What Might Have Been

“Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, 'It might have been.”—John Greenleaf Whittier

We don’t get to live parallel lives, to see what would have happened if other choices had been made. So I don’t intend to spend a lot of time in regrets. But maybe it’s instructive once in a while to re-examine circumstances and choices.

Last week I heard radio host Hugh Hewitt interviewing Mitt Romney about the documentary, Mitt, just released on Netflix. [The transcript of the interview is here.] Which got me to go home and watch it.

What you see in the movie is a man who is perfectly suited, in temperament, in integrity, in ability, to address the specific problems our nation has been facing. He offered to help; he would have been glad to tackle the problems. But he was personally fine with not being required to do it. The heartbreak is for the nation, not for himself.

For me, there were no surprises in the documentary. I watched many short pieces on Romney during the two races, and I’ve followed him for a long time. I knew who he was, what he was like. I don’t know when I’ve known any candidate so well. [During the campaign, I wrote about him, a seven-part series starting here, as well as here, here, here, and here.]

But in my own local Tea Party, where people often listen to me respectfully, most people called him too liberal, too much of an insider, and too disconnected from regular people. Absolutely wrong on all accounts. In 2007-2008, the party insiders saw to it that the “progressive” McCain got the nomination. Romney was not a Washington insider, but he was the most conservative in that primary field, which was represented as a flaw.

His positions remained constant. He responded by helping wherever he felt he could be useful. He would have been content doing just that. His wife, Ann, who believed after the first defeat that they never wanted to do that again, was the one who pushed him to run the second time—because the country needed him.

Obama was even worse than many anticipated, and that got a lot of people to wake up, start re-reading the Constitution, and start getting involved. That’s how the Tea Party was born—individuals waking up and asking, “What can I do to make things right?”

Coinciding with the rise of awareness of conservative principles was also a matching distrust of anyone who contributed to getting us into this mess. So a lot of people new to politics were disposed to distrust anything that comes through traditional channels. Sometimes they’re right about that, but sometimes this predisposition causes them to dismiss the long years of effort for the conservative cause that many people have offered.

So coming in as an experienced “outsider” meant Romney had to pay his dues in the national GOP. Fine. He was always a willing helper. But doing exactly what would be required suddenly turned him into an “insider” who must therefore be distrusted.

Nothing bothered me more during the last campaign than fellow conservatives complaining that Romney was a bad candidate.

In the Hugh Hewitt interview, there’s this exchange:

Hugh Hewitt: There was a segment of Mitt where you’re talking in 2008 about being branded as the ‘flippin’ Mormon.’ And you say I won’t fix the Mormon part. You’re proud of your faith. And I can’t fix the flip-flopper thing. They’ve got to stop buying, I think this is a direct quote, the dog food that’s been shipped to you by McCain. That is a problem of all American media. I mean, Governor Christie right now is getting branded, and I don’t know what he does about it. What’s your advice to Governor Christie to avoid getting branded as you did in ’08 and ’12?

Mitt Romney: Well, you’re right, Hugh, and I look back at someone like, and I said on the film as well, I was talking about Dan Quayle, and said you know, they branded him as someone who wasn’t bright. And actually, he’s a very bright person, a very capable investor and manager of a large investment firm. They used to joke about Jerry Ford, you know, a stumblebum, uncoordinated. Actually, he’s the only American president who’s an All-American. I mean, they completely can get these things wrong, but they brand people. The opposition party obviously wants to do that, and sometimes, the media wants to play along with it, I’m afraid. And when that happens, you’ve got to say okay, what can we do to try and correct that? And it’s hard to do.

 

The result of this media branding showed up yet again at our last local Tea Party meeting. There’s someone challenging our county party chair, an unpaid position. I’m open to arguments about that. I think in general our party chair has done a decent job, except for recruiting enough precinct chairs. But there are always things I don’t know. And a friend who often knows more than I do recommended this challenger. So I listened. First, he didn’t convince me that change was needed for any reason other than the “throwing out the insiders” argument. And second, he complained, “Mitt Romney wasn’t the best candidate to talk about conservatism.”

Actually, Romney was the best to talk about it. He had tackled the liberal mess that was Massachusetts, worked with an 87% democrat legislature, and moved the state from drowning in debt to in the black. He worked miracles—using conservative principles, talking about them using data that persuaded even democrats to do the right thing. No one else in the race had such a record, or even much executive experience.

