on a literal odyssey
I might have “Romnesia.”
I didn’t know I had it until last Friday when President Obama diagnosed Governor Romney with it. There are two definitions of Romneisa:
Romnesia [Rom-nee-zhuh] Noun — (1) A political mentality that effects post-primary politicians who, after spending a lengthy period of time appealing to their base supporters, express their genuine moderate, centrist views as the national election draws nearer. (2) A political mentality that causes former far-left/far-right voters to abandon political extremism and embrace moderate policies of compromise and goodwill.
It’s a historically established truth that when Republicans and Democrats run for President they must first appeal to their base. This means that during the primaries Democrats will make statements bordering on the far-left and Republicans will make statements that are bordering on the far-right. When the primary season is over, they will then race to the middle in an attempt to appeal to as many voters as possible.
While it’s no surprise that Governor Romney is more moderate than most of the Republicans he courted, Obama supporters are refusing to accept his sudden gear-shift appeal to moderates.
“He’s pandering to voters!” they say. “He’s changing his views to win votes!” “You can’t trust him!”
Yeah, well he’s a politician. Did you expect something more? Elections are all about advertising and image. President Obama does just as much pandering and view-changing to get his votes. For example, when President Obama was a Senator from Illinois he opposed same-sex marriage. Just six years later, now that he sees a political advantage, President Obama supports same-sex marriage. It’s nothing new. Politicians and people change their opinions all the time depending on their understanding and on the political advantage.
It’s clear that both parties will always pander to whatever is politically advantageous. What we (the electorate) must decide is this: Once elected, how will the candidate govern? In my opinion, Mitt Romney will govern from the center, as evidenced by his record in Massachusetts. While President Obama will continue to govern from the left, as evidenced by his record as President.
So here’s my question: what’s the problem with a more centrist, moderate President? We’ve had a conservative-leaning administration (President Bush), and now we’ve had a liberal-leaning administration (President Obama). As a direct result of those administrations, America has experienced intense partisanship, division and unrest.
So why not have a President that could clearly govern from the center? A President that could potentially draw both sides together?
There are no solutions found in extremism. There is no progress in clinging to hard-right or hard-left beliefs. Doing that is like claiming one wing of the eagle is more superior than the other. Both wings are needed to fly.
So yes, if Romnesia is defined as being centrist, then I definitely have Romnesia.
And I’ll vote for anyone else that does.