Not Deplorable, Just Revolting

The loss of Hillary Clinton should not have been a surprise, since she was probably the worst major party candidate in the history of the country, and would be more suited for a cubical cell than an oval office. But there is still a lot of shock about the win of Donald Trump.

I don’t believe there’s any relevant rise in racism or bigotry—no sudden rise in deplorables. In fact, while I think getting two such unlikable candidates is a cultural issue, I don’t think the outcome is mainly cultural. It’s mainly economic. It’s a critical mass of people who have “had it up to here” with the depression we’rein and not calling it that—people revolting against the status quo malaise, who think it’s about time for a change.

The difficulty for me has been understanding why we got Trump as the alternative to economic stagnation, when we had at least half a dozen alternatives who were better on free market economic principles, plus better on cultural and international leadership, with just plain better understanding of the Constitution, which leads to freedom, prosperity, and civilization every time it’s tried.

I came across a little more understanding this week. First, I listened to an Uncommon interview with J. D. Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy. He talks about the people of Scots-Irish descent, who settled in Appalachia and the Midwest. Even among them there is a divide: Some follow the rules of society, work hard, remain steady, and move into the middle class by sheer fortitude and endurance. Some drink hard, have a hard time holding a job, and live lives of violence and chaos in extended messy families. They used to be able to get by with labor jobs, which were plentiful. Now they are more likely to be unemployed, and waste their lives in drink and drugs, blaming some outside force for their plight.

J. D. Vance, on Uncommon Knowledge

Vance grew up in the chaotic branch, but had ties to the more stable side. Someone rescued him, in his teens, and set him on a path for college (he went in the military, then college, and eventually graduated from Yale Law School). I haven’t read the book yet, but, while it appears fairly damning of this culture he came from, when he speaks about them, it is with a lot of affection, rather than bitterness. He loves his extended family. He’s trying to help increase understanding.

The chaotic ones are angry for the loss of opportunity. But the ones who tried to do everything right, and have been suffering loss of opportunity anyway—they’re really fed up. So when Trump came in and promised them he’d fix that, speaking in the plain language they’re used to, that sure sounded a lot better than more of the same.

The next day I came across a piece called “What So Many People Don’t Get about the US Working Class,” by Joan C. Williams. She reveals a misunderstanding of terminology: working class really means middle class, not poor. The two parties use these terms differently:

When progressives talk about the working class, typically they mean the poor. But the poor, in the bottom 30% of American families, are very different from Americans who are literally in the middle: the middle 50% of families whose median income was $64,000 in 2008. That is the true “middle class,” and they call themselves either “middle class” or “working class.”

“The thing that really gets me is that Democrats try to offer policies (paid sick leave! minimum wage!) that would help the working class,” a friend just wrote me. A few days’ paid leave ain’t gonna support a family. Neither is minimum wage. WWC [white working class] men aren’t interested in working at McDonald’s for $15 per hour instead of $9.50. What they want is what my father-in-law had: steady, stable, full-time jobs that deliver a solid middle-class life to the 75% of Americans who don’t have a college degree. Trump promises that. I doubt he’ll deliver, but at least he understands what they need.

Back in 2012, Mitt Romney, in a private meeting, was asked about his plans for cutting taxes. He was recorded as saying he wasn’t worried about cutting taxes on the rich, who were doing fine, nor for the 47% not paying taxes—how do you cut taxes from zero? He would concentrate on lowering taxes for the middle class.

Romney would have done what the “revolting” middle class is insisting on now—and we would be four years into recovery. Yet he was excoriated for “doing nothing” for the poor (for “working families” was how that was spun). He wouldn’t have done nothing; he would have increased opportunities for all, which wasn’t included in the scope of that particular question. But his answer is still quoted as one of the big mistakes of the campaign, even though it was exactly true and sensible.

So why the acceptance of Trump but not Romney?

Working Class Americans
photo from here

Williams offers some additional information into how that middle-American middle class thinks. The WWC “resents professionals but admires the rich.” They’re angry about college graduates, who get management positions, lack experience about how the job is really done, but nevertheless spend all day telling workers how to do their jobs. It’s the educated upper-middle-class that they have experience with—those are the ones they resent, not the distant unknown rich people. It’s not the success of the rich that the WWC resents; it’s the controlling of their lives. As Williams says,

Why the difference? For one thing, most blue-collar workers have little direct contact with the rich outside of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. But professionals order them around every day. The dream is not to become upper-middle-class, with its different food, family, and friendship patterns; the dream is to live in your own class milieu, where you feel comfortable—just with more money. “The main thing is to be independent and give your own orders and not have to take them from anybody else,” a machine operator told Lamont. Owning one’s own business—that’s the goal. That’s another part of Trump’s appeal.

