We are a critical society. From hipster style and the new Shins album all the way to Mitt Romney, no thing or person can remain unscathed by the fires of societal criticism. But during this important presidential election, the criticisms that are flying around should be deserving. Let’s rip at foreign policies, tax strategies, healthcare programs and the idea of American exceptionalism; but the unnecessary and arbitrary personal attacks against candidates have got to stop.
Because I’m afraid that the act of tearing down things like the sanctity of life, the Constitution and the primal worth of family really reflect on the state of our society. If we are calling those tendencies weird, as Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney have been called for holding such values, then our country has made one seriously disturbing character arc. And while all the candidates have felt the brunt of irrelevant scrutiny, no one, in my opinion, can match the history of extraneous complaints made against him like Romney. Some common criticisms:
No. 1 He’s a Mormon.
I can’t put it better than this month’s National Review cover article, which says, “The Truth … about Mormons! Nice! Decent! Earnest! And one’s running for President!” Following typical misconceptions, many assume that being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the same as being a Christian. While this topic alone deserves its own article, it’s just simple to say that Romney obviously maintains upstanding values in his life — evident through the huge lack of legitimate dirt on his personal and professional history. Typical religious unfamiliarity should not drive voting in this occasion, especially when the qualities that are associated with Mormonism — diligence, modesty, family values, etc. — are the ones that many are looking for in a president.
No. 2 He’s a flip-flopper.
Yes, Romney has changed his political opinion on a couple of matters — namely abortion and same-sex marriage — over the past two decades. But I would rather have that kind of listening, receptive, analytical individual as president than a person who commits concretely to one stance regardless of the information available and the political climate of his constituents. Leaders should constantly be analyzing their positions on these tough issues. After all, I find myself developing my own ideas continuously, so why are public figures any different?
No. 3 He’s not very personable.
Is it his hair? First of all, the only politician that I can think of as “personable” through our strict television and Internet interactions is Stephen Colbert. And he’s not even a real politician. This argument is about as arbitrary as it gets, but nevertheless, it seems to be a looming concern. Voters should be nitpicking his health care reform or stance on oil drilling, not whether or not they’d want to date him.
No. 4 He’s too moderate.
He’s been labeled too liberal for Republicans, and too conservative for Democrats, as if according to some magical ratio. But when you really face it, every single President in history has been forced to “come to the middle” of the political spectrum in order to accomplish anything (and of course, get re-elected). As the Republican governor of a Democratic congress in Massachusetts, Romney showed his abilities to function in a politically combatant atmosphere. Can’t we all agree that real bipartisan action is exactly what this country needs right now?
Amid the cat fighting between the last few candidates, I’m calling for a mutiny against the mudslinging. Voters need to claim the qualities that are necessary in their president, choose their candidate and skip the melodrama.