Mitt Romney is in strong contention to emerge as the Republican nominee for president. He's in a two-way battle with Mike Huckabee in Iowa, and his lead in New Hampshire remains stable (although many likely New Hampshire GOP primary voters still haven't made up their minds). Meanwhile, his trendlines in every other state remain on an upward trajectory. Of only one other candidate (Huckabee) can that be said.
Still, a lot of conservatives have problems with Romney. Today Jeffrey Lord articulates a primary concern: that Romney lacks any ideology beyond pragmatism. Here's Lord:
If decisions were all about data, then the McClellan/Stockman view of the world - a worldview that is apparently Mr. Romney's as well - would be the triumphs most celebrated in American history. Lincoln and Reagan would be rated not at the top of the presidential greatness scale but somewhere well down towards the bottom.
They are, of course, not viewed that way at all. The principles of Lincoln and Reagan carried the day precisely because each man was able to stare at the 'data' - however gruesome or frightening they might be - and not blink. They are seen as great presidents and great leaders today because they understood at a visceral level that they should hold fast, refuse to yield to overwhelming demands from critics that they follow the data or that they adhere to a process that used something other than casualties or deficit projections as a measuring stick. Lincoln would not cave in on the principles of holding the Union together and the most basic principle of America - freedom. Reagan would not yield on the central conservative principle that tax cuts and less government spending were in fact the keys to America's future economic vitality.
I'd add another president to that list: George W. Bush, who decided against elite and popular consensus in December 2006 to appoint General David Petraeus commander of coalition forces in Iraq and allow Petraeus to implement the surge counterinsurgency strategy. Iraq, and America, are both safer today because Bush bucked the current wisdom.
The editors of National Review, however, seem to be comfortable with Romney's approach:
More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush's virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights.
As the primary campaign moves into its final phase, it seems that voters not only will have to decide on how they feel about Romney personally, but also how they feel about Romney's governing philosophy.