So, when you have a condescending Harvard-educated black president (prejudiced against them because they aren’t black) ordering them around, controlling their lives—everything from Obamacare to who gets to use whose bathrooms, and whether a source of jobs will be curtailed because of an infinitesimally small possible effect on climate a century hence—and that guy might get followed by a woman who also condescends and insists on doubling down on those very policies, there should be no question about why they would revolt against Hillary Clinton as a candidate.

That segment Vance talked about, the ones who keep their noses clean and go along—they were willing to give Obama a try, when he said he was going to help the working class. Plus he would prove the country was beyond racism, so those accusations would go away. But after eight years, they’re now aware Obama isn’t even trying to help them; he’s trying to help the non-working poor, or the entry-level kid, at their expense. And they’re done with that.

I’ve considered myself middle class—so, yet another way to misunderstand the term, since I’m college educated. In so many ways I find this revolt understandable. I’m also tired of the bad economy. And I’m tired of a smug and condescending administration and their minions in academia and the media insisting that the way I think and live is unacceptable, or even deplorable.

I’m a thinker. I know how to take what the “progressives” say and measure that against principles and sound, reproducible data. So I can say why I believe they’re wrong and their policies won’t work.

I was willing to trust Romney to do what was needed. He’s a better all-around businessman than Trump, has covered more industries, specialized in helping businesses turn around and function better. And he is inarguably ethical, which can’t be said for Trump, whose business in gambling and entertaining was always tied to cronyism, and a trail of lawsuits dog him.

But, for whatever reason, the WWC demographic saw Romney as untrustworthy; he seemed too smooth, too educated—too much like those professionals they’d been pushed around by. I wish he could have connected with them. I’m trying to understand why he didn’t. That air of being college smart instead of street smart might be key. I don't think Romney should have tried to be otherwise; he is what he is. But Trump, while college educated, never sounds like it.

The reality might be that Trump will be a lot more authoritarian, a lot more “progressive,” than Romney would have been. And culturally will be a lot less civilized. (Almost everyone is less civilized than Romney.)

College educated conservatives, as a demographic, I believe are much more likely to be pro-Constitution, pro-principle-based limited government, and pro-traditional family than Trump is. So that’s a division I hope we can heal. But I think the pro-Trump middle-class voter is just as likely to love country, family, and traditional values as I do. They might not know how to articulate how we get freedom, prosperity, and civilization from adhering to our Constitution, but they will appreciate those things when we get them.

So far this week there are reports of Trump reaching out to former foes like Mitt Romney and Ted Cruz. He might be sensible enough to use some Constitutional conservatives and good economic data wonks in his cabinet and administration. That would go a long way toward healing the rough, off-the-cuff brashness that may have won him the election but without help from people like me.

We’ve had presidents with ugly personalities before: LBJ, Andrew Jackson (both democrats). We can survive brash and ugly—if Trump will do the principled things that need doing.

So, again, I’m praying for President-elect Trump and all those who surround him to be wise, and good. 

Comparing Resumes, Part II

Here we are a week before the first (Iowa) primary, so we’re looking at the top two Republican candidates. In Part I, we looked at Ted Cruz’s qualifications. Today we’ll look at Donald Trump.

We’ll start with the resume.  I didn’t find it listed out exactly like Ted Cruz’s, but between Wikipedia and various other sources, we can get the basics.

Trump at New Hampshire townhall,
August 2015
photo from Wikipedia

·         Born and raised in Queens, New York, son of real estate magnate Fred Trump.

·         Attended private Kew-Forest School, where his father was on the board of trustees.

·         Attended New York Military Academy for high school.

·         Attended Fordham University for two years, and then finished at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, earning a BS in Economics in 1968, specializing in real estate.

·         He was eligible for the draft during the Viet Nam War era, but got four education deferments, followed by a health deferment related to heel spurs (he doesn’t remember in which foot).

·         He was given a job at the family real estate business, Elizabeth Trump and Son.

·         Three years out of college, following several successful real estate projects with his father, he was given control of the company and changed the name to The Trump Organization.

·         Successful projects include the conversion of the Commodore Hotel to the Grand Hyatt, the Javits Convention Center, repairs on the Wollman Rink in New York City, and Trump Tower.

·         Following problems with the Taj Mahal casino, He underwent a business bankruptcy in 1991, following failure to pay loans. Three other of his businesses also went through bankruptcies.

·         Upon the death of his father, he received a quarter share of $250-300 million inheritance.

·         His net worth is estimated by Forbes as $4 billion.

