Susan's Musings

The Politically Correct Cad?

What’s a man to do? Last week my husband was put in an uncomfortable position.  He had to choose between either betraying his standards for acting as a gentleman or potentially harming a long time business relationship.  What happened? A lot of our work entails flying. On many fronts, flying has gotten less pleasant over the past few years, yet arriving at a destination fresh and ready to start work is imperative.  One of the ways we meet this challenge is by using a car service to get to the airport rather than driving ourselves. Not only do we get extra time to collect our thoughts, but the driver stays on top of the latest traffic news and picks the best route. The biggest bonus is the driver’s handling of the luggage, which can be both bulky and weighty when we need multiple changes of clothing for TV tapings as well as books and papers for speech preparation. Over the years we have come to trust one particular company, providing reliable income for them and the above-mentioned benefits for us. Everyone was happy.

Until last week, that is. Instead of one of the drivers we have come to know over the years arriving at our house, this time a slight woman drove up.  Having been trained as a gentleman by his mother and having instilled the same values in our son, my husband was uneasy standing aside while this young woman wrestled with the luggage. Despite her cheerful assertion that, “I’ll handle that,” my husband loaded the car. Had she been built like a stevedore the dilemma would still exist. Neither her ability to lift the bags nor her desire to do so would make my husband feel less like a cad if he stood idly by.

Fortunately, on our return trip one of our regular, husky male drivers picked us up. We are cautiously optimistic that these men will continue to appear at our doorstep. But what if a woman driver does come again? Play out some of the scenarios with me. While I certainly support a woman’s right to earn a living as a driver if she so desires, I also support my right as a customer to patronize a business only when I am receiving value. I don’t like seeing my husband handling the suitcases and I like the fact that he is a gentleman. As such, the company’s benefit to me is heavily reduced when they send a female driver.  Let’s say we request that only male drivers be sent to us. If we are the only ones who do so, there is no problem. Other customers, perhaps ones needing a small child to be driven, may prefer a woman driver and make the opposite demand from ours. But what if most of the customers are men with lots of luggage who feel as my husband and I do? In today’s society will the law require the company to keep someone on payroll with whom its customers aren’t comfortable in order to avoid litigation?

It is all well and good for the law to call for gender equality in employment. But unless we become a socialist or tyrannical state, individuals still have the choice whether to patronize a business or not. I know women who specifically seek the services of a female obstetrician. Should those women be chastised for depressing employment opportunities for male doctors? One of our daughters turned down a nanny position when she discovered that the toddler’s father had fluctuating work hours and would be in the house much of the day. Had the mother worked from home she would have had no problem.  We applauded her decision. Is our case of the female driver the same as or different from those examples? If on our next trip a woman driver appears, what do we do? If we complain we put the company in a difficult situation. If we stay silent, we will inevitably begin to opt more frequently for driving ourselves, which obviously threatens the company’s viablility as well. What would you do?

Educated and Clueless

There are weeks when I want to grab my husband, children and grandchildren and sail off to an uncharted island, cocooning us away from the rest of the world. Needless to say this idea has serious downsides including that I have yet to effectively grow anything in a home garden and that this voyage would render my library card useless. I’m not even sure that Google Earth, let alone government satellites still allow for the existence of uncharted islands.

Nonetheless, the desire to block out a confused world remains strong. After hearing of the president’s “evolution” on same-sex marriage last week, one of my son’s friends told me that among his peers are those who have strong religious beliefs. They agree that following God’s word on organizing both families and society leads to more successful and long-lasting results.

But, and this is a big but, they also believe that if they vote according to those beliefs, they are not good citizens. Years of higher (mis)education have convinced them that a Marxist can take his views into the polling booth; an atheist can vote his convictions; someone who believes that his cactus tells him how to vote can follow his plants’ imagined conscience, but that the good citizenship forbids one to take religious beliefs into account when voting. These are intelligent, personable and well-intentioned young adults. They are also abysmally ignorant as to the foundations of America (while waving diplomas that inform them that they are superbly educated).

