We’ve seen the many faces of Mitt Romney: rich, wealthy, and well-to-do.
Last week on Sept. 19, however, Romney debuted a new, tanner look on the Spanish-language television network Univision. The Internet immediately exploded with related activity as Republicans and Democrats alike scrambled to explain the change.
Had Romney really attempted to sway Hispanics, a demographic he desperately needs, by darkening his skin tone? Was it faulty lighting or an overzealous make-up artist?
Did he earn his tan the old-fashioned way, the same way he earned his money? Or, in perhaps the most sinister scenario, had Romney been tanning with Snooki, the “spark-plug” TV personality he purportedly loves? The answer has been elusive, but an important question has emerged: Do you trust a candidate who changes?
No matter the cause of the tan, one thing is evident: A candidate, or anyone for that matter, can change his or her appearance and appearances matter to us. It’s been argued that the 1960 presidential election, the year of the nation’s first televised debate, was ultimately decided by a handsome contest.
JFK won because he was better looking than raggedy ole Nixon. Of course, this was and is a superficial difference and not nearly the only contributing factor. More startling is the implication that politicians rely so heavily on appearance, frequently changing not only their looks but also their positions in order to be more appealing.
The introduction of baseball mitt-colored Romney on Univision isn’t the candidate’s first foray into transformation. On June 3, 2011, Romney told a crowded town hall in Manchester, N.H. he was sure “that the world is getting warmer… [and] that humans contribute to that,” going so far as to say, “I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.”
Later in 2011, Romney, at a fundraiser held in the Consol Energy Center in Pittsburgh, denied any definite knowledge of global warming’s cause and said, “the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.” We’ve seen similar turnarounds in his views on gun control, abortion, immigration and various other issues.
That’s already old news, though, and Obama and the Democratic Party parading beneath the banner of “Change” may be equally guilty of switching sides to gain votes. You might recall the recent revision of their convention platform that added mention of God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. These alterations represent, however, not any actual change but the timidity of a party pandering to voters who might otherwise be thrown off by the exclusion of those terms.
For actual reversals, look at Obama’s promise to shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo is still in operation and the Miami Herald reported that it currently holds 167 prisoners from 27 countries.
Then there’s the “evolution” of his views on same-sex marriage. Here some of you may be saying, “Now wait a minute. I think that’s a good change. Same-sex marriage should be legalized.” That’s completely fair, and I’d have to say I agree with you. But if someone’s principle objection about Romney was that “changing your mind is bad,” shouldn’t it be revised to say, “Changing your mind is bad if I disagree with your new decision”?
After all, change can be good. It’s okay to change your mind, and if you can tan, unlike myself, who gets moonburn at night, go ahead and change your skin tone, too. What actually matters is where candidates stand at the end of the day and whether or not we believe they will stand by their convictions later.
The burden is on us to study the candidates and scratch our itch for knowledge when we could just as easily be acquiring new itches partying around Tigerland or just staying home watching TV. Ultimately, if we can’t do that, then all hope is lost — like confetti in a plane with the windows down.
Aaron Friedman is a 22-year-old writing and culture senior from Destrehan.