So this candidate for our county GOP chair was unaware of Romney’s record, apparently hadn’t heard or read his speeches—and noticed their conservative consistency over time—and taken a look at the long line of people who have worked with him or known him and consistently attest to his connection with normal people and dedication to living a civilized life. This candidate was instead willing to go with the unfortunate combination of lies put out by mainstream media, spin put out by his primary opponents, and jaded dismissal by zealous but not fully informed newcomers. Instead of finding the truth. This is a common error on our side that ought to be corrected.

One caller to Hugh Hewitt’s show, Joe from Houston, added this data:

I just wanted to say that I think the rejection of Mitt Romney by the American people will go down in history as probably the greatest political mistake we’ve ever made. And one of the criticisms I hear from people that don’t know any better is that Romney wasn’t a conservative, wasn’t conservative enough. In the 2012 election 35-38 % of the voters identified themselves as conservatives—the most in any election in political history. And Romney got over 82% of the vote of those people who voted for him. He got more self-identified conservatives to vote for him than anyone, including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. So that’s a canard that needs to be put to bed.

 

Another Hugh Hewitt caller, Tammy J of Portland, said this:

I just started watching the show, and then I had to stop, because I had to listen to your interview of Mitt, and all I can say is, I am just sick to my stomach when I think of the direction our country could have been in had he been elected. And I think, going forward, the lesson we need to take from this is, we cannot take for granted that the media will do us any favors. We have to use new media. We have to use digital media—everything we can to end run mainstream media. They control the debate; they control the narrative.

 

She’s right; we need to go into the next round with the expectation that alternative sources are the way to go.

Ann Romney was interviewed on Fox News, about the documentary, and said this:

I truly believe this, that truly the country lost by not having Mitt as president…..

I always believed he was going to be the President of the United States. In my heart I just knew the country needed him, and I believed he was going to be there. I knew he was going to make a huge difference for Americans’ lives.

We spent so much time on the road, we felt the hurt of so many people who were suffering without jobs. And I really believed Mitt was going to be there, to help the country—to help the country get back on its feet.

I was with Ann; I knew what he was capable of, and I knew how much the country needed him. I also felt calm about it being in the Lord’s hands. At the time I interpreted that to mean he would win, because that was what we so needed. So I had to combine the surety that it was in the Lord’s hands with the certainly that things would get worse for the country—the reality we have seen and continue to see. For some larger purpose, to bring His people back to Him, that I can't fully see yet.

In the last presidential election I thought we had the starkest contrast possible, between “liberal” failure and conservative solutions, between social decay and civilization. Yet the message didn’t get through.

I have my doubts that we’ll ever see a candidate so suited for the job of president, and such a fine human being besides. But we will have someone who contrasts with the current failure. Whatever that person’s story is, I hope we can help make it known, so the contrast will be obvious even to those who were fooled last time.

 

Looking Up

Mitt Romney at GOP Convention
photo from Ann Romney's Facebook page

Here at the Spherical Model, instead of a left/right model, we have a three-dimensional model, with the good at the top: civilization, freedom, free enterprise. The southern hemisphere contains the bad: savagery, tyranny, controlled economy. The side-to-side direction is basically neutral, but based on interest, from individual/family at the center west, and expanding outward through local, state, regional, national, on up to  global perspective. The general rule is that the controller of decisions should be left to the most local level possible; otherwise there is usurpation of power, which is a tyrannical position (southern hemisphere).

So when I look at who I should vote for, I look at how well the candidates’ ideas line up with the principles that we know lead to civilization, freedom, and free enterprise. This week at the GOP convention (which I watched from home) has been a good week. A lot of looking up—how to get up to the northern, civilized, freedom zone.

Others may be watching for strategy, or for excitement that will motivate the army of activists to go get out the vote, or for some rhetoric so soaring that it will be remembered and compared in future years. I very much enjoy a brilliant, well-said phrase; I collect the quotable. But I mostly leave that kind of examination to others. I want to know the philosophy and character, to know how well it lines up with what we know will place us in the northern hemisphere of the Spherical Model.

There was much to enjoy in Paul Ryan’ talk, as well as speeches by Marco Rubio, Condoleeza Rice, Mia Love, Chris Christie, and others—and I may take a later post just to enjoy those. But what we need to know is whether we have upper hemisphere hopes from our future president—who will lead the direction of the country. And Romney’s speech did what it needed to for me.

He used the word “optimism” four times, and referred, in various ways, to hope for a better future a few more times. That in itself is upward looking—if it’s tied to the right principles. And I believe it is.

