Tradition vs. Progress

Traditions can be good or bad. Progress is typically called good, but when it’s misapplied to what is actually regression, it’s bad.

Progressivism needs some definition, because the word progress in it is misapplied. In short, it’s the version of socialism adopted by Woodrow Wilson, both Roosevelts, Hillary Clinton, and many of today’s socialists who know better than to use the word socialism, which has provably failed everywhere it has been implemented.

There’s a connection to Darwinism in progressivism; it posits that culture always moves in a forward direction, ever closer to perfection. This assumption ignores some rather huge examples to the contrary like the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Or the disappearance of Mayan culture. Or Detroit, Michigan.

Progress requires going in the right direction. And there’s no way to know if a direction is right when everything being tried is supposed to be new, untried, and ignorant of history.

The Imaginative Conservative had a piece by Joseph Pearce that describes the type of bigotry that is progressivism:

If, for example, we were to visit a village in a remote corner of Africa and were to witness children playing with crudely crafted toys and presumed from our observations that these Africans must be inferior to Americans because American children have iPods and smart-phones we would rightly be accused of racism. Yet this is exactly what “progressivists” do when observing cultures separated by time instead of space. The past is deemed to be inferior and can be treated with scorn or, which is perhaps worse, with patronising condescension.

Pearce goes on to imagine what an experience Plato would have visiting our time. He would take a couple of days to master some of the technology and dress. And then it wouldn’t take long to notice some modern failures:

Plato
image from here

The Philosopher would soon come to the inescapable conclusion that this strange race of “progressives” were in fact barbarians who adorned themselves with the baubles of technology but had no concept whatever of the meaning of life or the nature of reality. Feeling his exile from civilization intensely he would long for the profundities of the Lyceum.

In contrast, when we honor those who have gone before, and stand upon what they have learned, then we have actual social progress. That’s what we enjoy when we cover most of the math and science we get before college—and much of what we study in college as well. We don’t have to start from scratch. Pythagoras did some of the work. And Euclid. And Newton.

Pearce quotes the wise G. K. Chesterton on the value of tradition:

Tradition may be defined as the extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition.[i]

Traditions can be changed—when we learn something previously unknown and provably true. But throwing out truth because it’s old is foolish and ignorant.

This concept of tradition reminds me of the word conservative, which is another word that can be either good or bad, depending on what you’re conserving. If we’re conserving a dysfunctional status quo out of fear of change, then being conservative may be a bad thing.

But when we conservatives talk about what we conserve, we’re talking about preserving—or often in our day restoring—freedom, prosperity, and civilization. (I wrote about what we conserve in October and February.)

In the political sphere, we need a representative government strictly limited to its proper role of protecting our life, liberty, and property. Government doesn’t grant our rights; those come from God. And good government protects and guarantees our God-given rights. Among these are freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, the right to armed self-defense, freedom to work and engage in commerce, freedom from illegal searches and seizures, and freedom to see to the education and upbringing of our own children.

We have a US Constitution designed to protect our God-given rights. If we conserve/restore our Constitution, we get more political freedom than most of the world’s historic and present-day cultures have ever known.

In the economic sphere, we need a system that allows us to work and earn wealth, and then decide for ourselves how to spend it. Government doesn’t make the economy work. We need government to safeguard property (including intellectual property, such as with patents and copyrights), protect against monopoly, standardize money for ease of exchange, and otherwise get out of the way of the free market.

Government ought to have nothing to do with charity, since government isn’t capable of emotional care and can only coerce, by forcibly taking from some and giving to others—what we call theft, which the people empowering the government have no power to grant.

Of course, since the poor are always with us, we do need a way to care for the truly needy. But it must be voluntary. So people who are prosperous enough must willingly give to those in need.

We have had the best economy in the world. If we conserve/restore our free market, we return to prosperity.

In the social sphere, we conserve some very old ideas, hearkening back at least to the Ten Commandments. In summary, we need a critical mass of righteous people—people who love and honor God, family, life, truth, and property.

