Sunday, April 6, 2008

Quotes from Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan

Before I get into the meat of this post, I just want to say that the previous post, that is now below this one, was a lot of fun to write and than talk about. It is an allegory and some people were having a little trouble figuring it out. If you like that sort of thing and think you'd like reading it, you could read that post first before reading this one because this post contains another hint as to the meaning of the allegory.

Did you finish reading the allegory? If you want to, do it now. If not, well Ok, just continue reading below.

Mitt Romney

I'm a republican, so I will vote for John McCain when the elections come in November, yet to be honest with you, the candidate that I really wanted and voted for in the primaries was Mitt Romney. There was a certain part of the speech that he gave when he pulled out of the race that I particularly liked. Let me quote some of it for you.

"As I said to you last year, conservative principles are needed now more than ever. We face a new generation of challenges; challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future. I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st century, still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower. And to me, that is unthinkable. Simon Peres, in a visit to Boston, was asked what he though about the war in Iraq. 'First,' he said, 'I must put something in context. America is unique in the history of the world. In the history of the world, whenever there has been conflict, the nation that wins takes land from the nation that loses. One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land. No land from Germany, no land from Japan and no land from Korea. America is unique in the sacrifice it has made for liberty, for itself and for freedom loving people around the world.' The best ally peace has ever known and will ever know is a strong America.

"And that is why we must rise to the occasion, as we have never done before, to confront the challenges ahead. Perhaps the most fundamental of these is the attack on the American Culture.

"Over the years, my business has taken me to many countries. I have been struck by the enormous differences in the wealth and well-being of people of different nations. I have read a number of scholarly explanations for the disparities. I found the most convincing was that written by David Landes, a professor emeritus from Harvard University. I presume he's a liberal. I guess that's redundant. His work traces the coming and going of great civilizations throughout history. After handreds of pages of analysis, he concludes with this:

"If we learn anything from the history of economic development, it is that culture makes all the difference. Culture makes all the difference.

"What is it about American culture that has led us to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world? We believe in hard work and education. We love opportunity. Almost all of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants who came here for opportunity. Opportunity is in our DNA. Americans love God, and those who don't have faith; typically believe in something greater than themselves; a 'Purpose Driven Life'. And we sacrifice everything we have, even our lives, for our families, our freedoms and our country. The values and beliefs of the free American people are the source of our nation's strength and they always will be."

This entire speech, can be found at
That's not the exact page, but it can be found from there.

I've wondered at times if Romney himself realizes how true his statements about "Culture" really are, for the true source of our strength comes neither from the government, nor our military, but from our Creator.

The main difference between Democrats, Liberal Republicans and true Conservatives is what we believe to be the source of our strength. Democrats seem to believe that it is the government itself and want lots of it. Liberal Republicans seem to think that the source of our strength is the military. This idea is also incorrect.

The real truth is that if we lose the conservative values that our country once treasured in her youth, no government program, nor even a very strong military, will be able to save us. This is why I fear greatly for our country.

Ronald Reagan

It's just like Ronald Reagan said, "If we ever forget we are a nation under God, we will become a nation gone under".

I got this quote from Gayle's blog. It's at the top on every one of her comment threads, just under Reagan's picture. Thanks Gayle.

May God help and have mercy on this country.


The Griper said...

though i would have worded it a bit different than they did, each pointed to a very important reason. i agree.

Lista said...

I'm curious how you would have worded it differently. Should I ask?

The Griper said...

talk was about culture and how it influences the way a country was seen but nothing was said as to what kind of culture. i would have added individualism with it thus the "culture of individualism". an it would have applied in both cases for God created us as individuals.

Gayle said...

I see you're moving right along here, Lista. You are off to a great start!

I also agree, but probably wouldn't have worded it much differently. Methinks Griper is smarter than me. :)

Gayle said...

By the way, you're welcome for the Reagan quote, and I am thankful to Reagan for having said it because it's the absolute truth. :)

Lista said...


I added bold print to the part of the culture that I thought should be emphasized. I'm going to have to think a bit about the "individualism" idea. Now we are getting back to the "Philosophy" verses "Sociology" issue that was on one of your posts. I sort of side stepped that issue when I responded to that posting and I may do it again for now. I have a hunch we are going to eventually have that conversation, but I'm still trying to formulate my ideas on the subject.


Believe it or not, even those who are very smart are not always right. I happen to agree with you, whether than him.

Sorry, Griper. You challenge me greatly, but that doesn't mean that you're always right. My mom thinks that my dad is always right, but you know what? He's not and neither are you.

Rosemary said...

I agree that culture does play a role in the government and feedom of people, and of a nation. Just look at the Islamic culture, based on the Koran. Look how they treat thier people and women. Look at the hindu culture in India, wow looks like a place I would like to live.
If anybody wants to bomb my house for this comment all I can say is, "Go ahead, make my day!"