·         Trump claims his net worth is $8.7 billion, but at least $3.3 billion of that consists of "Real Estate Licensing Deals, Brand and Branded Developments," described by Business Insider as "basically [implying] that Trump values his character at $3.3 billion."

·         Besides real estate, his investments and projects include some stock market investments (a small portion), sports (including WWE and Wrestlemania), beauty pageants (particularly the Miss Universe Organization), and media.

·         He is most well-known for his reality television show The Apprentice, which began in 2003. He filed a trademark application for the phrase, “You’re fired.”

·         He claims to be close friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton, and invited them to his daughter’s wedding.

·         He has listed his party affiliation as Republican, Independence Party, Democrat, and "decline to state." He toyed with a presidential run as a Reform Party candidate in 2000. He considered presidential runs in 1988, 2004, and 2012 but did not register to run, and also as New York governor in 2006.

·         He has contributed to both Democrat and Republican candidates; of the top ten, six were Democrat, and four were Republican. After 2011, his donations leaned more toward Republicans.

·         While it was the Hillary Clinton campaign that started the “birther” question about Barack Obama in 2008, Trump pursued it. He is currently pressing a “birther” movement against his closest competitor, Ted Cruz.

·         He has declined donations for his campaign, claiming that makes him free from obligations to donors; it also takes away the ability to compare his fundraising to others, as a measure of support.

·         Following his announcement to run in June, he has been a major news topic, which has allowed him to receive media attention with very little campaign expenditure. On December 28, 2015, Trump was named the Top Name in Global English by the Global Language Monitor finishing ahead of Pope Francis, Vladimir Putin, and Angela Merkel.

·         His populist campaign theme is, “We are going to make our country great again," with a second most common phrase being, “Believe me.” Details are scarce, but his tax plan gives less relief to the middle class than the plans provided by all the other candidates.

·         His main issue is the border. He uses a broad brush. He says we will build a wall on the southern border and Mexico will pay for it (because his strong personality will make them pay for it). He has recently suggested refusing entry to any Muslims, until the US has a better vetting process. As recently as last summer, he was in favor of a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. His current plan appears to be what is referred to as “touchback”: deport long enough for technicality, then immediately allow re-entry with a path to citizenship.

·         He has supported Planned Parenthood, opposed limiting partial-birth abortion, and until a nuanced recent change has supported pro-abortion policies.

·         Has supported Obama and his policies, saying: “He understands how the economy works on a comprehensive level. He has also surrounded himself with very competent people, and that’s the mark of a strong leader.”

·         He has supported single-payer socialized health care for years, and has made no promise to repeal Obamacare.

·         He supported the 2009 stimulus and Obama’s efforts to nationalize banks.

·         He claims to be a Christian, specifically Presbyterian, but seldom attends church more than at Easter and Christmas; he once said that his favorite book is the Bible—they are often given to him as gifts, and he keeps them in some unspecified special place that is not his office or his home. He has disparaged the religious beliefs of both Ben Carson and Ted Cruz. He has no history of supporting First Amendment religious freedom rights.

·         He claims to have never felt the need to ask for forgiveness for anything.

·         He supports the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

·         He described his socially liberal views as “New York values,” but attacked Cruz for repeating that phrase, accusing Cruz of disparaging the New Yorkers who survived the World Trade Center attacks.

·         He responds to criticism with swift retaliation, often using untruths and vulgarities to disparage those he considers his enemies.

·         He doesn’t agree that Obama’s executive actions are unlawful and plans to use that end-run around Congress himself—only doing things he likes, instead of things Obama likes, which he asserts makes all the difference.

·         He supports the use of imminent domain to confiscate property from some individuals to make it available to other private entities who want to develop the land for profit.

·         He has been married three times. He and first wife, Ivana, have three children (including daughter Ivanka, who is executive vice-president of The Trump Organization); they were divorced after 13 years of marriage because of his long-running affair with Marla Maples. Maples gave birth to their daughter in 1991; they were married in 1993 and divorced in 1997. He failed in attempts to court Princess Di, following her divorce, while he was still married. His current wife is Slovenian-born model Melania Knauss, whom he began seeing in 1998 and married in 2004. She became a naturalized citizen the following year, and gave birth to son Barron William Trump.

While Trump makes a vaguely positive claim that he can “make America great again,” he offers no indication that he will apply the Constitution to do that.

Rather than compare Trump's resume to Cruz's, I'm going to do a little comparison with Mitt Romney's.

