Successful Political Flexibility.

A liberal WaPo columnist today asks:

Putting Romney’s serial flip flops in the context of his corporate past is an interesting touch, weaving together two strands of Romney’s political identity that Dems see as core vulnerabilities. The question is whether this view of Romney’s character will take hold as a broader media narrative.

I don't think so. Here's why:
If you call Mitt Romney's seizing on successful political initiatives "flip flopping", then you're also opening the door to more media scrutiny of candidate Obama's record.

Remember when Obama was against the Individual Health Insurance Mandate before he proved for it, and (temporarily some say) sneakily had it voted into law. What political flexibility and solipsism there, eh? (Win-ning! In the short term sense, anyway...)

Remember when Obama was for gay marriage as a liberal Illinois politician, before he debuted on the national stage and realized he had evolved too quickly on the issue and needed to slow it down?

Remember when he was for the working man, promising to keep his boot on the neck of the fiscal wrongdoers, before he realized if the national economy needed extra stimulus, he's have to approve of bailouts and look the other way, seemingly, to the previous crimes and misdemeanors...

Problem is,
if you're going to cut Mitt Romney on flexibility -- and so many liberal commentators are deliberately remaining ignorant on the difference between State Constitutions and the overriding United States Constitutions; that issue of federalism* is instructive on so many of these hot-button issues, you'd think it wouldn't be such a 10-letter word anymore -- you gotta do the same to candidate Obama.

The media simply can't get away with covering the features side of his campaign this go-around. The historical newness that seemingly gave his record and the experience part of his resume a pass when he was still a promising new face on the scene.

If your hands aren't clean yourself, you do little to start slinging mud hoping something sticks to your opponent. Besides, if you simply campaign on track record? That Mitt Romney -- say what you will, but he delivered real results in many situational outcomes, understanding how things operate on a statewide, and even private business environment.

Candidate Obama lacked that coming in, but promised his track record of creating compromise, reaching across the aisle to find results -- as he assuredly did in his community organizing and Harvard Law Review leadership days -- would more than make up for his lack of experience. He promised something new, and he simply hasn't been able to deliver on all that. So, he had quite a few of those goalposts moved, instead.

Is it wrong for political leaders to "change their minds" as many argue? I don't know. Facts on the ground change. Expenses mount, entitlement policies prove perverse incentives sometimes, and take their toll. But I'd also argue that Mitt Romney's policies haven't "changed" so much, as different operating environments call for different leadership skills. What sells in Massachusetts, under the state constitutional rules at play there, might not sell in Mississippi, or even Minnesota maybe. Different constitutions and all...

And sometimes, the Federal Rules are overriding. Much as we might like to dismiss the U.S. Constitution -- or simply change it, as the situation calls -- we've come to rely on the basic human rights protections for all, while distinguishing those issues that allow the States some variations.

So, someday perhaps, under the Equal Protection language in the Bill of Rights, a Supreme Court might find marital discrimination suspect on the basis of sex or gender. Like with other civil rights laws, States might have to swallow hard and accept they have no right to legally discriminate between similarly situated classes of people. Presidents, no matter how far evolved or not, no matter their personal religious preference or not, don't get to poo-poo the Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court might rule that States have more freedoms to set up their own rules protecting their citizens on matters of health, and the Commerce Clause precedent simply doesn't reach far enough to compel uninterested others to participate in an insurance process they don't need to maintain current health, nor are they costing anything based on their own non-participation.

Presidents can contribute -- through the all-important bully pulpit, if they've the courage of conviction in their own intellectual evolution, or through careful study of the intellectual prowess (or empathy potential, if that's your bent) of their judicial nominations to Congress. Other than that?

They're probably too busy leading the nation to try and pontificate on policies that very rarely are the domain of presidential policies. In my opinion, that's the problem the newly elected President Obama found himself in, after having transitioned from candidate Obama. He tried to "lead" on a policy issue -- health care overhaul including newly introduced entitlements -- which was only the clarion call of aging Democratic dinosaurs, not the country as a whole.

And he did so in a time of fiscal belt-tightening when every federal program suddenly became suspect. Timing, babe. Folks spooked at our current spending policies simply weren't sold on the effectiveness of this new one. And truth be told, overreaching in forcing a mandate wasn't politically wise, even should the Court rule the latest overreach is legal.

You can't get honest stimulus through now if you oversell the viability of a bloated federal program, designed by the dinosaurs (and their offspring?) I think the next president -- whichever party he might represent -- might be wise to adopt a piece of the Rock: Know Your Role.

