I made no secret on this blog of my very lukewarm support for Mitt Romney for President during the primaries. My first preference was Michele Bachmann, my second was Rick Santorum.
But I noticed along the way weird things happening, chance things that worked in Romney’s favor, almost as if guided by an invisible hand. For example, just as Michele Bachmann’s began surging, Rick Perry entered the race and stole all her oxygen and quickly became the front runner, then he crashed and burned. And Rick Santorum surged to win the Iowa caucuses, but a glitch in the counting made it seem like Romney had won at first and he gained that momentum. And then Sarah Palin sort of semi-endorsed Newt Gingrich, splitting the conservative vote, maybe not realizing that a number of us conservatives could never get over Gingrich’s character issues. All those and other chance things that helped overcome Romney’s obstacles gave me pause to wonder.
I could see how Romney’s candidacy, while I still do not believe he is anywhere near the constitutional savior that many LDS people think he is, is very good for the LDS Church. As having a history of working as an LDS director of public affairs, one of my tasks was to help overcome the bigotry of evangelical protestants toward the LDS Church. But now, Romney running against Barack Obama, is doing miracles in overcoming that. Evangelicals are realizing that, hey, they hold a lot of the same values as Mormons and that it makes a lot of sense to unite with Mormons against the moral degradation being sponsored by Obama. Yes, I see great good coming out of a Romney candidacy.
With that background, I bring you Jon Stewart’s defense of Romney’s Mormonism. Check it out – it’s hilarious. But brace yourself for Jon Stewart’s crude, irreverent humor:
Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.
Dave,
Thought I’d leave a few comments on your blog. Give you a true Libertarian’s perspective. (Your blog is called Liberty Musings after all.) First, “the invisible hand” is definitely guiding Romney to the nomination, though the same argument could have been made for Santorum (another establishment candidate). It’s more than evident from all the cheating and manipulation at the caucus level against all the Ron Paul supporters who are trying to become delegates to get their voices heard but are attempting to be forced out by the GOP establishment. (http://youtu.be/W_Z_PMfDFLg – just one example.) Romney is essentially a mirror of Obama. The current GOP and democratic parties are nearly identical in almost all aspects. Out of control deficit spending, a disregard to the federal debt, overextending our military “Empire,” out of control expansion of the Federal government, and a disregard for civil liberties.
The good thing about Libertarianism is it brings people together in a mutual respect for individual freedom. It is the combination of civil libertarianism (these days an idea associated with the left) and fiscal conservatism.
In regards to the previous posts involving gay marriage, I think both sides get it wrong. Why is the government involved in ANY marriage? Churches now have the right to refuse marrying gays, as they should per their religious freedom. But, if the government wasn’t involved at all then it would be a non-issue. Gays could go to the churches that would agree to marry them and those who are from other religions can choose to recognize this or not. Of course, this is in a true Libertarian society, but in dealing with the mess we already have why not leave this to the states? After all, isn’t the beauty of our Republic and capitalism competition? Some states can legalize gay marriage, others won’t. But there should be NO federal amendment in EITHER direction, banning it or legalizing it. The federal government has taken way too much power from the states as it is. Anyway, those are my thoughts.
Response by David Hall:
Tyler,
Interesting points and thoughtful comments. While I am a conservative and not a libertarian, and understand the difference, I have respect for the libertarian viewpoint. The modern-day liberal is one who pretends to be open-minded, tolerant, and respectful of individual rights while at the same time pushing for a more authoritarian government, sacrificing liberty at the expense of what they call the common good, and trying to impose more and more regulation and confiscation of private property in pursuit of a utopian fantasy. And their notion of free speech is that you don’t have a right to criticize them because that chills their free speech. I don’t respect the Leftist viewpoint. I respect the libertarian.
Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.
Dave,
I agree with your opinion about the Left, attempting to push their utopian/ideal society on everyone else. The only thing I would add to that is establishment republicans (so-called-conservatives) also push big government, big spending, and their own values. Both sides seem to be living by “the-end-justifies-the-means” mentality and are guilty of the same crimes. The point is, you can’t please everybody. The easiest way to solve that conundrum is to solve things at the most local level possible to avoid the tyranny of the majority. I see it as an equally uncivilized when the right is imposing it’s views on the left as it is vice versa.
“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).” – Ayn Rand
Response by David Hall:
Yes, I believe that establishment Republicans are part of the problem. The best piece I have seen that defines the problem of the establishment Republicans was published in the July/August 2010 issue of The American Spectator titled “America’s Ruling Class—and the Perils of Revolution.”
Colbert, too:):
Colbert Report: Yahweh or No Way – Mormons & God’s Poll Numbers