Certain policy issues become associated with an ideology or political party by virtue of emphasis. The left talks about healthcare, the right thinks the status quo is acceptable, so healthcare becomes a “liberal” issue. The right wants to change immigration laws, so it’s perceived as a “conservative” issue.
Now, both sides sometimes want to call an issue their own, but face resistance. It’s rare when a leading Republican, for example, simply gives up two of the biggest issues on the international landscape, and labels them, prima facie, “liberal” issues.
But that’s precisely what Mitt Romney did on national television yesterday, announcing that counter-proliferation and fuel efficiency are necessarily “liberal” issues.
Let’s unpack this a bit. Romney, a leading McCain campaign surrogate, wants to argue that Obama hasn’t worked with Republicans on “controversial” issues of significance. When confronted with evidence of Obama working with Republicans on non-proliferation and energy policy, Romney says those issues don’t count, because they’re “liberal,” and Obama should work with Republicans on “conservative” issues.
Now, I know — from personal experience — that it’s easy to slip up on television and say something stupid. Your mouth gets ahead of your mind, and you end up in a bad place.
But that’s what made this especially amusing. CNN’s John Roberts offers Romney a way out: “Wait a minute. Aren’t Republicans pushing for nonproliferation too?”
I expected Romney to realize his error, and clarify what he meant, maybe with something like, “Of course Republicans care about nonproliferation.” But not this guy.
Romney actually believes that the right doesn’t care about stopping the spread of weapons stockpiles and promoting fuel efficiency.
That’s not my argument; that’s his argument.
CNN’s Roberts later explained that he couldn’t believe what he was hearing.
So what about the Lugar-Obama measure – conceived as an adjunct to the Proliferation Security Initiative – did it qualify as “liberal?” Here’s how Lugar’s office described it in a press release: “The Lugar-Obama initiative enhances U.S. efforts to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles and to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction throughout the world.” Lugar has a bit of a middling score from the American Conservative Union (78.02 lifetime) and has been called a ‘moderate’ from time to time. But ‘liberal’? I asked Lugar’s press secretary Andy Fisher about it this morning “National security is not liberal,” he told me, “At all.”
It’s true that two of the biggest non-proliferation measures have been passed by Democrats – the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1978 Non-Proliferation Act (John Glenn D-Ohio), but every president since Eisenhower has sought to curb the spread of either nuclear weapons, or the missiles to deliver them.
It is now considered liberal to want to reduce the potential of nuclear destruction. For context, four years ago George Bush and John Kerry agreed that nuclear proliferation was the greatest current threat to global security. Romney either doesn’t know what non-proliferation means, or thinks that anything with the word “non” involves taking away the sweet sweet cash funnel to military contractors. Henry Frickin’ Kissinger believes in nonproliferation, fercryinoutloud.
(The entire transcript of Romney’s remarks is online.)
I never thought I’d see the day when a prominent Republican would tell a national audience that conservatives no longer care about the spread of nuclear weapons, and that it’s the left who wants to tackle non-proliferation. I could imagine Dems fighting for the issue, but it never occurred to me the conservatives would just give it up voluntarily.
To Romney, all I can say is, “Thank you.”