We’re not going to “progress” to a better way to raise children than under the care of their own married mother and father.

We’re not going to “progress” to a better way to distribute wealth than the right to our earned property combined with an ethic of charitable giving.

We’re not going to “progress” to a better way to decide when life is worth preserving than gratefully valuing all human life and leaving God to decide when death should come. Abortion—which kills more black babies than are born, as designed by the eugenics movement—is savage. Killing the aged, infirm, or burdensome is callous. Any time we decide some innocent lives are inferior, we’ve fallen out of civilization into savagery.

Progressivism doesn’t lead to progress; the name itself is a lie. Tradition, on the other hand, may be worth conserving. The default, when we don’t know, ought to be keeping the tradition. When we have the principles to measure whether traditions lead to freedom, prosperity, and civilization, such as with our US Constitution, we can wisely choose to conserve.

---

[i] G. K. Chesterton, Collected Works, Vol. 1, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, p. 251.

What We Conserve

There’s a question I’d like to ask candidates—presidential candidates have our attention now, but it’s a question for anyone who asks to be allowed to lead us. I’d like to ask: Are you conservative—and, if so, what is it you want to conserve?

Any typical conservative is likely to say, “Yes, I’m conservative.” They may even believe they’re conservative. So what we need is how they define it.

The GOP Presidential Candidates, including
Perry and Walker, who have withdrawn from the race
Image found here

In the Spherical Model, what we want to conserve—or, in large part, to restore—is freedom, prosperity, and civilization. Let’s look at the specifics of what is conserved in each of these spheres.

Political Sphere

We want to conserve our freedom to live our lives, free from oppression. Government serves that purpose only if it is limited to the specific tasks the people ask of it. Otherwise government becomes the oppressor.

Our founding documents give us some specifics. The Declaration of Independence summarizes freedom this way:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

So our life is protected, our freedom from coercion or slavery is protected, and our choice to pursue a livelihood or live our lives as we see fit. This last includes our right to own property and protect it.

The Constitution outlines a government that would offer these protections. The Preamble lists this limited government’s purpose:

We the People of the United States,

·         in Order to form a more perfect Union,

·         establish Justice,

·         insure domestic Tranquility,

·         provide for the common defence,

·         promote the general Welfare,

·         and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The body of the Constitution spells out how a government can go about these limited duties. But the founders believed it was necessary to spell out some of the God-given rights in the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments, in case there came a time when they weren’t quite so self-evident. Here are a few of the rights government is particularly denied the ability to abridge, because in their experience other countries regularly denied these rights:

·         Right of freedom of religion

·         Right of free speech

·         Right to peaceably assemble

·         Right to petition government from redress (sue the government)

·         Right to bear arms

·         Right to freedom from coercion to quarter soldiers

·         Right to freedom from illegal searches and seizures

·         Right to refuse to incriminate oneself, and to be free from double jeopardy

·         Right to life, liberty, and property except following due process of law

·         Right to just compensation for private property taken for public use

·         Right to a speedy, public trial by impartial jury

·         Right to freedom from excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment

·         Rights enumerated to government are still retained by the people

·         Rights not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the States or to the people

If we’re going to conserve our liberties, that means government does nothing to infringe on our God-given rights. So government has no business involving itself in what we believe or what we say, with the specific exceptions of when something we do infringes on the God-given rights of others. What we need is to conserve our Constitution, in its real form, not some penumbras invented by unelected judges.

When these government powers are translated into current issues, the government should be seeing to the strength of our sovereignty, the security of our borders, the limitation of immigration to those who will contribute to our society and adopt our beliefs in freedom. Our military should be strong, to protect us and our interests, in a world in which enemies would rejoice in our ruination, and would gladly use nuclear weaponry and terrorism for our destruction.

If you’re listening to candidates, see if they have a commitment to conserving/restoring our Constitution, and can enumerate some of these limited duties of the proper role of government.

