Romney Loses: A Cautionary Tale of Inauthenticity
Politics, the desire for power, illuminates a moral tale for us all. Inauthenticity, living a lie, and peddling lies that are believed to be truth is all too common. Living life with an observant eye is a challenge, one that many of us do not wish to do. Our humanness seeks bias, denial, and pride, rather than what is right, and what is humble. As citizens, consumers, as students we are in a constant and perpetual fog of political, social, and relationship games. Sometimes we participate in the games and sometimes live through the fog.
Mitt Romney, politician and business man, is no exception to this political desire.
The Republican Party revealed this moral once again to us. A party seeking to gain back the presidency, many of its members scared, and hungry for that executive position. Yet, when people act out of fear they do not do what is right. People speed in their cars and cause a collision in fear of being late. People are scared of having a healthy relationship and only enter unhealthy relationships. People are fearful that others will not accept them and then they create an alternate reality. (“Choose Courage Instead of Reacting in Fear.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/prescriptions-life/201804/choose-courage-instead-reacting-in-fear.)
Mitt Romney, 70th governor of Massachusetts, would become the presidential candidate of choice for the hungry and nervous elite within the Republican Party.
Mitt Romney, politician and business man, is no exception to this political desire.
The Republican Party revealed this moral once again to us. A party seeking to gain back the presidency, many of its members scared, and hungry for that executive position. Yet, when people act out of fear they do not do what is right. People speed in their cars and cause a collision in fear of being late. People are scared of having a healthy relationship and only enter unhealthy relationships. People are fearful that others will not accept them and then they create an alternate reality. (“Choose Courage Instead of Reacting in Fear.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/prescriptions-life/201804/choose-courage-instead-reacting-in-fear.)
Mitt Romney, 70th governor of Massachusetts, would become the presidential candidate of choice for the hungry and nervous elite within the Republican Party.
Professor, Dr. Jonathan Haidt provides a good view into politics and people. Haidt's political analysis provides context to understand Mitt Romney and inauthenticity.
Who highly values each of the following: care, liberty, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity?
Note: “Care” meaning "to feel concern or interest for others. “Liberty” meaning "freedom”. “Fairness” meaning “evenhandedness” and is not the same as “equal” in all ways. “Loyalty” meaning "faithful in carrying out legal obligations”. Authority refers to "those in charge, such as the law or police”. “Sanctity” refers to "the holy, holiness, and what is sacred”.
Founded by anti-slavery activists in 1854, the Republican Party highly values each of the items above. Early Republican ideas were: "free labor (no more slavery), free land (no more plantations), free men (liberty for all)". Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, elected in 1860.
Mitt Romney was the son of George Romney, chairman of the American Motors Corp., governor of Michigan in the 1960s, and served in the Richard Nixon cabinet. In the 1960s, George was working to gain national political attention and came under scrutiny by a journalist who described his speeches as a "blend of old fashioned midwestern isolationism and the liberal's
equally irrelevant preoccupation with world opinion". ("A way with Words", Time, vol. 85, April 30, 1965), p. 34.)
Mitt Romney would run for president in 2008 and 2012.
Who highly values each of the following: care, liberty, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity?
Note: “Care” meaning "to feel concern or interest for others. “Liberty” meaning "freedom”. “Fairness” meaning “evenhandedness” and is not the same as “equal” in all ways. “Loyalty” meaning "faithful in carrying out legal obligations”. Authority refers to "those in charge, such as the law or police”. “Sanctity” refers to "the holy, holiness, and what is sacred”.
Founded by anti-slavery activists in 1854, the Republican Party highly values each of the items above. Early Republican ideas were: "free labor (no more slavery), free land (no more plantations), free men (liberty for all)". Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, elected in 1860.
Mitt Romney was the son of George Romney, chairman of the American Motors Corp., governor of Michigan in the 1960s, and served in the Richard Nixon cabinet. In the 1960s, George was working to gain national political attention and came under scrutiny by a journalist who described his speeches as a "blend of old fashioned midwestern isolationism and the liberal's
equally irrelevant preoccupation with world opinion". ("A way with Words", Time, vol. 85, April 30, 1965), p. 34.)
Mitt Romney would run for president in 2008 and 2012.
