Response To Erick Erickson

(To read full response, click link at the bottom)

Erick,

You’ve been telling everyone about the 200 pages of anti-Romney “research” you recently poured over. Not only did you have time to read it, you also had time to tour the talk radio circuit and repeat your conclusion: that Mitt Romney has no ideology. However, what you apparently did not have time to do is research the other side. At all. Which is exactly what you accuse the main-stream media of frequently failing to do. You just accepted what you were told, then ran with the accusation that Romney has no core beliefs.

I’m reminded of “The Screwtape Letters” by C.S. Lewis. In these letters, a senior tempter named Screwtape instructs his young apprentice, Wormwood, on how people are misled. Among other things, Screwtape tells Wormwood to discourage thoughtful argument, for “By the very act of arguing, you awake the patient’s reason, and once it is awake, who can foresee the result?” According to Screwtape, it is better to “give him a grand general sense that he knows it all and that everything he happens to have picked up in casual talk and reading is ‘the results of modern investigation.’”

You, Mr. Erickson, seemingly believe yourself to have that type of “grand, general sense” of understanding when it comes to Mitt Romney, when you trifle with his name and accuse him of having “no ideology.” Yet you did not achieve this confidence of yours through rigorous examination of all sides. You are as a naive juror, convinced by the prosecution’s opening statement, with no interest in cross-examination or forensics and no intellectual curiosity; you eagerly shout: “Guilty on all counts!”

Let’s look at what you’ve chosen as your flagship example in recent interviews. Namely, the fact Mitt Romney deleted a line in his book, about Obama’s stimulus. Your first problem is that you focus on “a line,” without noting that Romney re-wrote the entire paragraph as part of a necessary shift from present to past tense. The stimulus had not yet run its course when Romney first wrote the book. But you don’t attack him for deleting the line in that paragraph which said, “Not only has the 2009 package already been far less than successful, it will impose a heavy burden on the economy in the intermediate and long term.” Rather, you focus on a line where Romney said the tax-cut portion of the stimulus would only do limited good since the Democrats did not understand “the crucial role played by tax cuts.”

Here’s the line you cite, in the context you ignore:

“The second stimulus could have been passed in 2008. Then, too, President Bush would have had a hand in shaping it. But congressional Democrats were too wary of allowing Bush to participate in fashioning such a package, because he certainly understood much more than they the crucial role played by tax cuts in reversing the post 9/11 recession. The “all-Democrat” stimulus that was passed in early 2009 will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery, but not as much as it could have had it included genuine tax- and job-generating incentives. President Obama and his economic team said their stimulus would hold unemployment below 8 percent. But unemployment soared well above that level. Not only has the 2009 package already been far less than successful, it will impose a heavy burden on the economy in the intermediate and long term…. Given the shortcoming of the current stimulus, voices may emerge to craft another one. That would be the wrong course. The right course would be to fix the current stimulus by removing programs and by substituting tax incentives that create employment, such as a robust investment tax credit, a one-year write-off for 2010 capital expenditures, and a lower payroll tax.” (No Apology, Hardcover, p. 144-145)

You may not agree that the tax cuts in the stimulus were better than no tax cuts at all, but Romney clearly stated that the cuts were not nearly good enough and that the rest of the stimulus was wrong, saying on the same page, “Congress crafted and the President acceded to a stimulus that funded unnecessary pet projects, long-term programs, and delayed employment initiatives…. What a disheartening diversion of resources that could have instead powered a meaningful set of investments, protected our troops in combat, and created new jobs.”

Where do you disagree with Romney’s position? How is it a flip-flop to write a paragraph opposing the stimulus, then to replace it with another paragraph opposing the stimulus?

Does your ability to take his words out of context reflect on his ideology, or on yours?

Continue Reading The Full Letter – Extensive – Click Here