The claim that Trump is a great businessman falls flat coming from those who weren’t satisfied with Mitt Romney four years ago. Romney didn’t have a fortune handed to him, and a company placed in his lap. His education was not provided by parental patronage. Romney worked hard, while raising a family, and earned both law and MBA degrees from Harvard. He worked hard at jobs he got himself, and his work came to encompass helping other businesses succeed. He became the turnaround expert, which came into play when he left the business world to enter public service, first with the Salt Lake Olympics, and then as governor of Massachusetts.

Romney lived life as a free-market capitalist. Trump embodies crony-capitalism. He does business by buying and trading favors with people who can do something for him. Maybe he’s running, in the first place, because the possibility of a Cruz presidency—or anyone else willing to enforce the Constitution—would put an end to his crony-capitalist power, and he wasn’t willing to let that happen.

Romney was never for socialized, single-payer health care, and was against forcing Massachusetts citizens to buy health care, preferring to use incentives rather than penalties. While I think Massachusetts went too far—because 87% of its Congress was Democrat—Romney and The Heritage Foundation had prevented much worse. Any claim that “Romneycare” was the forefunner of Obamacare is an outright lie.  Yet Trump is all for Obama’s actual socialized medicine scheme.

Romney was known by friends and fellow businessmen as scrupulously honest and ethical. No one makes those claims about Trump. There are hundreds of lawsuits against him. He is considered ruthless and opportunistic. He seems to not have close friends beyond wives and girlfriends.

Romney has always been known as generous and giving. Trump gives when it benefits him and builds connections, or obligates people to him.

Romney was berated for having very slight changes in policy toward abortion (change from “as governor, I don’t expect to have any effect on Roe v. Wade and don’t plan to change the law” to “when a law to make abortion more available comes before me as governor, I can’t sign that”). Trump has been openly pro-abortion, even to support partial-birth abortion; during the campaign suddenly he claims to think abortion is a bad idea, because of a servant’s experience. But he hasn’t done anything to prove any sudden change to pro-life views.

Romney was berated in 2008 as an outsider, because he was a governor and hadn’t spent years working with the national party. He spent four years, at his own expense, supporting the most conservative Republican candidates he could find, all around the country, and proved his loyalty to the party. In 2012 he was berated as an insider/moderate. Trump, a progressive, can’t even prove he didn’t vote for Obama, once or twice, and receives a pass for his lack of Republican—let alone conservative—bona fides. In the last couple of weeks, even the party establishment is starting to embrace him, because he’s a deal maker, and they can compromise with him, which they fear they cannot do with Ted Cruz, whose loyalty lies with the Constitution.

Trump’s appeal seems to be based entirely on his brash willingness to speak his mind. Fine. But his mind isn’t focused on truth—he claims truth is whatever he says it is right now. He isn’t focused on limiting the government to the Constitution. He isn’t focused on the basic economic principle of allowing the person earning the money to decide how to spend it. He isn’t focused on God-given rights, and moving society to live the civilizing Ten Commandments—valuing God, family, life, truth, and property.

In Spherical Model terms, he’s firmly in the southern hemisphere, where you get tyranny, poverty, and savagery. Trump offers an alternate flavor of those bad ends, but nothing that would lead us out of those negatives.

Would he be better than a communist/socialist/progressive Democrat? Unknown. Totally depends on what he has the urge to do on any given day. He’s a power-monger. He’s a crony-capitalist. He’s a serial adulterer. That puts him southern hemisphere in the political, economic, and social spheres.

It’s not like he’s the least of various evils; he’s the least conservative of the GOP options. It’s hard to be certain that he would be the lesser of two evils up against an open socialist.

So why is Trump getting so much traction? 

My only guess is that he has a lot of money to buy outcomes. He is a media celebrity. And, just like in high school where the “most popular” person wins the class elections, people who support him are doing so for the shallowest of reasons.

The future of our great nation is at stake, because too many people like in-your-face brashness, regardless of content of words or content of character.

If you love freedom, prosperity, and civilization, a vote for Cruz gives us hope for that. A vote for Trump guarantees that we may lose it for decades, maybe forever.

You don’t want to take my word for it? Besides the collection of 22 conservatives weighing in at National Review last week (“Conservatives against Trump”) here are a few more worth reading:

·         “You Hate It from Barack Obama. But You Love Itfrom Donald Trump,” Rick Wilson

·         “The Establishment's Irrational Fear of Ted Cruz,” David Limbaugh

·         "Where Was Donald Trump During the ImmigrationFight? Advocating Amnesty,” Streiff at Red State 

·         “Donald Trump’s New Ad Shows His Contempt ForVoters,” Streiff at Red State

·         “Paths to The Nomination: Trump, Cruz, and Rubio,” Robert Tracinski (This piece is about the campaign game, which goes against my grain, and I don’t agree with it in entirety, but I think the explanation of Trump support based on his TV celebrity is accurate.)

