Mitt Romney: Forced to flip-flop?

In a 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romney stated that although he was personally opposed to abortion, he was "committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter." He also revealed that a close relative of his had died at the age of 21 after a botched illegal abortion.


As recently as 2006, Romney guaranteed by law that Planned Parenthood would appoint a member of the advisory board for Massachusetts' health care system.

Then in 2007, just in time for the Republican primaries, Romney began proclaiming his firm opposition to abortion. This has probably contributed to some people's view of him as a "flip-flopper," a "chameleon," or a "hypocrite." Certainly, however, he is not the first presidential candidate to be tagged with this label.

There are two questions that must be asked here. First, is Romney being completely honest now when he says he is firmly pro-life? I think the answer is no--the timing and suddenness of his change just seems too obvious. (For the record, I support abortion rights in most cases; I am commenting solely on his quick change of position).

Secondly, how much can we blame Romney for his flip-flop? His 1994 stance on abortion is not an extreme position--a clear majority of Americans think that abortion should be legal under at least some circumstances. Furthermore, I think that a fiscally conservative candidate with moderate pro-choice views would have a good chance against Obama in a general election. However, Romney must have realized in 2007 that because of his abortion views, he had almost zero chance of winning the Republican nomination. In order to have a chance at becoming President, he had to flip-flop.

I am in no way trying to argue for or against Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate. All I am saying is that, sadly, pro-choice Republicans or fiscally conservative Democrats or (in the past few elections) anti-war Republicans have almost no chance of becoming President. The current partisan primary system basically guarantees that every nominee will more or less follow the Republican or Democratic party line. If they deviate even a tiny bit, they usually have to pretend like they are more conservative/progressive than they really are in order to win the nomination. This is why so many candidates seem like flip-floppers.

Rick Perry's proposal to repeal the 17th Amendment

In a book that he published last fall, "Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington," GOP front-runner Rick Perry lays out several ways he wants to change the Constitution.  Perhaps the most interesting is his proposal to repeal the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct election of senators by the people. It's not exactly an argument that gets made very often. Repealing the 17th Amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislatures the power to appoint senators.

Perry, and a few other conservatives, argue that the 17th Amendment undermined states' rights and upset the balance of power between federal and state governments, which helped lead to the federal government becoming extremely big and bloated. At some level, I see the point. Senators who were appointed by the state legislatures would probably have more of an incentive to resist federal encroachment on issues that should be reserved for the states. Some feel that direct senatorial elections have become dominated by Washington special interests and out-of-state campaign donations, and repealing the 17th would fix that.

However, it seems to me that repealing the amendment would have one fundamental problem: it takes power away from people and gives it to politicians. I do not want to think about what kind of corrupt bargains could take place if state politicians were allowed to elect federal politicians. Instances like the Blagojevich affair, where the Illinois governor tried to sell Obama's Senate seat, could become common. Strict party-line votes in state legislatures could also become the norm. If not for the 17th Amendment, Massachusetts voters could not have elected Scott Brown. Maintaining a balance between federal and state governments is important, but not as important as reflecting the will of the people in that state.

We need to decrease the size and power of the federal government, but repealing the 17th Amendment would probably cause more problems than it solves. As for Rick Perry, if he truly believes in states' rights, then his support of federal amendments that ban abortion and gay marriage make little sense.

A good 8-point plan to fix politics (that will never happen)

The Daily Beast today outlined a pretty good 8-step plan to fix most of what ails American politics. (Of course, the special interests and party leaders would never let something like this happen). I would say that 5 of the 8 points are spot on, and 2 of them need only minor tweaks. Here is their nifty flowchart that describes the plan. In a nutshell, it consists of:

1. Independent redistricting.

2. A nationwide "clean elections" system. (My objection: This is probably unconstitutional. A better idea would be strict limits on campaign donations for all organizations, but no limits on donations from individuals).

3. Nonpartisan primaries: all candidates on the same ballot, top two advance.

4. More states committing to give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

5. Fill vacancies in legislative committees randomly. (My suggestion: Require every committee to be evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. Committees should not be tools of partisan power).

6. Eliminate the provision where senators can anonymously place holds on bills. 

7. Force filibusters to happen via actual on-floor debates.

8. Eliminate the debt ceiling. (My objection: It would be a bad idea to eliminate the last line of defense against out-of-control, over-budget spending. A better idea would be to pass a balanced budget amendment that also mandates a significant tax increase whenever the U.S. gets involved in a war).