, he was able to make it more reasonable than his opponents would have preferred.
So now he is running for president as a pragmatist. He may not succeed, but he is doing so as a person committed to winning. Moreover, this is the attitude that he would bring to the office. It is who he is—and will not change.
As for me, I prefer a pragmatist to a dogmatist. I am tired of having an ideologue in the White House. I want someone committed to making the United States a going concern; moreover someone with the intelligence and flexibility do so. I also want a candidate who can learn from mistakes and make adjustments that work.
Now, with our nation facing a massive crisis, is not the time for ideological litmus tests. We desperately need someone who can fix what is broken, not someone who will continue down a path toward failure. Haven’t we seen enough of this with Barack Obama?
Yes, Mitt has changed his mind. Yes, he today claims to stand for things he did not the day before yesterday. Some people condemn this as a fault. They tell us it means he is shallow. But I say it is the mark of a man who learns. And I, for one, want a president who can learn, because that is the person who is apt to get things right.
There is too much at stake to demand ideological purity. We are talking about the future of our nation; and that of our children and grandchildren. We cannot let them down. So let us swallow hard and vote for competence.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

No comments:

Post a Comment