·         “When Conservatives Needed Allies, Donald TrumpSided with Obama,” Glenn Beck for National Review

·         "Donald Trump’s ‘Conversion’ Raises SeriousQuestions,” Dana Loesch

Preparing the Ground, Part II

The last post was a request not to “draft Romney” for President, even though he’s a great man, made for our times. The reason has to do with the culture—a culture that rejected him when the alternative was a known failure.

So what we need to talk about, rather than who should run, is how to improve the culture. Very quickly. Now.

Related to culture, on the Glenn Beck radio show last week, Pat and Stu were discussing “a new poll” about religion and beliefs. I tried, unsuccessfully, to track down exactly which poll—or perhaps a collection. My guess is that the info comes from the Pew Research Foundation, or possibly this Harris Poll (a Nielsen company),but they didn’t say. So I’ll just go with Pat and Stu’s numbers.

First they were talking about what American people believe:

·         62% of Americans believe in Satan and hell; 75% believe in heaven.

·         42% believe in evolution.

·         82% believe in God; 8% don’t believe in God; 10% are unsure.

·         79% believe in miracles; 74% believe in angels.

·         41% believe in ghosts; 35% believe in UFOs; 31% believe in witches.

·         74% believe Jesus is the Son of God; 72% believe Jesus was resurrected; 60% accept as truth the virgin birth.

·         25% generally attend church weekly.

So far it’s just interesting. We Americans still have a pretty strong belief in God, especially compared to other countries. But if you measure dedication to belief by attendance, one in four is not that good. That’s certainly down from my childhood. (My childhood home, Utah, still has the highest attendance of 74% attending weekly—the highest in the US.)

Then Pat and Stu started talking about a specific surprising shift in belief. I’ll let their transcript tell the story:

Stu: Right now adults now support "same-sex marriage" by 54-38%; a 16-point margin now support "gay marriage." For more than a decade only about a third of Americans supported the idea, ranging from 27% in 1996 to 35% in 2009. So in 2009 it was 35%, and today it’s 54%. A 19-point move in that type of topic is incredibly fast. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen anything like it, to be perfectly honest with you. In 2011 it was the first time it crossed over the plurality level, and 2013 was the majority. Now we’re at 54%.

Listen to these numbers, though, broken down by age category. Those 60 and older oppose "gay marriage" 50-39%. They’re the only group now that opposes it.

Pat: Sixty and older.

Stu: Sixty and older, uh huh. [Age group] 45-59 favor "gay marriage" by a percentage of 49-40%. Between the ages of 30 and 44, they favor it 55-38%. So that’s a 17-point margin. But this is where you find—and this is, you know, where democrats are going, you know, because they try the same arguments over and over again. But these are the numbers they’re basing these arguments on: Those aged 18-29 favor "same-sex marriage" 75-18%. Seventy-five to eighteen!

Remember, this is a topic that Karl Rove is known as the architect because of—the idea that he organized a bunch of constitutional amendments on "gay marriage" to get conservatives out to vote, and they voted George W. Bush in for a second term in 2004. That’s the general reason he’s known as the architect, because he thought of that idea. That it was so popular to be opposed to "gay marriage" and to support traditional marriage back in 2004, that it was the thing that motivated people to go to the polls over a presidential election. Now we have a situation where it’s a 16-point margin among all people, and it’s 75-18% for younger people. Pretty amazing….

I mean, that’s just a societal study. You’re kind of seeing how people’s views change. I will say, on "gay marriage," I don’t know that I’ve ever seen something move that fast. 19 in five years is an astounding move for something that has been… You know, it wasn’t like a, you know, an idea no one had ever thought of. This is something that people considered for a really long time. And about a third of people said, “Yeah, there should be 'gay marriage.'” And all of a sudden, 19 points in five years. Interesting.

What else has happened during this five years? A civilization-hating president has been in the white house. Certainly he hasn’t helped, by lying during his campaign about what he wanted to do on this issue (lying about pretty much any issue, if he didn’t want us to make a judgment based on truth) and then going so far in the other direction that people are prosecuted for their beliefs, or forced out of business if they don’t go along with the homosexual agenda.

But it can’t be all just him. The speed of the change is alarming.

Meanwhile, more people are educated on the Constitution and basic human rights than ever before—mostly in the same time frame—about five years since the Tea Party started popping up. Albeit with the mistaken idea that Mitt Romney isn’t conservative enough, but at least making it clear that adhering to the Constitution—which we read and carry with us—is required of anyone we vote for.

