Mitt Romney's No Apology 4: Defense Spending

In my latest reading of Mitt Romney's No Apology: Believe in America, Romney criticizes President Barack Obama for cutting defense spending and argues that defense spending should be increased.

When I was at Jewish Theological Seminary, a left-leaning lady showed me a couple of graphs about U.S. defense spending.  One graph said that we spend far more money on defense than we do on domestic concerns.  And the other graph was contending that we spend far more money on defense than do other nations, even the rogue nations that we like to criticize.

Romney's argument in my latest reading is that both of these claims are bogus.  Regarding the amount that the U.S. government spends on defense in comparison with domestic concerns, Romney says that the chart that he saw only factored in discretionary spending.  Romney states that "When all federal spending is included, defense is 20 percent of the total" (page 97).  Regarding the amount that the U.S. spends on defense in comparison with other countries, Romney states that China has a large military for a comparatively lower cost, and so we cannot look at how much each country spends on the military to determine whether or not its military is big or small.

Another argument that is often made against increasing defense spending is that we do not live in the days of the Cold War anymore, and so a large military is not needed.  But Romney's response to that argument is that we do not know what dangers lie ahead, and so we should have a strong national defense so that we are prepared for whatever may come.  Romney states that one reason that people from the National Guard were sent to Iraq, and that some Americans were sent on multiple missions there, was that we had cut spending on the military and thus did not have enough prepared ground troops when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began.  Our military was unprepared and lacked the resources that it needed, in short.

I remembered reading a blog post by Paul Phillips of Sparking the Left that criticized an op-ed piece that Romney wrote about NATO.   Romney said in that piece what he also said in No Apology: that Europe should assume more of the cost of its own military protection rather than expecting the U.S. to assume a big chunk of it.  For Romney, Europe passes on a lot of the cost to us because it wants to preserve its social welfare programs, and that has to change.  Phillips makes a point in response to Romney's argument on NATO, and a point in response to Romney's call for increased defense spending.  First, Phillips contends that Romney will not make friends with Europeans by telling them what to do.  That reminded me of what I read about Romney's governorship in The Real Romney, by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman: that Romney as governor alienated legislators because he regarded them as underlings for his agenda, the same way that he viewed those who worked for him when he was a CEO.  Second, Phillips argued that we can have a strong military at a lower cost due to drones.  I was a little surprised to see Phillips referring to drones to uphold his argument, since I thought that many on the Left were quite critical of drones.  But his argument raises an important question: Can we have an effective military, without spending a lot of money?

As far as my views on defense spending are concerned, I briefly mentioned them in my post here.  While Romney and Phillips have given me things to think about, my views have not changed radically since I wrote that post.

The Real Romney 11

I finished The Real Romney, by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman.  My latest reading covered Mitt Romney's run for President in 2008, as Romney gets into an altercation with a reporter at Staples over lobbyists in his campaign, and John McCain accuses Romney of being a flip-flopper.  After the heated campaign, Romney and McCain became friends.  Although Romney was "disciplined" and "straitlaced" and "didn't swear or drink," and McCain was "fiery" and "tempestuous" and had "seen a bit more of life" as "a former navy man" (Kranish and Helman's words on page 323), the two found commonalities, such as family connections to Arizona and a desire to escape the shadow of an important father (for Mitt, it was George, and for McCain, it was his admiral father).  McCain did not pick Romney for his running mate, however, because McCain did not know Romney that well, plus McCain was looking for a game-changer, which he thought he had found when he selected Sarah Palin.

According to Kranish and Helman, Romney in 2012 ran his campaign a little differently from how he ran it in 2008.  Romney had written a book (No Apology) where he set forth his positions, thereby providing him with a response when people said that they did not know what he believed or that he had not defined himself.  Romney also did not talk as much about social issues but focused on the economy.  Romney did not spend tons of money on the Iowa strawpoll in 2012, as he had in 2008.  And Romney was becoming more comfortable reaching out to the voters, which was more of a challenge for him in previous campaigns.

