Opposite Day: Revisiting the Election With Empathy and Grace

The inestimable Rosalynde Welch over at Times and Seasons, bright light in the Bloggernacle, posted the following recently on her Facebook Page (shared here with permission)

******

I’m disappointed at yesterday’s outcome. Nevertheless, here are nine positives that I see in Obama’s being president this morning:

1. My sons and young men of all races have his example of a faithful family man who married, has been faithful to his wife and deeply invested in his kids. I can point to the President as a role model in this sense for my kids. This is huge. (Same could be said of Rom ney, obvs.)

2. I was so moved last night (as I was four years ago) when I thought of all the African-American children who once again saw a person who looks like them embraced by the nation. It may be merely symbolic, but symbols are powerful.

3 To the extent that last night’s results represent a collective concern over the issue of economic inequality in our nation, I think this is a good thing. People of goodwill disagree on how to fix the problem, but the symbolic affirmation of our collective solidarity means a lot.

4. Obama is a powerful example to children that education is the way up and out of poverty. (I think Romney’s biography can be read in the same way, but his father’s wealth obscures the lesson.)

5. 2012’s political pathologies will not be baked into world and national perceptions of Mormonism.

6. We will see less politicized coverage of the LDS church.

7. Anti-Americanism is less likely to be directed at LDS missionaries abroad.

8. This defeat will force the GOP to do some needed soul-searching about the future of the party.

9. This outcome will require all of us to reckon with the seismic effects of demographic change in the electorate.

Who can supply a (non-partisan) tenth? Any of my progressive friends want to take a stable at a similar list of hypothetical positives from a Romney presidency?

*****

I, a long time Obama supporter and recent celebrant, decided to take up Rosalynde’s invitation and imagine what I would say if the ball had bounced the other way on Tuesday. What positives could I see in Romney as President? This exercise works only if, like Rosalynde, one is completely sincere and honest in their praise. So here it goes.

1. I have lived in Massachusetts and have benefited and seen many families (many Mormon student families with young children) benefit from RomneyCare. I will always be grateful for his part in creating a system that insured that my family had medical insurance while we were living on my graduate student stipend.

2. Like President Obama before him, President Romney provides a wonderful example of deep devotion to spouse and family. I am glad my children and others in American will be able to see this continued example in our most visible leader.

3. I believe that President Romney’s deep sense of pragmatism, a pragmatism whose roots spring from our shared religion, can make him an effective President willing to compromise to solve tough issues. As a Republican he is in a good position to help bring the GOP back to the table in a serious way if he chooses this road. Not only do I hope he does, I think this is what he is predisposed to do. For example, Romney’s suggestion that we simply cap the total tax deductions for an individual was one of my favorite ideas from either side during the campaign.

4. To compliment his pragmatic Spirit, Romney has demonstrated time and time again strong managerial competence. I have appreciated having a President for whom I feel such competence is not only not an issue but a real strength and President Romney in my mind shares this trait.

5. Anne Romney will be a wonderful First Lady. Period. No. Exclamation Point!

6. Romney is smart, a quick study and works hard. I think he has the raw ability and discipline, like Obama before him to step up to the plate of foreign policy and the sense to listen to the more competent and moderate voices of his foreign policy advisers.

7. I actually welcome the extended Mormon Moment. I feel that for the most part Mormons were objectively (as can be achieved) even well-treated by the big mainstream press. I believe our religion can not only withstand such scrutiny but has come better due to it. The Romney presidency will continue to force us to continue to deal with some uncomfortable facts in our past and hopefully put them to bed responsibly. It will continue to press us to grapple with how American political and social forces have come to shape and interweave themselves within the cultural fabric of the church, for good and ill. This is an important discussion for us to have as a religious community. I look forward to it.

8. The inevitable compromises that will come during a Romney presidency will help remind the more politically strident strains within our own religion, on both the right and the left, that the world, especially the political world, is not all black and white or good and evil. It will be harder for them to stereotype and criticize when it is one of our own making, even leading these compromises.

9. I admit it is simply nice to see a coreligionist as President. Just as President Obama was a symbol of the acceptance and place of racial minorities in America, Romney’s presidency can act the same for religious minorities of all types.