If we’re looking for a reason the changes could happen so quickly, I think we have to look at the diversity of the media. We connect with each other instantaneously and widely, where such communication used to take days, weeks, or months, and was much more limited.

This blog is a tiny little example. The Spherical Model think tank is just me, and my computer, and whatever resources I put to use (which include my son Political Sphere, my son Economic Sphere, and my daughter Social Sphere). As obscure as this spot on the internet is, during the past week, it reached people not just in the US, but also in Russia, Ukraine, Taiwan, France, Singapore, South Korea, United Kingdom, Canada, Philippines, China, and New Zealand. If you add beyond this week, there were also significant readers in Turkey, Poland, Lavia…. Thank you, readers, for sharing. I write because I hope that what I have to say can help people seeking freedom, prosperity, and civilization. Such people are kindred spirits, wherever we are in the world.

Elder David A. Bednar
speaks on flooding the earth with positive messages.

David A. Bednar, former BYU-Idaho President, and now an Apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, gave a talk this past week in which he suggested that we flood the world with positive messages. Use the internet for good, for uplifting one another. He said,

"I exhort you to sweep the earth with messages filled with righteousness and truth—messages that are authentic, edifying, and praiseworthy—and literally to sweep the earth as with a flood."

We need to flood the world with truth, in greater quantities than the opposition is flooding the world with lies. On the issue of same-sex “marriage,” for example, the widespread message/lie has been, “It’s discriminating to prevent gays from marrying.” In truth, no homosexual is prevented from marrying, according to the definition we’ve always had; they simply choose not to. They choose instead to force a change in the definition, so that we no longer have what marriage has always been.

What if every time any media source supported “gay marriage,” a clarifying message showed up saying, “homosexuals insist on changing the definition of marriage, so that it no longer includes permanence, exclusivity, nor the sexual act that can lead to procreation, but refers simply to any two people declaring they are currently in some sort of sexual relationship”? What if every time any media source referred to “a ban on gay marriage,” a more accurate reference showed up: “a change in the definition that would throw out the millennia-old definition of marriage and replace it with a new definition that lacks all the known benefits”?

The term “gay marriage” is quicker to say than what is actual. And the term “banning gay marriage” is quicker to say than what is actual. But going with the “quick” and “easy” over and over, in a flood of messages, has led to a change in thinking that is harmful to civilization and to freedom. (More, new, examples another day.)

How do we get out the truth, on this issue and so many others, when the message is harder and longer to say? I don’t know. Twitter might not be enough. And we don’t want to put out contention on Facebook or Pinterest. A blog, like this, at least has a chance of saying the fuller message—to people who choose to seek it.

But we have to get into the minds of young people, and older people, to get the ground ready for re-planting a great tree of civilization.

And, not to put too much pressure on, but a year from now we’ll be deciding who to put forward as president against the anti-civilization crowd currently dominating the media.

Flood! Positive, uplifting, truth! Now! Go!

Preparing the Ground, Part I

When is the best time to plant a tree? Twenty years ago. When is the next best time? Today.

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.

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.

 

Ideology vs. Politics

I am more ideological than political. I recognize that participation in the political world is necessary in order to prevent those with opposing ideologies from imposing them on me. But I do not enjoy the political game. I am much more content to talk about ideas, and I would like to trust that wording things well so that everyone can make informed decisions will lead to the right outcome. That is, in large part, my mission here at the Spherical Model.

Meanwhile, what politically minded people know is that ideology only wins if the politics win—if the movement of public opinion is handled like a well-advertised business. Not enough people are thinkers. Not enough people pay attention. Yes, it’s important that I explore the ideas and think clearly, for my own sake and for sharing with others. But that is not enough.

This is an off-election year, so I don’t feel as pressed to engage politically. But maybe that makes it a good time to explore a discomfort zone without undue pressure.

I came across a discussion of this dichotomy over the weekend. The spelling (and bio of the author, Stephen Masty) show a British or beyond-American perspective, but the conversation applies to America nevertheless. The overall piece makes a few main points:

·        Progressives don’t engage in truthful ideological discussion; instead, they claim a desire to serve mankind and other untruths that sell.

·        Politicians, whether they claim progressive or conservative ideologies, are about building power; that is the profit they seek in their peculiar market-view.

·        Because growth of their circle of power is the goal, cutting back big government isn’t going to get done by politicians.

But the piece ended with the challenge I find I face:

Real conservatives, noble and reflective for the most part, usually debate an idea on its merits and avoid stooping to conquer. They ought to reconsider. It is not to say that conservatives should stop dissecting the misdirections and false hopes of the Progressives, but they must also engage in real-politik and expose the political agendas behind the platitudes; some groups do this already. How the bureaucracy and politicians benefit by department and function and overall, will reveal their greed for their own kinds of profit.

