Questions about Romney's character

Mitt Romney says he doesn't remember the much discussed incident when as a prep-schooler he is said to have led a pack of boys in bullying a non-conforming classmate, including throwing him down and cutting his long hair.

Mitt may not remember it, but several other classmates who participated with him in the incident remember and say they have been haunted by what they did ever since.   So, either Mitt is lying about not remembering -- or it maybe says something even worse:  that he is so insensitive to what he did to violate and humiliate another human being that he doesn't even remember it.

Time Magazine's Joe Klein goes after this as a question of Romney's character.

It’s not the incident itself that troubles me–-though it was, obviously, outrageous and disgraceful–-so much as his current response: He doesn’t remember it. This is patent nonsense. How could he not remember it? Obviously, he remembers it or he wouldn’t have been so quick to issue his blanket apology yesterday for any and all hurt he may have caused at Cranbrook.  And this transparent fudge once again raises questions about his character.

It comes during the same week that he claims credit for saving the auto industry, even though he opposed the bailout that made possible the “structured bankruptcy” he favored. It comes the same week that he expresses his opposition to gay marriage, even though he promised to be a more aggressive proponent of gay rights than Ted Kennedy when he ran for the Senate in 1994–of course, it’s possible that Romney has “evolved” in the opposite direction from President Obama, and most Americans, on this issue, but I doubt it. It seems that a day can’t go by without some Romney embarrassment, or bald-faced reversal of a former position.

I’m still waiting for the moment when Romney actually tells the truth about something difficult.

Me too.   Just look at what he's said this week about his position on gay issues in response to Obama's historic support for gay marriage -- forget for the moment all the other contradictory things Romney has said in the past.   Just this week alone he said he is opposed to same-sex marriage and wants to protect the sanctity of marriage.  He would support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.  Yet he would allow states to make their own laws.  But the constitutional amendment would render any state gay rights laws invalid.   He supports certain civil rights for gays and even the right to adopt children ("I'm fine with that.")    Except that he opposes civil unions, and thinks that children deserve to have both a mother and a father.

Can you follow that?   No, of course not.   Don't try.  It's just the Romney merry-go-round.

Back to Klein on Romney about the bullying in prep school and the non-apology:

He could have said, “You know, I’ve been troubled by the Cranbrook episode for most of my life, and I feel relieved, in a way, that it’s come out now. I did a really stupid and terrible thing. . . .  What I most regret  is that I never apologized to John, and won’t be able to now that he’s gone, but let me apologize to his family and friends. Bullying is unacceptable under any circumstances. . . .  If elected President, I will try to atone for my teenage behavior by campaigning against bullying all across this country. What I did back then should be an example of how not to behave. I hope we can all learn from this. I know that I have.”

Instead, Romney has a near-perfect record of cowardice, obfuscation and downright lies. It shows enormous disrespect for the intelligence of the public.

I just don't believe he has it in him to say something that honest and caring.   He says it never entered his mind to think that the boy was gay -- it was just that he wasn't dressing and wearing his hair the way boys at Cranbrook were supposed to look, and Mitt was trying to enforce conformity.

I don't believe for a minute that they didn't think the kid was gay;  others have said that they taunted the boy by calling him "girlie."   But, even on Romney's own terms, it shows a gross intolerance for non-conformity and a willingness to take matters in his own hands and lead a vigilante group to impose his will.   It was, quite simply, atrocious bullying.   It went far beyond Mitt's preferred "teenage hijinks and pranks."

I suggest that this teenage behavior is consistent with Romney's policy decisions about the role of government as it affects the lives of those who are different, less privileged, and need the safety net of the social contract.   Cranbrook was a formative world of privilege and conformity.   Romney learned those lessons well, and he wants to impose them on everyone else.  That may be the only consistent thing that influences his policy decisions.

Ralph