Mitt Romney is a principled moderate, which is good.

You can be a principled moderate that stands up for that which is good. However, we should never be so sure that we are right that we do that which is wrong to accomplish it.
Today, it is unusual to even show any respect to the other side. Today you can classify as a moderate, by just following time tested traditions of respect and decorum.
You can stand for truth without oversimplifying or demonizing your enemies or their position. You can still have strong convictions and be a moderate.
It all basically boils down to the belief that the ends do not justify the means.
As GK Chesterton said, "It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong." I mean I don't know if McCain or any of the other candidates are biggots, but I like Romney because it seems like he is intellectual curious. He doesn't care about ideology, he cares about what works. This shouldn’t get the conservatives upset as long as what they believe actually works.
Motaire said, "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." I don't mean to say I don't think Romney is certain. I just think he is more open. He doesn't oversimplify his enemies position. He still believes in right and wrong, he is just more tactful.
I personally believe that neither political party in America has a monopoly on the truth. I mean Mitt needs support from the Republican party, but don't we ever think back to George Washington who warned us against faction?
What I like about Mitt is that he likes John Adams. I love John Adams. I liked the interview that Mitt gave were he criticized Thomas Jefferson a little bit. I mean he said that he liked what he wrote, but he was disappointed by his actions. That he was a hypocrite (like me).
When it comes to political parties it is good to be a moderate. I mean there are scriptures that say that it is better to be hot or cold than lukewarm, but I think that has to do with standing up for what is right, with specific issues. I don't think that means that one party is always right, or that extremism is good. One party does not own God and his causes, and Jesus taught against bad extremism. The apostles gave their lives for the truth. They were good extreme. But they didn't take lives for the truth. They didn't kill. They didn't lie, to move the cause foward. They didn't oversimplify issues. The need to be hot or cold does not mean the ends justify the means. I mean I think Romney is respectful. I don't think you have to be full of hatred to democrats, just to prove that you are a good republican.
For the sake of argument, I would like to hear reasons to agree and disagree with the belief that both extremes are bad.
Perhaps we don't want a revolution we just want progress.
It sounds boring, but we should dare to be boring. Calling for revolution can make you feel good about yourself, you know, I'm different, I'm better, I see things clearly, you all are stupid
Don't get me wrong. I don't think that Romney is a wimp. I think I have ample evidence that he stands up for what he thinks is right. But I don't think Romney will try to make us all feel good about ourselves, by telling us that our poltical enimies are devils, and that Republicans are always right.
Romney is a republican, but people are criticizing him for going along with democrats on the health insurance bill. That is stupid. You should look at the substance of his action. Does it meet republican principles? Yes. It will save the government money in the long run. Yes. It is efficient. Yes. It holds people accountable. Just because some democrats like it does not mean that it is wrong.
At least two-thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity: idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religous or political ideas. - Aldous Huxley

Reasons to agree:

I don’t think Gov. Romney is a “principled moderate” at all. You make the point that he is respectful of gays, but doesn’t support gay marriage. That means he is a conservative. Ninety nine point nine percent of conservatives ARE respectful of gays. The Media tries to tell us otherwise, but it’s just not true. Nothing about Mitt Romney is “moderate.” One’s personality doesn’t make him conservative or liberal or moderate. These labels are used to describe stances on issues. Gov. Romney is a conservative economically, socially, and fiscally. I clicked on that wikipedia link that you put under “moderate” and I really would urge you to reconsider those terms. Respectfully, Nancy, Nancy French, Co-Founder, Www.EvangelicalsforMitt.com

Posted by me!

http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/4/23/232846/190

I think a lot of Mormons and evangelicals miss-interpret the lesson learned from the following scripture:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rev/3/16#16

I think that this scripture has to do with standing up for what is right, with specific issues. I don't think that means that one party is always right, or that extremism is good. One party does not own God and his causes, and Jesus taught against bad extremism. The apostles gave their lives for the truth. They were good extreme. But they didn't take the lives of others for the truth. They didn't kill. They didn't lie, to move the cause forward. They didn't oversimplify issues. The need to be hot or cold does not mean the ends justify the means. I think Romney is respectful. I don't think you have to be full of hatred to democrats, just to prove that you are a good republican. This is one of Romney's strengths but it is turned into a weakness when people use labels, like moderate. You can stand for truth without oversimplifying or demonizing your enemies or their position. You can still have strong convictions and be what some people call a moderate.

This is a must read from George Washing for those who advocate party (or faction) extremism

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

George Washington says,

"…They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests."

"It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property."

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally."

"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy."

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."

But I digress.

Top