So do any of our Obama voters here have a 10th to add to my Romney list? Anyone conservatives want to right a similar list for Green Party candidate Jill Stein? Any left-leaners want to take on a hypothetical Gary Johnson presidency? Any Romney supporters want to add to Rosalynde’s list?

Finally, whether your side won or lost we have now had time to gloat or despair. After such a long and drawn out election season full of high emotion and too many negative ads/attacks on both sides, this post and thread is dedicated to healing divides not creating them. I have asked the permas to help me aggresively monitor the thread. Any political attacks or snarkiness (even of the type we normally allow) will be deleted. Fair warning we are well versed in the dark arts of sarcasm and irony.

Let us practice the best of the American spirit and come back together as a community here at FMH by finding the best in our leaders, especially those for whom we didn’t pull the lever.

22 Responses to "Opposite Day: Revisiting the Election With Empathy and Grace"

juliathepoet says:

November 9, 2012 at 4:34 am

I believe that while president Romney sometimes feels out of touch to many who voted against him, that when the nation needs to come together in a time of crisis, that the immediate needs of the people would more important than political infighting. (Even though some of his privatizing FEMA comments/plans notwithstanding.)

The day after the election, people in New York and New Jersey woke up to a winter storm hitting hard communities already suffering after the hurricane that changed their landscape. While it took a literal Armageddon to give President Romney the ability to refocus the nation on its citizens desperately in need of help, that refocus allowed partisan politics to be put aside, so that New Jersey, New York, and especially Long Island could get the resources they desperately needed.
(If you aren’t tracking the impacts of this second storm, one of my readers who works on Long Island and lives in NYC wrote a guest post about her experiences on 11/7/2012. http://www.poetrysansonions.com/2012/11/guest-post-real-apocalypse-of-1172012.html?m=0)

I think the suffering of so many people would be addressed quickly, and I think post-election it can be a story simply about people’s needs, and how a President Romney and the country meets those needs, now that the political posturing of the election is over. I think a President Romney would be quick to jump in and focus the attention on those who need help. I also think that his experience with the Olympics would give him the experience to lead from the front when large volunteer efforts are needed.

Reply
1. rah says:
  
  November 9, 2012 at 5:49 am
  
  Like 🙂 Romney is his best under pressure it seems. A nice quality to have in a president.
  
  Reply
Kimberly says:

November 9, 2012 at 7:15 am

As an independent, I have to run these lists in my head anyway, because I’m not a party line voter. I’m mainly frustrated at the lack of choices- that our two party system really only presents two viable candidates. I’d like to see some fresh air and have more choices, period. Elections should offer us alternatives, rather than more of what isn’t working on either side. I think the problem has been more about protecting the interests of individual parties rather than saving America, and that’s a dereliction of duty for a public servant of either party. We can’t move beyond standard fare and I’m wondering if that’s why we’ve lost our groove. It’s going to take an innovator to move this economy. I was hoping for Mitt’s business crisis experience to help. Yet, I do like Obama’s respect for people of every stripe- he’s very humane, a nice quality in a president.

The thing about a second term presidents is they lose the restraint they have in the first term because they can’t run again. So, I’m interested in how these next four years play out. Will we see some cutting edge attempts at fixing some things, or will it be more of the same? Once the election is over, I’m a believer in praying for and supporting the President, because it’s an overwhelming job, especially in our economic state. I always hope that the winner develops into the President we need versus the PR package on the campaign trail.

Reply
1. nange says:
  
  November 10, 2012 at 10:17 am
  
  “Elections should offer us alternatives, rather than more of what isn’t working on either side,” yes, yes and YES!
  
  Reply
2. Hank says:
  
