Mitt Romney Was A Bully

[samurai_sarah]

It sounds like he also acted as a bully when he was a Bishop.

I would not necessarily hold something done as a child against a presidential candidate unless it seemed to be a pattern of behavior that continued into adulthood. Many of us did things that we regret, I am sure if I ever run for President the photos and witnesses will be coming out of the woodwork. But Mitt did not outgrow his feelings of superiority and disdain for others.

I agree with you that it's generally unfair to hold something against someone, which they did as a kid. Sorry, I should have made it clear that what irks me most, is that to my knowledge, he hasn't come out to condemn that sort of behaviour so far, even with the benefit of hindsight. But then, as you said, he seems to have carried on with that.

[mirele]

We all did stupid shit when we were growing up. Hell, I know I did.

And that's what Romney should have said. "I did stupid stuff when I was growing up, like most kids, and I'm sorry. I believe I've learned from my youthful mistakes and they taught me great lessons about tolerance, blah blah blah." But he didn't.

I wasn't planning on voting for the guy anyway, but jeez, not owning up to the fact that he was a stupid youth like the rest of us were stupid youths makes me think less of him. It would have been an easy thing to admit and made him more human.

For the record, I was bullied in school and I didn't even sit in the high school cafeteria to eat. I had a permanent library pass for lunch because I was that much of a pariah. But I did a lot of stupid shit as a teenager, stuff I wish I hadn't done now. But that's water under the bridge (I graduated from high school 34 years ago) and I have to make sure what I do NOW isn't harmful to others.

[deelaem]

I do agree with you, but during the 60s when this occurred (1968) this type of behavior was not seen as reprehensible. My dad grew up during the 60s as well (he's a little younger than Mitt) and he doesn't understand why it's offensive to call handicapped individuals "cripples" or the mentally handicapped "retarded" because these terms were perfectly acceptable to use when he grew up (and they didn't have the connotations we ascribe to them today). The things that they did back then that we view as heinous and horrible were normal for their era (my dad saw plenty of hazing go on during his time in high school athletics and it was viewed as a rite of passage). That may be why Mitt doesn't see his actions in the same light that we do presently.

I'm not excusing his actions because bullying in any form is horrible. I have been fortunate to have been largely unaffected by bullying myself, but I have seen the devastating effects of it through my best friend who was tortured throughout middle school because she was artistic and a tad eccentric. However, you have to look at the era at which these events took place to get a better idea of why it happened and how it was viewed (look at history and you will see it time and time again). Thank goodness that we have changed as a society to recognize the harm that bullying causes in the lives of others and have taken (and are still taking) strides to eradicate it.

As a practicing Mormon, do you really think you can be objective about Mitt Romney? After all, your church has a whole lot riding on him getting elected.

[GolightlyGrrl]

*slaps forehead* What was I thinking?! Of course the kind of vicious physical assault Mitt perpetrated was "perfectly acceptable" and "normal" by the standards of the time. That must have been why several other witnesses (Mitt's contemporaries, no less) were so shaken by the hair-hacking incident that it haunted them for many years.

An unregenerate jerk is an unregenerate jerk regardless of what era he hails from. And your insistence that you're not trying to excuse Mitt's actions doesn't pass the sniff test.

Great point, Silvia.

A lot of us did horrifying things when we were younger (yours truly included). The thing is most of us feel regret for our actions. I'm not getting that vibe from Mitt Romney.

It's so funny that some of our fave fundies don't like Mitt because of his Mormonism. I think his lack of empathy would be right up their alley.

Oops, spoke too soon. Elspeth/Terry from Breathing Grace (and Traditional Christianity) is changing her mind on Mitt.

http://terrybreathinggrace.wordpress.co ... romey-but/

[silvia]

A lot of us did horrifying things when we were younger (yours truly included). The thing is most of us feel regret for our actions. I'm not getting that vibe from Mitt Romney.

Exactly. This blog post http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... oblem.html does a great job of summing up why Mitt's past actions have raised such a ruckus more than forty years later. If this was an isolated incident and out of step with the rest of his behavior, I think most people would be likely to ignore it. But it resonates because it fits his established pattern of steamrollering over those different from or less fortunate than him.