But exposure requires research, which is harder work than sitting in the study with Aristotle, Jefferson and even Russell Kirk. Both tasks are essential; one to provide cultural bearings and civilisational direction, the other to sell the product to a cynical multitude that is already suspicious of politicians.

It might be true, then, that we need to learn or discover ways to “sell” the truths of freedom, free enterprise, and civilization, rather than just “convey” them.

If we were to look at the last presidential election, we’d find this challenge laid out. Romney conveyed conservative ideology—always. He had done so consistently for many years before even his first run. You can’t find non-conservative ideas, unless you parse a phrase here and there during his challenging effort to convey the ideas to people who don’t understand conservative principles. The enemy portrayed him, successfully and completely untruthfully, as privileged and out of touch with real people, to build class envy against someone who knew, through experience, how to fix complicated problems—in business, in government, in volunteer organizations; combining brilliant business sense, strong use of data, and unerring integrity. Everything I knew about Romney before the election, and what I have continued to see since, is that no candidate has ever been better qualified, while also being a completely honorable individual, to be our president in our times. The difference between him and our current president is stunningly stark. [I wrote about Romney here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.]

But on the conservative side, he is still spoken of as the wrong candidate, because he wasn’t conservative enough—according to the arguments of only his enemies (primary opponents, followed by final election opponents) instead of actual known facts about the man.

I don’t think he ran a bad campaign. But I think there may be some truth in the assessment that honorable conservatives go into the debate assuming it’s about ideas. The enemy goes in assuming it’s about grabbing power, any and every way possible, and any means to that end are justified in their minds.

I don’t know the answer to how truth tellers can move the masses. When we look at Reagan, that is what he seemed to

President Ronald Reagan 1981
official portrait

have—an ability to cut through the ideologically leftist-controlled media and speak directly to people in a way that resonated. He was clear. He was direct. He rendered complicated matters uncomplicated: “Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win; they lose.” Diplomats cringed. But the boldness and directness translated into the principle of “peace through strength.” Using bold words was leadership.

I don’t think you’ll find significant ideological differences between Reagan and Romney. I think in Romney you would see peace through strength as a guiding principle, and limited government as designed by the Constitution a guide for economic recovery. Both men can be described as resolute and consistent in their conservatism. But Reagan had power over the message in ways we haven’t seen since.

I don’t know why Reagan had power over the message. I believe there are many today who articulate the message well, and often with similar plainness and boldness. It is the selling of the ideas to the masses that I fail to understand.

I don’t think we’ll find a candidate more perfect than Romney was. A more experienced and better human being is unlikely to appear again in a generation. So what we will need is someone conservative enough, resolute enough, articulate enough—surrounding by an army of people who not only understand and believe in ideological truth, but also know how to connect that truth to an attention deficit public. We need honorable idea salesmen.

Living Core Values

A new issue of my alumni magazine arrived a week or so ago, and I’ve been reading the articles. One featured piece is a reprint of a speech given there by Mitt Romney in April 1999, at the business school convocation. Brigham Young University is also my alma mater: Romney graduated with a BA in English in 1971; I graduated with a BA in English in 1980. English, at least back then, was a major often used as a base for going on to law school. It trained a student in thinking and communicating.

Romney family
photo from here

After BYU, Romney went on to earn law and MBA degrees from Harvard. By the time he gave this speech, he had experienced quite a lot of success in the business world—even though it was before he rescued the Winter Olympics, and rescued Massachusetts from overwhelming debt as their governor, and before either run for president.

For those who didn’t know who Romney was while he was running (or came to know him late in the process), I thought this was worth sharing. He talks about success in life, and how you measure it. I offer a few excerpts:

How will it seem to you 20 and 30 and 40 years on? What bases will you have chosen to conquer? What games will you have played? Will your life have been a success?

To be honest, these questions were very troubling to me as I sat where you are sitting today. Virtually every speaker said something to the effect that life’s success was in my control. They quoted authors like Napoleon Hill, who wrote Think and Grow Rich. Success, they said, was up to me—how I prepared and worked, how I thought, how I created and followed a mission statement, or how I put it all together would ensure the success they knew I wanted.

Now, 30 years on, I have come to a very different conclusion. The worldly success stories I have seen result from a blend of factors: yes, the choices you make and control but also the mental equipment you were born with, more than a fair measure of serendipity, and, where He does choose to intervene, the will of our loving Father. I am not convinced that it’s all up to you. Nor do I believe that if you live righteously, your stock will rise in value, you’ll get a promotion, you’ll win an election, or you’ll get your research published.

