“The choice you make this November will shape great things, historic things, and those things will determine the most intimate and important aspects of every American life and every American family.”
That sentence could have been uttered by just about any politician, candidate, or pundit in the nation—and that’s a problem, Greg Weiner argues on the Liberty Law blog.
As it happens, the statement came from Mitt Romney—allegedly the more conservative of the two main presidential candidates. Weiner says that if Romney actually believes the claim, “he ought to be waging a full-throated campaign against its premise”:
No serious person can possibly believe the intimate contours of every citizen’s life will be indelibly shaped by the next President. Nor can serious people want that to be the case. We can be seriously sure, however, that the next President—whether Obama or Romney—will encourage that perception.
He connects that (erroneous) perception to politicians’ own love of power and the public’s judgment of politicians by the amount of change their administration causes—a standard that “leaves little room for mere governance and none at all for what Aristotle and Burke called the seminal political virtue: prudence.” In reality, as Weiner points out, our most difficult problems (a sluggish economy, unrest in foreign countries, the threat of terrorists) are not all controlled by the White House.
He goes on to say that a more modest view of presidential power could help reduce our current political polarization. I’d add that it may also encourage us to place our hope somewhere more secure than the government—to embrace the religious virtue of hope and to live rightly in our own communities rather than relying on politicians to fix all that ails us.
Alan Jacobs made a related point on his blog earlier this week:
We are too prone, I believe, to think that voting is the definitive political act. That would be true only if politics simply belongs to the government. There is a far vaster sphere of politics—the life of the polis—that belongs to everyday acts of ordinary people.
To be sure, the election results (as always) will shape public policy on some crucial issues, which is why I don’t expect to stop voting anytime soon. But we shouldn’t forget that doing the right thing, shaping the character of the nation, and contributing to society are activities not confined to the ballot box.
November 2nd, 2012 | 11:48 am
If we are required by law to accept marriage between two people of the same sex as equal to marriage between a man and a woman and therefore excluded from providing certain services and accommodations without compromising our beliefs; if employers are required by law to provide abortion, sterilization, and contraceptive insurance without regard to religious conviction; if, for medical professionals, we are required by law to provide or assist in abortion, etc., procedures or suffer fines or loss of employment; if the terms “natural parent” or “blood relationship” are expunged from the legal codes [as has already happened in Canada]; if parents without extensive resources are required to submit their children to moral “truths” decided upon by the educational establishment; if religious groups are no longer able to provide a wide range of social services without submitting to government dictates, then we may realize that this election was indeed decisive and that our basic American freedoms no longer stand.
November 2nd, 2012 | 12:36 pm
perhaps a charitable reading (misreading?) of the quotation would be to interpret romney as saying that by leaving the everyday acts of ordinary people alone, the state can “shape” american life. a kind of “determining” via non-interference.
November 2nd, 2012 | 12:59 pm
The last sentence of my previous comment should have concluded with “at least until the next election.”
The virtue of prudence is, I agree, very much needed at this time.
November 2nd, 2012 | 3:29 pm
I am concerned that no matter who wins the election, Obama or Romney, the next President will continue the trend that Obama has perpetuated, but did not start, of pushing at the boundaries of the constitutional and legislative authority of the Executive Branch through signing statements, executive orders, regulations, etc. The more supporters of whoever happens to be in office applaud or turn a blind eye to executive excesses, be they authorizing torture or requiring religious employers to pay for products or services that violate their beliefs and conscience, the less ground they will have to object when a President of a different party does the same kind of thing. Reap the whirlwind and all that.
November 2nd, 2012 | 3:35 pm
In line with what A Reader and andrew say, I interpret Romney’s statement to mean that we have traveled too far down the road of our lives being affected–and affected negatively–by the current administration’s usurpation of power. Romney will certainly repudiate that usurpation–perhaps not in a perfect way, but the promise of Romney is relief.
Such relief will, indeed, improve the lot of most of us. Now, let us do our duty in the voting booth and in other avenues of political influence open to us.
November 2nd, 2012 | 4:08 pm
It seems the only person who understood the presidential role was Ron Paul. It truly doesn’t matter if Romney or Obama wins…they’re both under the influence of evil and support murder, each in their own ways.
What I think is sad is how soon faithful Catholics forgot how much they hated the thought of a Romney presidency.
November 2nd, 2012 | 6:25 pm
Catholic Mother, I’m a faithful Catholic and don’t recall ever hating the thought of a Romney presidency. I have thought he was not the best Republican candidate, particularly in 2008 though he is much-improved now, but have never hated the idea of his being president. Nor do I see why, as a faithful Catholic, I should hate it now.
– Catholic Dad
November 3rd, 2012 | 12:28 am
“What I think is sad is how soon faithful Catholics forgot how much they hated the thought of a Romney presidency.”
Ron Paul, isn’t running. Your choice is limited, but clear.
What is lost about the HHS mandate is that it isn’t merely about contraception-the intent was clear when the so-called “compromise” was offered-it is designed to drive religious organizations from delivering “corporal works” of mercy. I wish I could make people understand just how suppressive that was designed to be.
November 3rd, 2012 | 2:59 pm
How crucial is this election?
Very crucial. Its at least as crucial as the one in 1980:
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/10/11/america-wont-survive-another-four-years-of-obama/
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/10/25/its-the-obonomy-stupid/
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact