Bloomberg the Company & Products

Bloomberg Anywhere Login


Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.


Financial Products

Enterprise Products


Customer Support

  • Americas

    +1 212 318 2000

  • Europe, Middle East, & Africa

    +44 20 7330 7500

  • Asia Pacific

    +65 6212 1000


Industry Products

Media Services

Follow Us

Maybe President Romney Wouldn’t Be So Bad

Don't Miss Out —
Follow us on:
Michael Kinsley
Photographer: Glenna Gordon/Bloomberg

Oct. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not hoping for this or expecting it, but maybe it wouldn’t be the end of the world if Mitt Romney became president.

Never in my life have I supported a Republican for president, and I don’t intend to start now. I’m voting for Obama, and I urge you to do the same.

I don’t even really understand the intense disappointment many liberals seem to feel about the president’s first term. For heaven’s sake, with the Affordable Care Act, he crossed off what had been the top item on the liberal “to do” list for decades. He also reformed regulation of the financial industry in ways that even Romney partly approves of, or says he does.

President Barack Obama navigated us through the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression in a way that (in my opinion) deserves a B+. He didn’t get us into any wars, and there were no major terrorist episodes on his watch. That, to me, seems like a pretty good record.

True, Obama added $4 trillion to the national debt. But that was a conscious exercise in Keynesian demand stimulation, not a careless waste of taxpayer dollars. You can argue that it was a mistake. But a smaller deficit -- i.e., a smaller stimulus -- would hardly have created more jobs.

Obama has also been a disappointment to some liberals for his failure to continue inspiring them after the thrill of his election had passed. At the same time, he has disappointed others by his surprising lack of interest in the details of legislation. He is not a policy wonk. He gave Democrats in Congress more or less carte blanche to come up with a health-care reform plan. In other areas -- such as, say, debate preparation -- he has displayed very little of the Harvard Law Review obsession with minutiae that we expected and many liberals like.

None of this is close to being enough to make me vote for Romney. But I’m not quite feeling that fear of disaster for the country that has colored and energized my opinion of the Republican candidates in most of the presidential elections of my voting life: Nixon, Reagan, Bush Senior, Dole, Bush Junior. (Ford and McCain were well worth voting against, but not completely unthinkable. Some liberals didn’t mind the first Bush much. I’m not one of them.)

Whether Romney belongs on the unthinkable list depends on how big a liar he is: The bigger the liar, the more acceptable he would be. Not that I approve of lies by politicians. (And not that any politician is waiting for my approval before lying.) But worse than all the flops he’s flipped and phony posturing he’s engaged in would be if he actually won and then tried to govern as the conservative zealot he has pretended to be for most of this campaign.

If he has been telling the truth about his beliefs and intentions for the past year or so, he’s plainly unacceptable. But if he has been faking it -- if he’s actually the classic moderate Republican business man we suspect and not the conservative zealot he plays on TV -- then it wouldn’t be the end of the world if he won.

“Not the end of the world” is not much of an endorsement, and not meant to be. And even this depends on Romney taking out that Etch A Sketch and reinventing himself yet again (first from moderate businessman to conservative zealot, then from conservative zealot back to moderate businessman). For reasons both political and psychological, it surely must be hard for anyone, including Mitt Romney, to perform a double flip-flop of his entire public persona.

He may feel he has to prove that he wasn’t bluffing in his position on abortion and other social issues. But he already is reverting to a more moderate stance, or trying to, on economic issues and taxes. His tax plan, he says now, might involve a ceiling on deductions for the rich that is lower than his ceiling on deductions for the middle class.

How would a moderate Romney govern? The former management consultant might see governing as a series of concrete problems to be solved. And, ideology aside, he might even be good at it. It might be a good time for Democrats to be out of office and able to rest and rethink. In fact, it might be a good time for anybody to be out of office, if the economy tanks or terrorists attack or the weather offers an especially copious banquet of fires, floods, droughts and tornadoes. In short, maybe a President Romney wouldn’t be so terrible.

(Pause for reflection.)

No, it would be pretty terrible. Vote for Obama.

(Michael Kinsley is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Read more opinion online from Bloomberg View. Subscribe to receive a daily e-mail highlighting new View columns, editorials and op-ed articles.

Today’s highlights: the editors on Facebook, the SEC and companies planning to go public and on improving the U.S. electricity grid; Caroline Baum on five things Democrats won’t tell you; Ezra Klein on one campaign without policy and one without vision; Michael Lewis on children of Wall Street employees as bonuses shrink; Amity Shlaes and Matthew Denhart on how one word can help candidates win debates; Camille Paglia on Jackson Pollock, American art pioneer.

To contact the writer of this article: Michael Kinsley at or @michaelkinsley on Twitter.

To contact the editor responsible for this article: Michael Newman at

Please upgrade your Browser

Your browser is out-of-date. Please download one of these excellent browsers:

Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera or Internet Explorer.