At first glance Mitt Romney seems the stereotypically perfect Republican candidate-- the blow-dried CEO turned can-do governor. But of course the first glance doesn't reveal what everyone knows-- that Romney is a member of a small, but unusually ambitious and influential, cult of like-dressed followers with strange beliefs, which seeks to infiltrate its way into places of power throughout society.

So far Romney's allegiance has been dealt with treating it as a private matter. But in a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal's Brian Carney, Romney was frank-- perhaps recklessly so-- about his desire to bring his beliefs and fellow acolytes into government in new, dazzlingly powerful roles:

"I would probably have super-cabinet secretaries, or at least some structure that McKinsey would guide me to put in place." He seems to catch a note of surprise in his audience, but he presses on: "I'm not kidding, I probably would bring in McKinsey... I would consult with the best and the brightest minds, whether it's McKinsey, Bain, BCG or Jack Welch."

The nation is right to wonder if it can withstand this onslaught of fanatical adherents of a strange faith in high office.

* * *

Although Hillary remains the Betty Noire of many on the right, many others have come to accept her as the least undesirable Democratic nominee. Part of this is a conviction that she'll be easier to beat, but it's also evidence of a sense that her liberal exterior conceals her inner Nixon, and that once in office, freed from the need to woo the Kossite left, she'll wage war ferociously, protect the Wall Street types she and Bill party with, and do other Republican-friendly things.

I think there's a huge amount of wishful thinking in this-- the Clintons are never free of an inner need to woo their base, and there's no evidence that a secret moderate, rather than a Mondalesque standard issue liberal, beats in her chest. Nevertheless, given the alternatives, it may well be that Hillary is, indeed, the Least Objectionable Electable Democrat from a rightwing point of view.

So who's the equivalent on the other side? Who's the Least Objectionable Electable Republican for Dems? Many would pick Ron Paul, antiwar libertarian, but there's too much odd about Paul's beliefs to keep that bubble alive for long. Rudy's thin smile conceals his inner Savanarola; McCain's a Teddy Rooseveltesque warrior; Thompson is, by now, running for Veep. No, we need a moderate, non-ideological triangulator, used to dealing with a majority on the other side in his state. We need a Republican Bill Clinton.

Which is where Romney comes in. He seems to have few solid views, certainly few things he would fight to the end for, but lots of ideas about good governance (and just as many about self-publicity). He's competent and slick. He's a businessman, which means he cares about results, and has no fixed ideas about anything that leads to them; the customer and the monthly sales figures are always right. He makes the hardcore ideologists on his side nervous, and wouldn't be afraid to sell them down the river if needed, which is why he might be acceptable to the other side. He's Bush with an actual track record in business, not just a few lucky breaks facilitated by cronyism, and thus has less to prove by bold, reckless changes of course.

In short, he's pretty boring, but he'd probably do fine. Yes, he belongs to a religion which believes in stuff other Americans find weird, because it's different from their own faith's weird stuff, but it's very hard to look at him and believe he's ever thought about it reflectively enough to form his own opinions. His real faith, even moreso than with Bush (as I wrote here), is in the latest business book shibboleths.

The Left's Nixon vs. The Right's Clinton. It's very possible that each side may be happier losing than winning next year, though they'd never admit it now.