  November 13, 2012 at 1:41 am
  
  Let me share why I believe in aligning myself with one of the two major parties, and not a third party. President Hugh B.Brown of the First Presidency in the 1960’s-70’s (a Democrat) taught that when a 3rd party enters into the fray, or a 3rd candidate, it invariably results in that small minority of the vote, say 10%, actually ruling the country because it is always dictating the terms to the other two parties, perhaps with 45% each but neither with a majority, so the two major parties are always catering to the whims of the small minority, making back-room deals, and its the 10% that dictates the terms of those deals, how its going to vote, and the end objective is always power, power, power.
  Such is how Hitler got into power with a mere 10% of the vote, and the following deal-brokering that ultimately put him in. Such it was that the combined George Bush, Sr. + Ross Perot = greater than 50% of the vote in 1992, but Clinton was elected with a minority of the voters, with Perot giving the election to a minority of the voters as polls consistently showed 90% of his voter would have voted Bush.
  Such it is when “coalitions” in so many parlimentary systems of government are unstable and requiring new votes at any time the majority coalition breaks-down.
  He agreed that we were unlikely to find either party to reflect all our values and opinions, and those that truly do not feel comfortable under either umbrella should stay independent… but I agree with him when he said he thought it wise to not leave the 2-party system, rather to focus on one of the two parties, and then involve yourself to make that party what you want it to be, make your voice heard.
  He also gave much other wise counsel, such as accepting that the leaders of both major parties are patriotic Americans and not to demogogue or question their loyalty, to keep all public discourse civil. In case anyone think he would change his counsel today, then you don’t remember the Nixon-Kennedy campaign (1960) or the Johnson-Goldwater campaign (1964).
  Hope you don’t mind me sharing these thoughts on your FMH website! 🙂
  
  Reply
  1. rah says:
    
    November 13, 2012 at 2:08 am
    
    Of course we don’t mind. HBB is my all time favorite apostle!
    
    Reply
  2. JR says:
    
    November 16, 2012 at 4:01 am
    
    The founding Fathers were wary of a 2 party system.
    
    Reply
    1. rah says:
      
      November 16, 2012 at 4:30 am
      
      JR, True they were, but the way in which the mechanics of the system were set up made the inevitable long-term equilibrium a two-party system. They may have not realized that at the time because they didn’t have a lots of examples of democracies to draw on when setting the rules. Of course, since then the parties have, due to self interest, engineered the system to be even more unfavorable to third parties. Gerrymandering is my favorite example. If we were serious about decreasing both partisan gridlock and biasing our legislators toward moderation and opening up the possibility of non-party candidates we would have a non-party run system for creating districts. This has allowed democrats and republics to ensconce themselves in the House. It is not an accident this is where the most ideological members of congress tend to be. I would seriously love to see new districting processes that were less open to crass political manipulation.
      
      Reply
Risa says:

November 9, 2012 at 11:46 am

Like Kimberly, I’m an independent who has to weigh lists of pros and cons in my head for every race. I’m admittingly a left-leaning independent, but still it was a tough choice for me until Romney picked Ryan as his running made (oh how I wish he had picked Marco Rubio!) and that decided it for me. But I still agonized over Stein versus Obama. That said, I think no matter who won, both Obama and Romney are good men with good moral compasses who both believe and do what they think is best for their families and country. It was so nice seeing the two major players in this election be family men who are deeply devoted to their wives, children, and in Romney’s case, grandchildren. Even though I was hoping for the outcome that came, I would not have despaired at all if Romney had won because he would have done the best for this country that he could. Sure, there would be things he would do that I disagree with, just like there have been things in the last four years Obama has done that I have disagreed with, but I think like any good Mormon he would have magnified his calling. One thing I read about what Romney did as Governor of MA was he went over the budget every morning, just like he did with his business, and worked hard to create a balanced one.

A year ago one of the high councilmen in our ward was asked to speak and he invited his father, who had held several Stake leadership callings, to speak as well. He gave one of the best talks I’ve ever heard in Sacrament meetings. One point he did make was to admonish every one not to pray that the President fails. He said that praying for the President of your country to fail is like praying for the pilot on your plane to fail. That was a humbling moment for me because I really did not like Bush, and it was a good reminder that no matter who is the President in the future, we always want them to succeed, should pray for them to succeed, because doing the opposite is the proverbial cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Reply
1. juliathepoet says:
  
  November 9, 2012 at 5:23 pm
  
  I am a nonaffiliated voter, and so I too am used to weighing all sides. I think that if every member of the church stopped being a member of political parties, and instead only weighed candidates based on their experiences and their platforms. I certainly am not trying to tell people to leave their political convictions behind, but to focus on those conditions.
  
  (As a side note, I think it is very sad that this post has so few comments. Hopefully Winterbuzz’s OP will have the comments closed so people will actually read this one. 😉 Thank you for asking all of us to stretch a little further. That is not to say I disagree with anything Winterbuzz said, I just find the polarization that continues in the thread to be unfortunate, given the OP.)
  
