Romney’s Major Speech: Conclusion
UPDATE: Read Marc Moore’s post. He represented PoliGazette at the speech.
So, what about Romney’s major speech? How did he perform. Did he do well? What was his main message? This post is dedicated to answer those kind of questions. For the original, liveblogging post, click here.
First off, Ed Morrissey has a great recap up at his own blog Captain’s Quarters. Ed writes:
People sometimes underestimate Mitt Romney’s persuasive speaking style and genuine warmth on the dais, and that made some difference today with his speech, “Faith in America”. Before its delivery, it appeared to hold no promise for Romney’s standing with voters, but would present many risks for him in legitimizing religion for political debate. Those risks remain and their potential remains to be seen. However, I believe the speech will be a net positive for Romney and his campaign.
Why? (click on blue “Read Story” button to read this entire post)
Adroitly, Romney avoided apologetics except on the nature of Jesus Christ. He then specifically denounced calls for apologetics on any faith being part of a political campaign, whether willingly or compelled. Romney went out of his way to talk about the common nature of America’s “symphony of faith,” calling on America to focus on our shared values than on less-meaningful differences of practice. He warned that state religions did no good for communities of faith in Europe, where grand cathedrals serve mostly as postcard backdrops — and even less good in the theocracies of Islam.
And: “The speech probably did serve to make evangelicals more comfortable with Mitt’s approach… All in all, Romney gave a good performance — and thanks to the hype, it will be seen by a wide audience. Whether he opened Pandora’s Box will be judged by later events.”
Secondly, my own thoughts: as I wrote in the liveblogging post, I think that Romney delivered one heck of a speech. It was powerful, content wise it was great and his delivery, well, he seemed nervous at first but he quickly overcame that. His speech was meant to appeal to all Americans (and to all who strongly believe in religious freedom but are religious themselves), and I think it succeeded in that. I’m sure there are many out there who won’t vote for Romney, not even after this speech, but that’s due to two reasons:
- they disagree with his politics, which is fair
- they’re bigots
There were - and still are - however many people who might vote for him, but who felt - and feel - uncomfortable about his faith. If this speech doesn’t take that uneasy feeling away, nothing will.
One of the best speeches I’ve heard in a long time.
Bloggers’ reactions:
Holly: “Earlier this morning, I read excerpts from the speech he planned to give and concluded that Romney does not sufficiently respect the necessary separation of Church and State… As a religious Jew, it is obvious to me that religion (yours, mine, anybody else’s) does not belong in the public square. Romney would have us keep the nefarious 1954 interpolation “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and fill public property with Nativity scenes and menorahs (but probably not Muslim crescents or Wiccan ceremonies).”
As I said in the two posts, religion has always been in the public square in the US.
Sister Toldjah: “Personally, as a conservative Christian myself, Romney’s Mormon beliefs have never been a factor for me. It’s his seeming flip flops on several issues which has been my primary cause for alarm.”
Shakespeare’s Sister: “No, Willard—all the churches in America don’t share a common creed of moral convictions. Some churches extend the sacrament of marriage to couple of the same sex and recognize women and men as equals with equal ownership of and autonomy over their own bodies. Most churches don’t. Also, some churches?—are called synagogues, and some are called mosques. Just FYI.”
Paul Mirengoff: “The speech, which is eloquent and even moving in places, should help Romney with a some of these voters, but probably not many.”
Gateway Pundit: “This was a brilliant move for Mitt. Most Americans still love our religious freedom- our freedom of speech- our freedom to bear arms - our freedom of the press- and to assemble. And, most Americans are upset with the radical minority who continue to pick away at those freedoms. Mitt brought it all home today.”
Mona Charen at the Corner: “That was perhaps the best political speech of the year. It was well-crafted and delivered with conviction and — this is unusual for Romney — considerable emotion. I thought his contrast of the empty cathedrals of Europe with the violent jihadis was particularly adroit. He managed to make this a speech about patriotism as much as about religion. Brilliant.”