I would like to think my son’s friend misunderstood his peer’s comments.  I fear he did not. Years ago, a very bright graduate student told me how shocked she was to discover that the wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” did not mean that Congress was forbidden to show any respect for religion.

If I had an island I could ban ideologically biased newspapers, manipulative books, TV shows or movies and teachers with an agenda.  In the real world, however, these influences are pervasive.  The onus is on each of us to articulate to our children ideas which are so fundamental that we assume they don’t need to be stated. Unless we make sure that our input is paramount we risk our children’s opinions being formed by other.

 

Profiling, Racism and Reality

I am humbled by the responses to last week’s Musing. I asked for readers to participate in a conversation and you did. I truly appreciate the kind words from many of you and I am grateful for those who affirmed, gently chided, and wrote so passionately and eloquently.  Race is an emotional topic and as a country (and a world) we need to feel comfortable speaking openly. I encourage you all to read the comments; it will be a good use of your time.  (I have a culture gap admission to make here: the first comment which used the letters AA had me scratching my head trying to figure out what Alcoholics Anonymous had to do with the topic.  It took a bit of pondering to realize that it stood for African American.)

Rather than quoting from and responding directly to your comments, I’d like to continue the dialogue. The word ‘profiling’ garners much bad press. Profiling has been used as a synonym for racism. But is it? When I am in a building and about to enter an elevator, I profile. When the doors open I look to see who is already in the elevator.  Is it a woman rocking a baby carriage? I enter and her race doesn’t make a difference. Is it a couple dressed up for a night on the town? I enter, and their race doesn’t make a difference. Is it a young man? My mind races through more questions.  How is he dressed? How do I read his body language? What city and type of building am I in? What time of day is it? And yes, what is his race?  In the final analysis, with a split-second in which to make the decision, I go with my gut. One of the strongest pieces of advice women are given by police departments and self-defense experts is to hone and pay attention to their instincts. Those instincts are certainly shaped by one’s culture and past experiences.  

I grew up in New York City. The local college I attended had signs on the women’s bathroom doors which discouraged going to the bathroom alone. I was taught to carry a purse in a manner that discouraged pickpocketing and to survey the occupants of a train car before entering. We called these tidbits ‘street smarts.’ And my peers and I were very aware that criminal behavior was not evenly distributed among all races, genders and ages. Serial murderers? White males. Muggers? Young black males. Pretending otherwise in the name of utopian daydreaming could cost you a great deal.

If I decide not to enter an elevator because a young, black teen in a hoodie with a scowl on his face would be my sole companion, I think it unfair to call me racist. I most likely would turn the same ride down if a white teen presenting himself in the same unpleasant way was there. But I admit that race is one of the factors involved in my decision. I also understand that rather than protecting myself from a criminal, I just might be causing pain to a young man who has just returned from visiting his mother in the hospital or from an all-night shift at a job. Even if my action is the same, the white teenager would not feel the same level of rejection. This is the real world.

I do not know what took place between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. Neither does anyone else. I do know that many in the media misreported, manipulated and slanted coverage to fulfill their own agendas. Every American citizen was harmed by this malfeasance. As more information comes out, after anger was stoked (leading to violent attacks on whites) and few are left paying attention, a different story than originally promoted is coming out. A Reuters piece included information which makes clear that depicting Zimmerman as racist is incendiary rather than factual. It also put the episode in context, quoting a neighborhood resident. "Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."

Trayvon’s death and George’s part in it are personal tragedies for their families. The race-hustling, hatred-filled responses expand that heartbreak.  The policies which erode moral clarity and personal responsibility; the liberal attitudes which discourage strong two-parent families; and the failing public schools and programs which keep large groups trapped in the past, are national catastrophes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Cruel and Unusual Susan?

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend relating to feedback on my Musings. Last week offered one example. A reader wrote to my husband, commenting, “Had Trayvon been your son would your wife had been so inhumane about the matter? I think Susan is very cruel, I would like to hear your comment when it is your child's turn.”

