interview with a staunch Conservative

“I’m glad Romney wasn’t elected.”

Why is that?

“Well, the big reason is that he’s too pro-life.”

Lots of people are strongly pro-life.

“True, but lots of people aren’t trying to get into a position where they can negatively affect the health and rights of tens of millions of people.”

And you think Romney would do that?

“He sure would! He said so numerous times — that is, when he wasn’t saying that he wouldn’t. He kept changing back and forth depending on who he was talking to.”

He’s a politician. Don’t go by what he says. Go by what he does. Romney’s actual actions regarding abortion have been 100% consistent going back at least five years. He has not initiated any pro-life legislation or pro-life changes to existing legislation, and he hasn’t supported any such bills that arose in his jurisdiction.

“But he said he would! You heard him!”

Yes. I heard him. He said he would if certain situations arose, like a proposed constitutional amendment. He only mentioned highly unlikely situations, though. It’s a no-risk promise that only makes him sound committed. It’s a rhetorical move to gain more votes.

“But Romney is personally pro-life.”

Yes, he is. He admits that freely. But he also says he should be allowed to oppose abortion personally even if abortion is legal and it’s his job, as a member of the executive branch, to enforce existing laws. And he’s right.

“You want someone that dishonest to hold a position of power?”

Yes. That’s not so much dishonesty as simple politics. It’s the sort of thing a politician should do. It means he knows how to do his job well. A person like that is better suited to the job than someone who doesn’t know how to garner popular support. Professionals do what works. Amateurs do what they wish worked. I don’t want an amateur President.

“That’s not a conflict of interest?”

Not really. More to the point, it is literally impossible to restrict positions of law enforcement exclusively to people who personally favor every single law they’ll be enforcing. What else are you going to do? Go without a President? Without police chiefs?”

“I don’t know. Republicans in general seem awfully contrarian right now. Anytime anyone on the D side proposes doing something new or different, Romney’s party just automatically say “no”.”

Republicans are currently the minority in Congress. That makes them the opposition party. It is the duty of the opposition party to oppose the majority so the majority still needs to rely on defensible justifications to pass the legislation they want and not just ram stuff through with their numerical advantage. That means playing devil’s advocate on everything. All parties do this, and should do this, in that position.

“And you don’t mind politicians more interested in advancing their personal or their party’s agendas than in looking out for the welfare of the entire country?”

Whether I mind it is irrelevant, because that’s the way it’s supposed to work. It’s not the job of Congress to do what’s best for the country. Congress is comprised of representatives. It’s their job to represent the people who voted them into office, by doing what their constituents elected them to do. If those things don’t contribute to the well-being of the entire country, so be it. That’s one of the downsides of our form of government. The people who made it knew that, but they couldn’t get everyone to agree on anything better.