The moral roots of the Democrat Party are attached to care, liberty, and fairness and less fixed to loyalty, authority, and sanctity. The Democrat Party was started by those that did not like the policies of Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. Hamilton and the other Founding Fathers modeled parts of the United States government after the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic had three branches of government (a tripartite) and encouraged the “best and brightest” to run the government.
Those that started the Democrat Party liked Thomas Jefferson’s ideas of government better. A government that would have a weak central government on purpose. Democrats also preferred the government developed by the ancient Greeks (democracy), rather than the Roman’s republic. In Greece, the majority ruled, 51% decided the fate of the other 49%. Democracy is considered by Republicans as “mob rule”. Democrats tend to value care, liberty, and fairness more than loyalty, authority, and sanctity.
Mitt Romney long stood with one foot planted in each of these philosophical streams. Similar to his father George.
Mitt Romney registered as an Independent at one time, voted for Democrat Paul Tsongas in the 1992 presidential primaries, and in 1993 registered as a Republican as he sought the 1994 senate seat in Massachusetts. Accordingly, Mitt Romney came under scrutiny for his contradictory stances over time. From support for abortion to against. From supporting gay marriage to not. From government provided health care to not. (Gross, Daniel. “How Mitt Romney's Corporate Success Explains His Campaign-and His Flip-Flops.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 26 Feb. 2007, slate.com/business/2007/02/how-mitt-romney-s-corporate-success-explains-his-campaign-and-his-flip-flops.html.)
The story of Mitt Romney is something that people of all political persuasions can benefit from learning.
Those that started the Democrat Party liked Thomas Jefferson’s ideas of government better. A government that would have a weak central government on purpose. Democrats also preferred the government developed by the ancient Greeks (democracy), rather than the Roman’s republic. In Greece, the majority ruled, 51% decided the fate of the other 49%. Democracy is considered by Republicans as “mob rule”. Democrats tend to value care, liberty, and fairness more than loyalty, authority, and sanctity.
Mitt Romney long stood with one foot planted in each of these philosophical streams. Similar to his father George.
Mitt Romney registered as an Independent at one time, voted for Democrat Paul Tsongas in the 1992 presidential primaries, and in 1993 registered as a Republican as he sought the 1994 senate seat in Massachusetts. Accordingly, Mitt Romney came under scrutiny for his contradictory stances over time. From support for abortion to against. From supporting gay marriage to not. From government provided health care to not. (Gross, Daniel. “How Mitt Romney's Corporate Success Explains His Campaign-and His Flip-Flops.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 26 Feb. 2007, slate.com/business/2007/02/how-mitt-romney-s-corporate-success-explains-his-campaign-and-his-flip-flops.html.)
The story of Mitt Romney is something that people of all political persuasions can benefit from learning.
Mitt Romeny, the Republican nominee for president, is a prime example of inauthenticity. He changed his stance on issues such as abortion, taxes, health care, education, and many others. His own values were often more aligned with the Democrat Party, rather than the Republican Party.
After the 2012 primary season of dirty campaigning, lies, and exaggerations, Mitt Romney was the last man standing. After a few hard punches from Newt Gingrich, Mitt hit back harder. Gingrich, "The Last Conservative Standing", fell. Very similar to how Bill Clinton ended up the Democrat nominee. Clinton is the post-modern archetype of the “inauthentically authentic”. Despite Whitewater, Cattlegate, Nannygate, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Coffeegate, Lincoln Bedroom, Web Hubble, Perjury, and many other scandals, Clinton remained inauthentically authentic. The public knew his misdeeds, yet identified with him, and accepted him.
In many ways Clinton was a reflection of the post-modern baby boomers and represented them at the moment they gained political power in the U.S. He felt their pain, a huge lie as no one can feel what someone else feels. The line worked though on a public that believed it or wanted to believe it to be true. If Clinton could feel the pain of people, imagine how wonderful individuals could all be if they used the line themselves. This was the Jesusification of the country, the making of gods in politics, the growth of post-modern religion in the U.S. Man, individuals, are kings, and can make their own individual realties, rules, and stipulations. No matter how contradictory.