What was my alleged cruelty? I wrote in last week’s Musing that after a holiday week, “I am having a hard time getting back to everyday life.” I said that the break had made it difficult for me to “order my brain to deal with anything substantive in time to write this Musing.” As examples of noteworthy issues which I was not able to address, I wrote, “Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman; Obama and Romney; even Iran and nuclear armament recede into the background.”

While the writer didn’t use the word racism in her email, I think it fair to assume that it is the elephant in the room. Exactly what pained her so much? Unfortunately, there are frequent tragic occurrences in the world and I don’t think she is making the suggestion that it is cruel to do anything other than be immobilized by suffering.  Or was she suggesting that a nuclear Iran and the upcoming presidential election are light-hearted subjects and as such my sentence suggested a frivolous attitude towards Trayvon’s death? Unfortunately, she didn’t elaborate on her accusation.

I have received similar negative feedback every time a Black person is mentioned in my blog. It doesn’t matter what the context; someone directly or indirectly accuses me of insensitivity or racism.  No one as of yet has left their remarks as a comment. They send their thoughts to me through my business email or, as in this case, to my husband.  The result is that the writer vents without opening the potential for a public conversation.

Since we don’t ask people to provide detailed information before signing up for Thought Tools (the source of the overwhelming majority of Musing readers) or accessing my Musing, I have no way of knowing how many weekly readers fit into various racial, gender, ethnic or income groupings. Judging from the people I meet at events, I think it’s reasonable to assume that there is a relatively diverse spread in all those categories.

Racism, like anti-Semitism, is a charge which is easy to hurl, difficult to substantiate and impossible to refute. Aside from easy to recognize, egregious examples, I believe that both racism and anti-Semitism often exist more in the mind of the individual who feels victimized rather than in objective reality. Years ago, my husband and I, along with an out of town guest, strolled through our neighborhood. We spent some time on a curvy road which lacked sidewalks. As we rounded one bend, a passing driver tooted his horn. To our astonishment, our guest immediately muttered, “Anti-Semite!” It is true that both my husband and our guest were wearing yarmulkas (religious head coverings) which identified them as Jewish. My husband and I took the beeping as a friendly gesture of warning that a car was going to be passing us on a shared road. Our visitor took it as a hostile gesture. There is no way of knowing what the driver’s actual motivation was, so our differing reactions revealed more about our own ways of thinking than anything else.

I recently read a letter to an advice columnist where a young woman expressed her hurt and resentment towards her mother-in-law, giving a few examples of the painful situations she endured. Like the columnist, I felt sorry for her. Not because her stories proved that she had an awful mother-in-law, but because she was locked into a world view in which she saw herself as maltreated. Rather than giving the benefit of the doubt to her husband’s mother or recognizing that two women from different backgrounds thrust into intimacy don’t necessarily share communication styles, she saw every interaction through a jaundiced prism. Likewise, I found that response to last week’s Musing tremendously sad. It spoke to me of a woman who lives in a world full of offense and antagonism rather than one of good will.

Both the American Jewish and African-American worlds are conspicuously led by spokesmen who earn high salaries from organizations whose existence depends on their respective groups being hated.  Politicians and irresponsible (or true believer) journalists likewise manipulate the truth for their own purposes. While ostensibly decrying prejudice, they often encourage people to bask in victimhood, to the detriment of all.  

I thought of ignoring what, after all, was one email. But on the principle that what one person writes reflects the thoughts of others, I chose to respond in this way. If this Musing provokes negative reaction, I hope it will be submitted as a comment so that it can be posted for all to see. I would look forward to comments whose goals are not to accuse or to insult, but instead to provide perspective.  That is the only way that a conversation can ensue which can encourage us all to expand our horizons and step into one another’s shoes.

