Buying the Presidency - Part 2

Awhile back, a long-time friend wrote to me in regard to my blog of February 5, 2008, that questioned Mitt Romney’s fundraising and spending approaches in support of his candidacy for president. My good friend raised two critical-thinking questions for me: 1) did my concerns about Mitt’s wealth reflect envy on my part, and 2) isn’t Mitt (or anyone else) free to spend his/her money as one chooses?

I am in the process of responding to my friend directly about question #1; that seemed to be too parochial a question to answer within this blog medium. My response to his question #2 is below. The discussion still seems to be pertinent, since Mitt Romney is currently making such an open play for the Republican vice presidential nod.

*****
Do I object to people spending their money as they wish? No, certainly not unless I would invite the same objections to my own spending decisions. I can hope that a person understands that their wealth came from many others, no matter how smart or hardworking or entrepreneurial s/he might be, and therefore there is some level of responsibility due to those “others.” I can hope that people retain their humility in the presence of wealth, realizing that neither wealth nor education necessarily equates with good character, responsibility and fairness. But at the end of the day, it is each person’s decision as to how they use the resources that come their way.

The decisions that they make, and the motivation that drives those decisions, will visibly demonstrate their character, values and judgment. Those decisions thereby serve as the basis of my choices of who I respect not just for their accumulation of wealth, but also for their use of that wealth. If you then choose to go into the public place of government service on my behalf, then my respect of you (or not) now becomes particularly important.

For me, the issues in this instance are neither the accumulation of wealth nor the spending of it. As with most things, it is the thinking and the motivation behind people’s actions that I react to. With Warren Buffet, I admire his success at accumulating wealth (versus his total dollars), AND his humility and grounded-ness at living with his wealth, AND his use of his wealth. With Bill Gates, I can question how he accumulated his wealth, I can accept how he is living with his wealth, and I can respect how he is now using it (though his motivation may still require some examination). With Donald Trump, there is no facet of him and his wealth that begs admiration, unless you consider wealth important for its own sake. But each of these people is certainly free to engage wealth as each chooses.

For Mitt Romney, it was not his wealth I objected to, which he seems to have come to quite legitimately. It is his attitude that came through so pervasively, i.e. that his electability should be predicated on his wealth, that being successful in business inherently qualifies one to be successful in governmental leadership. The reality is that American government is not a business, was never designed from the get-go to be “run like a business” (although that does not preclude utilizing business-like operating efficiencies). Political leadership and achievement is about vision, compromise, building consensus among divergent but equal stakeholders, attending to and balancing conflicting needs rather than playing to “niche market segments” (a la Karl Rove and George Bush). It is not about electability, it is about governing.

The US Congress is not a stockholder’s meeting, the Supreme Court is not a corporate board, and state governments are not subsidiary corporations. It was Romney’s lack of understanding and connection with many facets of the American citizenry, and the failure to truly understand “government” for what it is, that I think ultimately undermined him. It is why his (or any other) campaign must show a broad body of public support – via volunteerism, fundraising, and ultimately votes – in order to qualify one for public office (versus being designated as corporate CEO).

Mitt Romney could have spent as much of his own money as he wanted to get elected. But as Iowa and New Hampshire showed so clearly, if you do not work from a body of principles that comes ahead of electioneering, if you do not ultimately make a human connection with enough people such that they feel you understand them and deserve their trust to act in their collective best interest, no amount of TV ads can buy you the presidential seal.