I’d like to offer a variation on that theme. When is the
best time to have Mitt Romney as President? Since 2009. When is the next best
time to have Mitt Romney as President? Since 2013. When is the next best time
to have Mitt Romney as President? From January 2017 on.
But I’m not planting that tree. I am not hoping he runs
again.
It matters who is president—because a president can do so
much damage to our country, our freedom, our economy, and our society. We have
seen that deterioration in action more during the current administration than
any in US history.
But the problem isn’t on the shoulders of a single person.
The current climate in this country is not about an ineffectual, America-hating
socialist; it’s about an electorate who chose an ineffectual, America-hating
socialist—when they had the option of an extremely successful executive, with a
long record of turning difficult situations into successes, who lives the
highest level of civilization, honoring God, prioritizing family, and giving
service generously.
There are people who are saying, “I told you so” at this
point. It is true that Romney was right—about Obamacare, about taxes, about
international conditions and America’s best role in a dangerous world, about,
well, pretty much everything.
But there are also people, still, among conservatives who
claim the problem was that Romney wasn’t a good enough candidate to beat the
known-to-be-bad-for-America Obama. These include some names I would like to
trust on conservatism: Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, various Facebook fellow
conservative soldiers, Tea Party associates, the county GOP chair…. The main
claim is that, since Romneycare (Massachusetts medical insurance plan) was the
blueprint for Obamacare, Romney couldn’t possibly be anything but a liberal
being shoved down our throats by RINO party leadership.
The lie about "Romneycare" came from the Obama campaign. That
ought to be a clue. If you need a refresher, I wrote a seven-part assessment of
Romney the candidate near the end of 2011, called “Measuring Mitt.” Most
pertinent might be part VI on MassachusettsCare. Anyone who looks into it can see one
thing really clearly: Obama and minions patterned NOTHING on anything that
could be called Romney policy. Romney worked with Democrats to get policy that
would be the most conservative possible—because that would be best for the
people. And he succeeded in changing every organization he ever touched from
debt-prone to profitable.
We admire George Washington because he was an honorable man,
who gave selflessly for the country he loved, working always toward freedom
rather than personal aggrandizement. Washington happened to be the wealthiest
of colonists at the time of the founding. But it was not his wealth that was
memorable; it was his character.
Lincoln started out in poverty and worked his way up, with
much opposition. He was made for such a time. It was also his character that we
admire. His strength, his dedication to principle, his love of the goodness of
our country as a whole. He did things that were divisive—because to be good
required division from those who preferred the continuation of a great evil. You can't compromise with evil and remain whole. Dedication to principles of truth and freedom
gave the American people something to hold to in wholeness.
Reagan, who earned his significant wealth in Hollywood, is
also remembered for his character. He stood strong and bold against evil. He honored
America’s goodness, without even a hint of shame for country love. And he spoke
directly and clearly to the good hearts of good Americans.
Our best presidents had valuable qualities, made for such
times as they faced.
Romney has the experience, ability, and character to
precisely fit this decade. He has the attitude of servant leadership that we
admired in Washington. We simply would not be in much of the messes we’re in,
if we had chosen him instead of the ignominious alternative. Yet many of the
best conservatives among us missed the obvious and said, “Not good enough!”
I do not trust people so recently blind to suddenly see the light.
They don’t even yet recognize their error.
So, please, don’t “draft Romney.” He is available to help
wherever needed, in various campaigns, perhaps in a cabinet position later. Unlike most
people in politics, he is motivated by a desire to serve. We can still let him,
without putting him and his family through yet another “you’re not good enough”
campaign, which is not likely to pull in the masses of even less informed
voters.
I do not know who the candidate should be. No democrat
should be allowed to win again in my lifetime; they have proven incapable of
leading America and Americans. So that is a given. Almost any Republican would
be better. But better than a democrat is hardly enough to move us from our
sinking southward position, back up to the northern hemisphere of freedom, prosperity, and civilization. We could use a great man, made for the time. One who
is so obviously right that every voter can be held responsible for an informed
vote.
I’m leaning toward Ted Cruz. He is bold, and principled, and
clearly willing to stand up against great opposition. There may be others. I
pray the Lord will lead us to someone meant for the even more difficult job of
restoration-after-destruction.
But my greater concern is the blinded society.
In the metaphor I began with, it’s about preparing the
ground for planting. The current soil is in great need of nutrients. The culture needs to be…cultivated.
Pointing out the blindness took this whole post. So it’s
going to take a second part to consider how to get better cultural conditions.
No comments:
Post a Comment