Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Romney on Trump
From the opinion piece in the Washington Post yesterday by the new junior senator from Utah:
To a great degree, a presidency shapes the public character of the nation.
To anyone who would like a small challenge as we all get back to work, here’s a Ricochet essay question: To what extent is Mitt Romney correct? Discuss with reference to what we now know about the private lives of FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Bill Clinton. Feel free to add a comment or two on Richard Nixon and obstruction of justice.
Published in General
I’m sorry, Peter, you’re a great guy, but you are totally wrong on Trump. As with most of his defenders, you try to excuse him by talking about others. This is exactly what Daniel Patrick Moynihan meant when he wrote of Defining Deviancy Down. You think because those guy were corrupt in their way, it is all right for those who came after him to be bad actors too.
Furthermore, while I am not a lawyer, I think you’d be drummed out of court by stacking the discussion.
That’s a fairly easy quote to agree with, isolated like that without any context.
I don’t have time for an extended comment here, but I hope this discussion is productive because I think how people answer this question is closely related to their relative priorities in politics.
Just to emphasize that this is not entirely a recent problem, we can throw in Warren G. Harding, Grover Cleveland, and Andrew Jackson. Also, google “Dwight Eisenhower and Kay Summersby” and draw your own conclusions.
How? He made no value judgment about the President at all.
Presidents have much more cultural influence than they should because the Federal Government has grown to be so large and invasive, however they still aren’t the main influencers. Schools, churches and families remain primary, as they well should be. Sorry Mitt, you’re off base here, probably because you, like me, just can’t stand Mr. Trump on a personal basis. However, I’ll focus on what he has and will accomplish for Conservatives and Liberty. He too shall pass.
As discussed in another thread, I’m far more comfortable with the following from the Romney op-ed:
That is aspirational and focuses on the qualities of a single man without regard for its impact on others. I’m good with it. The “shaping the character” quote is questionable from a historical point of view and judges the actions of POTUS from the perspective of others’ reactions. It’s speculative at best. I don’t like speculative.
No President ever shaped my character, public or private. The new junior Senator from Utah is dead wrong. A President can shape political thought, and Trump has shaped mine – run on what you’re going to do, and if elected, go about doing it.
In the future, any Republican who says they “will work across the aisle” is doomed in my book . . .
It’s almost always counterproductive.
This was my concern with Bill Clinton–he lowered the standards for conduct for U.S. presidents.
Would we have had Trump, with the quotes about women that Trump wrote and stood by long enough to see them published in his books, without Clinton? I don’t think so.
I think character matters.
On the other hand, I like so much of what Trump has been doing that I have to respect his work and efforts.
On the other hand (sorry, I watched Fiddler on the Roof this past weekend), what if Romney is seeing a different picture than I am? What if our allies are worried about our stability?
On the other hand, . . . :-)
I like, admire, and trust both of these people, Trump and Romney.
So there it is. :-)
I never answer you. It is just not worth it. This time you insult me by just quoting one sentence. I went on to say how Peter is Defining Deviancy Down. I don’t understand why even you can’t grasp what I am saying.
How did I insult you? I made no value judgment about you at all.
Peter’s comment and the quoted portion say absolutely nothing about the President — the word “Trump” is nowhere to be found in there. Yet you responded that he was “totally wrong on Trump.” How is that possible if he said nothing at all about the President?
It seems fairly obvious that Romney wants to be the nominee that some on the Right wish Trump was.
Attacking the character of another man is cheap and tawdry though the schooling of the Left has taught us that Trump is fair game for anyone. I still think it is very bad character to do so. That Romney has gone public with his high opinion of himself has proven the exact opposite to me.
Actually I believe that at least some of our allies are worried about their own stability, if what is going on in France matters at all.
Trump’s populist, anti-Globalist sentiments are echoed around the world, from the Brexit movement in Great Britain to the various colored vests-uprising in France.
People the world over are tired of being told that being positive about their own history and culture is anathema in a time when only the values of the newest immigrants are what is important. They are tired of having the economy that they must work and live inside of become a casino-styled game for the Investment Class. (With the croupiers at the table taking the most of the profit.)
Trump and his philosophy scares the pants off the Investment Class. (And to be clear here: I am not talking about people here who have investments. Rather, I mean to implicate the Big Investment People like Soros or the Koch Brothers who can go in and undermine some third world nation’s economy simply by manipulating the currency market.)
Anyone that thinks there is anything wrong with this post needs to follow Harald Malmgren on twitter. He is a very serious economist that has worked for both parties and is very connected. All of this centralized power run by “experts” is a fiasco.
You, like most Mothers, seem to have many, many hands. Must come in handy.
The character of the President does not affect the Character of the nation.
Indeed, the very idea is monarchal and anti-republican. The President holds an office. It is a job. His personal character effects his politics, but not the character of the nation.
Romney must think that in 1969, we were defined by Nixon, and not Armstrong.
What self-serving balderdash.
Mitt Romney would make a perfect guest for Mona Charen’s podcast.
To very little extent I should hope. Otherwise, after LBJ, Clinton, and Nixon we’re in bad shape.
These days it matters little, I think. Half of the country is prone to falsely characterize even a nice guy like GW Bush as Hitler, a monkey, a liar, and worse.
I would hope to have an effective President who keeps his policy promises to the extent it is possible.
Mitt’s niece agrees with you:
A serious answer would address causal direction: president->public, public->president, president<->public. By default, it would start with the first election of George Washington. Likely, we would end up with a qualitative, rather than quantitative, analysis.
I reflected briefly on changing public perceptions of particular presidents in last month’s “Venerating Dead Politicians.”
Asserting President Obama affected the public mood or discourse about law enforcement is not controversial to Ricochet members. Note also that his “evolution” on sexual politics, same sex marriage, has reportedly caused a definite shift in black public opinion on the topic, possibly changing to stay in alignment with the decision to twice help elect President Obama.
I created an OP that cites the four actual paragraphs that have caused the most heartburn.
http://ricochet.com/584911/mitt-oped-column-in-the-washington-post/
.
Because what we desperately needed was One More Thread on Mitt Romney today.
I am of two minds regarding the question in the OP.
Anyone who had teenagers when Clinton was president knows that there were many many discussions about “oral sex” not being “sex”. So in that regard, he definitely had an effect on the culture.
That said, I blame those who brought it to my – and everyone’s – attention.
But I don’t know anyone having an affair and claiming it’s okay because President (fill in the blank) did it.
It’s OK. Gary tries much harder than many to be clear about disliking Trump. In general I appreciate it,
We need a thread that actually quotes Romney instead of opinions about opinions about opinions.
Which paragraphs or sentences do you dispute?
I’ll take the compliment!
One thing I can’t stand is, so many of the anti-Trump Republicans ***effectively*** want big government because they want a big government run “conservatively” by “experts”. Those days are over. Gary never talks like that.
The only reason he wrote this so early on is to get the attention of the MSM who gleefully look for Republicans to join their anti-Trump crusade so they can proudly parade him before the tv cameras. Mr. Goody Two Shoes was rejected by the voters twice. What is it he doesn’t get?
Back to the OP
I keep meaning to read The Character Of Nations: How Politics Makes And Breaks Prosperity, Family, And Civility by Angelo Codevilla
link