[NurseNell]

I still remember the spitting on me, the gum in my long hair, the fear I had walking to class everyday for years because I was going where the bullies hang out and spit on me, I remember the fight I was forced into, I remember the laughs, the sneers, I remember feeling horribly alone at recess, I remember all that. I'm sure some people forget those events because everyone deals with trauma differently, but you should be careful with those you hurt to make sure they really don't care anymore, before you say I'm sorry, you were so meaningless to me I don't remember anything.

I never had gum in my hair but while wearing the uniform of my country, serving in an unpopular war, I was treated this way. I was an adult and better able to deal with it. It had to be terrible for you Sophie. I was never physically bullied as a child but I was teased big time and kids would not play with me because I was Catholic, the only one in my class. I was called names, not invited to parties, and generally treated like I was a leper. It did hurt then. At my mother's memorial service, where I delivered the eulogy, our old neighbor apologized to me for the way she treated us. I accepted her apology and was glad she realized that Catholics weren't that different from her (Baptist). She said "I wish I had been a better neighbor."

[NurseNell]

I was neither bullied or a bully, but it just seems that the act of holding someone down and hacking their hair off would be. . . memorable. But like so many are saying, maybe if one does such things often maybe it wouldn't stick out. :shock: And if that's the case, what does that say about him?

I have to agree with that. It also doesn't strike me as a prank. Now, my classmate who had her ponytail cut off while she slept, says she truly had forgotten about it, I have to believe her. But I do wonder if the girl who did it has forgotten? I wouldn't think so. And had Becki been awake and held down, instead of being asleep when it happened, it seems like she wouldn't have forgotten it.

[NurseNell]

(And somehow, I really don't believe your story. The only way it's true is that your friend is in early stage Alzheimer's)

Sorry, she does not have early Alzheimer's. Once several of us asked her about it (wondering some 45 years later who had done it) she remembered , she said she had long ago put it behind her and had never thought of it until we asked her. So totally forgotten, no, but tucked far away in her memory bank. Those of us on our class' Facebook page still don't know who did it.

I didn't realize this happened at a boarding high school. I wonder why there was no disciplinary action taken?

[gustava]

Sorry, she does not have early Alzheimer's. Once several of us asked her about it (wondering some 45 years later who had done it) she remembered , she said she had long ago put it behind her and had never thought of it until we asked her. So totally forgotten, no, but tucked far away in her memory bank. Those of us on our class' Facebook page still don't know who did it.

I didn't realize this happened at a boarding high school. I wonder why there was no disciplinary action taken?

Because nobody told.

[JenniferJuniper]

Because nobody told.

Or maybe because Mitt's daddy was governor of the state at the time?

[FlorenceHamilton]

I was a child in 1968. It may have been true that the words "crippled" and "retarded" were common ways to refer to folks with disabilities. I was bullied in 1972 and the authorities basically told me to suck it up. However, although the things that happened to me were pretty awful, I was at no time in physical danger. That said, if a kids was held down and had his hair cut off, that would have been addressed. Even in 1968, this would have been over the line.

[Dhani_C]

*slaps forehead* What was I thinking?! Of course the kind of vicious physical assault Mitt perpetrated was "perfectly acceptable" and "normal" by the standards of the time. That must have been why several other witnesses (Mitt's contemporaries, no less) were so shaken by the hair-hacking incident that it haunted them for many years.

An unregenerate jerk is an unregenerate jerk regardless of what era he hails from. And your insistence that you're not trying to excuse Mitt's actions doesn't pass the sniff test.

I didn't excuse his actions (I stated that clearly). I just stated that different times had different norms and thus, different attitudes about things. It doesn't mean those norms at the time were right (you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone nowadays who believes slavery should still be enforced, but back in the early days of America it was acceptable). I just think it's important that we recognize now that the events of the past are detrimental and we are addressing them now to make sure they do not occur to another generation.

