To make the good into rulers, Plato wrote, “necessity and a penalty must be there for them… and the greatest of penalties is being ruled by a worse man if one is not willing to rule oneself. It is because they fear this, in my view, that decent men rule.”
And if Mitt Romney is nothing else, he is a decent man. This idea dominates in a recently released Netflix documentary, Mitt, a collection of footage from Romney’s two presidential campaigns captured by Greg Whiteley. The film offers itself as a kind of tribute to the truth of Plato’s claim, showing the harsh realities of campaign life and the things families must endure to win.
Recommended Stories
Josh Romney captured Plato’s meaning during his father’s first campaign for president in 2008. Asked if it was worth it to endure the traveling, long hours and ruthless attacks on his dad’s character, Josh playfully gave the “media version” answer first: it was an opportunity to meet new people, a chance to face the country’s challenges and so on.
Then Josh spoke from the heart.
“What better guy is there than my dad?” he asked.
After reflecting on what his father had been going through, he added, “This is why good people don’t run for office.”
Yet Romney did run — twice, in fact. Before Romney’s 2008 campaign, the family sat together and weighed pros and cons of a presidential push. Tagg, one of Romney’s sons, supported the move, saying that he had “a duty to country and to God to see what comes of it.” This idea of duty is a constant one: Romney’s concession speech in 2012 spoke of the nation being at a “critical point.” As he said in private, the country looked to be “following the path of every great nation” in decline: overregulation, excessive taxation, and a concentration of corrupt political power.
It might be surprising to talk so strongly of duty, and the conviction that comes with it, since many have looked to the documentary as evidence of Romney’s lack of self-confidence. Yet this idea does not bear itself out during the film. That he doubts himself from time to time is natural — President Barack Obama needed to be talked off the ledge after his sloppy debate performance in Denver — but Romney’s sense of purpose did not waver. When one of his sons worried about whether Romney could stand up to the President in a debate, his answer was simple.
“I represent the party that represents half of the people in this country,” he said. “I got selected by that party. I’m the nominee. And I’m going to stand up to this guy because he’s taking this country in the wrong direction. I’ve got no problem with that.”
Those are not the words of someone who doubts. What Romney saw then, and what many Americans see now, was the detachment from reality that permeated the Obama campaign. Romney was and is a rich man, but he spent so much of his adult life working — working closely — with struggling businesses and employees.
“They have not been in the setting where you’re trying to make it…” he mused after the debate in Denver. “They think business is always there.”
Romney illustrated his point with an interesting story about a company that made guitar amplifiers. They ran the numbers, he said, and found that two-thirds of their income was going to government. Income taxes, sales taxes, real estate taxes, FICA taxes, gas taxes — it went on and on.
While Romney had the experience and good sense to know that a business can hardly operate in such an environment, he did not see the same in his opponents.
It is strange to see these conversations and think about how Americans voted in 2008. There was so much “change” in the air; a desire to redirect and find a new course. And while Obama was the symbolic force of change — a black Democrat with little experience in the Washington establishment — Romney was very much the effectual force of change. It used to be his job, after all: taking the wasteful, the inefficient and the insolvent and making something better out of it.
But 2012 was different. It was a dog fight; or, as James Caesar wrote, “Political, hard-edged, and brass-knuckled.”
What the 2012 election needed was a personality that could shine above the smears and cynicism. It asked for someone who felt more than an obligation to run for president; it required a deep desire to win. And while Mitt shows us many things — a man of good humor, of sincere love for his family, of faith and of duty — it never shows us a man who loves politics. All of his hard work feels forced, as if he and he family were magnanimously bearing the burden of opposing Obama’s presidency when no one else could.
One of the documentary’s final scenes shows Romney speaking to a gathering of his campaign staffers several days after losing the 2012 election.
“The greatest source of true wealth in life,” he reminds them, “is the associations you have with other human beings.”
After watching Mitt, the viewer leaves with no doubt in his sincerity. Unfortunately, sincerity can’t always win elections.