Some of what we need to know about Romney, I have known for a long time; it was a matter of getting the picture out for others, during a time when cynicism is so rampant that a decent family man who wants to serve others seems too good to be true. But he has indeed lived his life that way. Some of the telling had to come from others, and that happened this week. Ann Romney began to introduce this good man to people who hadn’t noticed before, or been willing to believe who he was. And that was followed by a string of actual recipients of his quiet, unpaid, unrecognized service. This must have gotten the story out, because after his speech, the PBS commentators stumbled, trying to come up with descriptors for the speech that clearly didn’t align with their worldview, but they decided to agree Romney is just, really, a decent man.

Does he believe in God, so that he can understand God is the giver of our inalienable rights? Yes. Does he live the Ten Commandments as the basic level of civilization? Yes, and refined with the Sermon on the Mount, I Corinthians 13, and other scriptural directions on how to be the person God wants you to be.

Does he place family as the central civilizing force? Yes.

About Paul Ryan, he said, “I love the way he lights up around his kids and how he's not embarrassed to show the world how much he loves his mom.”

About his parents, and then his and Ann’s family, he said:

My mom and dad gave their kids the greatest gift of all – the gift of unconditional love. They cared deeply about who we would BE, and much less about what we would DO.

Unconditional love is a gift that Ann and I have tried to pass on to our sons and now to our grandchildren. All the laws and legislation in the world will never heal this world like the loving hearts and arms of mothers and fathers. If every child could drift to sleep feeling wrapped in the love of their family--and God's love—this world would be a far more gentle and better place.

The line I highlighted lets us know, maybe more than anything, that this is not someone who believes in taking power to enforce government on minions.  This line, about connecting with his church and community, also tells us he understands how thriving civilization happens:

And that's how it is in America. We look to our communities, our faiths, our families for our joy, our support, in good times and bad. It is both how we live our lives and why we live our lives. The strength and power and goodness of America has always been based on the strength and power and goodness of our communities, our families, our faiths.

A look at Romney’s business record is an example for the world of free enterprise at its best. He told a little of the Bain story—and having it come after the “evil vulture capitalist” claim was revealed as a lie made it clear his success was real success. And that allowed him to say this:

These are American success stories. And yet the centerpiece of the President's entire re-election campaign is attacking success. Is it any wonder that someone who attacks success has led the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression? In America, we celebrate success, we don't apologize for it.

We know he understands and believes in the free enterprise system when he follows his story with this:

It's the genius of the American free enterprise system – to harness the extraordinary creativity and talent and industry of the American people with a system that is dedicated to creating tomorrow's prosperity rather than trying to redistribute today's.

That is why every president since the Great Depression who came before the American people asking for a second term could look back at the last four years and say with satisfaction: "you are better off today than you were four years ago."

Except Jimmy Carter. And except this president.

He didn’t have to be personally negative about President Obama; that would have seemed gratuitous piling on when it is clear to everyone—everyone—that he has failed to provide financial success, American freedom, and social thriving. Obama has failed because he follows the rules that keep people in the southern hemisphere of tyranny. He is literally a tyrant, whether he has the personality of other worldwide tyrants or not. But it isn’t necessary to use that kind of term; all that is necessary is to point out that what we want—personal freedom, economic opportunity, and thriving civilization—can be reached on a path that claims government control is the answer.

This was one of my favorite lines, because what I want during this campaign is to see clearly the truth about the candidates. This shows the contrast:

President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. MY promise...is to help you and your family.

He doesn’t mean he will micromanage your family from Washington; he means he will set an example of a strong family—and how to Dad—but also will help by getting roadblocks out of the way so families can succeed through hard work and helping one another. Economically, things will get better. Freedom will improve with adherence to the Constitution:

That America, that united America, will uphold the constellation of rights that were endowed by our Creator, and codified in our Constitution.

That united America will care for the poor and the sick, will honor and respect the elderly, and will give a helping hand to those in need.

That America is the best within each of us. That America we want for our children.

This is an America we remember, if we’re old enough and from the right places (I am both). And now I feel free to hope we will return to thriving. Things are indeed looking up.

Not Just a Mom

Photo source here

One thing that cannot be assumed about Ann Romney is that she is “just a mom,” implying that she lacks something that could have allowed her more choices. What is really clear is that she is a phenomenal human being: smart, capable, kind, lovely, and particularly supportive of family members, whom she clearly loves.