President Richard Nixon (1969-1974), on the other hand, was no Clinton. Nixon came from a different generation and he was not eternally embroiled with personal scandals. That is until Watergate and a coverup to protect a political break-in to a Democrat campaign office. Lies upon lies did him no good in an environment of baby boomers and hippies rising up in power, a mad dog press, and few friends in his own party. John F. Kennedy is another figure in history, similar to Clinton. Affairs and unfavorable policies put his presidency at risk. (Nevin, Mark. “Nixon Loyalists, Barry Goldwater, and Republican Support for President Nixon during Watergate.” Cambridge Core, Cambridge University Press, 21 June 2017, www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/nixon-loyalists-barry-goldwater-and-republican-support-for-president-nixon-during-watergate/0B38AE4B3E0DCAC4DFD17CA42EA3D3A0/core-reader.)
After the 2012 primary season of dirty campaigning, lies, and exaggerations, Mitt Romney was the last man standing. After a few hard punches from Newt Gingrich, Mitt hit back harder. Gingrich, "The Last Conservative Standing", fell. Very similar to how Bill Clinton ended up the Democrat nominee. Clinton is the post-modern archetype of the “inauthentically authentic”. Despite Whitewater, Cattlegate, Nannygate, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Coffeegate, Lincoln Bedroom, Web Hubble, Perjury, and many other scandals, Clinton remained inauthentically authentic. The public knew his misdeeds, yet identified with him, and accepted him.
In many ways Clinton was a reflection of the post-modern baby boomers and represented them at the moment they gained political power in the U.S. He felt their pain, a huge lie as no one can feel what someone else feels. The line worked though on a public that believed it or wanted to believe it to be true. If Clinton could feel the pain of people, imagine how wonderful individuals could all be if they used the line themselves. This was the Jesusification of the country, the making of gods in politics, the growth of post-modern religion in the U.S. Man, individuals, are kings, and can make their own individual realties, rules, and stipulations. No matter how contradictory.
President Richard Nixon (1969-1974), on the other hand, was no Clinton. Nixon came from a different generation and he was not eternally embroiled with personal scandals. That is until Watergate and a coverup to protect a political break-in to a Democrat campaign office. Lies upon lies did him no good in an environment of baby boomers and hippies rising up in power, a mad dog press, and few friends in his own party. John F. Kennedy is another figure in history, similar to Clinton. Affairs and unfavorable policies put his presidency at risk. (Nevin, Mark. “Nixon Loyalists, Barry Goldwater, and Republican Support for President Nixon during Watergate.” Cambridge Core, Cambridge University Press, 21 June 2017, www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/nixon-loyalists-barry-goldwater-and-republican-support-for-president-nixon-during-watergate/0B38AE4B3E0DCAC4DFD17CA42EA3D3A0/core-reader.)
President Barak Obama is another key figure in this moral tale as well. Obama was methodical, connected to the post-modern baby boomers and the “You Generation” (the youth desiring attention, fame, and entitlement). Obama was methodical in his bread and circuses, making sure voters affected by the possible closure of car manufactures knew he was there to save them. He was there for “free” health care. He was there with everyone’s favorite celebrities. Obama built an authentic list of actions based upon the values of the Democrat Party. Obama was the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party was Obama. (Glenn, Joshua. “Generation Obama vs. the Boomers.” Boston.com, The Boston Globe, 20 Feb. 2007, archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2007/02/generation_obam.html.)
The same could not be said for Romney. Mitt Romney was authentic with his business persona, he was business and business was him, "Mitt Romney would lead Bain Capital from a staff of seven people managing $37 million to 115 people managing $4 billion. During his tenure, the firm would post an astonishing record, on average doubling its return on realized investments every year." (“The Making of Mitt Romney - Part 3: The Businessman.” Boston.com, The Boston Globe, archive.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/part3/.)
Though, it could not be said that Romney was the Republican Party, and the Republican Party was Romney. The problem was that the public wanted a president, not a Chief Executive Officer. Obama was authentic in his sensibilities to post-modernism and an electorate that favored post-modernism as well. Even if people did not agree with all of Obama's stances, at least voters could be loyal to a more bold figure such as him over Romney.
While Romney stood in two streams, Obama dryly, yet definitively, provided vision and answers. For instance, when asked to define sin, Obama said, "Being out of alignment with my values." Not God's values. Not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not some ancient or classical maxim. "My values". A clear and appealing answer, as with much of Obama's communication, to many of the same post-modern mindset. (Falsani, Cathleen. “TRANSCRIPT: Barack Obama and The God Factor Interview.” Sojourners, 22 Feb. 2012, sojo.net/articles/transcript-barack-obama-and-god-factor-interview.)