Economic Sphere

There’s a simple way to prosperity: those who earn wealth get to decide how to spend it.

Government doesn’t have much business being involved in the economy, except to protect our property. Government duties do require some money. For the first century and a half, that didn’t require any income tax. At first, doing all government needed to do took $20 per person (modern dollars). And during war time, only a few hundred a year. If the federal government did only what it is granted enumerated powers to do, a flat rate of 10% would probably be far beyond adequate.

Every dollar government spends is a societal expense. Government can’t spend more money to help the economy. When we have downturns in the economy, and everyone says government has to do something—that something should be to get out of the way and let the recovery happen.

The budget should primarily consist of military budget and FBI and other federal law enforcement. Infrastructure is arguably a federal duty, so there could be some budget for roads, dams, bridges, etc. Government offices and staffing could be much much smaller than current levels. And, after my recent visit to Washington, DC, I’m not against maintaining our national monuments and museums.

Charity isn’t a duty of government; charity isn’t even possible by government. Government charity is better labeled coercive taking of income from some to give to others—or theft. Charity includes various helps for the poor: welfare food and housing, health care, student grants, social security, and more.

Conservatives don’t mean for these helps to be eliminated. But in a civilized society, those in need receive help mainly locally, by those in contact with them, such as churches and local nonprofits, from those who freely give. Charity means love; it is entirely unrelated to forced income redistribution. If there is one thing conservatives need to speak more clearly on, it is this better way to help those in need. Our way is better for giver and receiver, and leads to greater prosperity, rather than more poverty at the cost of lost freedom.

So, a conservative not only wants small, limited government, but limits spending to the proper role of government, leaving the largest portion of income to the people who earn it.

This conservative approach to the economy is the engine behind thriving prosperity and unlimited innovation. A conservative gets out of the way of a productive people, and does nothing more than protect the people’s wealth and their freedom to pursue their work.

Social Sphere—Civilization

Elected officials have power mainly over the political and economic spheres, but there is also important work they can do in the social sphere—if they understand what civilization requires, and they live those principles in their own life.

Civilization requires a people accountable to God. Such people value family, innocent human life, property rights, and truth. Such people respect one another and generally live together in peace despite differences in belief and culture.

It’s possible to live in a civilized society without believing in God, as long as a person values the same things as the typical religious person. But civilization (my definition) can’t grow and thrive without a critical mass that sees the source of our rights as God, and sees our obligation to live God’s laws. It’s great if non-believing individuals choose to live good, civilized lives. But depending on their gut feeling as to what is right is precarious at best. The authority has to be something bigger than the changeable individual. It has to be the arbiter of Ultimate Good. God is the only source for that.

So, it’s possible, at some levels, for civilized but unbelieving persons to be electable. But at the national level, electing such a person is a bad idea. Electing someone based on their particular religious affiliation or claim to religiosity is also unwise. What we need to see is a person who turns to God for direction, daily and regularly, and knows what inspiration looks like when finding answers to serious questions. And we need a person whose life shows us their consistency in valuing family, life, property, and truth. We need a person with integrity.

A religious person missing other ingredients is better than a nonreligious person missing the other things. But it’s better to have a religious person who understands how religious values lead to Constitutional principles and economic freedom.

A civilized religious person knows government should not be interfering with fit parents’ decisions about the care, education, and upbringing of their children. Such a person would value adoption for children born to unwed parents—exclusively placing those children in the homes of married mother and father, because every child is entitled to a married mother and father. Such a person sees no role for the federal government in education beyond providing a resource for new and proven ideas, and providing government documentation for history. Even state and local officials must recognize the parents’ supreme role in decisions about their child.

Family is formed when a man and woman are lawfully married, with a permanent covenant, so that children that come because of the union are raised by their parents. There is nothing better economically and socially, in the aggregate, for children. A good leader recognizes this basic truth, and doesn’t yield to media, propaganda, and pressure from the savage end of society.

