(A sentence I had not anticipated writing since joining the RP blog. But well put, sir.)
Some people like to drive slowly past an accident to see what happened. I hate to admit it, but I’m guilty of this more often than I wish I were. But I don’t want to be someone who drives by a fender bender and slows down to imagine an accident that I wish had happened but didn’t.
I can’t help but feel that’s an appropriate analogy for Mr Romney’s alleged anti-gay bullying behavior. Even if it happened as provocatively as some have reported, I don’t feel the behavior is much more than pubescent pseudo-masculine posing.
Embarrassing? Yes.
Regrettable? Sure.
Like a fender bender. But grounds for revocation of a license to be president, so to speak, 45 years later? I say we should take Michael Steele’s advice and keep driving.
Something to see and note, perhaps, but nothing worth staring at for very long.
It’s amazing what you miss when you turn off the TV or stop reading the newspaper. But, unfortunately, since that’s not what I did this week, I’m stuck like the rest of you trying to put some rational context to an almost fifty year story about a bunch of preppy high school boys in the 1960s doing what all preppy high school boys do—haze the hell out of each other.
And because one of those preppy high school boys is running for president we’re supposed to judge his actions to be more egregious, offensive and disqualifying because this happened in 1965?
If the Washington Post broke the story that five weeks ago Mitt Romney and a bunch of aides wrestled an Obama supporter to the ground and Romney sat on his chest and started cutting his hair off, now that would be something worth reading (and seeing). But since that’s not what happened, this story like the incident itself bears no relevance to the man, his campaign for the presidency or what people think or feel about him (except maybe for a few old preppy high school boys who may think he’s cool—but not quite like “The Fonz”).
Just like the most minor of fender benders that ties your life up in a knot of traffic because someone has to slow down and look—don’t look, don’t even pause. Just keep moving because there’s nothing going on here worth reading about or seeing.
I have read the RP debate with moderate interest for two reasons. First, I don’t care what Romney, Obama, or any other candidate did in high school or grade school. Let’s hope the world finds out less about all our lives in those years.
Secondly, this crazy story makes no sense. Look at Romney, listen to Romney and ask yourself if this guy could beat up or pick on anybody.
I have met Mr. Romney and even spent a small amount of time with him behind the spotlights. His friends would call him kind, gracious, well mannered, and curious. His enemies would call him a weak sissy who is afraid of his own shadow.
As a Marine I would not classify Mitt as a tough kick butt kind of person. I don’t think that is his style. That’s OK, we can’t all be John Wayne.
But seriously, does anyone think this guy ever picked on people? I could see him spreading gossip or something girly like that, but not to throw a punch or intimidate anyone.
The dog-on-the-roof-of-the-car story lost traction when the media discovered that the President had admitted to eating one. Thus, we now confront a story even more remote in time, which strives to raise implications which are certainly far more serious.
Yet, before we venture too far into the subject of how relevant the reported incidents are as a guide to Mitt Romney’s character today, should we not first revisit the threshold question of how deeply the political process should scrutinize a candidate’s personal history? Will those who have stood (often justifiably) aggrieved at attempts to dig into Barack Obama’s past perform an about-face, now that the shoe seems to be on the other foot? I hope not.
It seems as though the media launched this seemingly perpetual cycle back in 1988, when for the first time (at least in my recollection) a presidential campaign imploded under the weight of personal issues. Granted, Gary Hart foolishly challenged the media to “follow him around . . . it will be boring.” I can also recall how Hart’s opponents justified the whole exercise upon as relevant to Hart’s fitness for the presidency, as it supposedly reflected upon his “judgment.”
Fast-forward to the 1991 Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. The poisonous atmosphere that pervades judicial nominations today dates back to the 1987 Bork nomination, which turned not upon personal revelations, but upon positions that Bork had previously articulated. One could argue that Bork’s past writings were drawn out of context and should not have disqualified him for the Supreme Court (to me, serving as the henchman who finally carried out Nixon’s orders to fire Archibald Cox was far more troubling) – but it was hard to argue that those writings were not relevant. In 1991, however – without any other means to stop Thomas’ confirmation – opponents turned to Anita Hill’s sexual harassment allegations. What followed, of course, was a drawn-out media spectacle which amounted to a public trial without discovery, rules of evidence, or any of the other protections which our system supposedly provides to ensure a dispassionate search for the truth.
This show trial even seemed to involve new “law.” While Thomas denied Hill’s accusations in full, some of his supporters suggested a defense of consent – based upon the indefensible notion that just because Hill remained in Thomas’ employment, she had somehow endorsed the alleged behavior. Hill’s supporters responded that an employee-employer situation constitutes a “power relationship” wherein sexual harassment must be implied, regardless of the particular facts and circumstances. Moreover, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee came under attack for showing “insensitivity” toward Professor Hill; this issue played a prominent role in the following year’s Senate campaigns.
