Seriously, Newsweek? Are you so low on negative traits to describe Romney that you had to choose ‘wimp’? Do I have to make a list of negative things about him? Even if you ignore, you know, his policies (which should be the key point of any presidential race), there’s his abuse of his dog, his history as a bully, his refusal to release his tax returns, his history at Bain Capital… I think the dude has more flaws than good points! And yet you mostly eschew all of it to instead discuss why Romney’s a wimp.
Well, let’s see here, what makes him insufficiently manly to become the President of the United States?
- He apologizes insincerely or complains about being criticized instead of “manning up.”
- He spent Vietnam in Paris learning French instead of in battle.
- His horse is named Rafalca and his wife owns it instead of him.
- His wife drives the JetSki.
- He reminds us that he’s rich instead of being classy like the old rich people we used to have in the good old days.
- He overcompensates for being insufficiently manly by accusing Obama of not being manly and bullying people who are weaker than him.
- He doesn’t take enough risks.
- He dislikes taking stands on issues.
- He cares too much about the data instead of his gut feelings.
- He is as much like Reagan as Pee Wee Herman is like James Bond (yes, the author says that).
Some of those things are good points (please be concerned about the data instead of your gut instinct, thank you). Some of those things are bad points (complaining about being criticized and flaunting your wealth are both incredibly bad form). Some of them are completely irrelevant (what does who drives the JetSki have to do with anything? Isn’t knowing French an advantage in a president?). What I’m confused about is why any of them add up to “this man should not be president.”
My adorable little leftist ass is far from a Romney supporter. But only two items on that list is something that makes me say “I would not be comfortable voting for this man.”
They are, of course, bullying the weak and not taking a firm stand on issues. But even then, it’s not like those are bad things because iThe lack of a firm stand makes it somewhat difficult to know what he’d do in office, which is troubling. And bullying people who are weaker than you is fucking bullying people who are weaker than you, I am pretty sure every ethical system back to the days of primates is against that shit. That would be wrong even if it was the Manliest Man Thing In All Of Manlidom.
Incidentally, what is with the wealth paragraphs? Are our standards so low that, as Americans, we’re okay with having a hereditary aristocracy of wealth as long as they don’t remind us of it too much?
I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that people have to pass some kind of Manliness Test before they become president. Not only does it tacitly exclude women, but what does one’s gender role performance have to do with anything? Whether you’re the femmest, mincingest man to ever swish his way down 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or able to beat Teddy Roosevelt in the manliness sweepsteakes, if you’re a person of character, empathy, intellect, and honesty, I would be happy to have you as my president.
It’s fucking femmephobic shit, or maybe the opposite– the fetishization of masculinity. (Masculophiliac?) Who cares about intelligence or character– as long as he’d look good starring in a cowboy movie, we can totally vote for this guy.
I mean, Christ. Maybe if we stopped assuming that the president has to be Manly Man in Chief, we could stop fighting so many damn wars and cut the Pentagon budget so it’s only twice the size of everyone else’s.