I, like you, could not escape all the recent furor over the Romney video, but I’d like to direct your attention away from it for a moment. (I’ll bet you also are more than glad to be distracted for a minute, right?)
Because I notice things:
In the reaction it was said again and again that Mitt ‘was just telling them what they wanted to hear‘.
What a crystallization.
For the longest time, Romney has aggressively cloaked what he is really like, inside. There have been warm-hearted looks at his family and his upbringing, some looks into his business dealings, but nothing specific to tell us how he makes decisions, or what he expects to accomplish at the end of each day. Specifics on his budget would have revealed that. Specifics about his changes to taxes would have revealed that. By keeping everything in a general sense, he has been able to hide behind generalities and avoid revealing anything of… specific… value.
But for one moment of revelation, thanks to the video, we got to see what’s inside the suit. And from this view, I saw the willing and uncaring compromise of any message, principle, belief, commitment, or agenda just to tell the present company what they want to hear.
This totally undermines his credibility. He wants us to trust him, but…
Just to remind you of one other thing: according to all the publicity and official biographies, he idealizes his father and his father’s role in Rambler; which was to become known more officially as American Motors after his departure.
However, it’s interesting that Mitt has drawn no attention whatsoever to the brilliant wisdom his father laid upon us in the 1964 Republican Convention:
Dogmatic ideological parties tend to splinter the political and social fabric of a nation, lead to governmental crises and deadlocks, and stymie the compromises so often necessary to preserve freedom and achieve progress.
Now there’s prescience for you, courtesy of George Romney.
Thing is, I wonder if the son is smart enough to take the advice. Maybe so. But would it be quickly discarded because of ‘convenience’?
I’ll leave that for you to consider.