Given this backdrop, is President Clinton’s ordeal later that decade surprising in any respect? If we must automatically imply sexual harassment from the mere existence of a “power relationship” between Thomas and Hill, should we not have drawn an even stronger inference from circumstances involving a president and a intern in her 20s? Yet – without any sense of irony regarding what they had unleashed – Thomas’ accusers immediately became Clinton’s defenders. Presumed harassment melted back into “personal indiscretion,” providing a particularly troubling display of the old adage, “where you stand is where you sit.” This time, of course, a public show trial cross-pollinated with actual legal proceedings (the Paula Jones case).
While Jonathan has articulated a very principled, even-handed argument with which I agree in most all respects, I do take exception to one aspect of his position. In our legal system, entire lives can turn upon the weight of false testimony. Accordingly, perjury is never appropriate or acceptable. One can argue very persuasively that President Clinton’s false deposition testimony should have been addressed – if at all – within the legal system instead of Congress (which would likely have required waiting until the end of his presidency), but re-defining his conduct as merely “lying about personal indiscretions” takes us down a dangerous path. For example, the assumption that people will “naturally lie” about personal matters has transformed domestic relations proceedings in some courts into lawless free-for-alls in which perjury is condoned, if not expected (on the basis that people will “naturally lie” about personal matters).
We seem to live in a society bent upon creating illusions of perfection – not only regarding ourselves, but in connection with the leaders we choose. Seeking to maintain such illusions, we rely upon hyper-technical distinctions and highly-nuanced arguments that have the practical effect of adjusting our standards. It would seem far better to set our standards high and exercise common sense, compassion, and mercy when people fall short. Within the legal context, prosecutorial and judicial discretion exist for this very reason.
Of course, the heat and passion of politics inevitably ensures that the slightest flaw will get wildly blown out of proportion. If we try hard enough, we will find a way to connect that flaw to a candidate’s potential performance in office (in 1992, Ross Perot memorably suggested that Bill Clinton’s alleged infidelity was relevant because if his wife could not trust him, how could we?). Yet, the preservation of “government by the people” – or government by human beings – requires us to accept leaders with all-too-human frailties. Could FDR have passed the medical scrutiny John McCain endured four years ago? What about JFK’s “judgment” in sharing a mistress with mob boss Sam Giancana? Would we elect Lincoln today if we knew about the pervasive depression with which he struggled for most of his adult life? How would today’s political inquisitors handle reports that at the age of twelve, Adlai Stevenson accidentally shot and killed a childhood friend?
The bottom line – we simply cannot know enough about an individual’s private life to place what we learn about the same in the proper perspective. The only reliable information we possess is the public record. Sticking with the latter as we assess potential candidates is therefore not only just; it is sensible and practical.
We interrupt this fascinating and revealing debate with the uber-emotional rantings by this site’s founder.
This debate has torn the scab off two pet peeves that have been the target of some of my most agonized rhetorical fury during my post-political recovery.
First, with due respect to my friend, the Frozen Chosen Mr. Berkowitz — as well as dozens of columnists who’ve weighed in similarly over the past week — I am not persuaded at all that Romney’s reaction to the disclosure of events is troubling. In saying he didn’t remember the incident, I assume he lied. Any good lawyer or political consultant would have advised him to do the same. There was no advantage in him extending the debate by confirming or disputing the story, and no one can prove that he remembered it or not.
I do not think Romney should be blamed for lying about an event that does not deserve punishment today, just as I don’t think Bill Clinton should have been impeached for lying about personal indiscretions, nor that my friend Jeff Smith should have been incarcerated for a year for falling into a perjury trap about a minor campaign finance violation. People lie because they are embarrassed, or because they don’t want to get bad publicity, but if what they lie about is not actionable in itself, I have trouble claiming that the lie is a major offense.
Second, I dispute the notion shared by many of the previous contributors — as well, again, as by many pols and pundits this week — that we can draw some psychological conclusions about Romney’s performance as President based on something he did as a teenager. Of course, if a qualified therapist had Romney on the couch for a year’s worth of weekly sessions, and Romney shared his life story, the therapist could develop some meaningful conclusions about how Romney’s childhood shaped him in the decades that followed. But as any good therapist would tell you, they could not draw the same conclusions simply through reading a series of unrelated press accounts of his six decade life. Indeed, they would tell you: “This is not my patient; it would be irresponsible for me to draw such conclusions.”