I mean, I will be honest and say that as a grade schooler my classmates and I teased this one girl who had behavioral/emotional problems just to get a rise out of her. They had just begun mainstreaming special needs students into classrooms and most of us had never been with special needs students before (they were kept in a classroom and the end of the hallway) and thought her reactions were funny. Looking back, of course I feel bad. Am I an emotional wreck over it? No. It was an error I made in my youth that I have never repeated and have done my best to prevent by treating every person I meet with dignity and respect. Would it be fair to hold this against me after it occurred almost 15 years ago?

All of us have done stupid things that we regret. All of us have hurt people inadvertently and on purpose. What Mitt did was horrible, no doubt. Has he ever repeated this action? I doubt it. I'm sure, as most of us, he regretted his actions, made restitution as best as he could, and then moved on like all of us do when we make mistakes.

[Dhani_C]

I was a child in 1968. It may have been true that the words "crippled" and "retarded" were common ways to refer to folks with disabilities. I was bullied in 1972 and the authorities basically told me to suck it up. However, although the things that happened to me were pretty awful, I was at no time in physical danger. That said, if a kids was held down and had his hair cut off, that would have been addressed. Even in 1968, this would have been over the line.

I will have to ask my dad about it. He was a kid during the 60s too and hazing was rampant during that time. It was usually sports-affiliated and the coaches knew about it but didn't say anything because it was seen as a rite of passage (not that that makes it okay, obviously). Under this guise, violent actions taken against others were seen as acceptable and justified (at that time, not now).

[Dhani_C]

I agree with you that it'sa good thing we have changed. But I dislike the idea that we have to look at an era and therefore make allowances and forgive. A lot of awful things used to be "done", but that didn't make them right, and there have always been people with enough empathy to see that. What used to be acceptable by a majority, never meant that it was actually "right" or "humane", even though it was without punishment. With the benefit of hindsight, this particular incident leaves me with the impression that Romney was so caught up in his privilege that he didn't stop to think, and actually led others in this assault. That doesn't scream "empathy" to me, but someone who relishes power, where he can. Hiding behind the 60s isn't good enough, not for the victims of such behaviour.

Shearing off someone's hair, by the way, is a fairly old form of punishment for "sexual deviants", usually for women. On a larger scale it last happened, to my knowledge, after WW2, when in several European countries women had their hair shorn off publicly for fraternising. This happened all across the board. I hope that this has nothing to do with Romney, but it does leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

I completely agree with this. I also like that you brought up the comment about the acceptance of behavior by the majority. Hazing was rampant in the 60s (according to my dear old dad) and what would amount to serious crimes were overlooked under this guise. It doesn't make it right, but thank goodness we have now recognized the detrimental effects of this practice and put a stop to it. We can't fix the past, but we can prevent it from happening in the future.

[mirele]

I'm thinking nothing happened to Mitt because his father was the state's governor. He was golden and he could do whatever the hell he wanted.

He was such a great representative of the LDS Church--NOT.

[Dhani_C]

I'm thinking nothing happened to Mitt because his father was the state's governor. He was golden and he could do whatever the hell he wanted.

He was such a great representative of the LDS Church--NOT.

Just because he is LDS does not mean he is perfect. I'm sure not. I make mistakes. I do my best to learn from them and never repeat them.

Plus, I'd say he is doing a pretty decent job representing our church if an incident from 1965 (which is now being disputed by the boy's family as to whether or not it actually occurred) is the best the media can do for an attack on his character.

[apple1]

All of us have done stupid things that we regret. All of us have hurt people inadvertently and on purpose.

(I have not read every post on this thread).

Dhani,

No. Some of us have NEVER done things TO PURPOSELY hurt others. Some of us were on the receiving end first, and know what that felt like.

[deelaem]

Dhani C - I'm taking a page from formergothardite - are you going to answer my question about whether or not you can be objective about Romney given that you're a practicing Mormon?

[mirele]

As a former Mormon, I want to be clear that most Mormons are not like Mitt Romney. They try to love their neighbors as themselves. Like the rest of us, they're not always successful, but they try.

