A progressive case for Mitt

Author's note: This is part of a series of semi-satirical pieces your pie maker is writing as a means of studying the writing and argumentative styles of various groups. I'll start with this, now Overcome By Events (OBE), "progressive" case for Mitt Romney. I'm going to try and adopt the language, style and most of the assumptions made by Huffington Post and Slate's left-leaning columnists. Obviously, the argument itself contains flaws, but they should be similar to those common in the writings I'm attempting to imitate.  Comments are appreciated on the style, language and assumptions.  The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of your pie maker, the Pie Cabinet or anyone associated with the production or consumption of pies.

A Progressive Case for Mitt

Take away the wars, tax cuts and bellicose language of the 43rd President of the United States, and what you have is perhaps the most progressive legislative legacy in our history. Consider:

No Child Left Behind: The largest and most forceful effort to compel school districts to educate all of their children.
Medicare Part D: The largest expansion of government health care coverage since LBJ. 
Sarbanes-Oaxley: The most comprehensive and, this is key, quickly implemented overhaul of financial regulation since the Great Depression.
An energy plan with support for lower-carbon fuels: Despite incredibly cheap oil at the time, this laid the regulatory framework to allow domestic gas drilling to explode as well as support for renewable energy.
The largest expansion of Federal spending since Reagan: Under the guise of increasing "security", the Federal workforce expanded rapidly, providing good jobs, benefits and stability to many disadvantaged parts of the country.

There are two reasons for this.  Number one, at least since WWII Americans have expected their Presidents to play against type.  Eisenhower warned us of the Military-Industrial-Complex.  War-hero Kennedy founded the Peace Corps.  Johnson, the Old Southern Gentleman, pushed through the Civil Rights Act.  Nixon, for all his faults, opened relations with China and signed the National Environmental Protection Act.  Reagan raised taxes and Bill Clinton signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

The second reason is that progress is inevitable because it is good for business.  The president of Ford has called for a public healthcare system.  Employees whose identities are affirmed, relationships are legal and do not fear discrimination are more productive.  When a society's reactionaries are placated by seeing someone who looks and sounds like them at the head of the state, they are less likely to stand in its way.

Mitt Romney knows better than to say any of this now, but his record in Massachusetts clearly shows his understanding of the importance of governing progressively, even if you have to run conservatively.  He's smart enough to know that it isn't smaller government, but less visible government that people want.  It is unfortunate that we have to choose between progressive government and progressives in government, but the lessons of history are clear.  It may be distasteful, but history suggests that a vote for Mitt is a vote for progress.