Beware the Misguided Majority

“Each Passover we should see ourselves as if we personally experienced the Exodus from Egypt.” Jews around the world recited a sentence expressing this thought at the Passover Seder a few nights ago. Shortly before the holiday started, my son, Ari, saw one aspect of this idea come to life.

I think most of us picture ourselves on the right side of history. Had we lived in different times and places surely we would have stood with the abolitionists rather than the slave-owners; would have joined the Resistance rather than the Nazi Party; and would have opposed Stalin rather than embracing him. We more easily picture ourselves following Moses through the sea rather than ignoring him and the God he represented.  But the majority of Jews did not leave Egypt. Eighty percent chose loyalty to Pharaoh and the status quo.  Bad choice.

Being courageous and noble is always easier with hindsight. If we were all virtuous, wise, discerning and proper-thinking people, there would be no evil to defeat in the world. It is obviously quite easy to follow a wrong ideology and be swayed by misguided and evil philosophies. Ideas which sound good can be awfully destructive. Fully aware of how courage is contagious, our son, Ari, took time from an incredibly busy schedule to go hear Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one of the brave and heroic women of our day. If you have not read her book, Infidel, I highly recommend that you do. An outspoken activist against the worst manifestations of Islamo-fascist behavior, particularly as it affects women and children, she risks her life by speaking out and has been forced into exile for her views.

Hearing her speak was a mixed experience. Ari appreciated her words and was glad to support her as she addressed the students at a major university in Maryland. The student reaction, however, was demoralizing. Ms. Ali and America were attacked. Listening to the questioners, one would be forgiven for thinking that the Moslem world is a bastion of women’s rights and peaceful coexistence among all religions while America is a bigoted, repressive society. In Ari’s words, “The questions and questioners were uniformly dumb, rude, antagonistic and illogical.  What was incredible is that the moderator, the president of the university, allowed and encouraged their behavior.  It was truly childish and embarrassing.”

In every generation in which evil triumphs, many who side with it are ‘useful idiots’ or swept along with the crowd. We should never stop looking deep inside ourselves and asking ourselves whether we are on the right side of issues and will be able to look back and declare that we, indeed, did align ourselves with those who chose God rather than Pharaoh.

 

 

 

Gut-Punch

Years ago, my mother joined my husband and me on a lecture trip to a charming Southern town. Our host graciously showed us around and included the historic, local synagogue in his itinerary.  After a few minutes my mother opted out of seeing the whole edifice, looked physically ill. When I wanted to stay with her she whispered, “You go ahead. This building is making me nauseous. It’s opulent, decorated to the hilt and it’s clear that children aren’t welcome.” Indeed, we discovered that the dwindling congregation preferred not to see children between circumcision on the eighth day of their lives and their bar-mitzvahs at age thirteen. Not surprisingly, by the time the youth were old enough to be welcomed, they were entirely uninterested.

This synagogue was a complete anomaly. I have never before or since heard of a similarly misguided flock. But my mother’s physical reaction to an emotional stimulus is common.  Which of us did not feel sickened as we assimilated the news on 9/11, or indeed, do not feel a gut-punch upon hearing of cruel destruction and murder?

Other times, a news article or video clip which might barely attract our attention on one day, grabs us on another.  Sunday, they twelfth yahrzeit (anniversary) of my mother’s death, I had such an experience. The catalyst to my nausea was a video clip discussing Vice-president Cheney’s heart transplant. There is nothing unique about this particular clip which differentiates it from other newspaper, TV and online reports of this event (not including the vicious, hate-filled ones). The comments revolve around the seemliness of a man of Mr. Cheney’s age receiving a transplant.

The entire discussion appearing in the media is suspect. I’m not the only one to think that if Nelson Mandela had needed a heart transplant at age 71, or if Bill Clinton requires one in a few years, that the question of age would be seen as immaterial. But let’s say that the discussion of age is actually an honest one.  Especially with Obamacare menacing on the horizon, that is a scary thought. Despite protestations that there will be no death panels; that is precisely what will be needed.

