Mitt Romney says he believes there's such a thing as climate change, even that it's at least partly caused by humans. This heresy for a Republican. Rush Limbaugh says the penalty for this apostasy is that Romney can't possibly get the nomination. He might be right.
Romney is the front-runner, but this seems almost a technical point. The base is wary to the point of hostility. Social conservatives don't like it that he flip-flopped on abortion--plus, he's a Mormon, which is an issue for some--and the hard right doesn't like several things about Romney. He's too squeeky-clean for some, and not enough of a fire-breather for others.
Neither trust him because his views on their issues have been rather squishy. Their positions are stalwart and ideological, and, not surprisingly, mistrustful of someone who switches sides to curry their favor. What if the political winds should start to blow another direction?
When it comes to flip-flopping, few politicians in American history have so brazenly changed their minds on hot-button issues as Mitt Romney. He was pro-choice, now pro-life. He brought Romneycare to Massachusetts--his signature achievement--but opposes President Obama's health care reform, even though it's a Romneycare knock-off.
As he's jettisoned other difficult positions, it would not have been surprising if he'd ditched his previous acknowledgement of climate change as well. This, he did not do. Perhaps he thought it would be "a flip-flop too far" or perhaps he really believes it. (Hilariously, Romney's staff is spinning this as evidence of Romney's steadfastness on the issues.)
In any case, he may be the only prominent Republican in the nation who is willing to say he thinks the earth is getting warmer. It was easier to find a prominent Republican who held to global warming twenty years ago, when global warming wasn't even obvious, than it is to find one today. (Lots of rank-and-file Republicans think the climate is changing. Lots of Republican officeholders do as well, in their heart of hearts, but dare not say so out loud.)
It has become an ideological question, not a scientific one. If there were global warming, that might call for some kind of government action, which is anathema for the base. Rick Santorum zeroed in on this angle yesterday:
"To me this is an opportunity for the left to create -- it's really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm. It's been on a warming trend so they said, 'Oh, let's take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it's getting warmer.'"
"It's just an excuse for more government control of your life, and I've never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative."
When Richard Nixon died, among the many mourners who stood in line to pay their last respects was one man who said he didn't really care for Nixon all that much, but he had "the right enemies." Translation: He might have been an SOB, but at least he was our SOB. If liberals hated Nixon, that was reason enough to support him.
Along the same lines, liberals generally believe in climate change, and, for the GOP base, liberals must always be opposed. To say otherwise is to give the impression that liberals aren't what we've been saying they were: always wrong, and bad people besides. Ergo, there is no climate change.
Comments