Mitt Romney? Wine not.

No, there isn’t a typo in the title to this post. I didn’t mean to type, “Mitt Romney? Why not?”

Actually, some might suggest there are two typos: wine instead of why, and a period instead of a question mark. No…the title is an accurate reflection of my intention and therefore contains no typos.

I meant the title to be understood this way:

“Mitt Romney for President? Why not? Because he believes in ‘wine not’ – that is ‘no wine for me.’”

May, 1968, France

Mitt Romney served as a Mormon missionary in France for 30 months. The fateful month of May in 1968 was toward the end of that stay. My readings of Romney’s time in France brought to mind two questions:

·       How could anyone live in France for 30 months without drinking a glass of wine with a Frenchman?

·       How could anyone live in France for 30 months, which culminated in the infamous May 1968 general strike, without being at least somewhat impressed with the anti-authoritarian mood of the protestors?

The French are passionate about their politics, their philosophy, and their wine. And yet, young Mitt Romney managed to spend 30 months there without being influenced by any of those three. As for the first two, there is really no excuse except to say that Romney’s worldview was so hardened into inflexibility, he couldn’t have been moved. And yet he wondered at the time why he had managed to win so few converts to his church. As for the third, the wine – there’s nothing in the Ten Commandments barring alcoholic consumption. In fact, wasn’t Noah (of Noah’s Ark fame) a vintner and wine drinker himself? And yet, Noah found favor with the Lord.

I doubt Mitt Romney had ever gone through an adolescent rebellion stage. That might explain a lot in terms of an oft-repeated accusation: That he’s out of touch with the average man.

On the science of practical conversion

I can see why Romney had problems converting the French to Mormonism. That is, I can see how his personal rigidity got in the way. Nobody wants to be on the receiving end of a one-way conversation. And that’s probably how many of Mitt’s potential converts among the French felt – that he was talking at them instead of to them.

In fact, I have to wonder if Romney had ever made any serious attempt to question his own faith. Did he ever talk to himself? If he did, then he’d have to have realized how strange the Mormon sales pitch would sound to an outsider:

·       “Well, you see, there was this guy named Joseph Smith who claimed an angel told him where a book of golden plates was buried; a book which he translated into English and claimed to be the most perfect book of scripture.”

·       “Well, you see, Mormons originally practiced polygamy which some would see as counter-productive to a fledgling group of religious separatists. I mean, it’s kind of hard to understand how allowing a few men to have many wives (which would mean, many men having no wives at all) would serve to grow our population. Some would see it that way, but I don’t because permission to polygamize was granted as a revelation from God. Just like a mandate to abandon that practice was yet another revelation from that same God.”

The science of practical conversion embraces:

·       A requirement that a believer question his own faith – not necessarily doubt, but question;

·       Enough courage to declare that the closely-held beliefs of your family, friends, and community are fraudulent (should one come to that conclusion); and yet not abandon nor treat them meanly;

·       An ability to interact with others, to the extent of being able to understand their own views;

·       An assessment of “how my religion feels about your religion” – beyond just saying, “Non-believers are going to Hell;”

·       A knack for breaking down complex doctrines into simple, easy-to-understand parts.

That last point brings me to this quote:

QUOTE: Plus, Romney was obsessed with numbers. “My favorite thing to do is to bathe in data,” he says now, “do analysis, reach conclusions, and then find a breakthrough. There is nothing as exciting as that ‘aha!’ moment—seeing something that looks insoluble and finding a way to make it work.”  :UNQUOTE: http://www.american.com/archive/2006/december/mitt-romney/

From this, I can see how Romney failed as a proselytizer.  Religious truths don’t yield their meanings to Statistical Analysts – at least not to those SA’s who insist on only applying the methods of statistical analysis. Some other quality is needed, which Romney seems to lack. It’s that same something that prevented him from seeing how badly people would react to his refusal to make his income tax returns public. It’s that same something that fellow Mormon and GOP rival Jon Huntsman referred to when he said Romney was out-of-touch and unelectable.

As for the science of practical political conversion, Mitt Willard Romney has his work cut out for him. Will he bathe himself in data, trying to figure out why his numbers tanked in South Carolina? Will he himself refrain from attacking Newt Gingrich, knowing that his Super Pacs will do this for him – and quite well, I might add?

Will he, like Herman Cain, start telling people God told him to run for the presidency? In fact, a fair question from a reporter to candidate Romney would be: “Have you ever received any revelations from God? And if so, did He tell you to run for the presidency?”  God gives revelations to the president of the Mormon Church and to lesser personages as well. Surely God would have spoken to Mitt Romney on such an important topic.

Side Note: Let’s assume that God had spoken to Romney on at least this one important topic. A proper response would be: “What or if anything had been spoken by our Lord to me is something I wish to remain only between the two of us.”

Closing thoughts

·       I’m surprised, given Mitt Romney’s lifelong dedication to his church and his twelve years of leadership service as a bishop and “stake” president, that he doesn’t wax more poetically about it.  Instead, he has said precious little of that experience or his precepts.

·       I hope Romney doesn’t stonewall by refusing to discuss religion. That would only confirm how secretive and cultish Mormons are. There are ways to charmingly convey one’s love of faith without coming across as close-mindedly triumphal.

·       Even though some might deride Romney as a numbers cruncher in the mold of Robert McNamara, it’s not too late to change. I believe that if a man has an abundance of talent or has developed himself in one way, that can leave him woefully underdeveloped in others. Romney could explore those other areas. As I said, it’s not too late, and this campaign could well turn out to be what decisively motivates him.

