Mitt Romney’s Private Comments Should Remain Private
By Chad Peace on 09/19/2012 in internet, mitt romney, privacy with 13 CommentsRead Time: 2 - 2 minutes
Credit:http://www.criterion.com
Since the internet video of Mitt Romney’s private comments went viral, everyone from Chris Matthews to Jon Stewart have taken a jab at the Republican candidate. As right and righteous they may be in pointing out that Governor Romney wasn’t completely accurate about what he said, they all miss an issue that exemplifies a sad truth about today’s political culture: we champion transparency over civility and believe public knowledge is more important than privacy without any respect to the setting or importance the two have in a given situation.
Intimate campaigns have happened for years behind doors. Like locker-room conversations and pillow talk, the personal part of campaigning is necessarily more private. And those discussions should remain private. Whether Romney exagerrated, “stretched the truth,” or even lied doesn’t really matter. If he was talking about something malicious, the people have a right to know. But, as unpopular opinion as it may be, I believe there is an expectation of privacy at private functions that should be honored. Breach of that privacy should only occur on rare occassions when the public good is threatened, not to score mudslinging points.
It is taken for granted that Romney’s statements should be public because he is a presidential candidate. Being so, what has been termed a “gaffe” has become ripe foder for the left side of the entertainment news to talk about how wrong he is and how right they are. This is perfect opportunity for the right side of the entertainment news to defend itself and gain readers through the same emotional appeal to voters than was meant for a private conversation. In covering the story, they are both right. Both wrong.
Leave Your Comment →
13 Comments
Rick London
09.19.2012
I am surprised, no actually shocked that ANYONE even pretending to be an Indpendent would write such drek. We Independents generally understand the Constitution and know instinctively that those who make themselve public figures politically make their entire political lives transparent…and for a reason.. … they are applying for a job….to work for us. Before we hire anyone to be our President, it is mandatory to know how they think; and there is no way with an etch-a-sketch to even have a close clue in public appearnces. If we’re going to censor anything about his political speeches, please, lets make them the public ones and “faux Presidential Press Conferences” to “calm the Arab Spring”. This man is dangerous and we are just learning exactly how dangerous he is. And this writer is so inept at Constitutional law and what we THE PEOPLE do and don’t have the right to know. And I didn’t even vote for Obama last time but you can bet your bottom dollar I am this time.
Chad Peace
09.19.2012
@Chad_Peace
Rick, first, I’m sorry that we disagree, but I don’t think you have call me names to point out that I’m an idiot. I made no comment about Romney nor my conviction that anyone should vote for him. I’m just saying that the reality of reality is that things like the Constitution are not so cut and dry; and neither is the public’s right to know everything.
Lucas Eaves
09.19.2012
@lucaseaves
This a question that has been raised very often in the past few years. With the wikileaks scandals and the privacy of diplomatic communications. Or the phone tapping by the British tabloids. As the fine line between private and public life of Public figures that is despairing with the development of technology and the fact that anybody can film anything with there phone, it is good to be reminded that when the doors are closed, public figures should be allowed to say whatever they want without fearing being the next viral video on youtube.
Chad Peace
09.19.2012
@Chad_Peace
The British tapping of phones is a good point … I wish I had thought about that analogy instead of pillows.
Rick London
09.19.2012
PS The last famous “intimate campaign” from an extremely rich entrepreneur who ran a company liked Bain who had a disdain for the poor was worth 85million dollars. His name was Herbert Hoover. Back then, it was impossile to get into his back room famous cigar smoke filled meetings. But we were deeply within the Great Depression (because he privatized everything and handed it over to Wall St); and Romney/Ryan plan the same model. (But not in MY country). One Great Depression is enough…thank you very much. So if that isn’t enough reason to have a glimpse into such private meetings of potential political employees of ours, then what is?
Chad Peace
09.19.2012
@Chad_Peace
Rick, take a breath. Everything you’ve said is knowable outside of the “private meeting.” My point is that we do not need to invade privacy to learn about a candidate. For example, our Constitution has a “search and seizure” not to go after criminals, but to protect our freedoms.
Alex Gauthier
09.19.2012
@alexg
I’d hardly categorize the privacy of a closed campaign fundraiser with that of pillow talk, but you raise an interesting point. How far is too far when a candidate is on the campaign trail? Had Romney not made his positions on the lower class plenty clear already? The video has obviously struck an emotional chord with Americans, but done little to kindle an intelligent fiscal policy debate.
Chad Peace
09.19.2012
@Chad_Peace
I know its an unpopular opinion. I’m not suggesting that its the “same” as pillow talk. But it is analogous to pillow talk … the relative heightened expectation of privacy. Regardless of what was said, someone snuck a camera to a private event for the purpose of scoring political points, not to “uncover the truth” or “protect the public good.” It is easy to respect freedoms and privacy when nothing controversial is going on … but we lose freedom and privacy altogether when we breach them without a higher purpose.
Michael Higham
09.19.2012
@michaelhigham
I hadn’t thought about a potential right to privacy with this event. Indeed it isn’t exactly clear what the public has a right to know. Ignorant statements or not, maybe what is said private should be kept private. Running for president certainly makes the problem even more complex. If I was with a couple of friends at their house acting stupid and being ignorant, I don’t think the public needs to know. I’m sure that scenario isn’t an exact parallel of Romney’s situation!
Chad Peace
09.19.2012
@Chad_Peace
Same comment I made to Alex: I know its an unpopular opinion. I’m not suggesting that its the “same” as pillow talk. But it is analogous to pillow talk … the relative heightened expectation of privacy. Regardless of what was said, someone snuck a camera to a private event for the purpose of scoring political points, not to “uncover the truth” or “protect the public good.” It is easy to respect freedoms and privacy when nothing controversial is going on … but we lose freedom and privacy altogether when we breach them without a higher purpose.
bobj72
09.22.2012
“chad”; Appears to me, YOU’RE sanctioning DECEPTION in Our Government’s communication, yes? …….
Brandon Fallon
09.22.2012
@bfallon
I think the context behind Romney’s comments about the 47% show his true feelings for those less wealhy then he is. He has made poorly worded statements before and acted in a way that paints a picture of his ideas, i.e. the $10,000 bet with Rick Perry and the bullying as a youngster. Romney may not have meant what he said and could have said it in a different way, but the portrait that Democrats are using was drawn by what Gov. Romney has said and done in the past. The 47% is just a private instance of which there are numerous other examples.
Adam Juel
09.27.2012
@Adam Juel
I think the content of the conversation, even though it took place among private donors with a greater privacy expectation, is absolutely relevant in public discourse. Romney was not making irrelevant small talk here – these are major issues at the forefront of public debate. Issues that are vital to our decision making process. Regardless of who the audience is, when a candidate tells one group of people A but tells a different group of people B, there is a legitimate reason to call into question that candidates sincerity on either position. Certainly, you weigh it against other data points such as the awareness that candidates sometimes need to appeal to fringe voters who might hold different or more extreme viewpoints but the content of that conversation is relevant, nonetheless.
Politics suffers from a persistent honesty crisis and the public is at the mercy of actors beyond our control to seek out the truth. When it comes to a persons stated position on policy issues, especially important ones, I say the more transparency the better. Yes, we should draw a line somewhere for the sake of privacy rights – but I don’t think that line includes “private” donor events.