Duh! New Hampshire voters overwhelmingly chose Mitt Romney over other candidates. But why? Was it for values? For conviction? For ideas?
No, it was because they believe he is the best opponent in November against the incumbent.
A New York Times exit poll shows that 62% of voters cast their ballot for Mitt because he “can beat Barack Obama,” which is to say three out of five Romney electors voted against Obama rather than for Romney. Concerning qualities of conviction, “is a true conservative” and “has strong moral character,” he received only 12% and 17% respectively. Interestingly, Ron Paul carried those questions with 42% and 40% respectively.
The idealist in me wishes for a candidate whom a vast majority of the country will vote for, rather than accepting an alternate candidate to their against vote. (Actually, the idealist in me wishes to remove any notion of direct democratic election of our president.) But the realist in me understands that people want to win, and they are hesitant to take a chance on conviction. Such is the consequence of a winner-take-all system.
But people should not read the New Hampshire polls and believe Mr. Romney has overwhelming support. He is the simply the bookie’s bet.
If there’s one thing we learned from 2008, it is that the ‘safe’ candidate is only that in the primaries. Once the machinations of the general election are oiled, ‘safe’ is politically akin to virtue–the perception of which is seemingly altered at will by candidates and other factions not disinterested in the outcome of the exchange of ideas.
I’m not saying Romney shouldn’t have won New Hampshire. He also led the field of prospective Republican nominees in the category “has the right experience,” with which I agree. However, it is somewhat alarming to see voters choosing a candidate by anticipating the outcome of an election process that hasn’t even begun yet. It is an expedient choice for a distant contest where anything can happen.
Shall we choose quickly, without any regard to the consequences of an expected outcome? Morem accomodari prout conducat, argued Tacitus discussing marriage: “Public expedience is a parent to all civil institutions.” If Romney does win based on convenience rather than conviction, let us at least hope his own institutions will be more wisely generated than our current ones.