·       Stop being so defensive about RomneyCare. He should claim what was good about that initiative, especially compassion for those less fortunate. But he could also admit how some could see this, in its ObamaCare incarnation, as excessively intrusive of Big Government. But…he should hasten to add that even Big Government has its place – for instance, in the realm of its regulatory function. He could (and should) urge that the health care industry be brought under the scope of the anti-trust laws on our books, which affect all other big businesses.

·       Stop being so defensive about how he earned his fortune or what he pays in taxes – neither of which are in violation of the law. Same goes for that part of his fortune which he keeps in the Cayman Islands.

Concerning that last point, Romney could turn the tables: “If my 15% tax rate bothers people, I personally wouldn’t have any problem paying more – if that’s the kind of change in tax law people want to see. I wouldn’t mind paying more in taxes, since I have successfully lived the American Dream and have exceeded my wildest expectations. But I hope that serious tax reform in this country is based on more than how much I’ve got or what my tax rate is. And I hope no one decides to confiscate the wealth I’ve already earned and paid taxes on – that sword cuts many ways.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Mitt Romney, just like the rest of us to one degree or another, is both a victim and beneficiary of the system we live in. I’ll say this much, though: He seems a lot better behaved than Newt Gingrich and more honest than Barack Obama” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney

Intro: For the 2012 election, the Republicans might end up nominating Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, though not necessarily in that order.

Yes, by all means, write a book:

I was skimming Sarah Palin’s new book and came across two interesting sections. From America by Heart:

Palin relates an anecdote, from our Wild West days, which climaxes in a woman firing a pistol through her hotel room door into a hallway. On the other side was a man who claimed she was in his room. She threatened to shoot. He dared her. She shot but didn’t hit anybody. Sarah didn’t bother to condemn this woman who could have hit an innocent passerby. The shooter didn’t know if there was anyone on the other side of that door, besides that man of course.

So it seems Sarah endorses “shoot first, ask questions later.” Or she just plain doesn’t think about the potential consequences of deadly force. [Not a very good trait in a President.]

The last 10 pages of this book are entitled “Commonsense Constitutional Conservative.” Which is brief and says nothing about any of those 3 C’s. But that’s not the point, I suppose. The point is to use buzzwords with no follow through.


Sarah/Mitt or Mitt/Sarah?

But the good news is: Sarah Palin is not the overwhelming favorite among the GOP rank-and-file. At this time, Palin, Romney, and Huckabee are pretty much running neck and neck to see who will oppose Obama.

So why do I consider this “good news?” Maybe, just maybe, Sarah might pave the way for Mitt Romney, who might end up offering her the VP slot. In America by Heart, Palin makes heroic efforts to define the US as, since the beginning, a devoutly religious republic. Moreover, she’s obviously trying to spin the 2012 election in terms of moral values and religious sentiment.

I’m not a Romney supporter, by the way. I’m a candidate who will oppose him as an Independent should he be nominated. However, Mitt Romney as GOP standard-bearer will benefit me immensely, which I’ll make clear in a moment. Palin’s book speaks well of Romney and says we don’t need a new political party. That will pretty much invalidate the Tea Party, which I refer to as the National White People’s Party. [You won’t see many Blacks or Latinos at their rallies.]

Of course, Palin will serve the useful function of bringing Tea Party activists into the GOP fold. This will happen when it becomes painfully obvious that TP doesn’t have a platform or a chance – just a litany of complaints. [Just what could it possibly mean to say, “We’re here to take our country back?”]

Sarah will also serve by making Mitt Romney more acceptable to the US Protestant denominations’ more conservative members. These folks harbor deep suspicions about Mormonism, which is Mitt’s lifelong faith. Who knows? Maybe a wink and a smile from Sarah will assure them that Romney’s an okay guy.


What Mitt means to me?

I’ve been looking for a bridge that connects my Buddhist beliefs to Christianity, and I believe Mormonism is that bridge. Consider the following:


QUOTE: "I am going to tell you how God came to be God," declared Joseph Smith [founder of the Mormon faith] in his "King Follett Discourse" of 1844..."God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man...If you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form [What color, asks Steven Searle?]...We have imagined and supposed God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea..." ... fifth president of Latter Day Saints Church Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God once was. As God is, man might be." UNQUOTE*.


Ah, those last two sentences: “As man is, God once was. As God is, man might be.”

My personal belief: What Westerners call “God” is actually one of untold trillions of Bodhisattvas (inferior to many, superior to some), who practice Buddhism with the goal of becoming fully enlightened Buddhas. That’s right: I’m saying God is less than a Buddha (of which there are also untold trillions, by the way), but He’s working on it. And He’s been working on it for a long time, but He still has a long way to go.

I have reasons for making these claims about God, which I’ll discuss in greater detail as election 2012 draws nearer. But it will be interesting to hear how Mitt Romney deals with “those last two sentences.” He or his handlers might try to dismiss my challenge by saying, “The US Constitution doesn’t allow a litmus test, involving religion, for higher office.”

True enough. However, I will insist based on two grounds:

·       As the great-great-grandson of Parley Pratt, who was one of the original Twelve Apostles of Mormonism, I don’t see how Mitt Romney can stay silent. Especially since he himself had promoted his faith as a missionary in France for 30 months.

·       Even though, of course, there shouldn’t be any “litmus test” for higher office, the American people should be given the opportunity to hear Romney speak on “God was Man, and Man can become God.” They have a right to obtain a sense of how Mitt thinks, as reflected by how he’ll address the implications of this doctrine.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Things are about to get interestinger and interestinger as election 2012 draws ever closer.”

* Footnote: All material above, marked QUOTE/UNQUOTE, came from Hugh Hewitt's book, A Mormon in the White House?