Blaming the Victim

Mitt Romney is back.  He has barely dipped a toe into the electoral waters and already the Jackals have gathered.  Despite the smiles on their faces and measured words, they would like nothing better than to tear him to pieces.

Even Mitt’s most bitter critics reluctantly admit that he would have made a good president.  He would certainly have been preferable to Barack Obama.  Nonetheless, they complain that he was a terrible candidate and therefore does not deserve a third bite at the apple.

What was Romney’s sin?  It was that he was a decent human being.  Honest and gentlemanly, he refused to sink to the level of his opponent.  For this, he is decried as lacking a “killer instinct.”  He was simply not mean enough.

But what do we want in a president?  Some are asking for a “new car smell.”  They desire someone different even if he/she is a lemon.  In fact, many of his detractors plainly view Romney as insufficiently conservative.

Lest we forget, Mitt was right about Russia.  It is our number one international adversary.  He was also right about the Middle East.  Radical Islamist Terrorists have not been defeated and the Palestinians are hindered by their culture.  He was likewise right about Benghazi.  Despite being ridiculed, he called out the administration’s deceit before anyone else.

Mitt was similarly on target about the economy.  His policies would have created many more jobs.  For one thing, he would have stopped ObamaCare in its tracks.  Unlike Obama, he is a learner.  He would never have repeated the mistakes he made in Massachusetts.

Romney did not earn his fortune by being an economic ignoramus.  Nor did he do it by cleaving to unproductive strategies.  Successful businesspersons adjust to changing circumstances.  Mitt proved capable of this, whereas Barack clings to the convictions he had in high school.

So why did Romney lose to Obama?  How could the American people have preferred a shallow narcissist to a proven leader?  Part of the reason is that the Democrats ran the dirtiest campaign since John Quincy Adams squared off against Andrew Jackson.  They told more lies than the slimiest of used car salesmen.

Nor did his fellow Republicans help.  They forgot Reagan’s eleventh commandment and gleefully spoke ill of a colleague.  It was they, not the Democrats, who first branded Mitt a “vulture capitalist.”  It was they who kept up this barrage for the better part of a year.

Neither did the evangelicals help.  When the time came to go to the polls, they stayed home.  Because many regarded Mormons as religious turncoats, they refused to support Mitt.  Obama won not because he got more votes than four years earlier, but because Romney got fewer.

Then there is this blather about how Romney did not care about ordinary Americans.  Amazingly, polls showed that voters believed Obama did.  Thus a man who spent years personally helping others was thought callous, whereas another whose selfishness has become legendary was regarded as compassionate.  Wow!

Even the weather conspired against Romney.  Hurricane Sandy could not have arrived at a more inopportune moment.  Suddenly Obama had an opportunity to look presidential, while Romney was obliged to hold his fire.

Decades earlier another gentlemanly politician was also let down by events, Republicans, and the American people.  Despite having masterfully handled the breakup of the Soviet Union and assembling a winning coalition in the Gulf War, George H.W. Bush was not awarded a second term.

A recession that was over, but did not seem to be, plus a mealy mouthed opponent (Ross Perot), gave his foes an excuse to lambast Bush for having broken his promise not to raise taxes.  Meanwhile, Obama can break every promise he ever made, but survives.  Somehow decency and competence could not save a Republican.

Is this what we conservatives are?  Is this what we want to be?  If we can’t be honest and forthright, who will be?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University