He tells the story of a cousin who trained for the Olympics but got the flu during the Olympic trials and thus failed to qualify. And another story is of a friend who bounced around from business to business and ended up at eBay with holdings over $1 Billion, which may, looking back, appear to be a planned path. He goes on to say,

There’s an element of unpredictability, of uncertainty, of lottery, if you will, in the world that has been created for us. If you judge your life’s success by the world’s standards, you may be elated or you may be gravely disappointed.

So what standards does this inarguably successful man use for his life? Love, family, service, and devotion. 

A consultant once helped Bain principals identify their core values. He asked them each to think of five or six people they most admired and respected, whether living or historical. Romney listed these:

I chose the Master, Joseph Smith [founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1830, Romney’s religion, and mine], Abraham Lincoln, and my mother, father, and wife.

They then had to write down five or six attributes they thought of connected to each person. And the result was to show that, whatever they listed most frequently would identify their core values.

If they did not live in integrity with their core values, they would experience stress, ill health, and regret. But if they did live in harmony with these identified values, they would experience what they would eventually identify as success and fulfillment. The Bain leaders, it turned out, shared core values already, but had not all identified them. So they went from seeming to work at odds to working in a united direction—which incidentally led to company success.

But the good thing was that success in living according to these values did not depend on others—others’ opinions, others’ votes, others’ willingness to offer opportunities. Romney says it’s more about successful living, rather than financial or worldly determined success. Examples:

On my father’s 80^th birthday, I asked him what had brought him the most satisfaction in his life, what his greatest accomplishment was. He had been a three-term governor, United States Cabinet member, presidential candidate, CEO, multimillionaire, and prominent Church leader. His answer was immediate: “My relationship with your mother and with my children and grandchildren is my greatest accomplishment and satisfaction.”

Golda Meir, prime minister of Israel, voiced the same truth in an interview on the Today Show. She explained that being a mother was her life’s greatest accomplishment.

Both lived a life of fulfillment and success, not because of their worldly endeavors but in spite of them. They lived in harmony with values unaffected by the vagaries of markets or elections or praise.

He warns that living with integrity to your core values will be challenging. The world will seem at cross purposes.

Unless you purposefully hold fast to living first by your innermost values, … you will read too much into your worldly successes and, perhaps just as dangerously, read too much into your worldly setbacks.

Romney suggests that if you focus on the right things, you can actually control your success:

It is empowering, invigorating, and emancipating to live for the success you can control yourself, to live for your most deeply seated values and convictions.

This next anecdote about his father, told, remember, in 1999, is interesting to read at this point in history:

young Mitt Romney with his father, George Romney
photo from here

I remember my father’s reaction in 1964 when running for governor. [Romney didn’t actually run for President until 1968, briefly, but in 1964 he worked in the primaries against Goldwater, whose views on civil rights were a point of friction, among others.] President Johnson had swamped Goldwater, and my dad’s pollsters confidently predicted that he’d be pulled under [in his gubernatorial campaign] by the Democratic landslide. I was devastated. What would my friends at school think? My dad would be a loser. I looked at him. He looked calm—even relieved. Winning or losing wasn’t what was important, he told me. He had done what he felt was right by running in the first place and by speaking out on issues he cared about. The people’s votes didn’t affect that. [He was reelected as governor in a Democrat state, against the odds.]

If there is one thing verified by everyone who has known Mitt Romney over time, it is that he lives his values. He loves his wife and family. He serves whenever and wherever he sees the need—not just the easy way by donating money, but by giving his personal time and attention. And he seems to gain energy the more he serves. And tied with that is his devotion to God, which is evidenced in how he lives his religion.

The presidential run was not a personal failure. He did what he believed God was asking him to do; that was what he had control of. That was what he cared about. And what next? Enjoying his family. Serving where he sees the need. Offering help to our nation where it can be given.

It is my opinion that we have not had such a good man—brilliant, well prepared for the challenges we face, but also generous, giving, and devoted to God—run for US President since possibly George Washington.

Rush Limbaugh gave a similar opinion last week, and then pointed out that the media managed to take this sterling character and portray him as uncaring, out of touch with regular Americans, and lacking in the basic values most of us share. It took lies, repeated lies, and exclusion of truth to create that negative image. Discussion of this media malpractice can come another day, but let me repeat this verse:

Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!—Isaiah 5:20

And then let me point out that valuing love within family, generously offering service, and turning to God for direction are civilizing principles. We have very little control over what the world (or even other voters in our own nation) will do. But we can control what we personally do. As Joshua of old said, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15).