Phonies aren't all bad

I heard Paul Begala say something on NPR to the effect that at least with John McCain and Mike Huckabee, you know they stick to their principles. You may not like the policies they advocate, but you have to respect them. Mitt Romney, by contrast, is a big phony.

Which is true as far as it goes, and it's certainly not the first time I've heard someone say something like that. But I don't think it automatically follows that a president with the courage of his or her convictions is better for the country than one who isn't.

Broadly speaking, my first choice for president would be someone who has the courage of convictions I agree with. Second is someone who advocates policies I like, but is malleable. Third is someone who advocates policies I don't like, but is malleable, so at least might do the right thing under public pressure. Dead last is someone who has the courage of convictions I strongly disagree with.

George W. Bush is in that last category, which is why no amount of public pressure has changed his Iraq policy. If we had a president whose convictions were more influenced by political expedience, like Mitt Romney, he'd quite probably have caved by now.

Of course I don't want Mitt Romney to be president, but he's clearly got flexible principles and a willingness to pander to the electorate, so if we had to have a Republican president again (shudder), Romney would be more likely to sometimes do things I like than a genuine right-wing ideologue like McCain or Huckabee.