I agree with Kranish and Helman that Romney's 2012 campaign differs from his 2008 campaign.  Romney's Mormonism does not come up as much in the public discourse, perhaps because we already know that Romney is a Mormon, so why keep talking about it?  And Romney is a little less of BS-er, as he was in 2008 at Staples, when he said lobbyists helped his campaign but did not run it, as if that made a difference.  An exception would be how Romney is handling his record at Bain Capital.  Kranish and Helman depict Romney as a shrewd and intelligent administrator, which makes his handling of his Bain Capital record rather puzzling.  Bain Capital has come up before when Romney has run for public office (i.e., in his 1994 Senate race), so wouldn't you expect him by now to know how to handle it better when an opponent brings it up?

The Real Romney 10: Health Care

In my latest reading of The Real Romney, Michael Kranish and Scott Helman talk about the outcome of Romney-care in Massachusetts.  They say that Romney-care has dramatically reduced the number of the uninsured and that more businesses are now providing health insurance to employees.  Yet, health care costs continue to rise.  Kranish and Helman don't think this is the fault of Romney-care, though, for Massachusetts had the highest health care costs in the U.S. prior to Romney-care.  Kranish and Helman conclude by saying that Romney-care "remains a work in progress, an ongoing experiment, especially when it comes to bringing costs down" (page 278).

I think it's sad that Romney-care did not bring down health care costs, since that should be the goal of health care reform.  Wasn't the whole idea behind the health insurance mandate that it would bring down costs because the cost of "free" emergency care for the uninsured would no longer be passed on to the consumers, since people would pull their own weight by having insurance?  Why, then, do costs continue to rise?

The Real Romney 9: Governor Romney

In my latest reading of The Real Romney, by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, the topic was Romney's record as Governor of Massachusetts, and how he moved to the right on such issues as abortion and gay rights, probably because he was planning to run for President.

According to Kranish and Helman, Romney as Governor did not really form relationships with state legislators, for he was not a back-slapping sort of politician.  This had negative consequences for Romney, but also positive consequences.  The negative consequences were that several state legislators thought that Romney regarded them as underlings, that there was not a great deal of cooperation between Romney and state legislators in pursuing Romney's agenda, and that state legislators tried at times to show Romney who was boss (as when they overrode the vast bulk of his vetoes).  The positive consequence was that Romney led state government slightly away from its "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" atmosphere (which sometimes led to corruption), for Romney was not much of a deal maker.  Rather, Romney's strategy was to appeal to the people of Massachusetts, expecting for them to put the state legislators in the hot seat.  There were times when this worked, as when the Democrats in the state legislature backed off from increasing the capital-gains tax.

Regarding Romney's accomplishments as Governor, Romney did help make the judiciary more of a meritocracy.  Romney also displayed leadership after a tragedy involving the Boston highway system, when "heavy concrete ceiling panels fell onto a car driving through a Big Dig tunnel", resulting in the death of a mother of three (page 243).  Kranish and Helman say on page 244: "Immediately, Romney became a commanding and reassuring presence.  The legendary quick study was on the case, demonstrating a stunning mastery of complicated engineering details."

In terms of the economy, Romney (according to Kranish and Helman) "streamlined the public approval process to help businesses expand and revived an agency charged with recruiting businesses to Massachusetts" (page 242).  At the same time, Kranish and Helman state that there was only a one percent net increase in new jobs by the end of Romney's term. 

Kranish and Helman are excellent writers, and I think that you can see that in what they say on pages 259-260, as they artfully transition to the next chapter, which is about Romney's health care reform plan:

"As public resentment about his national ambitions grew, Romney swatted it away as best he could.  How could liberal Massachusetts be expected to understand?  The state didn't matter for Republican presidential candidates, anyway.  Yet just when many expected him to disengage completely, Romney did the opposite, displaying a dedication and focus that people around him had never seen.  Eager to notch a signature achievement before he left office, he took on a problem many others had tried, and failed, to solve.  It was a puzzle he had worked over in his mind for years.  No state had ever put all the pieces together.  But now, Romney decided, Massachusetts would: every resident would have health insurance.  He'd find a way."

The Real Romney 8: Homosexuality and Abortion

For my write-up today on The Real Romney, by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, I'll use as my starting-point a story that Kranish and Helman tell on pages 218-219, about when Romney was working with the Olympics.  This post will focus on Romney's stances on homosexuality and abortion, but it won't go into every single detail that the book mentions about this topic.

