Romney: The Right Choice Is Better Than an Early Choice

Published in Sina
(China) on 19 January 2012
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Michelle Deeter. Edited by Gillian Palmer.
When former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney dropped out of the U.S. presidential race in 2008, it was both lucky and wise. He dropped out in spring, before he could know that Lehman Brothers would go bankrupt that September. If he had won the Republican primary that year, during the elections, his connections with Wall Street would have made him lose badly.

Four years ago, at approximately the same time, I wrote another article about Romney. At the time Romney had just announced his plans to drop out of the Republican primaries for the 2008 election. As one of the frontrunners for the Republican candidacy, Romney’s decision to drop out surprised many. At that time, I predicted that Romney’s exit was to prepare for the 2012 election; the mood in 2008 was such that any candidate linked with the Republican Party was going to lose by a wide margin. That included a candidate like Romney, who was willing to take moderate or Democratic positions. After a major defeat, it would have been difficult to stage a comeback. Thus, pulling out of the race early and gathering strength was a wise decision.

Not surprisingly, Romney is on stage for the primaries again, four years later. This time he looks like he wants to go all the way.

If he can win the Republican primary and enter the election race against Obama, Romney has a distinct chance of winning. In 2008, so many Americans were disappointed with the Republicans that a few states that usually were Republican strongholds switched and supported the Democratic Party, including New Hampshire and North Dakota. Swing states overwhelmingly voted for the Democrats, including Florida and North Carolina. At the time, Americans had many complaints with the Republican Party: The war in Iraq was never ending; the war on terror was gloomy; and the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy in September 2008 precipitated a financial crisis. This dealt a fatal blow to the Republicans’ election prospects. When we consider these factors, Romney’s decision to drop out was lucky and wise. He dropped out in spring, before anyone could predict that Lehman Brothers would go bankrupt that September. If he had won the Republican primary that year, during the elections, his connections with Wall Street would have made him lose badly.

But times have changed. Now, in 2012, people have other things on their minds. Americans, who were once dancing in the streets celebrating Obama’s election, have found that the honeymoon is over and they are no longer interested in his “Change” campaign. They have started to grumble. Change has happened. Bin Laden is dead and the U.S. has pulled out of Iraq. However, there is no peace in Iraq and Iran has become a new foreign policy issue. What’s worse, the economy has not picked up much in four years, the government is facing massive debt and the U.S.’ allies in Europe are constantly fighting. Economic recovery is a weak sapling that is unlikely to survive, while economic disaster hangs over the United States like the sword of Damocles. Looking back at the health care reforms the Democrats pushed so hard to pass, many people now feel that the decision was a poor one. Even though there are many long-term benefits, the benefits will only come after waiting patiently, while relevant taxes are going to increase very soon. The news of increased taxes seems like an overwhelming burden to the middle class, which is already heavily burdened. The middle class will be more likely to support the Republicans and their small government policies.

Therefore, I think Americans will find Romney very appealing. He got his degree at a prestigious school and worked at a famous consultancy. When compared to the traditional Republican candidate, some cowboy from a small town in the South, Romney’s background will resonate with moderate voters. Plus, voters who are typically wary of Republican positions on social issues will take comfort in his background. As a Republican, Romney is more conservative than Obama on issues such as increasing taxes. Romney might not continue the health care reforms Obama put in place. This will all give him extra support in the presidential election.

The biggest hurdle for Romney is the Republican primary. The New York Times recently reported that Romney’s latest actions make it seem like he is already thinking beyond the primaries, which means that he thinks his nomination is certain. I think Romney should not act like he has already won. The same thing that makes Romney successful could make him fail. Romney’s background will make it easier for him to earn the favor of moderate voters and some Democrats; at the same time, it will cause some Southern Republicans to mistrust him. Even though in terms of the presidential election, Romney’s victory is much more likely than any of the other candidates in the Republican primary race, that doesn’t mean that Republican voters are going to let Romney take the stage.

Recently, Jon Huntsman pulled out of the Republican primaries and supported Romney’s candidacy, which is good news for the latter candidate. The two candidates have similar backgrounds, which could split votes. However, there is still one major weakness that Romney has to overcome in both the primaries and the presidential election: the fact that he is a rich person. This might sound laughable. All of the Founding Fathers were rich slave owners, and even today, there are many examples of rich politicians: The Bush family owns a huge ranch in Texas, Clinton and Obama were professionals with high incomes, not to mention the wealth of the Kennedys. The problem for Romney is that he accumulated his wealth while working at Bain Capital. This is a major sore point for a public frustrated with Wall Street businessmen. Bain Capital is a private equity fund whose employees pay low income taxes; for this reason, it stands in eye of the storm of a crusade against capitalism. This problem may not become the Achilles’ heel of Romney’s candidacy, but he had better be prepared to take some criticism from the protesters of the Occupy Wall Street movement.