  Reply
  1. rah says:
    
    November 10, 2012 at 12:04 pm
    
    Ahh thanks julia. I will say that the entire US system is set up to run through and by parties, 2 parties to be exact. It is almost impossibly structurally for a viable third party to emerge due to the way the Constitution is set up. So while I respect people who don’t affiliate with parties and vote across party lines, I think it is also valid to work within the party system.
    
    Reply
Alice says:

November 9, 2012 at 1:45 pm

I would have liked to see how Romney would have handled his presidency. I think he could have done a lot of good things getting our country organized and in better financial shape. I believe he is a good man, and was really proud of his concession speech. I thought it was very classy.

Reply
Molly_MW says:

November 10, 2012 at 11:28 am

This is maybe the best thing I have read during the entire election fiasco. I’ve been appalled at the vitriolic and hyperbolic reaction to Obama’s re-election, but I too am sometimes guilty of partisan invective. I have vowed to be more thoughtful in what I say and write about political candidates of any stripe.

Reply
1. rah says:
  
  November 10, 2012 at 11:58 am
  
  Molly,
  
  So give it a try 🙂 Say a few nice things about the person you didn’t vote for! It feels good.
  
  Reply
2. rah says:
  
  November 10, 2012 at 12:06 pm
  
  Oh and thanks Molly. I am glad you liked it. Maybe people just aren’t ready yet 🙂 It was a hard fought election amplified by more money than we have ever seen before. I am kind of hoping there is a voter backlash,,,especially in the battleground states where the electorate rebels and the sides have to moderate their spending or risk driving people away.
  
  Reply
wjb1492 says:

November 10, 2012 at 9:18 pm

I wanted to reflect on this one a while. I am strongly liberal, but I was never one who thought the world would end regardless of the outcome. I don’t think Romney is a bad guy, and I felt bad for him with the whole rock/hard place of winning the nomination with the rabid conservatives being so vocal. I like to think he would have been more moderate in office than he campaigned.

And I also found myself at odds often during the campaign with defending his/my religion regardless of my politics. I am glad to see that a Mormon is electable, and that some religions who have been critical of the religion could endorse the man for a job.

And I share many of the original thoughts.

Reply
KMK says:

November 11, 2012 at 12:03 am

Is there a place on this blog already dedicated to the subject of the Church’s “political neutrality?” I have some thoughts on that I’d like to share and request others’ input.

Reply
Natasha Helfer Parker says:

November 11, 2012 at 2:09 am

thank you Joanna and Rosalynde
This is a fresh of breath air!!

Reply
Reflections on a Facebook Hiatus | Historicisms says:

November 13, 2012 at 10:32 am

[…] good that might come of a second Obama term. There were also some liberals who returned the favor. (This blog post details such an exchange.) Grace in defeat is more difficult to pull off than magnanimity in […]

Reply
State of Formation - Reflections on Social Media and Politics says:

November 15, 2012 at 5:01 am

[…] good that might come of a second Obama term. There were also some liberals who returned the favor. (This blog post details such an […]

Reply
Wayne Dequer says:

November 15, 2012 at 9:11 pm

One of the touching moments of the campaign was watching the extended video feed after what I think was the second debate. There was no sound. The Romney and Obama families came out and interacted. It was obviously a civil, warm and kind exchange. The exchanges in the debate had been sharp. But what I saw from their post debate behavior and demeanor was two opponents, but NOT two enemies. Perhaps that extended video feed should be required watching for all Americans.

Reply
John Jay says:

November 23, 2012 at 12:20 am

I know I’m suppose to say something positive. I hope this isn’t negative. If a candidate says negative things about the citizens he is going to serve when elected, it’s difficult to trust him. When a candidate says one thing to one group to gay their vote, and then says the opposite to a different group to get their vote it difficult to want to vote for him. It’s as though he thinks the people listening to him aren’t smart enough to notice. I can’t respect someone who campaigns like that. If you feel you must delete this do so. I don’t personally know him, and from what I witnessed I have no desire to know him. He represented my church as someone who is not acquainted with the truth. Someone who will say what his party tells him. Huntsman wasn’t nominated because he refused to compromise the teachings of the church. Romney did not endure.

Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply