Keeping Our Eyes on the Ball

Crunch time is upon us. With Super Tuesday just around the corner, Republican voters will have to get serious about whom they nominate for president. Conservatives who care about the fate of their country can no longer play games when they go to the polls. They must make the proper choice!
The question is therefore: what qualities do we need in the person we send to the White House? Surely debating skills and/or a winning personality must not top this list. Our nation is in too much jeopardy for us to disregard our opportunity to send a problem-solver to Washington.
So what problems need to be solved? Abortion is not one of them, not because it is unimportant, but because no one elected president will be able to do anything about it. Nor need ObamaCare or offshore oil drilling be the deciding factors. In these cases, we can rest assured that all of the potential candidates will repeal Obama’s folly, as well as lift prohibitions against off shore drilling.
No, our central concerns must be the economy and the deficit. What we need is a person with the skills and the temperament to fix these problems. And here the answer is obvious. That person is Mitt Romney. He is the only candidate who has demonstrated an ability in this area. Moreover, he has done so repeatedly; i.e., at Bain, the Olympics and in Massachusetts.
Some say Romney is relying too much on his biography to sell himself to the American people. But what better indicator of a person’s abilities do we have than his or her accomplishments. After all, wasn’t this the reason we elected Dwight Eisenhower president?
Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul all have congressional—not practical, experience. They can boast all they want about saving money, but none has really done it. So, for instance, when Santorum says he will increase manufacturing jobs, the very language he chooses demonstrates that he understands little about how jobs are created.
Santorum, of course, is a great improvement over Gingrich. He, at least, seems to have a moral compass. Paul too appears to be a moral man. But is this enough? While it is a minimum requirement, Romney easily fills this bill as well.
As for Santorum’s primary focus, it is estimable, but off the mark. Rick has been the social candidate. Time and again he returns to abortion and family issues. As it happens, I too believe it is critical that we strengthen the family. Where I disagree is with his assumption that we must do this before we save ourselves from bankruptcy. What good are strong families if we are all in the poor house?
With respect to Gingrich, he is all over the place. Yes, we must protect religion from the government, but what else will Newt do? It is hard to say. Paul, on the other hand, is predictable, but so rigid that he is unlikely to adjust appropriately to unexpected crises.
Then there are foreign policy considerations. While this is the single most important presidential responsibility, none of the Republican candidates has significant experience in this area. As a consequence, we must here rely on their personal dispositions.
Newt, sadly, is a loose cannon who could go off at inopportune moments. Santorum is lacking in gravitas, and therefore unlikely to impress foreign leaders. Paul is an isolationist who may precipitate the very disasters of which he warns. Only Romney has the stability to protect us from international troubles.
If we add things up and prioritize what we need, the answer comes out only one way: Mitt. He may not be the perfect conservative, but his record—when not distorted for political purposes—demonstrates that he is conservative enough.
And besides, Romney is the only one who is electable. Remember moderates have to vote for him/her for a Republican to win.
And make not mistake, this time it is absolutely essential that a Republican come out on top.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University