Why are liberal Republicans denouncing Romney so fiercely?

Jim Rubens writing in the New Hampshire Union Leader catalogues Romney’s flips from liberal to conservative positions on major social issues and says the man is totally untrustworthy. But are Romney’s flips the reason Rubens’ opposes him, or the fact that Romney flipped conservative? Rubens himself is a Giuliani supporter.

Think about it. The people who logically ought to be concerned about the genuineness of Romney’s many changes from liberal to conservative positions are conservatives: “Can we trust this guy? Or is he just a liberal pretending to be conservative?” In fact, an increasing number of conservatives, such as the editors of National Review, have decided that Romney can be trusted. But for a social liberal like Rubens (and a Giuliani supporter is by definition a social liberal) to oppose Romney over his supposedly insincere changes to conservatism makes no sense. If Romney’s shifts to conservatism are insincere, then he’s still a liberal, and the liberal ought to feel that Romney is still on the liberal side, notwithstanding his blatantly insincere appeals to conservatives. The only reason for a liberal Republican such as Rubens to oppose and denounce Romney so strongly over his changes to conservative positions is that Rubens believes the changes are genuine.

* * *

Of course, it’s also possible that Rubens simply opposes Romney because he is the opponent of Giuliani, and that Rubens doesn’t mean any of the things he’s saying. But I’ve been assuming for the sake of discussion that Rubens has a substantive reason for opposing Romney.

- end of initial entry -

Terry Morris writes:

You wrote:

“The only reason for a liberal Republican such as Rubens to oppose and denounce Romney so strongly over his changes to conservative positions is that Rubens believes the changes are genuine.”

I disagree. As Bruce Tefft wrote to me some time back, “How does one trust someone who has already proved himself a traitor?” If Rubens believes as you say he believes, then doesn’t it logically follow that Rubens considers Romney a traitor to liberal causes, irregardless of why Romney betrayed his former liberal positions? I agree that this should concern conservatives primarily, but shouldn’t it also concern liberals like Rubens? That Rubens considers Romney’s switch to conservative positions to be “genuine” would be one possible explanation for his opposing Romney, but I can hardly see how it is the only explanation for it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 27, 2007 01:33 AM | Send