Editorial: Romney double-flips back to the middle

• This is par for the course in American politics, where candidates tack to their party's ideological edge to get the nomination, then shift toward the center in a bid for independent votes.
• Nor is the nation well-served by politicians who never change their minds, even in the face of new facts.
• But Romney has moved back and forth more abruptly, and on more issues, than most candidates.

As head of the Winter Olympics organizing committee in 2002, Mitt Romney undoubtedly saw ice skaters executing double flips. Now Romney, in his bid for the White House, is attempting a similar move.

Between his governorship of Massachusetts (2003-07) and his successful run for the Republican presidential nomination this year, Romney shifted sharply to the right on an array of issues, including abortion, gun control, climate change, immigration and health care. Had he done otherwise, his chances of winning over skeptical conservatives who control the party were zero.

More recently, in the closing weeks of the campaign, Romney has veered back toward the center. He has begun emphasizing that his tax cuts wouldn't produce a windfall for the wealthy. He has tempered his harsh criticism of the auto bailout. And, most strikingly, in Monday's debate he toned down his bellicose foreign-policy rhetoric, frequently invoking the word "peace" and embracing several of President Obama's policies. On Afghanistan, for instance, he said that he would support a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops, an idea he previously derided.

To some degree, this is par for the course in American politics, where candidates tack to their party's ideological edge to get the nomination, then shift toward the center in a bid for independent votes. Nor is the nation well-served by politicians who never change their minds, even in the face of new facts.

But Romney has moved back and forth more abruptly, and on more issues, than most candidates, leaving voters to sort conviction from opportunism. Would President Romney govern as moderate Mitt from Massachusetts? Or the self-described "severely conservative" Mitt from the Republican primaries?

Odd as it might seem, the answer is: probably both.

Romney's pedigree as the son of a moderate Michigan governor, and his background in business and Massachusetts politics, suggests a pragmatic streak and an ability to work across party lines. But as president, Romney would still have to accommodate all factions of his party.

It's a safe bet that he would give the party's social conservatives what they want most -- staunchly conservative judicial appointments -- despite his former support of Roe vs. Wade. And he surely would fulfill his commitment to roll back ObamaCare, even though it was modeled on the plan he implemented in Massachusetts. A push for lower tax rates would be a certainty, but whether he'd shrink government enough to match remains to be seen. George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan borrowed instead.

That's conservative Mitt. He's a follower of the tribe. The more interesting question is whether moderate Mitt could lead Tea Partiers to do what they've steadfastly rejected -- compromise with Democrats to get the nation's fiscal house in order. If he can't, he'd get only paralysis as Democrats adopted the Republicans' recent blocking tactics.

On foreign policy, where the president dominates and party matters less, Romney remains more of a mystery, like other governors who've sought the White House. During the primaries, his tone was resolutely hawkish, but at the last debate he said he'd resort to military force only as a last resort. The outcome may depend on who has his ear -- neoconservatives like those who prodded Bush into the Iraq War or realists less prone to using force. Romney has advisers from both camps.

In any event, the surest way for voters to reconcile Romney's debate season gyrations is to recognize that they're voting not just for a president but for a party as well.