Pretending at accusations of flip-floppery (a rerun election critique, if I ever heard one) would hurt both candidates, and ignore the subtle innuendo that different situations and scenes require different responses. Who's the most solid in their promises, and who best knows their role? When you look at results, whose record do you most like? It need not be personal, but you know the paid media ... they've got months of airtime, blogads, and newsprint to sell.. So think Controversy! Sliming! BackAttcha!

But remember: the more quiet voters fully understand, that part is simply optional in educating oneself about future leadership of the country, and deciding for whom to cast one's ballot. Let the sociologists and pundits explain, in their own petty ways, the whys. Let them conclude racism or ignorance, values pandering or personal critiques. We don't all have to sink to the levels of those games... especially not when we could be sizing up the results of the Games...

Something solid, as opposed to airy promises.

--------------------

* Here's a promising discussion of the issue, intelligently analyzed:

Scholars have scoured [Justice, not Senator] Kennedy's previous cases for hints on how he might rule. They point out that it's not always easy to forecast Kennedy's vote on particular cases and that the term "swing vote" can be misinterpreted.

"I would reject equating swing vote with lack of clarity," says Michael C. Dorf, a professor at Cornell University Law School and a former Kennedy law clerk. "Being the swing vote is simply an artifact of who the other eight justices are. On some issues, free speech for example, he's very liberal. On gay rights, he's been very liberal, out ahead of the court. On other issues, he's been conservative -- the Establishment Clause, for example," which prohibits a national religion for the United States.

Neil S. Siegel, a professor at Duke Law, says Kennedy "cares about a number of different things and oftentimes they are conflicting. He cares about robust federal power to regulate markets, he cares about robust federal power to create and maintain an integrated national economy. But at the same time that he cares about federalism, he cares about states' power. He cares about individual liberty, and the role that federalism plays in preserving it."

"I think it's fair to say he resists absolutes in most areas of the law. That makes him a little less easy to pigeonhole," Dorf says.

Although previous Supreme Court cases regarding guns in schools, violence against women and medical marijuana may seem far afield of the health care debate, they offer insight into Kennedy's views on the scope of congressional power.
...
Randy Barnett, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who is also representing a small-business group that is opposed to the health care law, says, "Justice Kennedy joined Chief Justice Rehnquist's 1995 opinion in Lopez -- a five-four decision -- holding that there were judicially enforceable limits on the power of Congress -- a proposition that had been in doubt for 60 years but which was reaffirmed in the 2000 case of Morrison."

ADDED: Self-defined policy wonk and journolist Ezra Klein tries to push back here ("Justify my salary..."), and explain away President Obama's own flip-floppedyness. Not very successfully though. Personally, I think his powers of persuasion were clipped -- successfully -- once he decided preaching to the choir, and trying to influence political policies through non-independent analysis, rather than using science and statistics, were a more important undertaking to his career.

The most generous interpretation is that Romney and Gingrich are simply playing politics. After all, when candidate Obama saw an opening to slam Clinton’s campaign by turning against the individual mandate, he took it, too. The most worrisome interpretation is that Romney and Gingrich are so fearful of offending the Republican base — particularly given the tea party’s comfort with primary challengers — that they won’t be able to make compromises and govern effectively if either one of them is elected president.

Well, given that's what we've currently got in the presidential office -- no courage in his convictions, thus the existing flip-floppedyness outlined above -- I suspect most voters are willing to gamble on honest change this time around, Ez.

UPdate: Or maybe... Ezra Klein has tired of this independent analysis journolism stuff, and is secretly just wangling for a political appointment -- for himself or the wife? -- the next go-around.

From JournoList to activist, it appears that WaPo‘s liberal blogger Ezra Klein is once again blurring the lines between being a journalist honestly informing, and trying to sway politics by using his prominent media post to nationally peddle political influence:

In what appears to be at a minimum a breach of journalism ethics, Klein spoke to a group of Senate Democratic Chiefs of Staff last Friday about the Supercommittee, just days before the Committee announced its failing. “It was kind of weird,” said a longtime Senate Democratic aide, explaining that while people “enjoyed it” and gave it “positive reviews” this sort of thing is far from typical.

A longtime Washington editor who deals with Capitol Hill regularly also said this is not the norm: “”I have never heard of a reporter briefing staffers. It’s supposed to be the other way around. This arrangement seems highly unusual.”

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practiced to deceive?

I wonder if he can get an audience with the Supreme Court Justices set up soon, to lecture them on these all-important issues of national significance too? ... Heh.