I agree wholeheartedly.
Mary Katharine Ham: “All in all, I think he looked Presidential, sounded serious and hit a lot of good refrains about faith in America that will play well with plenty of voters. I can’t imagine the snippets on the evening news could hurt him, and it will likely serve to make questions about his religion seem petty from here on out. Plus, we’ve been talking about Romney’s speech non-stop all week, sometimes to the exclusion of the illegal landscaper story, while Huckabee’s been taking a lot of bad press.”
Jimmie at the Sundries Shack: “That really is my one big quibble about the speech. It felt as if you could have put it in the hands of pretty much any Republican candidate or a couple or three of the Democrats’ and it would have been equally appropriate. Romney said at the beginning of the speech that it would ‘offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected’ but it didn’t. It was inspired, but not individual. It delivered pretty much the same thoughts about religion in America that have been said since Alexis de Tocqueville and it didn’t do so in a way that anyone’s really going to remember. It could have been an important moment in the Presidential race, but Romney seemed to just let it fall flat. The speech will certainly help him, but not nearly as much as it could have.”
Make or break? For now it’s make. Now we have to wait and see how Evangelical groups react to it. O, and the MSM.
And aside from my particular criticism of Hindu social structures, that example misses the point of providing an example of a society that has successfully built a legal/ethical/moral value system without religion. That’s what I feel that secularists must do if they wish to say that religion isn’t a necessary precedent- or at least admit that we’d be taking a chance that they might be wrong if we were to remove religion as the basis for freedom.
“For example, when you use an inaccurate anti-Mormon stereotype about polygamy as the basis for your response above, it is hard to see that as anything but pure bad faith on your part.”
No, it displays a lack of caring about the subject matter than can’t be excused. Don’t call me a hater.
“And when you single out Christians for “special treatment”, it betrays that prejudice is at work rather than principle.”
say wut?
“Your aggressive approach is counterproductive because as Jason points out, you don’t display the tolerance that you ‘preach’ as the virtue of secularism.”
So I am not supposed to make religion less popular or credible, because then I am not tolerant. Yeah. No. Not feeling the sense.
Religions are not supposed to say how a society is run, be it christianity or hinduism. It belongs in the private sphere. In my view keeping civil marriage from gays is as bad as the cast system - both problems are caused by religion and both things are directly wrong, even though they cannot be equivalized.
I’ve known individuals who practice polygamy and are not Mormons - actually they were pretty much agnostic. Not my thing, I mean with all due respect to our Female Audience - what man in his right mind would want 2 wives?
oye!
“To dismiss that by waving a snarky reference to polygamy is grossly disrespectful (as, of course, it was intended to be).”
No, I thought it was a point and it wasn’t.
“And the principle of “free agency” (that we are morally responsible for our own choices, through and through) is absolutely central to LDS belief.”
That doesn’t make “individual freedom central”.
“The polygamy buggaboo is purely a tool of prejudice — it is designed, intended, and deployed to make Mormons look scary and weird. The choice to invoke it is a “red flag” that bigotry is in play. It is no different than making jokes about blacks or Hispanics being lazy.”
No, it was ignorance and it should be taken as such. I should stand up to that. Continue to insist that I was trying to consciously lie about mormons in order to create hostility or disrespect towards them and I will stop adressing you for good.
“The polygamy buggaboo is purely a tool of prejudice — it is designed, intended, and deployed to make Mormons look scary and weird. The choice to invoke it is a “red flag” that bigotry is in play. It is no different than making jokes about blacks or Hispanics being lazy”
It was a display of ignorance about a technicality of mormonism (polygamy allowed/not allowed) and nothing argued against the personality of mormons. I will not be portrayed as consciously lying or using a generalized prejudice about mormons in order to tarnish them or create unjust hostility towards them. Insist that I did and I will stop adressing you entirely.