A conservative leader recognizes that religion is not just a tolerated quirk of some minority of the population; religion is an essential institution helping us understand what our rights are, and what our obligations to one another are. The question about forcing Little Sisters of the Poor, or Hobby Lobby, or bakers, florists, and photographers to act against their conscience would disappear, if our leaders appreciated the religious view of family, life, property, and truth.

A conservative leader lives a life that shows commitment to family. Such a leader would have no sexual scandals coming up from the near or distant past. Such leaders would be so consistent that all those who know him/her would stand up to defend against such an accusation, because they would know such an accusation is inconceivable.

A conservative leader gives charitably, privately. He/she tithes (ten percent of income) plus more, regardless of income level.

A conservative leader is honest and consistent, so that his word is his bond, and everybody knows it. He doesn’t make behind-the-scenes deals in darkness. He doesn’t engage in crony capitalism, either receiving “bribes” or offering them. He’s not beholden to donors; anyone who would donate to him does it with the clear knowledge that as an elected official he will vote based on principle.

So, the answer to what we conserve ought to include clear evidence of understanding of the Constitution and its purpose, strong commitment to the free market and property rights, and strong personal religious practice that values family and marriage, innocent life, and truth. And the answer must come naturally, as part of the basic vocabulary, because the person is a natural conservator of freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

It’s a high bar. No presidential Democrat candidate meets it. Several Republican candidates fail. I’m looking at the others, and praying for the best we can possibly get. Because that is who we need more than ever.

Trump's Agenda

Guest post by Political Sphere

Buck Sexton, a Blaze radio personality, recently held a # TeamBuckPoll to gain an understanding of how his listeners viewed Trump. He offered 5 options: (a) I would vote for Trump, no question; (b) Thinking about it, we will see; (c) Not my guy, but happy he is in the race; (d) He is a clown, I wish he would go away; or (e) I have my own take on this. The rough results were that somewhere between 35-40% of his listeners answered c, with the remainder split about equally between all of the other answers.

My answer is e. The reality is that Trump is worse than a clown, and it is dangerous to continue to have him in the race, either the primary or the general election.

Everyone needs to ask why Trump would run. Trump touts the slogan that he is running to “make America great again.”  Trump explained himself, in the first Republican debate claiming he is able to get whatever he wants by making campaign donations. For example, he required the Clintons to attend his daughter’s wedding. So Trump would be much more able to “make America great again” if he would cease to run. If Trump were to remain outside of the White House, he could continue to “buy and sell politicians,” giving him significantly greater power over the direction of the country.

But he must have some motivation for running. My speculation is that the Tea Party-style candidates, such as Ted Cruz and Scott Walker and Rand Paul, refuse to do his bidding. Instead they stick to their values, regardless of how much money is given to their campaign. The only way to stop them, then, would be to ensure that the Tea Party vote is neutralized. Only then would he be able to continue to conduct business as usual, “buying and selling politicians.”

The “straight talk” and “anti-pc” rhetoric are the reasons so many good people do seem to like him, or at least appreciate the fact that he is in the race. Instead, all I see is a caricature of a Tea Party conservative, an SNL skit version of us. I see an elite New York progressive making fun of my beliefs by contorting them.

It’s an act. A few examples:

At his presidential announcement, Trump stated “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best, … They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us[sic]. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Most of the illegal immigrants I have met are generally good people. We do not enforce the border laws; thus, just like the speed limit, it is consistently ignored even by good people. Yes, there are plenty of bad people with lots of problems also coming over, and we do need to enforce our borders in order to keep this country’s culture great. However, Trump goes to the extreme, setting up the discussion on the immigration problem as an us v. them thing.

More recently,Trump discussed the situation in Iraq. Trump’s solution boils down to “We take over the oil, which we should have done in the first place.” This assumes that the Iraq war really is and always was a “war for oil,” just as liberal progressives have always believed. Yes, ISIS has managed to take some of the oil fields in Iraq, but the vast majority of Iraqi oil remains out of the reach of ISIS, in the southeast of Iraq, closer to Basra, and in the Kurdish controlled area in the northeast of Iraq.

Finally, at the debate, Trump was unable to explain why and when he became a Republican, a conservative. Trump was willing to say that he went to the Republican convention in 1988. But that was after the improvement during the previous eight years under Reagan, when only the most die hard blue dog Democrats were willing to remain in the Democratic Party and back Dukakis. So, while he was nominally a Republican briefly, Trump left the Republican Party in 1999, considering a run as the candidate for the Reform Party, with positions trending more toward the political left, but ultimately switching to the Democrat Party. Trump did not switch back until 2011, in time to consider a presidential bid as a Republican at that time. It seems that he is merely an opportunist, not a conservative.

A Picture of the house Trump sought to take through
eminent domain. Picture from The Daily Mail.

Trump’s progressivism is further borne out by the one issue he remains consistent on: eminent domain. Trump has repeatedly used eminent domain to develop his own projects. The article I link to describes how Trump used eminent domain in Atlantic City to try evicting an elderly woman from her home of 30 years, just so he could have a new parking lot for limousines. It also describes how Trump tried to take a storefront, that Russian immigrants had just purchased for $500,000 to start a pawn shop, for a fraction of its value: $174,000. When Kelo v. New London, 545 US 469 (2005) was decided, Trump did not denounce it, like many on both the right and left. Instead Trump explained that he believed it was not only a legally correct decision, but that it was good that the government could take property from some private owners to transfer to well connected developers. This is the crony capitalism that the Tea Party denounces, backed by the candidate currently leading in the polls.

Even if I am wrong, and Trump is completely honest in his beliefs and has truly become a conservative, I personally would still much rather have most of the other candidates, who can not only spout off the political positions that we conservatives want to hear, but can even communicate the rationale behind those positions and the flaws in the progressive position.

I am not convinced that Trump can present logical reasoning that will ensure that he will make the correct decision regardless of what issues plague this country after the election is over. I could not vote for him if he were the candidate in the general election and do not believe he benefits the party in any way by being in the race.

Texas Talk--Part I

This past weekend I was a delegate at the Texas State Republican Convention. It’s not a presidential year, so it might seem more low key then in those other years. Still, there’s some good conservative stuff being said.

There are more delegates at the Texas convention than at the national GOP convention. And there’s a much higher percentage of those that are conservative or very conservative. So, it’s safe to say this is the biggest gathering of conservatives participating in the government process anywhere in the world.

convention logo, from up on the big screen

Texans are plain spoken. In-your-face bold. And sometimes colorful with the metaphors. I’ve developed a taste for the Texas sound. (I’ve been imitating the sound pretty well since our pre-Texas years, when we started reading Hank the Cowdog books aloud.) One of the most Texas sounding was Sid Miller, candidate for Agriculture Commissioner. He always has his cowboy hat on. If I’m remembering his bio accurately, he’s a former rodeo champion. In his speech, he said the greatest threat to freedom is the overreaching federal government: “Standing up to the EPA, BLM, or any of those other dirty three-letter organizations” is what we’re about.

I think there’s a good chance we heard from the next US President during this convention. I’m not that good at prognostication, and no one has announced a candidacy yet, but some speeches sounded like the preliminaries.

There was a straw poll—and a change in the rules, so that two years from now our straw poll will have an effect on how the at-large delegates will be directed to vote. For now it was just for fun.

I hadn’t done a lot of thinking about Ted Cruz as a candidate for president. He’s a first-term senator, doing a stellar job there (no voting present). We’ve elected a first-term senator before, and his lack of experience is becoming more evident as he fails to learn on the job.

early purchase, in case I need it later

Ted Cruz had a lot of good experience before becoming a senator, but I do think governors are a more typical source of executive material, as a rule of thumb. But clearly other Texans have their hopes set on him. And I have to say, if he runs, I would be glad—and very supportive. (I bought myself a political button, just before they ran out, in case I need it later.)

He sounds like he just might run, although no mention of the possibility came up in his speech. I thought I’d share some highlights here, for those who didn’t get to be there. Ted Cruz, by the way, sounds like a thinking lawyer, fully capable of supporting his ideas before the Supreme Court—which he has done. He doesn’t have much of an accent, and he dresses in conservative suits and white shirts and ties. Still, he speaks very boldly, in that Texas way—and he wears cowboy boots with his suits.

Sen. Ted Cruz, wearing boots,
speaking without notes or teleprompter

His first words were, “I spent all week in Washington, DC; it’s great to be back in America.”

The speech was divided into three main parts, with some extended comments on each. Part I was Defend the Constitution. He quoted Thomas Jefferson: “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Cruz said we should defend all of the Bill of Rights.

Of the Second Amendment he offered this Texas perspective: “In Texas, gun control means hitting what you aim at.”

Of the First Amendment, he referred to the litigation against Little Sisters of the Poor, in which the federal government claims it has a right and overriding interest in forcing nuns to pay for abortions of others. Ted Cruz offers a “simple rule of thumb—if you’re litigating against nuns, you’re doing something wrong.”

When referring to privacy, as in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, he said, “Please leave your cell phones on today—we want Obama to hear every word we say.”

Part II was Restore America to Leadership in the World. He talked of the dangerous vacuum created when America fails to lead. Two week ago he was in Israel and visited with Natan Sharansky, who had been in a Russian gulag near the end of the Cold War. He and fellow prisoners used to pass along Reagan’s words, when he called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” When he gave his simple plan: “We win. They lose.” When he stood at the Brandenburg Gate and said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” This was immediately after the ineffectual administration of Jimmy Carter. Ted Cruz was pointing out how quickly things can turn around when you change from malaise to bold leadership.

He reminded us that, when Iran appointed a terrorist as their ambassador, he put forth legislation to bar that man from entry into the country. It passed the Senate 100-0. It passed 435-0 in the House. Then, under that kind of pressure, Obama signed it. Some things need to be acted on, and Ted Cruz is willing to do that. As he put it, in his colorful way, “We will no longer play footsie with the mullahs of Iran.”

Cruz called for rescue of Christian prisoners, such as Pastor Saeed Abedini, imprisoned in Iran for professing his Christian faith; and Miriam Ibrahim, a lifelong Christian woman married to an American citizen, being held in Sudan for the crime of “converting” to Christianity from Islam, punishable by death. Cruz says, “Where is the president of the United States? Why isn’t he standing up on the world stage and calling for her return?  Bring our Americans home.”

Raphael Cruz, father of Sen. Ted Cruz

Part III was Bring Back Jobs and Economic Growth. He said, “For five years we’ve been trapped in the Great Stagnation.” [I love that phrase and plan to use it hereafter.] And those who struggle the most are the ones most hurt by it. How do we turn that around? Get back to free-market principles. Specifically, “Unleash an energy renaissance.” “Audit the Federal Reserve.” “Abolish the IRS.” And “Repeal every blessed word of Obamacare.” I think the word blessed in that context was not meant to imply those words are holy, but rather the opposite.

I got to hear his father, Pastor Raphael Cruz, earlier, in my Senate District caucus meeting, and he’s an impressive speaker as well. Ted Cruz quoted his father, who fled communist Cuba 57 years ago: “I lost my freedom once, and I’ll die before it happens again.” Ted Cruz imagined a time when our children or grandchildren could ask, “What was it like, when there was freedom?” We never want to have to answer that question. We together claim freedom. 

 

There’s plenty more to share from the convention. Wish you could have been there.

I think I’ll need another day to share highlights from some of the better speeches: Rand Paul, candidate for Texas Governor Greg Abbott, candidate for Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, and others. And there’s a whole discussion about the business of getting a party platform, which is probably worth its own post. Somewhere in the middle of this series comes Father’s Day, so we’ll have to just patiently get it all covered. So come back for eventual parts II and III.

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.