This is simply another excuse the press uses to pick apart the dirty laundry in a politician’s private life. This psychobabble does no service to the debate except selling papers and encouraging clicks from readers who love to revel in the misery of the famous, and/or who have been brainwashed by the movies and the media to expect full and consistent narratives about famous people.
And by the way — this particular story matches no narrative of Mitt Romney, the candidate or human being, that I have ever read to date. The dominant narrative — one I have been inclined (brainwashed?) to accept as true — is that he is a politician who would do anything to get elected. In 1994, he was pro-gay in order to run against Ted Kennedy, and stayed pro-gay through his election as Governor of Massachusetts. By 2012 he became anti-gay to appeal to the right wing of his party. My guess he really doesn’t care much about the issue; his sole focus is on getting elected President.
(And even that narrative is unfair. I am sure Romney cares about something — there are some ideas that he would never abandon for political expediency. There simply are no perfectly consistent narratives for us flawed human beings.)
The fact that the 18 year old Romney was an asshole bully sheds no light on anything except the fact that when he was 18, he was an asshole bully. If I were his principal at the time, I would have expelled him and turned over the evidence to authorities to prosecute him for assault.
(Of course, at that time — as well as in my own childhood — incidents like these were quite common and rarely punished severely: “Boys will be boys!” Replace “gay” with “Jew,” and I suffered a similar humiliation on a handful of occasions. Thank God today, society is moving in the direction of treating bullying as the crime that it is.)
However, as I concluded in my introductory post, his stupid, mean, hurtful behavior as a teenager does not disqualify Mitt Romney to be President.
That Mitt Romney bullied a young gay man as a teenager should not, in and of itself, be disqualifying; it happened fifty years ago.
What should be disqualifying is the fact that Romney chased his national security spokesman Richard Grenell out of campaign HQ with a proverbial scissors two weeks ago, when his campaign folded to the pressure of anti-gay social conservatives and told Grenell – a respected foreign policy expert – that Grenell would not be allowed to speak on the record.
And what should be disqualifying is that Romney accepted Grenell’s resignation willingly – “whew, that mini-crisis is over” – instead of having the character to say, “No. I hired you to be our national security spokesman because of your credentials and that hasn’t changed just because a few bigots have a problem with your sexual orientation.”
That lack of character – signs of which some may detect in his role as a Cranbrook ringleader – is why Republicans, independents, and Democrats agree that Romney is one of the least likeable presidential candidates since Nixon.
I’ve been invited to comment and am hesitant because I try to ignore the digging into candidates early lives as evidence of current temperament and clues about leadership style. But I have heard a little about this incident and will try to offer some constructive commentary.
From what I can gather there were several incidents involving a young Mitt Romney, the now-Republican nominee for president, and some pranks that could be interpreted as “insensitive” if not “cruel” to young homosexual males in his class at prep school.
I believe the story goes that Mitt was traveling by car from Massachusetts to Canada and tied a classmate to the roof of the car for the entire 12 hour drive. Presumably it has now leaked out that the reason the boy was tied to the roof of the car wasn’t just because he was a democrat. But because he was gay too.
I find this sort of teen boy prankster mentality offensive and embarrassing but probably not indicative of some deep seated character flaw that Romney possesses. For example, there are other stories—I believe—about Romney routinely traveling with his pet dog attached to the roof of the car. It had nothing to do with the dog’s sexual orientation. Romney simply felt he would sully the interior of the car. I suspect Romney felt the same way about the gay democratic boy.
So, what we see upon closer examination is that Romney wasn’t guilty so much of homophobia but rather a foolish teen prank that was perhaps a harbinger of Mitt’s well documented metrosexual and neatnik inclinations.
Besides, common sense suggests that there really could not have been an anti-gay motive behind young Mitt’s antics. First off the name of the prep school was Cranbrook. That’s a pretty gay name for a high school, if you ask me. And it was an all boy prep school. So clearly, any boy who attended Cranbrook was already either himself homosexual or at least completely comfortable being suspected of being a homosexual. It just doesn’t add up.
Was Mitt an anti-gay bully? Are you kidding? Have you seen this guy? Was he a meticulous metrosexual prankster who feared gay democratic germs being left in his car while he drove to Canada? Probably—and nothing more. And by the way, what was he driving to Canada for anyway? That causes a whole set of other much more serious concerns about Mitt’s fitness for our highest office.
The failure to recollect the incident is astounding. His camp must be glad not to have to deal with a birth certificate question. And an apology as conditional as the one that was offered lacks the requisite sincerity. Short version is that the dubious response to a long ago boyhood incident is revealing about the man who would be president today.
[Click here to follow the entire RP Debate]
