Celia Bigelow says she’s for “Anybody but Mitt.” That was the headline to her opinion column in last week’s Collegian. She should be warned: “Anybody but Mitt” means another four years for President Obama.
Her argument, as I understand it, is: 1) The country faces problems that demand immediate attention; 2) Romney is unfit to address those problems because of ideological blemishes, specifically on the issues of healthcare and minimum wage; 3) The other GOP candidates are more suited for the nomination because they have more principles. The argument is both circuitous and incorrect.w
Most Republicans agree that the federal government’s runaway spending must stop, unemployment poses a problem in all demographic groups, and the national debt must be tackled immediately. This, carried out to its logical conclusion, suggests that 2012 is a must-win election. If Republicans fail, Obama will have four more years to wreak havoc on the economy and implement his healthcare plan in totality. Unseating President Obama is the solution, and Romney is the candidate most likely to accomplish this, as every poll indicates.
Romney’s healthcare plan in Massachusetts may not reflect perfect free-market principles, but it’s an example of the difficulties in governance. Romney did not force an unpopular plan on the public — veto-proof supermajorities in both state legislatures ensured its passage. Healthcare reform in Massachusetts was politically inevitable, and its implementation in no way proves that Romney lacks a fundamental understanding of free-market economics. He’s promised to do what is best for the free-market: eliminate Obamacare on his first day in office.
Bigelow’s economic argument against minimum wage correctly explains its negative effects. But the federal minimum wage will not be eliminated. And if tacit support for a minimum wage disqualifies a candidate, Ron Paul is the only one who meets Bigelow’s criteria. Gingrich caved to Democratic pressure to hold a vote on raising the minimum wage during his speakership, and Santorum voted to increase the minimum wage during his time in the Senate.
Finally, the endorsement of the other candidates as more principled than Romney is unpersuasive. Gingrich may have worked with a Democratic president — and was often outmaneuvered by him — but Romney governed a deeply blue state without any Gingrich-style explosive disasters. Gingrich disappointed most conservatives during his speakership, and for this, he was the first speaker in American history to be ousted by his own party. Santorum’s social conservatism is irrelevant to demonstrating he understands free-market principles better than Romney. Ron Paul may have the best economic plan in the field, but to implement it would require winning the nomination and getting elected, a prospect that seems unlikely at this point in the race.
Romney is more than just better than the other candidates. He’s an accomplished leader with executive experience, including turning a $3 billion budget deficit into a $2 billion surplus in Massachusetts. He’s put forth a tax-plan to cut marginal rates by 20 percent, reduce the corporate tax rate, and eliminate the estate tax, making the system more uniform and incentive-based. He’s demonstrated his understanding and belief in free-markets and deserves conservative support.
Bigelow has a choice: either insist on total ideological perfection, refuse to vote for Romney and implicitly help reelect President Obama, or vote for Mitt Romney and have a chance at economic recovery. The beautiful thing about the United States is that the choice is hers.