“The polygamy buggaboo is purely a tool of prejudice — it is designed, intended, and deployed to make Mormons look scary and weird. The choice to invoke it is a “red flag” that bigotry is in play. It is no different than making jokes about blacks or Hispanics being lazy.”
I ingnorantly stated my erroneous belief as fact, and misrepresented mormonism. I did not intentionally lie in order to create unjust animosity towards mormons.
“I do object to those that accompany their objections with sweeping, hateful characterizations against all Christians just because SOME Christians might have ulterior motives.”
I have not said all christians want them there for bad reasons - I have just stated that there is no good reason to take the tax money from atheists or non-christians to display a flawed and exclusively christian document in a context of modern jurisprudence.
“The Ten Commandments MAY be part of a purely history-of-the-law display, as they are in the mural than runs above the Supreme Court. The line exists at the point of whether the content is cited as law or whether the tablets are merely evoked as a symbol of the law’s emergence and evolution through human history in the Western tradition.”
I am not saying that the commandments must be removed from important buildings, but I am saying enough is enough - the placement is wasteful and could be received in an unintended sense. There is no reason to have the commandments on top of a courthouse, but they may be displayed in some glass case together with other steps in the development of modern justice - if one insists that something that would fit better in a museum should be placed in a courthouse.
“It is unreasonable of you to highlight the legitimate tensions that exist between some Christian practices and liberal ideals while simultaneously covering up, ignoring, or even outright misrepresenting the positive contributions that other parts of Christianity made to those same ideals.”
Yes it is. Anyway, I know that I can’t say that christianity has done more good or bad for important freedoms, but I will say that today there is a better alternative to all religions.
I don’t think he added anything profound or new into my mind. I thought it was for religious people, and even if I was one of those I wouldn’t be very impressed.
I agree with Shakespeare’s sister in part: “*You don’t get to claim ownership of social and civil progress. That was achieved by an alliance between religious and non-religious progressives*.”
Actually, there were also other groups involved in that, even some reasonably conservative people, or centrists, etc.
What’s more, freedom and equality before God (and the law) are also basic Christian principles. I know that non-religious people don’t like it, but that doesn’t make it any less true. In fact, religious people have, in my opinion, a much stronger case for equality in that regard.
It’s also not for nothing that most of the leaders of the civil rights movement were people of faith.
But you wouldn’t know because you’re not.
And - it’s one of those issues on which I truly oppose American ‘liberals’: there seems to be this… anger or hostility towards religion. I’m all for separation of Church and State but they’re taking it to extremes and they don’t seem to base their views as much on logical and arguments as they do on hostility.
Some at least.
Xel’s agreement with Shakespeare’s sister’s point reminds me of something I’ve been contemplating- there seems to be a resentment on the part of secularists, that religious people claim that religion has been a positive force and a purveyor of values. Just stating that seems to make some atheist/agnostics feel slighted or insulted. Why is that, I wonder? Can’t they acknowledge the good without feeling that the contributions of non-religious people have also been a positive factor?
“What’s more, freedom and equality before
God (andthe law)are also basic human principles.”Fixed. Morality, equality, justice. While the fine details of these may vary from culture to culture they are intrinsic to what makes us human. They’re core social skills that we as a species have evolved to see as “right”. They’re no more religious than the fact that most people instinctively fear snakes and have a fascination with fire. That’s not to say that religion isn’t often a force for great good, but it certainly can’t claim some sort of exclusive ownership of morality.
That being said I still think this was a well crafted and moderately well delivered speech designed for the religious voter. It did it’s job, and Romney will likely see a poll increase from it.
Dustin, it seems to me that they’re only basic ‘human principles’ because they originate from God. When people, however, turn away from God - as a whole - one gets a very distorted version of freedom and equality (soviet union anyone?).
And why do we all share that? In my view because it originates from God.
Indeed, I think the same, and we’ll see whether we’re right.
Dustin: next stop, the Declaration, which apparently needs a fix as well.