She is also a survivor of MS and breast cancer. And not just a survivor, but one capable of going on the campaign trail, with all the intensity and interference with real life that that entails. If we have one evidence (and there are many) that Mitt Romney is a brilliant man who makes wise crucial decisions, it is that he chose Ann to marry, back when they were too young to know who they would eventually become. In fact, I think they have become who they are because they chose each other.

At some point I hope to be able to express—especially to women who don’t naturally understand this—that making the choice to stay at home and raise children is a career choice with possibly more benefits to society as a whole than any other career choice. There are many many ways women can contribute; women have the brains, the ideas, the abilities to do almost anything that doesn’t require simply sheer brute force (and even there, some women surpass many men). But when you look at this couple, more than forty years ago, talking it through together, deciding how their family would look, Ann’s volunteering to cover the childbearing and being home tasks must have been an incredible relief to him.

All of their five sons talk about how their dad was very involved in their upbringing—taking them when he did service, teaching them the value of priorities (like the story of losing an anchor, and he left his important guests to go out and dive for it with them, because he needed them to teach them to care for what they had as responsibilities). So it wasn’t so he could give Ann all the dirty work of child rearing. It was that he had in her a helpmeet—the very definition of Eve, when she was given to Adam. And she chose to be the helpmeet from home, because handling five boys without someone always present might have been riskier than they were willing to try. Finding the best way to accomplish something is the Romney way.

I loved her speech Tuesday night at the GOP convention. She said so much about the value of women, totally without the competitive man-hating so prevalent among “feminists.” She also told the human Romney story—as she has been doing all along for years, but this time with a somewhat more attentive and certainly larger audience.

She started out talking about love—love that everyone in the room was feeling together, combined with a love of our country, but also the specific love between Ann and Mitt and their family.

I have often said about Mitt Romney that I have known many men like him, successful, hardworking, and decent. He is not uncommon among Mormons, just more successful than most. Ann Romney is like many Mormon moms I have known—only more so. There was a story this week about media people finally being invited to their vacation home in New Hampshire. The media shows up, and Ann is doing the laundry. They are stunned. The narrative has been that these people are too rich and out of touch with the rest of America. But it also came out that they do their own grocery shopping—and they’re thrilled with the great bargains you can get at Costco.

This is exactly what I have seen. I know many well-off, if not wealthy, Mormons. Everyone does their own laundry and their own shopping. Here in Texas is the only place I’ve been where it is common for people to hire someone to do their lawns (not us—we still mow our own, but we’re not among the wealthy). I’m somewhat distantly acquainted with another very successful Mormon businessman and family, who also used to live in Belmont, Massachusetts, who have raised about as many kids as the Romneys, and the mom suffers MS. Yet I believe she still does her own laundry and shopping. Certainly her own cooking, which is somewhat legendary (as is Ann Romney’s—she ran a little cooking school at one time). I don’t think it ever occurred to them that you don’t do the household “work” just because you can afford help.

If you’re raising kids, and you have an abundance of money, does it help you raise better children if they see you hire help for all the menial tasks, or to do that in front of them and train them to do it? Depends on whether you want them to think they’re better than others and entitled to ease, or whether you want them to value hard work and valuing other people as equals. Could the Romneys have taught their children the best values if Ann had chosen some other career and then hired out the household tasks? Maybe, somehow. But we do know that they could do it the way they chose to do it.

This is not to say that it’s somehow wrong to hire help. It’s just to say that people have made assumptions about the Romneys because of their wealth that simply aren’t true. Their money, as Ann said, allowed them the opportunity to provide for their children’s educations, and opportunities for service. Here’s how she put it:

It allowed us to give our sons the chance at good educations and made all those long hours of book reports and homework worth every minute. It’s given us the deep satisfaction of being able to help others in ways that we could never have imagined. Mitt doesn’t like to talk about how he has helped others because he sees it as a privilege, not a political talking point. And we’re no different than the millions of Americans who quietly help their neighbors, their churches and their communities. They don’t do it so that others will think more of them.

I think we need to believe Ann when she tells us what she knows, as the person who knows Mitt Romney best:

This is the man America needs.

This is the man who will wake up every day with the determination to solve the problems that others say can’t be solved, to fix what others say is beyond repair. This is the man who will work harder than anyone so that we can work a little less hard.

I can’t tell you what will happen over the next four years. But I can only stand here tonight, as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, an American, and make you this solemn commitment:

This man will not fail.

If you didn’t hear the speech, treat yourself to the twenty minutes here: