Since it is Obvious That Romney’s One and Only Core Value is the Will to Power….

Since it is Obvious That Romney’s One and Only Core Value is the Will to Power…. November 1, 2012

…the only explanation for why his supporters trust him when he happens to accidently pledge himself to their position on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, while pledging support to the opposite on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays (he relaxes into his natural gelatinous state on Sundays and spends the day with his family, believing in nothing at all except in the preposterous rubbish that is Mormon theology)–is due, not to Romney’s overwhelming charisma or sudden growth of principles, but to the extraordinary ability of people in need to project their needs onto a blank screen and find what they seek there. Why does a teddy bear give a child comfort? Not because the teddy radiates personality, ideas, or conviction. But because the needs the child projects onto this bundle of fluff and fur imbue it with a life not its own. Beyond the will to power and the utter conviction that the universe owes him the Presidency, Mitt Romney has no ideas or convictions whatsoever.

And yes, I do think the sort of mental gymnastics one must perform to take Mormon theology seriously once one reaches adulthood and can see what a load of bushwah it is do contribute to Romney’s ability to express total conviction in contradictory and duplicitous intellectual rubbish. The question is, how can any conservative or Christian, seeing what a complete and utter empty suit Romney is, make any case for him beyond, “He sucks slightly less than Obama, if I stand on one foot and cock my head just so.”? It’s the only intellectual case to be made for the man. And the entire problem with the baleful effects of our politics on our Faith is that so few people can restrain themselves to saying only that. Instead they feel compelled to lard on all sorts of garbage about how he has “experienced a conversion” or “really cares about the unborn” or has real integrity and all the other tommyrot that anybody with eyes can see is a lie, or self-delusion. My current favorite: “He’s had a conversion. Or he might someday. And to deny that is to deny Jesus’ power to save.” News flash: if we are now voting for somebody because we are betting that Jesus might work a miracle of conversion then that’s just as much a reason to vote for Obama as for Romney. After all, Jesus might miraculously convert him too.

But as a general rule, we don’t vote on the basis of “Then a miracle occurs!” At present, it will take a miracle for Romney to suddenly grow a core conviction beyond “I MUST BE PRESIDENT”. Therefore, it will take a miracle to get me to vote for him–or Obama.

"I guess a few millennia ago there wasn't a single happy person on the planet ..."

You have made us for yourself, ..."
"I am from Ontario too, by the way. But so many of the most vocal ..."

Where Peter Is….
"Who are you to decide against the Pope of what is truth? Is it that ..."

Where Peter Is….
"Well, the Pope does have the authority here, so his interpretation stands. It has also ..."

Where Peter Is….

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • “Romney’s One and Only Core Value is the Will to Power”

    Really? Do we know this for a fact? He has no other core value than this? We have some window into his heart and soul? How do we know this? Could it be wrong? Might he have some other core value? I missed the memo where he says this. Is there some proof we can give that will to power is his one and only core value?

    • J

      While Mark’s overall premise that a lot of Christians corrupt some of their values to support their party/candidate of choice (including Romney) is sound, and that “he sucks less than Obama” is the truest argument for supporting Romney, Mark does tend to devolve into vitriolic character attacks at times. It’s unnecessary for making his arguments, but I can understand why one would get frustrated having to deal with the same bad arguments over and over again.

      • I would never argue against the idea that some Christians can corrupt themselves in supporting a Democrat, Republican, third party, or no candidate at all. That much is no doubt true. And while I understand frustration about a host of things, there’s the fact that we can’t simply dismiss one clear teaching of the Lord in order to admonish others to maintain other clear teachings of the Lord. It goes way beyond just bad arguments.

        • J

          I would tend to agree. In his zealousness to correct very real errors of others, Mark sometimes uses some pretty rash language when speaking about certain people (especially members of what he calls the “Ruling Class”). In his better moments he seems to recognize this fault. Of course, I think most of us are probably guilty of this at various times.

          • Well, most of us are probably guilty of this and various things at various times. The trick is to stop doing it. These don’t fall under the optional rules section of Christian teaching, and it’s not my anger, but concern, the causes me to pick at things like this.

