Nearly a year ago, the National Association of Evangelicals polled our leadership regarding their preference for president.
At that time there were many accomplished men and women that were pursuing the prize. Our group favored many of them including Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann and others.
I chose Mitt Romney–and because that seemed like an unusual choice for an evangelical, they quoted my assessment in our monthly publication.
I believed Governor Romney was the best choice a year ago. The primary season only verified my conclusion through the broader electorate. And next week I will fill out my all-mail ballot and put a check by his name.
There are five reasons why I will vote for Mitt Romney to be the next president of the United States.
But first, let’s enjoy a little humor about why Mitt Romney–in the eyes of the “Lamestream Media”–might not be qualified for POTUS.
(The following Internet blurb is from my friend Steve Boyce at Northwest University.)
“Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney”
1. Drop-dead, collar-ad handsome with gracious, statesmanlike aura. Looks like every central casting’s #1 choice for Commander-in-Chief.
2. Been married to one woman his entire life, and has been faithful to her, including through her bouts with breast cancer and MS.
3. No scandals or skeletons in his closet. (How boring is that?)
4. Can’t speak in a fake, southern, “black preacher voice” when necessary.
5. Highly intelligent. Graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School, and his academic records are not sealed.
6. Doesn’t smoke or drink alcohol, and has never done drugs, not even in the counter-culture age when he went to college.
7. Represents an America of “yesterday”, where people believed in God, went to church, didn’t screw around, worked hard, and became a success.
8. Has a family of five great sons and none of them have police records or are in drug rehab. But of course, they were raised by a stay-at-home mom, and that “choice” deserves America’s scorn.
9. He’s a Mormon. We need to be very afraid of that strange religion that teaches its members to be clean-living, patriotic, fiscally conservative, charitable, self-reliant, and honest.
10. He can’t relate to ordinary Americans because he made his money himself as opposed to marrying into it, inheriting it from dad, or receiving it from the government. Apparently, he didn’t understand that actually working at a job and earning your own money made you unreliable to Americans.
That piece is worth a few chuckles, but it’s also quite revealing about what the secular world values and how they’ve made “good bad” and “bad good” in modern society.
That might be worth a few tears as well.
So why do I hope that the majority of Americans will vote for Willard Mitt Romney to be the 45th president of the United States? (First hint: It’s not because we share the same birthday of March 12.)
Number One: Mitt Romney’s worldview
This is always high on my list of qualifications for government service. What is the candidate’s worldview? Does he believe that there is a God who is the Supreme Judge of the earth and who delegates his authority to human governments to protect the life, liberty, and property of those that he loves?
Mitt Romney is the only candidate in the 2012 race who will govern from a Judeo-Christian perspective–the one that made America both successful and great. Barack Obama professes a personal faith in Jesus Christ, but he governs as an atheist or secularist whose values are not founded in Scripture but in the shifting winds of human opinion.
For example, President Obama’s views have “evolved” regarding marriage being between one man and one woman. Mitt Romney’s view is anchored in biblical revelation going back to Genesis 2 and 3 and confirmed by five thousand years of human history.
Governor Romney’s values–from economic principles, to social issues, to foreign policy–are American through and through. The American way of life (despite our sins) and the American system of government (despite its weaknesses) are a social and political expression of biblical ideals (that can always be improved). “Forward” in America is not back to perversity and heathenism. It must be a repentant renewal of “In God We Trust” and a commitment to live out his principles both at home and abroad.
Only Mitt Romney shares that perspective in the 2012 presidential race.
And what about Mormonism? Yes, some of its beliefs are outside mainstream biblical faith, but the people it produces are, on the whole, exemplary human beings who seem to live out the essence of the Christian faith better than many Catholics and evangelicals–despite their historical heresies.
Mormons practice Judeo-Christian values. That makes them trustworthy in the governmental sphere.
Number Two: Mitt Romney’s personal character and moral values
Integrity is always vital on my list–and Mitt Romney seems to possess it in abundance. He has been respected all his life as an honest, straight-shooting guy with admirable traditional values, great humility, and incredible generosity.
In the past few months we’ve heard numerous stories about how he served his church and their needs, reached out to those in difficult straits, and how much he gives to help others. In fact, last year he gave 19% of his income to charity, compared to 1% by President Obama and .013% by Joe Biden.