Lista said...

Hi Rosemary,

Glad you dropped by. Those are good points about other cultures and how it's better to be here in America, yet we are losing so much of what we once had and it's really sad.

That reminds me, I also owe your blog a visit.

The Griper said...

shucks almighty, lista, i hope i'm not right all the time. life would be too boring if i was.

besides, if i was right all the time that would mean i had the knowlege of God and i don't think i wish to claim that honor yet.

life is too short to have gained that much knowlege. and there are too many people out there that have more knowlege than me.

the knowlege i possess is like a grain of sand on the beaches of california.

so, my friend, challenge away. i look forward to that day with pleasure. i'm always open to greater knowlege.

Lista said...

Well, Ok. I guess that comment was more about Dad than it was you and also about how Mom so unquestionably looks up to him. I think she's nuts because I disagree with Dad all the time. I used to be intimidated by him a little, but as I've grown older, I've become much more verbal.

Now my sister-in-law appears to think that my brother's always right. Lord have mercy! What's the matter with these women?

I guess my sister-in-law's just frustrated because she's married to someone who is right so often, yet I just don't feel that way about either my dad or my brother.

I like to think that I'm just as smart. Whether I really am or not, I don't really know, but I like to think so anyway, so I guess that means I'm just as smart as you as well. If that's not really true, than maybe you'll just have to humor me in my illusion.

I guess I'm getting off subject. Oh well.

Lista said...


When I think of the culture of America, especially in our earlier history, I think of "conservative values". This includes "love for God", a "faith in something greater than ourselves", as well as "values and beliefs". These are all quotes from Romney's words above.

I guess Reagon said it even more clearly than Romney did, in that initially we viewed ourselves as a "Nation under God".

The main "Attack on the American Culture" has been an attack on Christianity. Whether some people are willing to admit this or not, our country was founded on Christian principles. She was started by a group of Christians who had migrated here for the sake of religious freedom. They wanted the freedom to be Christians. They wanted everyone to have the freedom to worship God in any way that they wanted to without the government telling them how to worship or what to believe.

The Separation of Church and State idea was included in the Constitution for the sake of preventing the Government from establishing a formal religion. It was designed to protect the Church from the State, not the State from the Church.

I guess religious beliefs are held by "individuals". I really shouldn't have allowed your mention of that idea to distract me from the main points in the above article.

The trends within a culture are important too, however, because culture affects individuals, sometimes even more than individuals affect culture. Too often individuals are silent and passive and just allow culture to push then along. Individuals that are trying to influence culture are constantly paddling up stream against the current and it is not an easy path.

The Griper said...

i agree whole heartedly with your analysis of culture back then, lista. and i believe a lot of it had to do with the make up of the states also, from a religious point of view. many states could be identified by religion moreso than now as well as nationality.

but one more element of culture needs to be takenn into consideration. it was a rural culture mainly rather than urban as it is now. and needs could be indentified more by families than by groups. and people came together more on special occasions rather than every day as it is now. because of mode of travel for one thing. remember 90% if not more of the country back then were farmers, in other words people needed to rely on themselves.

Lista said...

Thanks for a very interesting lesson on history. I didn't realize about the religious and nationality distinctions of the states.

It's interesting that you mentioned the rural and urban thing. I've actually been thinking about that in relation to my friend Rosemary, who's on a health kick relating to food. She says she's not that political really, yet neither the less, I've been thinking about talking with her on her blog about the effects of the industrial era on our food. That's off subject, yet I'm thinking out loud and reminding myself of this intention.

For our discussion of culture and what parts of it make us strong, I would think that a rural culture would contain tighter net family units than an urban one. The fact that women needed to join the work force didn't help either because in a two income family there is no one home to raise the kids.

I guess in some ways "Progress" can be destructive, whether than beneficial, but then so is life. What can ya' do?

The Griper said...

oh yes, religion had a lot to do with it. it was persecution of religion that was the beginning of our country becoming a nation.

you had the puritans up in the north east states. Maryland as a catholic state. it was named after the mother of Jesus.

Pennsylvania is known as the quaker state. Utah, a mormon state. the southern states are Baptist country. so, yes religion was a big factor of the makup of states.

as for nationality we have the English states, French, Spanish, even Russian. a lot of them can be determined by their names. florida comes from spanish as does california, new mexico, etc. louisiana is french named after king louis.

and religious belief was a big factor of the civil war though you'd never hear of it in the study of the subject.

Lista said...

I guess we still have what we call Bible belts and there are Liberal and
Conservative states. There are still large populations of Menonites and Amish in Pennsylvania. I guess what frustrates me is that I am a Republican that lives in a very liberal state, so my voice usually doesn't amount to much in elections. It is so frustrating.

BB-Idaho said...