On pages 218-219, we read the following:

"Romney also impressed Guetschow, the former Olympian on the organizing committee, by demonstrating a measure of respect for her as a lesbian.  Guetschow recalled the first meeting of the new committee members after Romney's arrival...Garff, after presiding over an opening prayer, began by asking the members to stand and introduce their spouses.  Guetschow, who had brought her partner, went last.  She recalled saying to herself, 'What am I going to do?'  Many of the trustees were members of the Mormon church, which considers homosexuality sinful.  When Guetschow's turn came, she said, 'This is my friend; I guess that's a safe way to put it.'  Everyone, she said, 'was a little horrified.'  Soon, Guetschow herself was horrified when the organizing committee proposed an antidiscrimination employment policy that did not include a provision for sexual orientation.  'They skipped over my minority, and I was too shy to speak up,' Guetschow said.  Instead, she spoke to Lillian Taylor, who served on the board's human resources committee.  Taylor conveyed the omission to Romney, who approved an amended policy that covered homosexuality.  Romney later reached out to Salt Lake's gay community as part of the committee's effort to enhance diversity in the Olympic workforce.  'He treated me well, and I think he genuinely believes that all people should be treated well,' Guetschow said."

I like this story for a variety of reasons: because I could identify with Guetschow for wanting to speak her convictions, and yet being too shy to do so, and because I admired Mitt Romney for reaching out to the gay community when many of the trustees thought that homosexuality was a sin. 

In terms of Romney's overall stance on gay issues, the Log Cabin Republicans considered him to be rather progressive, even though Romney asked a question to its founder Richard Tafel that Tafel considered to be rather offensive: "Now on the Boy Scouts, you wouldn't want gay Scout leaders, would you?"  But Romney was open to listening to their concerns and stood up for gay rights in his 1994 race against Ted Kennedy.  Romney also noted to Tafel that he had gay employees at Bain Capital. 

At the same time, four people report hearing Romney telling a Mormon gathering that he was disturbed by reported homosexuality in the congregation, which Romney denounced as "perverse".  Romney denies saying that, however.  In his race for Governor, Romney was against gay marriage and civil unions, but he supported domestic-partner benefits for same-sex couples.

On the issue of abortion, Mitt ran as pro-choice in his race for Senate and his race for Governor, though Kranish and Helman say that Romney distanced himself from the pro-choice label in a letter to a Utah newspaper.  In his race for Senate, Romney said that his mother and family were pro-choice.  Kranish and Helman narrate, however, that Lenore Romney (Mitt's mother) was not entirely pro-choice when she unsuccessfully ran for the Senate in 1970.  Rather, she said regarding abortion: "I think we need to reevaluate this, but I do not feel it is as simple as having an appendectomy...I'm so tired of hearing the argument that a woman should have the final word on what happens to her own body.  This is a life."  While I wrestle with what public policy should be when it comes to abortion, I agree with Lenore: abortion is not in the same category as an appendectomy, and the unborn child is a life, meaning that the issue is not just about a woman's body.

The Real Romney 7: Generosity

My latest reading of Michael Kranish and Scott Helman's The Real Romney covered a lot of ground: Romney's humorous social bloopers in his 1994 run against Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate, and his struggle to define himself in that race; the death of Mitt's father and mother; Ann's battle with multiple sclerosis, and Mitt's support of her through that; and Romney leaving Bain Capital (while still keeping a financial interest in it) to save the Olympics, which were in disarray because a couple of Utah officials gave gifts to the Olympic committee so the Olympics would be held in Utah.

I especially liked a story from Mitt's 1994 race for U.S. Senate.  Mitt visited the New England Shelter for Homeless Veterans, and the director of the shelter, Ken Smith, was complaining to Mitt about how the high price of milk was killing the shelter's budget, since the shelter went through a lot of milk each day.  Mitt jokingly suggested that the veterans learn how to milk cows, but Mitt later realized that his remark was socially inappropriate.  Mitt apologized, and he also helped bring down the cost of milk for the shelter.

Romney wasn't doing this to look good, for he told Smith that he didn't want any publicity for his deed.  And Romney also wasn't doing this to win the election in 1994, for he continued to help bring down the price of milk for the shelter even after he lost to Ted Kennedy.  As Kranish and Helman say, "In fact, Smith said he understood that Romney was still supporting the shelter when Smith left in 1996" (page 190).

Mitt could be generous to people who needed help, but I wonder if he's like Ronald Reagan (as some have portrayed him): he could be quite generous when he actually encounters a person with a problem, and yet he could pursue policies that arguably put people he does not encounter in dire straits.

