It has often been said that "you can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." Unfortunately, in politics, everyone has the potential to do something for a figure running for office. Running for public office is perhaps the best cure for amnesia conceivable--everything from the past is brought to light, the good and the bad is thrown into the spotlight, and experiences you may have forgotten, or never engaged in to begin with, are suddenly brought back to your remembrance. The barrage of character evidence can often be overwhelming, and downright confusing, for those of us who make up the voting bloc. Coupled with the fact that 95% of the country subscribes to the Judeo-Christian ethic of "Judge not that ye be not judged," we have the additional challenge of balancing what we hope is a fair and charitable judgment with having to sift through the evidence before us, which has often already passed through several other unique layers of various individual's own judgments.
When it comes to the race for President, I'm willing to wager that 99% of the people voting have never personally met either of the candidates, let alone had any meaningful interaction with them on a personal level that would enable us to observe them sufficiently to pass what we feel is an accurate and confident judgment of their character. As such, we're left to hear judgments passed by their opponents, news outlets, people from their past, and a myriad of other sources. Of course, we are further challenged in these situations because we must ask ourself if we are really passing judgment on the candidate, or someone else's judgment of that candidate. A judgment on a judgement of another judgment from a different judgment is hardly the formula for accuracy. What we believe is truth is often a carefully crafted hodgepodge of evidence to support or perpetuate a preconceived notion of what the candidate truly stands for and what they represent. While we may acknowledge this influence on the evidence presented to us, we often overlook it in ourselves as we fail to consider how our worldview paradigm and own life experiences in turn exert an influence on how we pass judgment on others. Too often, we don't ask why they behaved the way they did, but how WE would have behaved or what we would have done in the same situation. While that may enable empathy, it does not accurately reflect the measure of the candidate's character, though it may illuminate some light on our own.
How does this come into play regarding the 2012 Presidential election? By way of full disclosure, let me state that I intend to vote for Mitt Romney. Let me also say that I believe both candidates are good men, who both possess their own variety of character strengths and weaknesses. I believe both men love America and want what's best for our future, but disagree significantly on how this is to be achieved. In a race that seems to be focused more on character than policy, how do we know who to trust or how to judge? To be sure, there are a number of people coming out of the woodwork regarding past events in the lives of both candidates. For good or ill, each candidate has their share of supporters and detractors who have no shortage of desire to make their voice heard in touting their evidence of the TRUE character of the man. Each one has various motivations, which sometimes may be the same, but what is different to each one is the perspective they possess about the event they share, the influence that time has had on their memory of the event, and what effect their current motivation may have on their perception of that event viewed through a new and different paradigm than the one they originally viewed the experience when it occurred years or even decades ago.
For the examples I share I will focus on Mitt Romney, primarily because the 3 specific episodes I will share are contemporary to each other, all occurring approximately 25-30 years ago, they all involve families during a time of extreme emotional turmoil as they struggle with major health issues, and they have all come to light during the Presidential campaign. First, the negative example. Over the past few months, a story has spread like wildfire through liberal blogs and left leaning news outlets. The story revolves around a Carrel Hilton Sheldon who was in Mitt's ward when he served as a Bishop. In 1983, Carrel was pregnant but her pregnancy took a turn for the worst and doctor's believed her life was in jeopardy. Her Stake President, a Harvard doctor, assured her that an abortion was appropriate in this situation. Carrel was shocked, however, when her Bishop showed up--Mitt Romney--and did not believe her comments concerning the Stake President, and did not show any concern or empathy for her but only for her unborn fetus which he counseled her not to abort. The experience was a primary factor in Carrel's decision to move across the country and to leave the Church soon thereafter. What cannot be argued is that this was a traumatic and tragic episode in the life of Carrel and her family and friends.
During this same period in Mitt's early life, he also had experiences with two other families in his ward who, like Carrel, were dealt a cruel hand by unexpected and tragic circumstances that arose in the form of health complications. The first is the experience of Pat and Ted Oparowski, whose teenage son was diagnosed with cancer in the 1970s and was befriended by Mitt Romney (it is worth noting this experience occurred several years prior to Mitt's calling as a Bishop). During the course of their 14 year old son's decline, Mitt frequently visited the family in the hospital due to a friendship that was struck with the boy. After learning about Mitt's background in law, their son asked Mitt to help him develop a will and get his affairs in order so he could ensure his toys and possessions were given to the proper individuals upon his death. Mitt helped the boy settle his affairs using a legal pad and pen. When the boy succumbed to his illness several months later, Mitt gave the eulogy at the funeral at the boy's own request. The other experience occurred a few years later, when Mitt was newly called as a Bishop. A member of his ward, Pam Finlayson, gave birth to a baby girl with severe birth defects and health complications. She describes Mitt's constant presence and expressions of comfort to her and her family over the course of several months, even preparing Thanksgiving dinner for her family and cooking the food himself and delivering it with his boys to her home, unexpected and unannounced. While her daughter survived, she eventually succumbed to her health complications during the Republican primaries in 2011. Pam received a personal call and an expression of sympathy from Mitt, who learned of her daughter's passing, and offered to assist in any way he could.
I believe all 3 of these episodes are true. I also believe all 3 of these families are confident in their assertion that they know the real Mitt Romney, that their experience is the true proof of the measure of his character. So how do you reconcile the seemingly contradictory responses of the various experiences? How can such a cold, and unsympathetic Bishop in Carrel Sheldon's hospital room be the same man described as warm and genuine by others? Can both perceptions be true, and all 3 experiences have occurred? Yes, and yes. I am not going to try to explain or defend Carrel's remembrance of her tragedy, nor will I make a case that any one of these 3 experiences somehow speaks louder than another. As an observer, I can consider all three and accept that the experience occurred just as reported, but as an observer, I must do just that--take them all at face value without ignoring the ones that may refute the conclusions I seek to prove that also bolster the image of a man I want strengthened, not questioned. Similarly, when considering the character of our President, we cannot be selective in believing everything we read on conservative leaning websites but ignore the positive experiences touted by those of opposing political leanings. The only truth is that once a debate is begun about what experiences speak louder or are more important, it will never end or be settled. The only truth that will emerge is that no saint was ever President, and no candidate is the devil. Can it be that we are all equally saint as we are sinner? How then, to truly judge the character of the man we hope will lead us? The answer is different for all of us. No one else has lived the life we have, and in turn developed the paradigm we each uniquely possess that determines the perspective with which we judge the life and actions of others. So long as we are all open-minded, understanding, and respectful, we can at least have confidence that truth will speak louder than bias, though not eliminating it, and respect will be more mutually unifying than politically divisive.