I cannot think of a worse way to allocate medical resources than by government bureaucratic fiat. For a panel to decide who gets what based on age, gender, political leanings, race, or how politically correct one’s illness is, is frightening. The fact that members of Congress excluded themselves from the ramifications of the health care bill shows that Americans will indeed be divided into elite and secondary status.

It is an inescapable fact of life that resources are limited. We can be thankful for a constitution which, at least in theory, does not allow the ruling class to “have a little list” as the Lord High Executioner in the Mikado did (for one rendition try googling D'Oyly Carte, I've Got a Little List). It is inherently unfair that money should be a deciding factor, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, money may be the worst form of unfairness except all the others that have been tried. If insurance can be freely bought then each individual can decide how much of his or resources to allocate to that and at what age they choose to start doing so.  Each individual can concentrate as much of his or her energies as desired on earning and saving money. Each individual can choose to be self-centered or to place effort on interacting with others and building relationships so that the community surrounding him or her wants to help when money is needed.

A synagogue which decides that pristine carpets are more important than lollipop wielding kids has made a choice and it is no surprise when it dies out. A nation which allows its government to take away the natural rights granted only by the Creator, will face the same fate.

 

The Democratic War Against Women

The past few weeks have seen multiple variation on the theme, “The Republican War against Women” trotted out by Democratic Party aficionados. The attacks would be laughable were the stakes not so high. Let’s leave aside the super-hypocrisy of crying “foul” over Rush Limbaugh’s language which was pristine compared to that which is regularly used against Republican and conservative women. That providing free (i.e. people other than those using it paying for it) contraception should be the critical issue of our day is of course, ludicrous.  Setting up the straw man that any politician wants the government to make contraception illegal is demagoguery, not discourse.

But has the sexual revolution, which was facilitated by the easy availability of contraception, enhanced or damaged more women’s lives? Does even discussing this question make many people uncomfortable? Perhaps Rush Limbaugh would be more of a gentleman now if others hadn’t previously raced to erase the term ‘ladylike’ from our national dialogue.

One of life’s frustrating realities is that trying to solve a problem sometimes causes more harm than good. That doesn’t mean that the problem was trivial; it means that changing the status quo isn’t always beneficial or even benign. Early feminists were upset about a sexual double standard. In large parts of society, men who sexually experimented before marriage were given a pass while women who did the same were maligned. College boys were expected to sow their wild oats while girls who did the same were judged critically. Let’s focus on this for a few minutes.

If the problem here was inequality, then there were two ways to deal with it.  The Democratic Party and liberals could have led the legislative charge to penalize certain behaviors as they as they did to reduce smoking, for example. For those of us less comfortable with legislation being the answer to all problems, society could have unleashed social pressure to disparage the undesired behavior. It is not really that long ago when dorms were all single sex and visitors of the opposite sex were supervised. If the male dorms had less rigid rules and curfews, more stringencies could have been placed on the men rather than loosening the rules on the females. Instead of promulgating the idea that living together before marriage was normative, society could have promoted the idea that men who slept around were irresponsible, untrustworthy and immature.

Instead, the path chosen was to challenge any social standards which suggested that there was a positive value in chastity, and to encourage young women to model their behavior after that of self-centered men. That certainly solved the inequality problem, even if it did so by assuming the superiority of the male paradigm.

Maybe the real problem was not inequality but the damage caused by separating sex and marriage? If the problem was actually the casual acceptance of improper behavior among men, then promoting equally promiscuous behavior among women made the problem worse not better. What if both men and women, but particularly women, are happiest in monogamous, long-term, committed relationships? What if the psychological and emotional health of many women is damaged by treating sex casually, a contention supported by mental health professionals who serve women rather than political ideologies?  Part of today’s social gulf is between those who think that loosening sexual standards has brought greater happiness to all and those who think the cure caused more pain and suffering than it alleviated. Certainly, the utopian vision of joyful womanhood which was supposed to follow the unshackling of religious and moral chains has not materialized. It is easy and common today to mock moral positions which were normative only a few years ago. But there are millions of unhappy, hurt and suffering women, many of whom are on or have been on college campuses, who might well be leading happier lives today had those old-fashioned positions been strengthened rather than weakened.