"I am a Republican that lives in a very liberal state," Ouch! I can identify, being a liberal in one of the reddest state of all! Perhaps we can consider ourselves an irritating minority? (Or in reference to the previous analogy of sure is hard work swimming upstream.) :)

The Griper said...

you and bb just illustrated what i have been saying all along. the both of you see yourself as an minority, politically, in your state and feel powerless. both of you are seeing yourselves in terms of a member of a group. with this attitude there are a lot of people who do not vote because they feel their vote means nothing or insignificant.

as an individual you have as much power as the next person when you enter that voting booth. it is only after those votes have been counted do you know if you are among the minority or majority.

to illustrate my meaning mathematically individuals have a 1/1 ratio in terms of power. as a member of a group the ratio is
1/(the number of people) in terms of power. reason being is that the power is the power of a group.

and your being or not being a member of that group has insignificant influence in regards to the amount of power that group possesses.

Lista said...

It's funny that you should use BB's words to support your point of view, I was just getting ready to use his words to support my point of view in that the "groups" in the form of states do not represent the will of all of the people. BB and I are an examples of this.

Even if you remove the Democrat/Republican groups from the equation, people are still going to have minority opinions within what ever state they live in and there are always going to be groups of people who hold these opinions.

I vote anyway because I feel it is my duty to do so and I think that when ever someone or some issue wins by a little less of a margin that makes some kind of a statement.

I don't really understand your aversion to groups, Griper. Aside from the few times in which we actually get to vote on things, without groups of people who have similar points the view, the voice of single individuals is simply not loud enough to be heard. There is power in numbers, thus Political Activists groups are formed. This seems so obvious to me, why are we having so much trouble communicating?

Yes, individuals do have power in the voting booth, but once politicians are elected, the power of individuals is minimal without Political Activists groups.

I would have reversed one of those fractions and put 1/1 for and individual's power and (the number of people)/1 for the group's power, but you know what, we are getting off subject.

For those of you who are having trouble following this, Griper and I have been talking about individuals and groups on some of his blog pages.

You know what, Griper, let's take this discussion back over to your blog where it began. I'll meet you over there some time tomorrow. I need to get back on subject in relation to my own blog, though. I hope that that's Ok with you.

Lista said...

Hi BB-Idaho,
Sometime between the time in which you posted your comment and Griper entered the room, I was going to say something cute like "Well, Honey, if you're Liberal than you are going to need to be converted." Of course I would have to say that with a smile.

I was also going to say more than that, but Griper has effected my mood a little, so I'm going to take a break instead.

Stick around, though, BB. You may not like the next post that I'm going to do, because I'm sort of on an America's going to go over the falls kick right now, yet eventually I'm going to start talking more specifically about some of the issues, so do please stick around.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

I don't know if anyone else mentioned this Lista (and it certainly isn't a big deal) but Ronald's last name is Reagan not Reagon.

Anyway, while I agree with the importance of what Mitt said in his speech, I had many a reservations about him in the early part of the election cycle.

It was primarily for the same reasons that Human Events ranked him #8 on their list of Republicans in Name Only (RINO).

As for any Philosophy vs. Sociology sort of debate, the absolute importance of Philosophy in one's life ought not be ignored.

Philosophy is not some arcane field important only to old men in ivory towers. It explicitly asks and answers fundamental, inescapable questions such as "How can I know something?" and "What should I do?" Without some answer to these questions, no knowledge or action is possible. Again, the only choice is to explicitly examine the underlying assumptions involved or to be at the mercy of what one learns through mimicking another.

Lista said...

Hey! It's Soapbox!

No, actually, no one did mention my misspelling of Reagan's name. Thanks. I'm not a good speller, yet most of this can be taken care of with the use of a dictionary. Checking the spelling on names is a little more difficult. Feel free to keep me in line whenever you wish, just assure me that you love me anyway and I'll handle it just fine.

One of the criticisms that Mitt Romney got during his campaign was the fact that he "Changed his Mind" on the issue of Abortion. This was viewed as an inconsistency. I felt like he seemed sincere in his position. I'm guessing that maybe the "Human Events" ranking that you are referring to may have taken place prior to his change in position.

Oh, so is that what RINO means? Forgive me. If you talk to me long enough, you are going to find out that there are definite holes in my political knowledge.

One of the commenters above, Griper, seems to really be into philosophy. I'm actually probably pretty philosophical as well, yet seem to use the language of psychology more often because that's what I studied. In relation to the question "What should I do?", I'm more likely to refer to this as Wisdom, whether than using some more philosophical word.

I believe in challenging assumptions, whether than mimicking others and trusting, without question, all the numerous social recordings that have become so popular and play over and over again like broken records.

In other words, take time to think for yourself, whether than just accepting what you hear, no matter how accepted and popular it may be.