I can’t speak for all “secularists” when I say this, but few things are as annoying as listening to someone proclaim all the good religions have brought about… while also simultaneously completely ignoring the incalculable suffering many of them have also caused throughout history. It’s the whole “rose colored glasses” thing.
Funny enough since you brought it up that’s an interesting bit of historical trivia. Between being written by a Deist and the arguments over wording there’s more to the Declaration than meets first blush.
Dustin,
I hardly think anyone is ignoring that, as loudly as the secularist left shouts it from the rooftops. The point is that none of the failings of religion (due to the fallibility of man, which actually only proves the basic premise of the Christian faith) cause a net negative effect when you consider Christianity’s positive influences on Western civilization.
In other words, all I’m asking is to not exchange the ‘rose colored glasses’ for blinders.
You know, I’m religious and I’ve never - and I mean never - heard a religious person act as if the Crusades didn’t happen, witch hunts didn’t happen, inquisition didn’t happen, etc. We all know it happened… yet despite that we argue that religion has brought more good than bad to the world.
That’s not rose colored glasses, it’s reality. In fact, I get the impression that many atheists are, in this regard, wearing black colored glasses. (this is not aimed at you of course)
Christine: well said.
I second Michael’s point about religious people generally not being in denial. Heck, I’ve lived through the crisis in the Catholic Church and I can tell you that the moral failing of the priests who were sex abusers and the bishops who enabled them was felt as a deep shock, and many left the Church over it. Those of us who remain believe that men are fallible but again, that only proves the whole premise of our faith (that we need Christ’s salvation).
Meanwhile, I don’t see what the converse argument is for why you can believe that society can support a system of ethics and morality without having faith. If men are so fallible that even those who attempt to stay close to a faith/value system end up corrupted, then where is the support going to come from if you start from the premise that good comes from within the human conscience?
As I’m wont to say… come to the Midwest. We breed ‘em special out here, and you’ll find those denialist religious people. Trust me when I say this: they’re “special”.
Your also more wont to find ‘those denialists’ if you’re making presumptions though. How often have you actually heard people explicitly denying things, vs. not speaking about them?
Actually my Aunt’s father-in-law’s one
As a history buff I love having conversations with a man who refuses to believe the world’s older than the domestication of dogs and who refuses to believe the holocaust happened (among other flaws in his historical knowledge).
Unfortunately the man has his own congregation, so I’ve no doubt he’s not alone in his feelings.
So that’s, what, all five?
You see my point? The far majority of Christians understands that the past of Christianity isn’t all happiness (especially Catholics if I may say so).
Seriously, you’ve got some wackos but that doesn’t excuse the hostility towards religion so many atheists harbor.
“In fact, religious people have, in my opinion, a much stronger case for equality in that regard.”
Wrong opinion. Smash opinion.
“there seems to be a resentment on the part of secularists, that religious people claim that religion has been a positive force and a purveyor of values.”
I have no problem with this. In fact, I know it to be true. But Romney and, I think, most of his ilk imply that their religion is exclusively vital to human rights and freedoms, and that their religion is the safest bet to further good values.
“Dustin, it seems to me that they’re only basic ‘human principles’ because they originate from God. When people, however, turn away from God - as a whole - one gets a very distorted version of freedom and equality (soviet union anyone?).”
This is just gross. Human principles can be derived from man’s experience of herself.
“You know, I’m religious and I’ve never - and I mean never - heard a religious person act as if the Crusades didn’t happen, witch hunts didn’t happen, inquisition didn’t happen, etc. We all know it happened… yet despite that we argue that religion has brought more good than bad to the world.”
Well, perhaps both the good and the bad are nigh-on intrinsical to the faith. Well, reason and science isn’t fallible, spo why bother with religion? The concept of religion is flawed, not just man’s use of it.
“If men are so fallible that even those who attempt to stay close to a faith/value system end up corrupted, then where is the support going to come from if you start from the premise that good comes from within the human conscience?”