The Real Romney 6: Capitalism

For my write-up today on The Real Romney, by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, I'll quote and comment on two passages.  They concern Bain Capital.

On pages 162-163, Kranish and Helman state:

"Though Bain Capital surely helped expand some companies that had created jobs, the layoffs and closures at other firms would lead Romney's political opponents to say that he had amassed a fortune in part by putting people out of work.  The lucrative deals that made Romney wealthy could exact a cost.  Maximizing financial return to investors could mean slashing jobs, closing plants, and moving production overseas...Marc Wolpow, a former Bain partner who worked with Romney on many deals, said the discussion at buyout companies typically does not focus on whether jobs will be created.  'It's the opposite, what jobs we can cut,' Wolpow said, 'because you had to document how you were going to create value.  Eliminating redundancy, or the elimination of people, is a very valid way.  Businesses will die if you don't do that.  I think the way Mitt would explain it is, if we didn't buy these businesses and impose efficiencies on them, the market would have done it with disastrous consequences.'"

On pages 177-178, we read about a time when Bain Capital became an issue when Romney was running for Senate against Ted Kennedy:

"For months, Kennedy researchers had been quietly mining Romney's business record for political vulnerabilities.  One recent deal caught their eye.  A company called Ampad Corporation, which Romney's firm, Bain Capital, had acquired in 1992, had just purchased a paper products plant in Marion, Indiana, from SCM Office Supplies.  The day Ampad bought the factory, SCM fired the workers.  Many were rehired, but at lesser wages and reduced benefits.  The notice that workers received upon returning from their July Fourth weekend made clear that the layoffs were integral to the deal.  It read, 'The assets of SCM Office Supplies Inc. are being sold to Ampad Corporation.  Therefore as of 3:00 p.m. today...your employment will end."

Mitt Romney has denied that he had anything to do with certain incidents of outsourcing or what happened at Ampad.  At the same time, he has defended creative destruction.  I'll be reading his defense of that when I get into his book, No Apology.

Capitalism is about efficiency.  But does it create a significant number of jobs that can provide people with a fairly-decent standard of living?  People have argued that there is currently a race to the bottom----that free trade has replaced manufacturing jobs with retail.  But some have contended that there are still good jobs that free trade has created----it's just that people need training and education for them.

Can efficiency and productivity coincide with treating workers well----with allowing them to keep their jobs, with good wages and benefits?  Some have argued that unions have resulted in greater productivity, not less.  At the same time, unions somewhat lose their bargaining power when a company can go overseas and employ people for lower wages.

Do we really need efficiency and a great deal of productivity?  I doubt that we'd want to be like Communist Russia, where a lack of efficiency clearly had a negative impact on people.  But what was wrong with the days when mom-and-pop stores ran the show in the U.S., before the more efficient and productive big companies came in and replaced them?  Was that so horrible?  I'm not sure if we can go back to that, for, nowadays, people are used to buying a bunch of stuff from Wal-Mart at cheap prices.  I just wonder, though, if we can have our cake and eat it too.

The Real Romney 5

My latest reading of The Real Romney, by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, concerned Mitt Romney's participation in the Mormon church and in Bain Capital.

Regarding Romney's participation in the Mormon church, Kranish and Helman talk about the positive and the negative.  On the positive side, Romney was hospitable to others in the church and was very generous towards fellow Mormons who were in need.  He was also open to egalitarian policies (with respect to women) when he was in a position of authority within the church.  On the negative side, Romney could be rather authoritarian.  He reportedly told a low-income woman in the church that the church wanted for her to give her baby up for adoption or she would be excommunicated (and the implication of that is that she would not be saved).  This is according to the woman's account, but Romney denies that he threatened her with excommunication.  She kept the child (or so I gather), and he grew up to be a successful electrician.

I've not read all of what the book says about Romney's time at Bain Capital, but I learned about what Bain Capital did: it invested in companies, advised them in order to make them better, and sold them at a profit.  This could create jobs, but it could also get rid of jobs that were not deemed efficient, or enable big companies (like Staples) to put mom-and-pops out of business.  But Romney saw value in creative destruction, as the new replaced the old.

I liked what Kranish and Helman said on page 134 about those who joined Bain Capital: "One former partner described the group as a cast of brilliant, socially awkward young men...anxious to prove that they were just as worthy as peers who had gone to big Wall Street firms."