Alaska Under Attack

My email box regularly fills up with messages from businesses, but this one was different. It wasn’t advertising a sale or a new product. Instead it was informing me, along with millions of other Alaska Airlines passengers, that after more than thirty years the company was discontinuing a tradition. No longer would cards displaying inspirational verses from Psalms be given out on flights.

In the scheme of things, compared to a nuclear Iran or high unemployment, this notification seems minor. Yet, it cast a pall over my day and felt similar to the loss of an important individual whom I may not have known personally, but whose presence made the world a better place. Until six years ago, when the cards were given out with each meal, they were a unique touch which made flying on Alaska special. Since airlines stopped routinely feeding all their passengers the cards were reserved for First Class diners. Still, while I might not have seen them on most flights, I was glad they were there.

Knowing from some of our friends who are Alaska crew that they often got berated for handing out the cards by, “Who are you to force your beliefs down my throat?” curmudgeons, our family made a point of thanking the crew for the cards and even writing to the airline’s president on occasion to express our appreciation. My guess is that the majority of passengers either liked the cards or ignored them; it was the vocal complaining minority which triumphed.

Enough people claimed offense for the airline to withdraw the cards saying, “… we've heard from many of you who believe religion is inappropriate on an airplane, and some are offended when we hand out the cards. Religious beliefs are deeply personal and sharing them with others is an individual choice.” Cards with verses from Psalms on them, of course, are a far cry from crucifixes or rosary beads. It would be hard to pinpoint exactly what religion was purportedly being promoted. Universities consider the verses to be classic literature or poetry. Certainly one is handicapped reading Shakespeare or past presidential speeches while ignorant of the Psalms. It is far-fetched to think of the word offensive on the list of adjectives describing Psalms. But to some secular extremists, any whisper of an association with God, despite its being a foundational stone of life, politics and business in America, is too much.

Does this decision by one corporation have larger implications? I think it does. No matter how excited or appalled one is at the idea of a Newt Gingrich presidency, his response to the question about contraception in the Arizona debate resonated. Rather than cowering or responding petulantly he went on the offensive. The cheering audience reflected the frustration of multitudes that have endured decades watching anti-traditional and anti-Biblical values being promoted, adulated and often forced on them by law. Respect for the personal religious beliefs of candidates has been deemed less important than legislation pushed and votes taken by other politicians. Those who cleave to moral tenets upon which this country was founded are tired of being accused of hate, bigotry and dictatorial aspirations.

I am not upset at Alaska Airlines. It is hard to run a business and the cards were certainly ancillary to the core mission of the company. They held on for many years before succumbing to the secular offensive. But still, removing the cards reflects a disturbing trend, one which demands that every person of faith becomes more steadfast as well as more, wisely, but adamantly outspoken.

Football, Caucuses and the Sabbath

Texans are serious about sports. Decades after he stopped playing for the Dallas Cowboys, a friend of ours still attracts major attention when he walks through the hallways at DFW airport. It is reasonable to assume that Texans also treat high school basketball more earnestly than do citizens of other states. So when a religious Jewish high school in Houston recently was told to forfeit a tournament semifinal game if they wouldn’t violate their convictions and play on Friday night, the Jewish Sabbath, it was big news.

I’m pretty serious about politics. This past Saturday the WA State Republican caucus took place. I didn’t attend. For Sabbath observant Jews, a Saturday caucus always presents a number of difficulties, sometimes insurmountable ones. This past Shabbat it was even harder to overcome the obstacles. The Shabbat before Purim (Feast of Esther) includes a special reading from the Torah in synagogue, and while you can play “catch up” if you must, the preferred option is to hear it on Saturday morning.