I don't think Romney's problem is Mormonism. I think his problem is rooted in the overwhelming privilege he has enjoyed since he was born. He's lived a charmed life, smoothed along with judicious applications of money. On top of that, he's operated in a time when predatory capitalism has taken root. His company, Bain Capital, made its money by buying companies, saddling them with debt and then going into bankruptcy.

I'd also note that not every Mormon supports Romney. I know quite a few people who are Mormon and they most definitely do not support him. The problem is that the pressure to conform can be strong in a group and being an outlier can be decidedly uncomfortable. But do not lump all Mormons into the same basket!

I also think that this experience (Mitt running for president) is not going to ultimately have an upside for the Mormon church. Sometime this summer, during the lazy hot days of July and August, some reporter is going to write a story about how the Mormon church hasn't disavowed the racist teachings of the latter-day prophets even though blacks can now hold the priesthood. That or a discussion of secret (sacred) oaths in the Temple.

[Austin]

I didn't excuse his actions (I stated that clearly). I just stated that different times had different norms and thus, different attitudes about things. It doesn't mean those norms at the time were right (you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone nowadays who believes slavery should still be enforced, but back in the early days of America it was acceptable). I just think it's important that we recognize now that the events of the past are detrimental and we are addressing them now to make sure they do not occur to another generation.

I mean, I will be honest and say that as a grade schooler my classmates and I teased this one girl who had behavioral/emotional problems just to get a rise out of her. They had just begun mainstreaming special needs students into classrooms and most of us had never been with special needs students before (they were kept in a classroom and the end of the hallway) and thought her reactions were funny. Looking back, of course I feel bad. Am I an emotional wreck over it? No. It was an error I made in my youth that I have never repeated and have done my best to prevent by treating every person I meet with dignity and respect. Would it be fair to hold this against me after it occurred almost 15 years ago?

All of us have done stupid things that we regret. All of us have hurt people inadvertently and on purpose. What Mitt did was horrible, no doubt. Has he ever repeated this action? I doubt it. I'm sure, as most of us, he regretted his actions, made restitution as best as he could, and then moved on like all of us do when we make mistakes.

Well, you were in grade school, so presumably you were a child. Romney was in high school. He didn't only tease someone; he chased "the individual" (this is how Romney referred to him this week) down, held him down with the help of some other bullies, and clipped the kid's hair off. That's not just teasing; that's assault. If you want to call it hazing because it makes you feel better, have at it. But anyone with any sense knows that is an assault intended to humiliate (forcibly cutting off someone's hair). And no one in their right mind believes that Willard doesn't remember it. I can see not remembering if you teased someone about their hair or their clothes or their abilities, but I think it would be pretty hard to not remember that scene unless something is seriously wrong with your memory, in which case you are not qualified to be president.

And beyond that, even if it was possible he doesn't remember it, what kind of person giggles when asked about it and says, "well, if I offended anyone, I'm sorry"? That's the most half-assed "apology" on the planet and no person of character would apologize like that.

And believe it or not, there are kids who do not systematically tease other kids who may be weaker than themselves. Bullying is not a rite of passage and is wrong. Period. You clearly cannot be objective because of your church affiliation with Willard.

[Dhani_C]

Dhani C - I'm taking a page from formergothardite - are you going to answer my question about whether or not you can be objective about Romney given that you're a practicing Mormon?

I do my best to be objective with everything. It drives my parents nuts. I was with my dad the other dad while we were driving and he pointed out someone shady on the sidewalk. I asked him why the person was shady and he told me it was because they were wearing a hoodie on a hot day with the hood up. I told him they were just walking down the street and that perhaps a hoodie was the only thing he had to wear that day (and I have plenty more of these stories if you care for me to share).

I will be honest and say it is hard for me to keep an objective POV about Romney. I try to focus on his position on issues as well as possible, but the fact that he is a member in good standing within the church also factors into it (just like his membership affects other people's decisions that are not affiliated with the church). The objectiveness is also difficult when people outright attack our mutual beliefs as a reason not to vote for him or accuse him of not being a good representative of the church because of one mistake (who knows if it did occur at this point) made in their youth.

