Shal­low breather

I love this coun­try. I spent my life in the pri­vate sec­tor, not in gov­ern­ment. I only spent four years as a gov­er­nor. I didn’t inhale.

—Mitt Rom­ney, Sep­tem­ber 22^nd, 2011

If there was a pro­gram or agency or depart­ment that needed cut­ting, I did it… That skill I learned in the pri­vate sec­tor, and prac­ticed for four years in Mass­a­chu­setts, where by the way I served in gov­ern­ment, but I didn’t inhale. I’m still a busi­ness guy.

—Mitt Rom­ney, CPAC, Wash­ing­ton, D.C., Feb­ru­ary, 2012

Mitt Rom­ney has repeat­edly used this line. He’s still using it.

On this Memo­r­ial Day, it needs to be said. This is one of the most unpa­tri­otic things we have ever heard from the mouth of a man who wants to be America’s Commander-​​in-​​Chief.

Make no mis­take. Mitt Rom­ney is com­par­ing being a pub­lic ser­vant to being a user of ille­gal drugs. It’s a slap in the face to all ded­i­cated gov­ern­ment work­ers. On this Memo­r­ial Day, it needs to be said. Mitt Romney’s laugh line is a direct insult to our men and women in uniform.

Just as bad, he is admit­ting he learned noth­ing from his years as Gov­er­nor. Pre­vi­ous can­di­dates for the Pres­i­dent who are gov­er­nors or ex-​​governors — par­tic­u­larly Repub­li­can ones — were proud of their expe­ri­ence as the chief exec­u­tive of a state, claim­ing that it gave them valu­able knowl­edge which would be use­ful as chief exec­u­tive of the nation. That was G. W. Bush’s claim for Pres­i­dent. Not Rom­ney. He is straight­for­ward in pro­claim­ing that he took noth­ing from his expe­ri­ence as Gov­er­nor of Mass­a­chu­setts, absorbed noth­ing, changed not a bit.

Rom­ney is stand­ing the Repub­li­can argu­ment of 2008 on its head. Rather than crit­i­cize Pres­i­dent Obama for being inex­pe­ri­enced, Rom­ney is insist­ing gov­ern­ment expe­ri­ence is down­right harm­ful for a would-​​be president.

This is a man who claims to want to be in charge of the very thing he den­i­grates  — gov­ern­ment. It’s akin to a mob boss run­ning for police com­mis­sioner. Why should we elect a man to the high­est posi­tion in gov­ern­ment if that man detests government?

In mod­ern pol­i­tics, this meme began with Pres­i­dent Ronald Rea­gan, who pro­claimed, “The nine most ter­ri­fy­ing words in the Eng­lish lan­guage are, ‘I’m from the gov­ern­ment and I’m here to help.’” This is a chal­lenge, a denial, a rever­sal of the very mean­ing of the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion, which begins with the dec­la­ra­tion that “We the Peo­ple” form and con­sti­tute the gov­ern­ing body of Amer­ica. Fol­low­ing Rea­gan, nearly every nationally-​​known Repub­li­can since has insisted that gov­ern­ment of the peo­ple, by the peo­ple, and for the peo­ple, is some­thing to be feared rather than val­ued. The con­cepts embod­ied in the Con­sti­tu­tion drove the rea­sons our coun­try was cre­ated. Rea­gan­ism is a denial of America.

The prob­lem here is that, prior to the rebel­lion of 1776, gov­ern­ments were not con­sti­tuted of the peo­ple. The most pow­er­ful slo­gan of the Boston Tea Party — “No Tax­a­tion With­out Rep­re­sen­ta­tion” — had far more to do with rep­re­sen­ta­tion than with tax­a­tion. The Amer­i­can rev­o­lu­tion­ar­ies rec­og­nized the need for tax­a­tion to fund the func­tions of gov­ern­ment. That’s why the Con­sti­tu­tion gives Con­gress the power to tax. “The func­tions of gov­ern­ment” is a phrase that prop­erly means “any­thing The Peo­ple decide it means”. The pur­pose of Amer­ica is to allow The Peo­ple to chose their own fate.

Before Amer­ica, gov­ern­ments were con­structed from the cronies of con­querors, or reli­gious zealots, or both. Kings ruled. Peas­ants obeyed. Nobles prof­ited. The Rul­ing Class ruled by divine right.

The point of Amer­ica, for bet­ter or worse, was that The Peo­ple chose to rule them­selves. Some­times The Peo­ple make mis­takes. That may not be ideal, but no God…no King…no oli­garchy should have the power to steal from The Peo­ple the right of self-​​rule. That is the mean­ing of America.

Romney’s ver­sion of Rea­gan­ism is a rever­sal of that vision. It’s under­stand­able in a way. Mitt Rom­ney was raised as a wealthy and priv­i­leged son of immensely wealthy and suc­cess­ful par­ents. The the­ory of social Dar­win­ism pro­claims that those who are suc­cess­ful deserve to be suc­cess­ful — that is appar­ent in the fact that they suc­ceeded. Those who fail and are needy deserve to starve — if they had worth, they would find a way to sur­vive. The wealthy are cho­sen by God. The poor con­demn them­selves. Amer­ica, in this view, should prop­erly be ruled by God’s chosen.

We see this idea, more sub­tly expressed, in the con­dem­na­tion of “wel­fare queens” who drive Cadil­lacs, and peo­ple who use  food stamps or draw unem­ploy­ment ben­e­fits, and even retired elders on Social Secu­rity. All of these free­load­ers should have planned for them­selves. Every human being is an island. In this way of think­ing, “We the Peo­ple” has no real mean­ing; rather, our nation is about “Me the Person”.

In his laugh line about declin­ing to “inhale,” Mitt Rom­ney is hear­ken­ing back to Pres­i­dent Bill Clin­ton, who admit­ted that he smoked mar­i­juana in col­lege, but claimed he “didn’t inhale.” Rom­ney wants to admit that he spent some time in gov­ern­ment, but deny that this time had any effect on him. Rom­ney is run­ning against the whole idea of gov­ern­ment, as if elected offi­cials should really spend their time play­ing check­ers rather than doing The People’s business.

Of all the pan­der­ing and lies and mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tions and Orwellian newspeak that Repub­li­cans com­mit, this is one that offends me most. Mitt Rom­ney wants to con­vince Amer­ica that, because he thinks gov­ern­ment is evil, he should be the high­est elected offi­cial in our  gov­ern­ment. In that posi­tion, I would rather have some­one who cares about The Peo­ple. But maybe that’s just me.

I want a Pres­i­dent who thinks that gov­ern­ing our nation is about…gov­ern­ing our nation. I don’t par­tic­u­larly want a Pres­i­dent who learned noth­ing from gov­ern­ing a state, who thinks that America’s pur­pose is pro­vid­ing prof­its to investors. That was the Bain Cap­i­tal model. Rom­ney proudly insists that he has not been pulled away from that. I will take him at his word.

We need a pres­i­dent who under­stands that gov­ern­ing has to do with gov­er­nance, not profit. It’s time to inhale.