Not Deep Enough To Wet Your Shoes

Peter Canellos writes typical analysis piece in today’s Boston Globe concerning the impact of the occupational background of US presidents on their personalities. His column is standard Globe analytical fare – an analysis that isn’t deep enough to wet the tops of your shoes. However the column is headlined “Romney's business skills face a political test” and focuses on Mitt Romney’s career as a venture capitalist (without reporting the name of Romney’s firm, Bain Capital, or the fact that Romney also turned this firm around as its first successful leader). Canellos also mentions Romney’s work as head of the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee.

Then Canellos reaches his “but paragraph”. I call it the “but paragraph” because this is the paragraph in a Globe story where conservative points of view (which have been stated in the interest of fairness) are dismissed, and the modulated voice of liberal reason ends the conversation. Canellos ends his column this way, and I find his “but paragraph” to be weak and inaccurate. Here it is:

But Romney, in preparing for his presidential campaign, made moves as governor that often appeared bloodless and cynical -- vetoing spending programs while knowing his successor will restore them; ordering police to round up illegal immigrants at just the moment that immigration becomes a big national issue; denying protection to a visiting Iranian politician to demonstrate toughness on Iran.

These moves may get him closer to the Republican nomination, but whether they reflect deep principles or merely a venture capitalist's professional sense of what's required to achieve his goal is already the defining question of the Romney campaign.

First, “vetoing spending programs while knowing his successor will restore them”.

What Romney did was not a veto. Rather, Romney exercised a Massachusetts law giving the Governor the right to impound spending during a fiscal crisis. The effect was to cut state spending in the current fiscal year by a whopping 1.7%. Romney no doubt expected his successor to restore many of these cuts, but Deval Patrick could also have chosen to use them as a bargaining chip on Beacon Hill. Instead, Patrick simply restored all the spending while asking for and receiving nothing from Beacon Hill. Simultaneously Patrick, making Romney’s own point, said that a state fiscal crisis was impending.

Romney hit the ball into Patrick’s court and very clearly differentiated himself, with help from Patrick. I would call that a fine political ploy. The precedent of using emergency powers is not a good one, but otherwise, this move effectively illustrated a difference between the major political parties. That’s how a skilled politician communicates.

Second, “ordering police to round up illegal immigrants at just the moment that immigration becomes a big national issue”. Again, Canellos’ claim is inaccurate. The program in question was an agreement between the Commonwealth and the Federal INS which would allow a very small number of Massachusetts state troopers (6, I believe) to receive special training so that they could initiate for the INS the bureaucratic process of deportation against illegal immigrants who were already under arrest or incarcerated on other charges. Again, even this small measure proved intolerable to Deval Patrick, and he ended the agreement, further differentiating Romney from the Massachusetts Democrats. A fine political ploy, far more subtle than simply “ordering police to round up illegal immigrants”. Canellos is also incorrect to imply that immigration has become a national issue only at this moment. The issue has been simmering for decades, and has just boiled over once again.

Third, denying protection to a visiting Iranian politician to demonstrate toughness on Iran. This refers to the recent visit of former Iranian president Khatami to Harvard’s Kennedy School. In this case Romney deliberately snubbed an Islamist theocrat by refusing to provide the customary state police escort. Again it was an effective symbolic gesture. Khatami was duly fawned over in Cambridge, receiving only a single hardball question which prompted him to defend the Iranian law banning homosexual behavior and to excuse the occasional Iranian practice of punishing homosexuals by hanging. The Harvard audience received this point in polite silence. With astounding hypocrisy the Boston Globe did not mention these remarks its their coverage of Khatami’s visit. Who was acting more in harmony with their professed principles here; Romney, or Khatami’s audience?

These three moves were certainly political ploys, but they were pointed and well executed ploys. Far more pointed and well executed than the shabby analysis of them that Canellos scribbles in today’s Globe.