Romney Doesn't Care

Most criticisms about Mitt Romney are about his perceived inconsistency. They wonder whether he is sincerely conservative, because he was considered moderately liberal as governor of Massachusetts, and has only recently begun to espouse ideas that are consistent with conservatism. Apparently, Romney discovered the sanctity of life and the merits of small government right before he decided to run for president in 2008.

When Romney’s record is questioned, it is generally about trying to deduce the legitimacy of his conservative credentials. Is he really pro-life? Does he truly reject nationalized healthcare, since he was an architect of what has been labeled “Romneycare,” and seen by many as a framework for the disaster passed by the Democrats last year? Can someone who, as governor, raised hundreds of taxes and fees, be trusted to shun the same practice as president? In short, is Romney the limited government, social and fiscal conservative he is portraying in his latest production? 

Probably not. People convert and change their positions all the time. The human mind can sometimes be remarkably malleable. But it is rare that they shift their ideology as completely as Romney purportedly has in such a brief period of time.

But in my view, this is the wrong criticism. It’s not that Romney is not sincere in his views that should worry us. It’s that he is sincere that should be terrifying to anyone who holds to any strong belief system.

What does it say about a man that his ideology is so loosely bound to his identity? It says that he has no real principles. He is not a man at all, as I define the word. He is, to rework a metaphor from Ludwig von Mises, Homo politicus. Politician man: a unique species for whom an entire worldview may be easily exchanged for another as simply as I would change a bowtie. Such a creature, ubiquitous in Washington and particularly common in the GOP, is far worse than one whose ideology is errant or illogical. Their particular vice is far more damaging, as they lack any sort of moral compass to determine their next action.

Homo politicus simply does not care about principles; he cares about power. Of such a creature, Frank Chodorov wrote that "it is concerned entirely with the acquisition of power over people, criminal or ordinary; its only business is the exercise of the monopoly of coercion which it enjoys." It is for this reason that he identifies with whatever political party provides the most likely path to power. I believe Romney became a self-styled conservative because it looked like Hillary Clinton was to be the Democrat nominee, and she was perceived as far more liberal than the average American; he remains a “conservative” because Obama’s radicalism has disenfranchised those who got him elected. Romney, reading the tea leaves from the 2010 midterms, still sees this as the best way to reach the White House. He is nothing more than a political creature, perpetually drunk on the power of public office.

The behavior of politicians often closely resembles the textbook description of a sociopath. This is not coincidental, it is the nature of Homo politicus. They have no values, save the desire for the power that comes from ruling over their fellow man. They have no morality of their own, but publicly espouse whatever moral positions they see as their best chance to gain this power. This is why nothing ever changes in Washington. To again quote Chodorov: "They think of him as a man who represents their interests, while he knows in his heart of hearts that his interest is to be elected, or reelected, and toward that end he finds it convenient to make them think he is all for them; he is out to feather his own nest, always."

Lord Acton famously wrote that “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This is not, strictly speaking, true. It is not that power corrupts; it’s that power appeals to those who are already corrupt. The pursuit of power gives them purpose; its possession their opportunity to express their inner darkness.

We should not reject Romney for his insincerity or inconsistency, this is common to the political class, and actually a primary feature of the current crop of potential presidents. Bachmann worked for the IRS, Cain the Federal Reserve. Gingrich spouts off about America's Christian heritage, while parading around his mistress/third wife. Rick Perry was a democrat before he was a Republican. Pawlenty was for cap and trade before he decided that man-made global warming was a complete hoax, and on it goes. Rather, Romney is to be rejected because of what he is sincere about. Self-promotion and the pursuit of power. He is not like us. He doesn’t care about the things we care about; he cares about self-aggrandizement and self-promotion, like most who seek public office.
And he would see America sink like a stone, if only he might be at the helm when it happens. Romney doesn't care.