Did Mitt Romney Really Change His Mind on Abortion?

Poor Mitt Romney. Once upon a time he aspired to run Massachussetts, a state which backs legal abortion; now he aspires to lead a Republican party which will not willingly be led by a politician who calls himself “pro-choice”. No woder Romney’s abortion “journey” has been a remarkable one that, in the end, causes as many problem for him as it solves. His “conversion” story is humiliating since it can’t possibly reassure those it is meant to convince; it also undermines Romney’s credibility with voters who don’t actually care very much about these issues.

Yet, in the end, faced with an inconvenient history and compelled to dwell, repeatedly, on difficult moral issues that are, lord knows, a million miles from the subjects Romney is actually interested in. At Slate, Will Saletan offers an exhaustive recap of Romney’s approach to abortion and other “life” issues. To my surprise, by the end of it I almost found myself liking Romney a little more, not a little less. This is a candidate who is, on these issues, trapped by the rules of the political game that demand simple, consistent answers to complicated, difficult issues upon which, in the end, most people’s views are mixed or uneven or compromised or inconsistent.

Romney’s conversion in 2005 wasn’t from choice to life. It was from one empty word to another. To any real pro-lifer, “pro-life” meant seeking legal protection for the unborn. If you said you were “personally pro-life” but would preserve other people’s right to choose abortion, that meant you were pro-choice. Most pro-choice people had qualms about abortion. They just didn’t impose their feelings on others. That’s where Romney stood in 2002. And it’s where he still stood in July 2005: I have not attempted to impose my own views. The fishy thing about Romney’s conversion wasn’t that he changed his approach to abortion legislation, but that he didn’t..

[…] He believes abortion is wrong. He has always believed that. He has counseled women against it. But he understands the issue’s complexity. He knows abortion laws can drive women to fatal desperation. He has seen in his mother a model of how to be against abortion but wary of abortion laws. He’s uneasy about imposing his moral views on other people. He knows the blessings and quandaries of IVF. He believes it’s wrong to create life in order to destroy it. He respects unborn life in a Mormon way, not a Catholic one.

When Romney puts his mind to moral issues, he can be quite thoughtful. But he doesn’t like them. He avoids them as long as possible. Then he says as little as possible. He can frame his complex thoughts on abortion either way. Since he views the issue as a political threat, he navigates it by negation. He chooses the position least likely to derail his candidacy or his agenda. The two positions he has taken—individual choice and state choice—are attempts to make the issue go away. Throughout his career, Romney has treated abortion as a question of identity, not policy. His focus isn’t on promoting life, but on being seen as pro-life.

Again, this respects political reality. But in a curious sense, Romney’s agonised parsing and endlessly refined position on these issues is both grimly political and unusually human. It is, perhaps, Romney’s bad luck that abortion is an issue upon which no weakness – no matter how human it may be – may be permitted.

Hats-off, however, to Saletan for this splendid line: Romney has complex views and a talent for framing them either way, depending on his audience. He values truth, so he makes sure there’s an element of it in everything he says. He can’t stand to break his promises, so he reinterprets them. There’s your likely Republican presidential nominee, ladies and gentlemen.