Who is Mitt Romney and Why Is He Always Changing Sides?

Only 23 weeks remain and the doubts continue. Even in Ohio, an indecisive state at voting time, Obama and the Republican Mitt Romney are neck-and-neck — the lead of the president is 1.8 points, almost nothing. Because of this the two rivals will explore various parts of Ohio this Thursday, as the state is key at the moment when Obama has a 47.9 percent national approval rating and a 48.1 percent disapproval rating. These are delicate figures so close to the election.

Nobody rules out yet that, in the stroke of a pen, the Mormon Romney could be the next president of the most powerful nation in the world. This calls for a comment. Romney won the Republican nomination because of the weakness of his opponents, and he could defeat Obama because of his reputation for good management just when the country’s economy has not taken off with Obama’s measures. Against him he has his scarce charisma, being a person who does not connect well with people in the street, and his reputation of having changed sides so quickly and frequently in past years.

Romney grew up in the shadows of his father, a politician of principles admired in various ways, who cut short his highflying political career when he declared that in the Vietnam War the generals had brainwashed him about the possibility of success. To criticize the soldiers in such a drastic way was taboo during that time, but Romney did not take back the statements.

His offspring — the current candidate — learned the lesson, deciding that one must be flexible and accommodating, abandoning a political stance if it is convenient. The clearest example of this mutation is healthcare reform. Romney, during his time as governor of Massachusetts, passed a reform that increased the number of those with coverage in his state; that is to say, he was a pioneer of the most important law passed by Obama and that in these moments has more critics than supporters. Romney has not hesitated to admit that he is against the Obama law.

These cases repeat themselves; for example in an important sector of the Mormons, the current candidate declared openly in the past that he was against the possibility that a woman of his religion could have an abortion recommended by a doctor. Later, he rewound a bit. He has had, on the other hand, zigzagging politics on the issue of taxes; in these moments he makes suggestions that will make pale in comparison the cuts that the last Bush made for the wealthy class. Like some politicians, he has a VERY pronounced instinct to magnify his successes and silence his failures. His account of his time at the head of Massachusetts is clearly dithyrambic, bragging for example of notably increasing jobs when in reality he only created 40,000 jobs in four years, a scrawny 1 percent of the labor force. He has been a successful business man. His fortune is estimated at $250 million, but his critics, his rival Gingrich among others, maintain that he has been based on destroying jobs and leaving people in the street. A documentary paid for by the offices of Newt Gingrich began by saying: “This is a story of greed …”

The candidate is an intelligent person, obviously prepared, articulate, although not exciting, in his speeches in which one has to put aside his past positions. He has travelled more than other candidates for the White House. As a Mormon, he spent his youth as a missionary in France, precisely in the year 1968, suffering a car accident there in which the French police declared him dead. He confessed that he spent more of his time going door-to-door defending the politics of Nixon than spreading his faith. As indication of his decisive character, that he does not hesitate to taking appropriate action, he declared after some days that he likes “being able to fire people.” We will see which of the two sides of this phrase the American voters will value.