Kranish and Helman also talk about something that they mentioned earlier in the book: that Romney, even though he is wealthy, is quite Spartan when it comes to spending money.  He doesn't like even a little amount of money to go to waste.  I know (or know of) rich people who are like that.

The Real Romney 4: Social?

In my latest reading of The Real Romney, Michael Kranish and Scott Helman talk about Mitt Romney's interactions with people.  The general picture that I got from yesterday's reading was this: that Romney is really loving and generous to his family and to people in his church (including the disadvantaged), but he does not particularly enjoy socializing with people outside of that.  He's not overly interested in getting to know people outside of his family or church, but his focus outside of that arena is on business. But Kranish and Helman do depict Romney as affable, even if he's a little distant.

At the same time, Kranish and Helman say things that appear to contradict that picture: Romney at Stanford loved to talk with people; Romney as a missionary in France was not shy but was quite gregarious; Romney at Harvard interacted with people and did not drink alcohol or coffee, yet did not express judgment towards those who did drink alcohol or coffee; etc.

The Real Romney 3: The Vietnam War

In my latest reading of The Real Romney, by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, a lot of ground was covered: Mitt Romney's experiences as a Mormon missionary in France; Ann's dating of someone who reminded her of Mitt while Mitt was away; the conversion of some of Ann's family to Mormonism; and Mitt Romney's survival of a tragic automobile accident, which changed his perspective on life.  What I want to do in this post, however, is focus on Mitt Romney and the Vietnam War.

I said yesterday that Mitt Romney had problems with campus radicalism when he was at Stanford.  Mitt left Stanford to become a Mormon missionary in France, right when campus radicalism was heating up.  David Harris, a prominent anti-war activist at Stanford whom I mentioned yesterday, wondered if Romney would have swung to the left had he stayed at Stanford, for Harris said that "There were plenty of people who started to the right of Mitt Romney who ended up as full-scale hippies" (Harris' words).

At first, Mitt was a supporter of the Vietnam War, and he defended it in France when French people challenged him about it.  But Mitt changed his mind about the war when his father, George, changed his mind.  George sunk his race for the Presidency when he said in an interview that he had been brainwashed by generals and diplomats to support the Vietnam War, for that made him look susceptible rather than strong.  But Mitt agreed with his father.  This article at the Daily Kos, however, disputes that Mitt became a total dove, for Mitt believed that Nixon's bombing of Cambodia was sincere.

Although Romney retreated somewhat from his support for the Vietnam War, he still preferred the more conservative atmosphere that he encountered as a student of Brigham Young University to the counterculture and campus radicalism at Stanford.  Kranish and Helman say on pages 89-90 that BYU "prohibited many rock-and-roll bands, liberal speakers and student organizations, and even long hair on male students."  They continue: "During Romney's time at the school, the president of the university enlisted students to spy on professors deemed to be liberals.  Students who displayed peace signs were told to take them down."

The Real Romney 2

For my write-up today on The Real Romney, by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, I'll feature three passages that I especially liked, along with brief commentary.  My latest reading was about Mitt Romney's Mormon ancestors and his experience at Stanford University, as he, a Republican and the son of a prominent Republican, had to deal with campus leftism.  As intriguing as the stories about Romney's Mormon ancestors were, the passages that I'll feature concern Romney's experience at Stanford.

Page 54: "Romney and [his roommate] Marquess did what Stanford freshmen do: they studied and they talked a lot about girls, although Mitt made it clear he would not date anyone besides Ann.  They went to parties, where Mitt refrained from smoking or drinking...Mitt also left for long stretches to attend church functions.  Over the course of the year, the roommates grew to understand each other and grew close.  'He didn't put on airs about anything,' Marquess said.  'That's what I liked about him.'"

That's my impression of Mitt Romney, as a distant observer: Although he and his wife are both wealthy, they don't come across as snobs, but as likeable, down-to-earth people.

Page 58: "At a time when most Stanford guys were dating an array of girls, the depth of Romney's devotion to his girl back home would make a lasting impression."

The context of this is that Mitt Romney would take long trips from college to see Ann, and Mitt's father George was concerned that this would hurt Mitt's grades.  After all, going from California to Michigan is a long trip!  So George reduced Mitt's allowance so that Mitt wouldn't have as much money to make these trips, and Mitt outwitted his father by auctioning off his clothes to his college classmates.  Mitt's devotion to Ann made an impression on Alan Abbott, a friend of Mitt and an admirer of George Romney (who asked Alan to keep an eye on Mitt).