The same could not be said for Romney. Mitt Romney was authentic with his business persona, he was business and business was him, "Mitt Romney would lead Bain Capital from a staff of seven people managing $37 million to 115 people managing $4 billion. During his tenure, the firm would post an astonishing record, on average doubling its return on realized investments every year." (“The Making of Mitt Romney - Part 3: The Businessman.” Boston.com, The Boston Globe, archive.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/part3/.)
Though, it could not be said that Romney was the Republican Party, and the Republican Party was Romney. The problem was that the public wanted a president, not a Chief Executive Officer. Obama was authentic in his sensibilities to post-modernism and an electorate that favored post-modernism as well. Even if people did not agree with all of Obama's stances, at least voters could be loyal to a more bold figure such as him over Romney.
While Romney stood in two streams, Obama dryly, yet definitively, provided vision and answers. For instance, when asked to define sin, Obama said, "Being out of alignment with my values." Not God's values. Not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not some ancient or classical maxim. "My values". A clear and appealing answer, as with much of Obama's communication, to many of the same post-modern mindset. (Falsani, Cathleen. “TRANSCRIPT: Barack Obama and The God Factor Interview.” Sojourners, 22 Feb. 2012, sojo.net/articles/transcript-barack-obama-and-god-factor-interview.)
The moral tale of the Romney candidacy is that inauthenticity is noticed and only makes people perceive you worse, even if they agree with you on certain issues. Romney wanted Obama out of office, so did most Republicans. That is not enough to get you elected. There is also an important subplot to the story. Electing someone on a single issue, such as the economy, is not wise. No president deals with only a single issue. Events change all the time and the unforeseen always happens. Terrorist attacks, stock market plunges, war, scandals, and much more make choosing a president on a single issue a bad idea. Many issues, such as the economy, presidents have very little power to influence anyways. Not to mention that Romney, the author of Romneycare (the father of Obamacare), did not bring forth the vigorous discussion on health care that helped Republicans win big in congress in 2010.
Desperation and fear does not help yourself, your causes, your party, nor your country. When we give up our standards we make rash decisions. Life is not an either-or proposition. The either-or fallacy was promulgated by many Mitt Romney supporters. Pundits such as Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Michelle Malkin promised, demanded, and persisted in getting Republicans to accept Mitt Romney as the candidate.
Additionally, Rush Limbaugh gave a tepid endorsement. It was him, Mitt, the inevitable, no one else could win against Obama. As Laura Ingraham exclaimed, Romney was a “true conservative” and “a conservative’s conservative.” (Medved, Michael. “Why the Right Hates Mitt Romney and His 2012 Presidential Bid.” The Daily Beast, The Daily Beast Company, 10 Nov. 2011, www.thedailybeast.com/why-the-right-hates-mitt-romney-and-his-2012-presidential-bid.)
Over time, Republican pundits, such as Ingraham and Limbaugh re-evaluated Mitt Romney's candidacy, policies, and philosophy. Romney was elected Republican senator of Utah in 2019, yet as a Republican he called for President Trump, Republican, to not be re-elected. In rebuttal, Ingraham stated, "Because the people who lost this country, who couldn't beat Obama, and were part of the party establishment that destroyed much of what we love about America, and put us in this debt...and couldn't stand up to President Obama – those people are now projecting their guilt and blame on Trump?"
Limbaugh remarked, "Why are you rejecting the majority of people in your own party and their expressed desires and wishes? Why are you continually ignoring and trying to thwart the will of your voters?'" (“Limbaugh, Ingraham Rail Against Romney's Trump Attack.” U.S. News and World Report, U.S. News and World Report, www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-03/limbaugh-ingraham-rail-against-romneys-trump-attack.)
Romney’s inauthenticity, his 1950s persona versus his campaign thrashing of other Republican candidates, his flipping around on issues (gun policies and more), and some of his liberal views (government run health care), were not authentic to the values of the Republican Party, such as care, liberty, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Immediately after his presidential election loss in 2012 these same pundits went on television and the radio and began negatively criticizing Romney, his campaign, and his political positions. Fare-weather friends indeed.