I did not feel ‘offended’ or ‘excluded’ by the WA State caucus’ timing. Had I wanted to, months ago I could have contacted the State’s Republican Party offices and brought up the issue. The chairman, Kirby Wilbur, a friend and former radio colleague of my husband, is a great guy who taught two of my children in a homeschool co-op. Our family has been guests at his home for a spectacular Fourth of July fireworks exhibition. Had Sabbath-observant Jews brought the Saturday caucus problem to his attention, I have no doubts the party would have made accommodations for us, as a number of other states with Saturday voting have done.

Similarly, when a well-known department store runs a “one day sale” on Saturdays, which means I can’t take advantage of the special pricing, I basically shrug my shoulders.  Whether you are a political organization, a business or a sports league, balancing your needs along with everyone else’s is impossible. You do the best you can and make adjustments when possible and reasonable.

Which is why I was disturbed by the way in which the Texas situation was resolved. In response to a lawsuit brought by the parents of some of the basketball players, a judge issued a ruling and the game was rescheduled. While on the surface this seems fair and equitable, in my view, it was an unfortunate outcome. As I see it, legal action tends to damage relationships. It is ever so much better when these things get resolved – even if it takes longer and there is short-term pain– by neighbors acting out of concern for each other.   When people voluntarily make changes out of a desire to be inclusive, communities are strengthened. When the law forces accommodation it only emphasizes “otherness.” When courts get involved rigid lines are drawn which frequently end up causing unanticipated and more severe problems down the road.

I hope that in four years there will be a non-Saturday option for the WA State caucus. I wish the Beren Academy basketball team success in making the semifinals once again and for the scheduling to allow them to play. More than either of those outcomes, however, I wish for a less litigious society, where human relationships flourish and the legal system is called upon only rarely and in extreme cases.  

Mitt's Money Obstacle

Too much money. Could that be the core reason for Mitt Romney’s lack of success during this primary season? As strange as it sounds, I am becoming convinced that his ability to draw on his own millions may have hindered his campaign. While most of us chuckle at the idea of too much money causing problems and would welcome the opportunity to test the thesis, consider these cases.

A number of years ago I read a charming wedding announcement. The bride and groom met through an online dating program. As they connected and began to explore a relationship the young man found his match to be tremendously reticent about her employment. She wouldn’t even reveal her last name! He finally concluded that she worked for an intelligence agency and only hoped it was the CIA rather than the KGB. Once she trusted him, the truth came out. She was an heiress working for the family company and  worried that the wrong sort of man would be attracted by her bank account rather than by her essence.

I know another gentleman in his mid-thirties who has been singularly unsuccessful in establishing a career. The problem? As the recipient of an annual endowment from a trust set up by his late grandparents, he isn’t hungry enough to put in the necessary “grunt hours” needed to master skills. The idea of working diligently for significantly less than he gets for just breathing has become an obstacle in his life.  He’s a talented guy, but life has come just a little too easy for him.

Mitt Romney earned his money honestly and can use it as he wishes. But perhaps he should have initially assigned a certain amount of seed money to his campaign. Thereafter, he could have used his own money only to the extent it matched the donations he received. I think the benefits would have been two-fold. Firstly, market forces would have helped his campaign focus more on the values and arguments needed to win a presidential battle rather than on attacking his opponents. By making his supporters vital partners in his campaign he could have used his many aptitudes and abilities to build a more appealing platform.  Secondly, he would have more of an appreciation for the voters. When you depend upon an avalanche of $35 donations, you recognize that each person is important. In a country that believes in ‘one man, one vote’ that is a valuable lesson. Furthermore, anytime someone reaches into their pocket and gives you money that person has invested in you. That builds the grass roots troops necessary to beat President Obama.

Mitt Romney will not be able to outspend Barack Obama through his personal resources. Neither will he be able to run a negative campaign without alienating the people whose support he needs. He has wasted much of this lengthy and rather miserable primary season by relying on money rather than on developing a strong platform. Whether he wins or loses the nomination, his wealth may well have been one of his biggest drawbacks.