His personal values are biblically centered. Importance? He knows right from wrong and lives it with conviction in his own life.
Pastor John MacArthur of Grace Community Church and Master’s College rightly explains that the 2012 presidential election:
“… is not about politics, although there are things we could talk about: You’re not voting for a pastor, you’re not voting for a spiritual leader, you’re voting for someone who has some sense of morality. Since the Bible says that the role of government is to punish evil doers and protect the good, you better have somebody in power who understands what is good and what is evil.”
Number Three: Mitt Romney’s preparation for the job
There is a major difference today in how the two political parties pick their candidates for president. The Democratic Party is more personality driven. They usually promote whoever is the “shooting star” of the moment. That’s why they nominated a relatively unknown peanut father/governor named Jimmy Carter in 1976 because he had a nice smile, and professed to be born again. Never mind that he had a secular worldview and was incompetent as a leader.
Barack Obama rose to the presidency under the same promises of stardom and the “making of history” (being African American). Yeah, he was a great speaker, cool character, and chose some lofty slogans about “Hope and Change.”
But he’d been a questionable state senator–the only one in the Illinois legislature that was strongly committed to infanticide–then stepped up to a bland stint in the US Senate and finally the presidency with little vetting, no executive or business experience, questionable associations, and little real life experience.
This is no way to evaluate or elevate a leader. Little preparation = little success.
On the other hand, the Republican Party has been better at promoting leaders to run for POTUS only after they have paid their dues of service, success, loyalty, building a national following, and being “next in line.”
This is the biblical principle of gathering “little by little” instead of “get-rich quick.” Character is proven through patience, struggle and growth over time. Ronald Reagan built a lifetime of proven character that eventually got him the Republican nomination and then the presidency. He waited (earned) his time and moment–after losing to Gerald Ford in 1976.
In 2000, John McCain finished second to George W. Bush. Eight years later, after a lifetime of public service, he had earned the right to lead the party in 2008. He was unsuccessful, but his preparation was thorough.
In 2008, Mitt Romney finished second to John McCain. He paid his dues, learned the ropes, and grew as a national leader. It was obvious to me that he was the most prepared candidate to rise to the Republican nomination in 2012.
He did it the right way–by patient perseverance. In 2012 he is most prepared man in America to be president of the United States.
Number Four: Mitt Romney’s business competence
Since the number one issue in this election is American economic malaise, including staggering federal debt (16 trillion dollars), a lack of jobs (23 million unemployed) entitlement problems (Social Security and Medicare), plunging incomes ($4500 per household), the need for dramatic tax reform, and a lack of confidence in future, doesn’t it make sense to elect a man who is one of the best businessmen in America?
Mitt Romney spent 25 years in the private sector and created thousands of jobs through his businesses; he almost single-handedly rescued the Salt Lake City Olympic Games from financial ruin; he has a thorough understanding of the best economic system possible in a fallen world–free enterprise capitalism.
In this category alone, comparing Mitt Romney to Barack Obama is like comparing an elephant to a flea–Barack Obama has no real world experience in either job creation or understanding how free societies work and succeed. He’s a big government hack. Unfortunately, big governments destroy wealth (and re-distribute it)–they do not create it.
Number Five: Mitt Romney’s executive experience
Barack Obama rose charismatically to the office of the presidency without ever having led anything. That’s a stunning oversight by the American electorate. He not only had never run a business, but his only experience in government was legislative–not executive. No wonder his administration has been filled with governing snafus like the ram-rodded health care bill debacle and the recent lapse in security in Libya that cost four American lives.
Barack Obama never learned to lead before he arrived on the scene.
Mitt Romney has been a leader all his life–including being the highly successful governor of Massachusetts where he worked in a bi-partisan manner with a majority-Democrat legislature.
Barack Obama has shown no such inclination on Capitol Hill. In fact, a former staff member intimated recently that he really doesn’t like people–that’s why, she said, it’s “stunning he’s in politics.”
Mitt Romney genuinely likes people and is very effective at working with leaders of other persuasions.
Worldview, character, preparation, competence, and experience. These are the characteristics that produce good, successful leaders. No human being possesses their full orb–but some people get a lot closer than others.
When you check the ballots of those you vote for in the crucial 2012 elections, keep those qualifiers in mind. They are the difference between good leaders and bad or mediocre ones.
May God help us choose wisely.