Additionally, Rush Limbaugh gave a tepid endorsement. It was him, Mitt, the inevitable, no one else could win against Obama. As Laura Ingraham exclaimed, Romney was a “true conservative” and “a conservative’s conservative.” (Medved, Michael. “Why the Right Hates Mitt Romney and His 2012 Presidential Bid.” The Daily Beast, The Daily Beast Company, 10 Nov. 2011, www.thedailybeast.com/why-the-right-hates-mitt-romney-and-his-2012-presidential-bid.)
Over time, Republican pundits, such as Ingraham and Limbaugh re-evaluated Mitt Romney's candidacy, policies, and philosophy. Romney was elected Republican senator of Utah in 2019, yet as a Republican he called for President Trump, Republican, to not be re-elected. In rebuttal, Ingraham stated, "Because the people who lost this country, who couldn't beat Obama, and were part of the party establishment that destroyed much of what we love about America, and put us in this debt...and couldn't stand up to President Obama – those people are now projecting their guilt and blame on Trump?"
Limbaugh remarked, "Why are you rejecting the majority of people in your own party and their expressed desires and wishes? Why are you continually ignoring and trying to thwart the will of your voters?'" (“Limbaugh, Ingraham Rail Against Romney's Trump Attack.” U.S. News and World Report, U.S. News and World Report, www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-03/limbaugh-ingraham-rail-against-romneys-trump-attack.)
Romney’s inauthenticity, his 1950s persona versus his campaign thrashing of other Republican candidates, his flipping around on issues (gun policies and more), and some of his liberal views (government run health care), were not authentic to the values of the Republican Party, such as care, liberty, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Immediately after his presidential election loss in 2012 these same pundits went on television and the radio and began negatively criticizing Romney, his campaign, and his political positions. Fare-weather friends indeed.
It is challenging to know if Romney knew he was not honest about himself. Did he believe himself? Was he able to see clearly through the fog of politics? Time may reveal the answer. Time may also reveal how Republican pundits that supported Romney, that bullied others into accepting Romney’s inauthenticity and candidacy, are treated.
Over time Republicans may learn never to repeat the same error. Republicans may choose authentic individuals that uphold their values, despite any bullying and risk of losing the race. Choosing to be inauthentic in foggy dreams of winning is no way to really win. Winning and losing while authentic, healthy, strong, and humble is the right thing to do.
Republicans may here on out be authentic, healthy, strong, and humble and still lose; however, it will not be because they are necessarily wrong in their values, desires, or plans. It will be because their constituency went the way of the dodo bird.
Self-reflection would also help the party see some of their stances on certain issues are not aligned with their own values. Perhaps Republicans stumbled one too many times in order to defeat post-modern ideals or never could really thrive against it anyway. The lessons are many and not necessarily political. Whether you agree with Republicans or not, this is a cautionary tale in inauthentic living.
Over time Republicans may learn never to repeat the same error. Republicans may choose authentic individuals that uphold their values, despite any bullying and risk of losing the race. Choosing to be inauthentic in foggy dreams of winning is no way to really win. Winning and losing while authentic, healthy, strong, and humble is the right thing to do.
Republicans may here on out be authentic, healthy, strong, and humble and still lose; however, it will not be because they are necessarily wrong in their values, desires, or plans. It will be because their constituency went the way of the dodo bird.
Self-reflection would also help the party see some of their stances on certain issues are not aligned with their own values. Perhaps Republicans stumbled one too many times in order to defeat post-modern ideals or never could really thrive against it anyway. The lessons are many and not necessarily political. Whether you agree with Republicans or not, this is a cautionary tale in inauthentic living.
Join the Jesse Bluma at Pointe Viven circle:
Image sources:
http://www.freedigitalphotos.net">Image(s): FreeDigitalPhotos.net
biography.com, “White House.” Free Stock Photos, www.pexels.com/photo/white-house-129112/. “Chess Piece.” Free Stock Photos, www.pexels.com/photo/battle-black-blur-board-game-260024/. “Black Analog Watch.” Free Stock Photos, www.pexels.com/photo/time-watch-clock-hours-9352/. “Free Image on Pixabay - Boston, Massachusetts, State House.” Boston Massachusetts State House - Free Photo on Pixabay, pixabay.com/photos/boston-massachusetts-state-house-111239/.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment