The most frightening thing about Mitt Romney rising to the presidency isn’t that he’s a cynical manipulator who would say anything to get elected. It’s that he needs the approval of the audience he’s in front of.
1. The why of the lie.
For example, Romney often repeats a line criticizing Barack Obama for making an apology-tour of the world on behalf of America. Romney's claim that Obama made an apology tour has been debunked. Non-partisan Politifact.com gives that claim its lowest rating: "Pants-on-fire". Certainly, Romney is aware of this, and he or his campaign managers have had plenty of time to look at Politifact’s analysis. But Romney keeps on making that claim.
What if he repeats this lie not because he’s cynical and manipulative? What if, like conservative David Brooks recently said, he’s other-directed? That would mean that he loves the roar of approval he hears when he makes that claim, and he loves it so much that he can’t stop repeating that falsehood.
So – the man who would lead the free world is captivated by the crowd.
So – a man with no core is seeking the ultimate approval: selection to the most powerful position a mortal can hold.
2. Obama’s core.
Say what you will about Obama: he takes chances. When intelligence sources told him that Osama bin Laden was concealed in a Pakistani compound, Obama could have razed this compound with a cruise missile. That would have ended bin Laden, but it would have started uncertainty: did we get the right guy? The debate would have been endless and world-wide.
What Obama did was riskier. Ever since the Somalian Blackhawk-Down episode (and before that, the aborted mission to rescue the Iranian hostages), everyone has known that special-ops penetrations deep into enemy territory are risky. If the bin Laden mission had gone butt-up, and it easily could have, Obama’s presidency would have been crippled. But Obama pulled the trigger.
Likewise with the Affordable Care Act (so-called "Obamacare"). In the natural pace of Supreme Court decision-making, that case would be decided safely after the November election. But then, a new party might be in the White House, and that new party might abandon the appeal; and away would go the Affordable Care Act.
By requesting an expedited Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act, Obama risks an embarrassing reversal ahead of November. But he ensures that he controls the execution of that litigation. That’s strategic risk taking.
Obama is not ideal in this regard. But he is leagues ahead of Romney.
3. Romney the people-pleaser.
If Romney has been tested like Obama has been tested, I’m not aware of it.
But Romney’s record does not provoke confidence in his emotional independence or reveal convictions set upon a rock. Running for office in Massachusetts, Romney touted himself as pro-choice. Running for office in Massachusetts, Romney characterized himself as a political moderate. Running now for the Republican nomination for presdent, Romney is pro-life and "severely conservative". Romney is what he needs to be to please the people he appeals to.
4. Style over substance.
Not long ago, Romney was getting killed in debates by the Newt Gingrich, the Edward Scissorhands of debate knife-fighting. To his credit, Romney hunkered down and turned the tables. But his method of turning the tables reveals much. He did not look into himself to find his core and argue passionately from those core convictions. He hired a clever debate coach.
5. Romney lacks a core.
If Romney lacks inner conviction, if he floats on the approval of crowds, what inner strength would he draw upon fight his way through a blizzard of national crisis?
I don’t foresee risk-taking in a Romney administration. A people-pleaser like Romney is risk-adverse and popularity-eager. That would be a problem for America. A domestic emergency or an international crisis might arise, and the way through might not be clear. But certainly the solution would not come from pandering and pleasing.
6. Talent is an insufficient.
Years ago, I attended Pasadena Presbyterian Church. We were hiring a professional singer for the choir. It came down to a sing-off between two candidates during a church-service. The first singer was amazingly talented. Her singing skills were magnificent. The second singer, not so much. But if the decision had been up to me, I would have chosen the second singer. The first singer had more talent and greater range. But the second singer – when she sang Amazing Grace, I felt moved in my heart. There’s more than talent that makes the world turn.
Slick and smooth and smart will get you far in this world. It has gotten Mitt Romney riches and honors.
But a president is not a CEO. A president might have to make a decision without knowing whether it will turn out for good or bad. Sometimes he or she has to take a profound risk upon which his or her presidency and the future of our nation might rise or fall. That takes amazing courage.
And when that time comes, we cannot have a decision-maker who’s great fret is for the favor of the crowd.
No comments:
Post a Comment