It’s official: Mitt Romney will not run for the Presidency a third time. The decision, which supposedly came as a surprise even to some of Romney’s own staffers, was certainly a shock to me. Romney had been making all of the customary campaign stops typical of a man on the verge of another long campaign, including public speaking engagements, gathering advisors and even reaching out to local supporters in Iowa from his last campaign.
But in quitting now, Mitt Romney has shown that he is keenly aware of the impact another run might have on his legacy and on him personally.
American political history is filled with unsuccessful campaigns and candidates. Yet among this group, there exists the somewhat dubious distinction of men who have run for our nation’s highest office multiple times, only to lose every time.
This is not to say that every such candidate has not had an immensely significant impact on American history, as author Scott Farris expertly details in his book, "Almost President."
Candidates from Henry Clay to Adlai Stevenson never attained the Presidency in spite of their best efforts, but are rightfully remembered as great statesmen. Unfortunately for Mitt, however, his legacy as a statesman comes nowhere near the likes of such men.
In the earliest days of U.S. democracy, Henry Clay transformed the office of Speaker of the House from an honorific into one of the most influential positions in American government. Adlai Stevenson was never capable of defeating Dwight Eisenhower in a Presidential election (Democrats recognized that Eisenhower was so unbeatable that Harry Truman supposedly offered to withdraw his party’s nomination in 1948 if Eisenhower would run as a Democrat.) But Stevenson was unquestionably the leader of a Democratic party that held almost uncontested control of Congress from the FDR years through the late 1960s.
While Mitt Romney’s legacy is distinguished, another unsuccessful run at the Presidency would only tarnish his reputation. Romney is an incredibly successful businessman who instituted popular state-subsidized healthcare initiatives while Governor of Massachusetts, was instrumental in bringing the Winter Olympics to Utah, and, of course, has run for the Presidency twice, earning the GOP nomination in 2012. He is also our nation’s most prominent Mormon politician; much like Al Smith in the 1920s, rising to national political prominence as a member of a religious minority is often challenging, but overcoming these challenges demonstrates Romney’s political ability (Smith, a Catholic, also unsuccessfully ran for President).
Yet Romney ran his most recent presidential campaign denying the efficacy of nationalized healthcare similar to the system he instituted in Massachusetts and awkwardly balancing centrist Republican policies and Tea Party politics. His views became unclear, and so too were his motivations.
In another piece by Scott Farris, this time for the Washington Post, he writes that after losing a Presidential race, “You are no longer the future of the party; you’re a reminder of a past failure.” This statement is particularly true for the GOP in 2016. While Stevenson was the unquestioned leader of his party during the 1950s, the Republican Party is currently filled with potential candidates (so many, in fact, there is no clear frontrunner for the 2016 nomination). The Republicans may hold control of Congress, but Mitt Romney is by no means the consensus leader of this group. Romney knows and accepts this fact.
If Romney were to run again and lose again, he also knows that he would be held in the company of very different men: Thomas Dewey, the former Governor of New York who lost to both FDR and Harry Truman as a Republican; George Wallace, the segregationist Alabama governor who unsuccessfully ran for the presidency four times; Robert A. Taft, the most influential Republican senator of the 1950s who could never trump Eisenhower for his own party’s nomination; all important politicians in their day, but men who many Americans would not recognize by name.
In a remarkable work of journalism, David Freedlander interviewed Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and Bob Dole (all of whom lost races for the Presidency). When asked to give advice to failed 2012 candidates, all three men echoed the same hard learned lesson: move on. Even being in a position to run for the office is a privilege, according to Dole, and life goes on.
Romney’s political career has been influential and far reaching. Yet all good things must come to a close. Romney is now 67. Even if he were to run again and win the election, he would be 70. After this, to cement his legacy as a successful President, he would have to plan ahead to 2020, at which point he would be 74. If victorious once again, he would leave office at 78.
Regardless of your political affiliation, Romney has to be given credit as an intelligent man. As a writer, even I could do the aforementioned math. Romney, an experienced businessman, most certainly can too. Romney has shown that he knows winning the next campaign isn’t worth the personal sacrifices he would have to make — the next ten years of his life, not to mention the stress of the job — by choosing not to run. Legacy be damned, Mitt Romney is ready to move on with his life, as Mondale, Dukakis, Dole, and so many others before him have also done.
Reach the columnist at burmasamoa@asu.edu or follow @ConnorLMurphy on Twitter.
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