罗姆尼:选得早不如选得巧

罗姆尼当年的退出是非常幸运以及明智的——他在春天退出的时候不会预先知道雷曼兄弟公司将在9月破产,如果那年他胜了共和党的初选,11月的大选中他的华尔街背景只会让共和党输得更惨。
  四年前差不多这个时候,我写过一篇关于罗姆尼的评论。那时候罗姆尼刚刚宣布退出2008年大选的共和党初选。作为共和党初选阶段呼声最高的候选 人,罗姆尼在2008年的退选让很多人觉得惊讶。当时我的判断是,罗姆尼的退选是在为2012年大选做准备,因为以2008年的选情看,即便是祭出背景与 民主党最接近的罗姆尼,共和党这个标签也很可能令他兵败如山倒。而一旦参选失败,四年后便很难卷土重来,所以早日退出为四年后积聚力量较为明智。
  不出所料,罗姆尼先生在四年后又站到了初选的舞台上。这一次,他看起来像是要走得很远的样子。
  如果能够赢得共和党内的初选,踏入和奥巴马的选战,罗姆尼很有机会取而代之。2008年的美国人对共和党的极度失望使得一些本来倾向于共和党的 州倒戈支持民主党,比如新罕布什尔和北达科他,中间选民较多的州更是一面倒地投给了民主党,比如佛罗里达、北卡罗来纳。当时的美国人对共和党的怨言在于久 久不能结束的伊战,毫无亮点的反恐战争,2008年9月雷曼兄弟公司的倒台和随后爆发的经济危机更是给共和党的选情带来了致命的打击。从这个角度来说,罗 姆尼当年的退出是非常幸运以及明智的——他在春天退出的时候不会预先知道雷曼兄弟公司将在9月破产,如果那年他胜了共和党的初选,11月的大选中他的华尔 街背景只会让共和党输得更惨。
  世殊事异,现在是2012年。当初激情澎湃地在奥巴马当选后上街跳舞的美国人度过了他们和“改变”的蜜月期,开始看到种种龃龉。改变当然是发生 了的。本•拉丹死了,美国人撤出了伊拉克,但是伊拉克并未和平,外交上又跳出了新的伊朗问题。更糟糕的是,经济和四年前相比并无大的起色,政府面临巨大的 财政赤字,欧洲的盟友们又争吵不休,使得经济复苏这棵脆弱的幼苗头上悬挂着一柄达摩克里斯之剑。从2012年反观民主党和奥巴马在2009年以来全力推行 的医疗改革,会令人觉得那确是不智之举——好处是长远的,需要耐心等待,但与此相应的加税却将速速到来。加税的消息令本来已经觉得负担沉重的中产阶级更觉 得难以承受,很容易因此转向支持小政府政策的共和党。
  所以我想这时候罗姆尼会对美国人的胃口。他在著名学府受过高等教育,在知名的咨询公司工作过,相比传统共和党的南部乡村牛仔形象,罗姆尼的背景 更容易使中间选民产生共鸣,也让他们较为容易放下对共和党在社会问题上的戒心。身为共和党人,罗姆尼在加税等问题上会较奥巴马来得保守,也不一定会接棒把 医疗改革继续下去。这一切都可能令他在大选中获得加码。
  罗姆尼需要跨过的最大障碍是共和党初选。《纽约时报》的最新报道说,罗姆尼最近的表现令人觉得他已经把眼光放到了初选以后,也即意味着提名是志 在必得的。我却觉得罗姆尼未必如此胜券在握。成也萧何,败也萧何。罗姆尼的背景会让他容易获得中间或亲民主党人士的谅解甚至青睐,也会让他容易招致传统的 南部共和党选民的不信任。虽然从大选的角度看罗姆尼的胜算远远超过现有的其他初选竞选人,但这并不意味着共和党内选民们就会因此从大局出发把罗姆尼推上舞 台。
  如今洪博培退选,转而支持罗姆尼,对后者是巨大的利好。这两人背景有相似之处,容易在选民中产生内耗。但罗姆尼自身还有在初选乃至大选中需要面 对的致命弱点:他的富人身份。这听起来很好笑。最初的美国开国国父们都是富裕的奴隶主,到了现代,布什家族是德州农场主,克林顿和奥巴马出仕之前是收入丰 厚的专业人士,更远一点的肯尼迪自不必言。然而罗姆尼的独特问题在于他的财产大部分是他在贝恩资本期间积累的,这首先犯了大众在现时对华尔街的忌讳,贝恩 资本作为私募基金,又因其从业人员的低税率而站在被讨伐的风口浪尖。这个问题之于罗姆尼也许未见得就是阿喀琉斯的脚踝,但他恐怕得做好吃些“占领华尔街” 人士砸来的臭鸡蛋的准备。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: President Trump, the G7 and Canada’s New ‘Realistic’ Foreign Policy

Taiwan: The Beginning of a Post-Hegemonic Era: A New Normal for International Relations

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Germany: Friedrich Merz’s Visit to Trump Succeeded because It Didn’t Fail

Topics

Canada: President Trump, the G7 and Canada’s New ‘Realistic’ Foreign Policy

Taiwan: The Beginning of a Post-Hegemonic Era: A New Normal for International Relations

Canada: Trump vs. Musk, the Emperor and the Oligarch

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Germany: Peace Report 2025: No Common Ground with Trump

Australia: America’s Economic and Political Chaos Has Implications for Australia

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Turmoil in Los Angeles: Key Test of Trump’s Power

Related Articles

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China