Mitt Romney, libertarian?

Barring any wild gaffes, Mitt Romney has the Republican nomination for president.

Romney has used a copious supply of money to overcome challenges from his more charismatic opponents and has concentrated his campaign efforts on being as not dislikable as possible.

Romney has also emphasized his noncontroversial managerial skills, which are inoffensive to moderates but generate only begrudged support from conservatives.

In a close general election, the lack of enthusiasm among conservatives might be enough to give President Barack Obama a second term.

Romney is very good at making the pragmatic case for reforming government programs.

This is not what Republican voters want to hear about in an election year.

Most ideologically committed voters — of either party — are more interested in particular ends rather than the political means used to achieve them.

Romney should speak less pragmatically and more ideologically about the libertarian case for limited government.

Technocratic Republicans usually argue that big government programs do not work.

A more fundamental concern for conservatives is that the state often appropriates areas of life that are properly the concern of the individual.

Once the precedent of government involvement is established, groups on both sides of any issue are at the mercy of the party in power.

To take two contentious examples, gay rights and abortion have both seen dramatic shifts in federal policy.

At one time, many gay rights groups were libertarian because anti-sodomy laws actually made the state their opponent.

Conservatives who had no problem with the old intrusive legislation objected only when laws began to recognize gay marriage.

On abortion, the endurance of Roe v. Wade has made many conservatives rethink their support for government action on moral issues. Pro-choice activists, on the other hand, still fear that Roe v. Wade could be overturned.

By relying on federal action, both sides remain perpetually uncertain about their achievements. If the state grants a right, then the state can take it away.

Issues that truly divide Americans should be removed from the national stage and decided at the most local level possible, where individual citizens can best express their will.

Every locality could make laws reflecting the expressed desires of its citizens. This would simultaneously make national politics less adversarial and increase personal freedom.

To win in 2012 and win with a mandate to govern, Republicans need to present an alternative governing philosophy, not just criticism of Obama’s policies.

If properly presented, the basic libertarian ideals of individual liberty and limited government have the potential to distinguish Romney from Obama in a positive way.

There is nothing new about such arguments, but they certainly would be a welcome departure for Romney.

After the temporary infatuation with every other Republican primary candidate, even a slight expression of small government principles will help Romney shore up the right-wing base.

­— jzsoldos@indiana.edu