The Obvious Lie About Romney

Which is quite simply that he's only fit to govern the country merely because he's insanely rich.

OK, so he's able to spend godless amounts of money on himself and his large and similarly insanely rich family… Are we simply supposed to swallow that argument?

Now let's consider the fact that no one actually likes this guy, because of course there is really nothing about him, other than his insane riches, TO like. Granted, being "liked" really isn't a perquisite to being a good leader. Lots of great leaders were never liked, so no one really needs to like this guy. Suffice it to say, most of those "great" leaders WERE actually feared, because they were obscenely violent, authoritarian and suffered from delusions of grandeur, as they took their people down into an abyss of ruin… But hey, they've made it to the history books, right?

But let's take this "He's-Right-For-President-Merely-Because-He's-A-Rich-Guy" argument:

First off, that really is a hopelessly lame and pretty darn low bar to set for fitness to earn the highest office in the land, isn't it? Shouldn't we have a better standard of qualifications for the presidency?

Hell, this IS some really important stuff that we're considering here.

Take, for example, the standards as defined in the Self-Actualization level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. As you know, the self-actualization level demonstrates achievement needs and are the highest example of actual self-development. When we put Romney up against the standards of achievement and self-actualizatiion, it's quite obvious as to what his deficiencies are. That, in spite of all of his riches, he's not a person who has reached his full potential.

Here are the qualities of self-actualizers:

Now let's compare and contrast this some of this list against Romney's known qualities:



Is he moral?

No, he's not particularly MORAL, because his fealty to the Mormon church's dogma and customs only speaks to his adherence to Mormons. When it comes to actual people, he's quite clear about his general disdain. He's also a known animal abuser and bully and has never been sufficiently remorseful or sympathetic about the plight of any of his past victims.

Piety and morality are two different things. Ask any preacher that's been caught in a sex scandal or caught cheating his or her parishioners out of a lot of money.

Is he creative?

Next, he's not a creative person or appreciative of creativity. Does he sponsor or advocated the arts? Does he inspire creativity in others? Quite the opposite: One of his obvious shortfalls is that he's a bland and boring individual who can't really inspire anyone to anything.

That is an extremely detrimental quality for any leader.

Is he a proven problem solver?

Take in consideration his creation of RomneyCare as Mass. Governor: Now, that would be a great example that he can be a problem solver… Were he to run with that today. But he's not, am I right? Much of the federal Affordable Care Act was built on RomneyCare's own example and Romney himself is actually running away from that. He's discrediting himself as a proven problem solver. INSTEAD, we're supposed to base his qualifications as a problem solver strictly on his skill at making himself rich at the expense of others.

Turns out he's touting his penchant for causing people's problems, through unemployment, OVER his actions of helping people receive affordable health care.

Again, not a very good quality for a leader.

Is he spontaneous?

Unfortunately for him, any time he expresses any kind of spontaneity on the campaign trail, all it does is highlight the fact that he's obtuse and detestable. Hence his language is always regimented and tailored to whatever ever audience he's talking to at the time. It demonstrates his obvious inability to express whatever moral clarity and strength of conviction that he may have. He never wants to defend them, if he actually has them.

He merely tells people what he thinks they want to hear. Which takes to his most obvious problem:

Does he accept facts?

No, of course not. The man is a proven LIAR. He lies about EVERYTHING, even when he doesn't have to lie and even when his lies are easily disprovable. He's a practiced liar, it's not even close to being unintentional. His ONLY retort for being confronted with his own lies is MORE LIES.

The man behaves as if he's missing the chromosome that allows him to tell the truth.

Is such a craven liar really the kind of person that we want to have taking care of the nation's affairs?

This country is still in a pretty big mess and yes, there is a lot of blame to go around. Some can be blamed more than others, so it's all a matter of being relative.

However, considering the actual need for great leadership potential that any President must have to deal with all the problems that our nation faces, we really need someone to be in the Oval Office who can transcend being any level of self-aggrandizement. Just being the insanely rich guy isn't going to cut the mustard.

As long as we have half the people who vote in this country with obviously flawed values about what's required for good leadership, BEYOND some kind of penchant for amassing personal riches, we're never going to appoint qualified leadership into high public office. We're never going to provide sufficient support for leaders who are self-actualized and we're never going to find the will to build systems of self-governance to facilitate a better way of life for each and every one of ourselves.

Our value system is flawed and thus, we promote flawed leaders.

Thus we're asked to accept him, in spite of the truth about him. We're supposed to ignore the obvious lies.

Again, this is why we can never have nice things.