    • Mark Gordon

      Yes, Mark. You really should have the supernatural gift of soul discernment before you make a rational judgment based on a man’s long public record, a record that includes taking positions on both sides of nearly every significant issue.

  • While there is no doubt that Romney is a flip-flopper, and the video points out many of them, there are also things in there that are quite a stretch. There’s been times in my life where I’ve supported new taxes, because it was right at that time, and then other times where I haven’t, because at that time it wasn’t the best course of action. It’s not unreasonable for Romney to support a tax one time and then later say today is not the day to raise taxes. The same logic applies to stimulus and then also to gun regulations (when you think there are now enough regulations and don’t want any new ones).

    Then there’s the issue of generally supporting a concept (in this case both health care and stimulus) but then not supporting specific legislation (Obamacare or the president’s stimulus).

    Also, the illegal immigrant one was unfair as if I remember the debate correctly, his point about the company that hired illegal immigrants was that it was unacceptable. It’s not flip flopping to say I don’t hire illegal immigrants and if I ever find out a company I do business with has hired them, I will immediately stop doing business with them.

    But of course there is no doubt Romney is a flip-flopper and there are plenty of other examples in the video that are accurate, starting with Abortion.

  • Andy

    Romney presents himself, to my understanding, as a snake oil salesman. He says what he thinks the audience wants to hear – pro-choice when he ran for governor of Mass, in the primary he became a severe conservative and totally pro-life, now when the election is on the line, lets have an exception. He opposed FEMA funding, but now full funding, he signed the model for Obamacare, but lets pretend I didn’t do that. He was against the auto bailout, but now wants credit of the outcome.
    I don’t like Obama, but at least I know what I don’t like. It seems that all Romney wants to do is be president – and have the “power” that goes with it. I feel this because I haven’t got the foggiest idea what the man stands for. What he believes in or what he might do. THis scares far more than what Obama might do, because at least I have an idea.
    I don’t know that he will to power is his only core value – I personally think it is a will to make money. But the reality is between those tow I have no idea what else he stands for.

    • Saying ‘I feel his only core value….’ is being honest. Saying ‘his one and only core value is….’ is a is an accusation.

      • Mark Shea

        And one founded on a a giant mound of evidence from Romney’s words and action over two decades of public life.

        • What evidence that this is his one and only core value. I see him with his family, the care he has for his wife, and it seems he may actually have some others. Even to isolate it and say politically, his only core value is this or that, can be an accusation where you can bring evidence and build a case. But unless you have some inroads into his heart and soul, more evidence than his behavior in the political or business worlds would be needed.

          • Mark Shea

            And if I were voting for Father of the Year, all that would matter. But I am evaluating him for the job of President. And in his public life, he has consistently demonstrated that the will to power is his sole consistent guiding principle. It would be great if Christians poured out as much effort nominating good candidates as they do in making excuses for cynical duplicitous liars.

            • Nobody is making excuses. And you can simply reword your statement to clarify the subject at hand. Say you believe Romney has no core values other than the will to power when it comes to politics. There. Not a single thing wrong with that. You’re being honest that it’s your belief based on the evidence you’ve seen, and you’re making sure people understand it is merely about his role as politician running for political office. But as it is, as it is written, it is a sweeping accusation without qualification.

  • J. H. M. Ortiz

    Whether or not “Mormon theology” is as Mr. Shea characterizes it in his post here, it has one apparently little-known, but interesting ontology: an apparently absolute materialism, using indeed the word “spirit”, but completely redefining it as being a subset of matter, as in # 131 of Doctrine and Covenants, titled “Instructions given by Joseph Smith, Ramus, Illinois, May 16 and 17, 1843”, in which is stated:
    “[131:7] There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;”
    “[131:8] We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.”

  • Billy Bean

    Ever since the first debate (at which Romney actually showed up and the President not so much), I have been hearing that we should not be so “amazed” that Romney really has a soul and can speak coherent sentences and doesn’t exude the stench of the pits of hell in an obvious way. What we saw, I am hearing repeatedly, was just “Mitt being Mitt.” That’s reassuring. I ( like Mr. Shea) cannot conscientiously support Romney. That being said, I have such a dread of Obama that I am loath to discourage anyone from pulling the lever for the Other Guy.