I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and until you prove to me otherwise it remains as such (this applies to both candidates). I don't mind when people snark on Romney for certain things (the Cadillac cars comment as an example) because I can appreciate a good snarky comment. I just hate the attacks on character (from both sides) because it's just unnecessary.

[marmalade]

Meant to post this when it hit my email. She doesn't post often, but when she does, it's always gold.

http://margaretandhelen.com/2012/05/11/mitt-happens/

[Dhani_C]

As a former Mormon, I want to be clear that most Mormons are not like Mitt Romney. They try to love their neighbors as themselves. Like the rest of us, they're not always successful, but they try.

I don't think Romney's problem is Mormonism. I think his problem is rooted in the overwhelming privilege he has enjoyed since he was born. He's lived a charmed life, smoothed along with judicious applications of money. On top of that, he's operated in a time when predatory capitalism has taken root. His company, Bain Capital, made its money by buying companies, saddling them with debt and then going into bankruptcy.

I'd also note that not every Mormon supports Romney. I know quite a few people who are Mormon and they most definitely do not support him. The problem is that the pressure to conform can be strong in a group and being an outlier can be decidedly uncomfortable. But do not lump all Mormons into the same basket!

I also think that this experience (Mitt running for president) is not going to ultimately have an upside for the Mormon church. Sometime this summer, during the lazy hot days of July and August, some reporter is going to write a story about how the Mormon church hasn't disavowed the racist teachings of the latter-day prophets even though blacks can now hold the priesthood. That or a discussion of secret (sacred) oaths in the Temple.

I just wish they would sit down with Mitt, have one talk that gets everyone's questions about his faith answered, and be done with it. I am so tired of this being brought up time and time again because it's pointless. Focus on the issues each person is addressing and vote based on that (what I am doing my best to do). My choice last time had nothing to do with the religious preferences of either man and it probably won't be a factor this time.

Also, I know a lot of people my age (and members) sticking with Obama like they did last time. It all depends on where you live, sometimes.

[mirele]

I just wish they would sit down with Mitt, have one talk that gets everyone's questions about his faith answered, and be done with it. I am so tired of this being brought up time and time again because it's pointless. Focus on the issues each person is addressing and vote based on that (what I am doing my best to do). My choice last time had nothing to do with the religious preferences of either man and it probably won't be a factor this time.

Also, I know a lot of people my age (and members) sticking with Obama like they did last time. It all depends on where you live, sometimes.

Not gonna happen. The Church would have to drop its unique doctrines (e.g., Book of Mormon, pre-existence, war in heaven, Restoration, continuing revelation, temples/temple work and exaltation) to have the questions stop. At that point, Mormonism wouldn't be Mormonism but just another Christian group. This has happened before; the Worldwide Church of God dumped its doctrinal distinctions and became "not a cult," but its membership fragmented into a zillion pieces and a lot of people just decided they could go to the more popular Protestant churches (this I've picked up via observation; I've never been to a WWCoG or a splinter church).

[fundifugee]

I do my best to be objective with everything. It drives my parents nuts. I was with my dad the other dad while we were driving and he pointed out someone shady on the sidewalk. I asked him why the person was shady and he told me it was because they were wearing a hoodie on a hot day with the hood up. I told him they were just walking down the street and that perhaps a hoodie was the only thing he had to wear that day (and I have plenty more of these stories if you care for me to share).

I will be honest and say it is hard for me to keep an objective POV about Romney. I try to focus on his position on issues as well as possible, but the fact that he is a member in good standing within the church also factors into it (just like his membership affects other people's decisions that are not affiliated with the church). The objectiveness is also difficult when people outright attack our mutual beliefs as a reason not to vote for him or accuse him of not being a good representative of the church because of one mistake (who knows if it did occur at this point) made in their youth.

[snip]

Except that he continued on bullying folks, like trying to bully the single woman into giving her baby up for adoption by threatening her with church discipline and not getting into heaven. Seems when it comes to what he regards as "morality", he is more than happy to bully folks. Not a quality I look for in a leader....willing to violate and intimidate people (and dogs) for principles based on silly, irrational beliefs.