Page 59: "[David] Harris was against the draft, but also argued that if there was a draft it should apply to everyone, including university students.  Why should the war be delegated to the poor, who couldn't get student deferments? he asked."

David Harris was a Stanford radical who surprised people when he won the election for student body president.  I think he made a good point about the draft.  Mitt's father, from what I could see in my latest reading, was a supporter of the Vietnam War.  Mitt was a Republican, but (according to the quote of Mitt on page 52) he did not want to serve in Vietnam.  Mitt wasn't a campus leftist, for he protested the campus leftists, so I don't know what reason he gave for not wanting to serve in Vietnam.  I mean, few people say that they are chicken-hawks!  According to this article, Mitt and his father changed their views on the Vietnam War later on (though the article's author does not think that Mitt became a full-fledged dove, exactly).

(UPDATE: Mitt's protest against the campus leftists appeared to focus more on their tactics of disruption than their ideology.  Moreover, Kranish and Helman say that Mitt contradicted himself on whether or not he wanted to serve in Vietnam.)

The Real Romney 1

I started The Real Romney, by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman.  I've wanted to read this book ever since I read the Book Description on Amazon (see here).  The following parts of the Book Description especially stood out to me:

"Mitt Romney has masterfully positioned himself as the front-runner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Even though he’s become a household name, the former Massachusetts governor remains an enigma to many in America, his character and core convictions elusive, his record little known. Who is the man behind that sweep of dark hair, distinguished white sideburns, and high-wattage smile? He often seems to be two people at once: a savvy politician, and someone who will simply say anything to win. A business visionary, and a calculating dealmaker. A man comfortable in his faith and with family, and one who can have trouble connecting with average voters.

"In this definitive, unflinching biography by Boston Globe investigative reporters Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, readers will finally discover the real Romney. The book explores Romney’s personal life, his bond with his wife and how they handled her diagnosis with multiple sclerosis, and his difficult years as a Mormon missionary in France, where a fatal car crash had a profound effect on his path. It also illuminates Romney’s privileged upbringing in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan; his rejection of the 1960s protest culture; and his close but complicated relationship with his father."

To me, Mitt Romney has come across as something like a used-car salesman: he's friendly, but I'm not sure that I can trust him.  Plus, he appears to spin, even when it makes him look ridiculous.  At the same time, although I do not know Mitt Romney personally, there is a part of me that likes him.  He does come across as a likeable fella, and he stuck with his wife through her medical problems, which (in my opinion) indicates a degree of depth and character on his part (or at least you'd think that depth and character would result from such an experience).  And so I wanted to read this book to learn more.  Plus, I was interested to learn about Mitt's relationship with his father, George Romney, who was a center-left Republican.

I'm enjoying the book so far.  In my latest reading, it talked a little about how Mitt grew as a candidate, as some of the sorts of things that threw him off his guard in 2008 did not throw him off his guard in 2012.  His courtship of Ann is also discussed.  Ann was a mainline Protestant whose well-to-do father did not care for religion.  Sometime after Mitt proposed to her, Mitt was about to kiss her, and she instead wanted him to tell her about what Mormons believe.  Mitt was disappointed, but he was able to recite pieces of the Mormon creed!

I talk some about the differences between Mitt and his father, George in my post here.  What I have read so far in The Real Romney overlaps with what I discuss in that post: that George Romney was a principled and fiery liberal who often did not manifest political skillfulness, whereas Mitt leans right when it suits him and is more pragmatic and (like his mother) diplomatic.  What I learned from this book about the relationship between George and Mitt was that it was close: that Mitt, even as a teenager, talked with his Dad as if he (Mitt) were an adult, asking his Dad questions about cars and other issues; that Mitt drew from his father's wisdom, such as George's statement that people should be in the private sector and (after that) should only go into public life if they believe that they can make a difference there; etc.  I was interested to learn that George was a proponent of fuel-efficient automobiles when those were not popular, that Mitt's mother was an actress who gave up her career to marry George, and that George and his wife fought like the Bickersons, yet they loved each other.

I'll stop here, for now.  I think that I'll enjoy this book!