Much has been written about the contrast between Willard, a man whose lack of principles is astonishing even for a Republican politician, and his father, who was a man of high principles. The latest I’ve seen is this article quoting at length from a letter from George Romney to Barry Goldwater, warning of the dangers of appeals to racism and denial of civil rights. Bear in mind that today those civil rights are being denied in a more sophisticated fashion; not, for example, by denying the vote directly, but by putting roadblocks in the way of minorities and the poor. Here’s part of what George had to say to Barry:
[Y]our campaign never effectively deviated from the Southern-rural-white orientation…. Now, Barry, I do not assert you were aware of tho strategy or the author of it. I frankly can’t believe you shaped it. You didn’t read the platform… you didn’t know what amendments were being offered… you were obviously leaving many vital things almost entirely up to others…. [F]or these philosophical, moral, and strategic reasons, I was never able to endorse you…. [O]ur objectives cannot be realized if foundation principles of American freedom are compromised. The chief cornerstone of our freedom is divinely endowed citizenship for all equally regardless of pigmentation, creed, or race….
As to government centralization, we do share a common apprehension and concern. But then you ask me, “Where were you, George, when the chips were down and the going was hard?” Well, Barry, for a long time I’ve been right on the firing line…. In Michigan, I entered public life to help modernize Michigan state and local government as an essential step in slowing and reversing the constant flow of responsibility to Washington…. [T]alk about states’ rights will not be an adequate substitute for state responsibility….
I am much more concerned with the party’s future than its past…. The real challenge for us lies in the expansion of vote support for the Republican party in all parts of the country, urban or rural, North or South, colored or white. Without common dedication to this fundamental, our rehash of 1964 positions may become of interest only to historians of defunct political institutions…
The Republican Party appears to have an affinity for candidates with Daddy problems. In George W’s case the apple did not fall as far from the tree as did Mitt, but it’s still the case that we may very well owe the war in Iraq to Spurious George’s need to show that he could accomplish something his father had wisely failed to try to do. In Mitt’s case, I think the rejection is even clearer. His father may have been an honorable man, but what shall it profit a man, if he shall preserve his soul, and lose an election? No, Mitt is very much a man of his time and occupation. The lesson he learned from his father was this: honor and honesty are for suckers. Too bad for him (though we come out winners) that he bids fair to lose his soul (yes, I know-already done) and lose an election.
Mitt is fond of bringing up the once hapless Jimmy Carter, but if he loses this election, which by rights the Republicans should win, and brings the House down with him (and it’s beginning to look like that could happen) he will live out his days as the world’s richest laughingstock. That doesn’t sound all that bad to us peasants, but he’s so used to being rich he takes that part for granted. Unlike Jimmy, he won’t be able to salvage his reputation by building houses. He’ll probably be too busy foreclosing on them to make that a viable option.