A Simple Newtonian Idea for Mitt Romney about Democracy
Posted: 10 Nov 2023, 17:12
I am not writing about Newton Gingrich here although I remember news about Mitt Romney after the former lost to the latter in the Iowa Caucuses of the Republican Party's Primary back in 2012.
I remember David Gergen calling Newton Gingrich a wounded lion that night and that Mitt Romney had invested a lot of money in ads in Iowa in order to defeat him. I imagine that Republican Party's strategists thought that Mitt Romney would be a better candidate for the general election because Newton Gingrich had issues with women voters.
During that election, I wished to watch a debate about democracy between two thinkers: President Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich. President Obama defeated Mitt Romney in the general election.
So many years later, on November 8, 2023, I heard on TV Mitt Romney say the following: "I think we perform best when we talk to people."
It made me react at a moment's notice that he doesn't need to think about this simple idea and that it is not about talking to people. Stating that you think you perform best when you talk to people suggests that you had ignored them prior to the realization of that thinking.
It is about listening to people and be a willing delegate of the people. After all, the writers of the U.S. constitution started with the phrase: "We the people."
I know he is not Arkamani, Neither is he Archimedes nor Socrates.
Even though I am not a social scientist, I have been a long time proponent of democracy. It was a long time ago that the following simple hierarchy appeared to me intuitively as a simple articulation for a functioning democracy. People above Constitution, Constitution above Leadership, Leadership above an individual leader, such as a Chancellor, President, or Prime Minister. If this were to be read like a Newtonian formula for a functioning democracy, it would be People --> Constitution --> Leadership --> Leader. I am sure that is very simplistic. However, doesn't it make sense?
If the students of Socrates and others who wrote the U.S. constitution could say we the people in the late 18th century even though they walked as lords over other people, the natives and the abducted, how is it that one of the leaders of the Republican Party of the U.S. couldn't say in the 21st century it is our job to listen to the people?
If the students of Socrates and others who wrote the U.S. constitution were silent about abortion in the 18th century, how did it end up as an issue of political leaders in the 21st century. Excepting former Governor and former Ambassador Nikki Haley who effectively dispelled it with another simple Newtonian answer during the recent debate by saying the following: "I don't judge anyone for being prochoice and I don't want them to judge me for being prolife."
A corollary to that would be to ask since when that judgment became the job of a political leader.
May be since democracy as the rule of law was blown out of proportion and characters like Mitt Romney forgot that the job of political leaders is to listen to people instead of ignoring what people have to say and then coming out after his party lost local elections and state that he thinks that his party performs best when they talk to people.
I remember David Gergen calling Newton Gingrich a wounded lion that night and that Mitt Romney had invested a lot of money in ads in Iowa in order to defeat him. I imagine that Republican Party's strategists thought that Mitt Romney would be a better candidate for the general election because Newton Gingrich had issues with women voters.
During that election, I wished to watch a debate about democracy between two thinkers: President Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich. President Obama defeated Mitt Romney in the general election.
So many years later, on November 8, 2023, I heard on TV Mitt Romney say the following: "I think we perform best when we talk to people."
It made me react at a moment's notice that he doesn't need to think about this simple idea and that it is not about talking to people. Stating that you think you perform best when you talk to people suggests that you had ignored them prior to the realization of that thinking.
It is about listening to people and be a willing delegate of the people. After all, the writers of the U.S. constitution started with the phrase: "We the people."
I know he is not Arkamani, Neither is he Archimedes nor Socrates.
Even though I am not a social scientist, I have been a long time proponent of democracy. It was a long time ago that the following simple hierarchy appeared to me intuitively as a simple articulation for a functioning democracy. People above Constitution, Constitution above Leadership, Leadership above an individual leader, such as a Chancellor, President, or Prime Minister. If this were to be read like a Newtonian formula for a functioning democracy, it would be People --> Constitution --> Leadership --> Leader. I am sure that is very simplistic. However, doesn't it make sense?
If the students of Socrates and others who wrote the U.S. constitution could say we the people in the late 18th century even though they walked as lords over other people, the natives and the abducted, how is it that one of the leaders of the Republican Party of the U.S. couldn't say in the 21st century it is our job to listen to the people?
If the students of Socrates and others who wrote the U.S. constitution were silent about abortion in the 18th century, how did it end up as an issue of political leaders in the 21st century. Excepting former Governor and former Ambassador Nikki Haley who effectively dispelled it with another simple Newtonian answer during the recent debate by saying the following: "I don't judge anyone for being prochoice and I don't want them to judge me for being prolife."
A corollary to that would be to ask since when that judgment became the job of a political leader.
May be since democracy as the rule of law was blown out of proportion and characters like Mitt Romney forgot that the job of political leaders is to listen to people instead of ignoring what people have to say and then coming out after his party lost local elections and state that he thinks that his party performs best when they talk to people.