It was late 2002, and governor-elect Mitt Romney of Massachusetts had a request. He asked a top aide to go over his campaign stump speeches and make a list of all the promises he had made to voters. The aide found that Romney had made 93 separate promises while campaigning, and another 7 in the days after his election. That made for 100 different vows. Romney looked over the list and asked that it be distributed to the members of his incoming cabinet, as well as all the various department heads in Massachusetts’s state government. It would serve as a blueprint for the next four years. According to Romney, he’s made sure he kept every promise.
That’s the type of leadership Romney, 58, tried to personify during his four years as Massachusetts’s Republican governor: a true-to-his-word problem solver. But Romney’s term ends next January, and a few weeks back he announced he won’t seek a second. That’s because another gubernatorial race would deplete his energy and resources for a much larger campaign: the 2008 presidential election. Over two years away from Election Day 2008, Romney refuses to declare his candidacy.
Yet it is almost certain he’ll run. He’s spent the past months slowly raising his national profile. Like most of the other potential candidates for the Republican nomination–Sen. John McCain, Sen. George Allen, Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Sen. Bill Frist, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich–he’s made periodic trips to key primary states, most recently Iowa, which he visited last weekend. The latest step in his rise to prominence was a visit to Washington, D.C., last Thursday, where he spoke to the Medicaid Commission in the morning and the Heritage Foundation in the afternoon. In between, Romney had lunch with reporters at a downtown hotel.
Well, not exactly. There was a place setting for Romney, but he had nothing to eat. In fact, he stood for the whole hour, treating his talk with reporters as though it were a townhall meeting in New Hampshire. (Not to worry: the reporters enjoyed all three courses of their lunch.)
Romney is an impressive politician, ready to return to the national stage. He’s been there once before, in 2002, as the CEO of the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee. As CEO, Romney had to tackle the problem of Olympic corruption, and ensure the safety of the first games held in the post-9/11 world. He won on both counts. Romney was the public face of the games, shepherding athletes, television crews, and tourists through a successful event. Within a year, he was governor of Massachusetts.
It will take more for him to become the 44th president of the United States. Consider two of Romney’s liabilities–and two of his opportunities.
The first liability is religion. A devout Mormon, Romney’s faith is the subject of an uncomfortable and confused public debate, and has emerged as perhaps the top issue of his campaign to date (see Terry Eastland’s “In 2008, Will it be Mormon in America?” The Weekly Standard, June 6, 2005). The concern is that, while Mormons have enjoyed political success at the local and state level, they haven’t had similar success at the national level. In 1968, Romney’s father George was unable to secure the Republican presidential nomination. And in 2000, Utah senator Orrin Hatch’s presidential bid was over almost before it had even begun.
Romney takes all this in stride. He says that you can divide the American people into three groups. There are those who care only that a candidate has religious faith, regardless of the content of that faith. Then there are those who, “all things being equal,” wouldn’t vote for a Mormon, but who also realize that all things typically are not equal, and vote accordingly. Last, there’s the “very small slice” of people who wouldn’t vote for a Mormon, no matter what. Romney says that this last group is made up of no more than 2-3 percent of Americans. He estimates the second group at “11-15 percent.” Which means that for the “vast majority” of Americans, a candidate’s religion–or a candidate’s Mormonism–simply isn’t an issue.
Liability number two: life issues. For social conservatives, the top three issues are abortion, stem cell research, and same-sex marriage. Romney is an avowed opponent of same-sex marriage, but his past stances on abortion and stem cell research have been muddled. In 1994, running against Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Romney refused to say whether he was pro-life or pro-choice. He did say, however, that abortion should be “safe and legal.” His waffling worked against him. In 2002, when he ran for governor, Romney said he will “respect and will fully protect a woman’s right to choose.” And he expressed an interest in the possible benefits of stem cell research.
According to Romney, all that’s changed. “I’m in a different place today than I was 12 years ago,” he says. He’s spun something of a conversion narrative about how he got here. While reexamining the issue of stem cell research, he says, he reached the conclusion that the available science demonstrates that life begins at conception. This changed Romney’s thinking on abortion dramatically. “I am firmly pro-life,” he says. On stem cells, last year Romney vetoed a bill that would have dramatically expanded embryo research. He also vetoed a bill that would have expanded access to emergency contraception. The question is whether Romney’s rightward shift will be enough to assuage the concerns of social conservatives.
Let’s turn to Romney’s opportunities. He has at least two of them. The first is a record that appears to be well suited for the 2008 political environment. Romney is quick to remind reporters that he was able to fix Massachusetts’s fiscal crisis without raising taxes or drastic cuts in spending. And he has a bold health care proposal, one that would lower costs and cut the number of uninsured without increasing taxes or expanding the scope of government. “It’s not HillaryCare,” Romney says. (See Arnold Kling’s “Right Plan, Wrong State,” The Weekly Standard, December 5, 2005.) The Romney Plan, as it’s called, is still under consideration in Massachusetts. If it’s enacted–and if it works–the former governor will be able to point to his success on an issue that typically favors Democrats.
Romney’s second opportunity is his approach to governing. A Republican governor of a Democratic state, he’s in a unique position to comment on today’s partisanship. Romney sees himself as a problem-solver, a consultant, someone who’s “most comfortable analyzing tough problems.” He says he wants to hear all sides of an argument before reaching a conclusion. “I’ve always got to find an alternative view.” Romney tells reporters that if there’s ever unanimity among his staff on a particular issue, he’ll often play the part of contrarian. He likes to argue, likes to think things through.
It’s a cerebral approach to politics, emphasizing consultation and expert advice. Mitt Romney’s betting that after eight years of highly ideological, extraordinarily vicious national politics, the American public will vote for a mild-mannered, charismatic technocrat. It’s a high-stakes gamble. And there’s no guarantee of victory.
Matthew Continetti is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.