Because these value systems are not derived from man and his faculties of reason? Good comes from human freedom - I can do whatever I want until I harm your freedom in any way and v.v. - because seeing as you and I are total representations of humanity we may not value our freedoms above that of our peers. Freedom to pursue until you harm the pursuit of others. God sure as heck didn’t give me that, nor does the bible.
Yes, you need to hang out with a better group of Christians, Dustin. Trust us when we say, they are out there, and even in your community the rational ones probably outnumber the irrational by a large margin even if it doesn’t seem that way due to a family relationship with one of the loony types.
Absolutely true. We may come from different sides of this particular fence, but on that we certainly agree. Honestly “militant” atheists scare me just as much as fundamentalists because in their own way they’re just as “fundamentalist” about their beliefs.
On your last, Xel, maybe those concepts of freedom didn’t come directly from the Bible but they’re certainly consistent with Christ’s teachings (and can even be derived, for example, from the Golden Rule). And it was Christians (or Deists at least)who developed our modern concept of democracy and liberty, so give credit where it’s due. I think Romney could have been more inclusive by saying that freedom of worship also extends to freedom to not worship- but he is right to point out that historically faith and freedom have nurtured each other. The onus, I’d say, is on secularists to show that the faith foundation isn’t necessary if that’s what they believe.
“their religion is the safest bet to further good values.”
Though I know you weren’t citing this approvingly, Xel, I’d say that’s a great way to phrase it. It is the safest bet in our opinion because it’s the only historically proven one. And again, that’s why I say the onus is on your side to prove otherwise.
I’d say the Hindu, being roughly 7000 years old, could lay claim to a “historically proven” success. Compared to them Christianity, and especially most Christian denominations, are children.
I do not object to religion in public life. That is reality. Always has been, always will be. I, and others, strenuously object to religion having a place in governmental affairs.
That is a difference Mitt seems to me missed or did not mention.
“but they’re certainly consistent with Christ’s teachings (and can even be derived, for example, from the Golden Rule).”
Didn’t Jesus say “not one jot or tittle will by any means disappear from the Law” (Matthew 5:18)”, thereby declaring the Books of Moses (The Torah) and all that horrible old testament stuff to be validated by him even after his more feel-good opinions?
“but he is right to point out that historically faith and freedom have nurtured each other”
Ahem. I dunno. Really.
“The onus, I’d say, is on secularists to show that the faith foundation isn’t necessary if that’s what they believe.”
Humanism - affirms the golden rule and promotes good mental faculties as important to society, doesn’t contain any of the insanity and dangerous stories religions contain.
“Though I know you weren’t citing this approvingly, Xel, I’d say that’s a great way to phrase it. It is the safest bet in our opinion because it’s the only historically proven one. And again, that’s why I say the onus is on your side to prove otherwise.”
Religion was often a force of good before despite the damage it did to freedom - in this day and age it has not earned much credibility or welcome. I am not sure religion was a net good before and I sure as criminy do not think so today. Today we have the enlightenment and all we have to do is stick to that.
The above requires that you conflate all religious together and treat them all as one and the same.
You would never endorse that kind of a standard for treating any other group of people, why do it here, Xel?
There are religions that place individual freedom absolutely central to the religion. One of those religions is Mormons. Perhaps you should know what you’re talking about before you make sweeping, hateful characterizations. I don’t think your frequent expression of hatred towards religious people does you any favors in building your credibility to be a voice of tolerance.
The caste system? Seriously, you’re advocating that as a viable alternative?
Uh, I could elaborate on the theology to correct that statement but I doubt you’re really interested.
“The above requires that you conflate all religious together and treat them all as one and the same.”
Okay, strictly christianity and its strains, then. they are the most relevant one for our part of the world.
“You would never endorse that kind of a standard for treating any other group of people, why do it here, Xel?”
Yeah, I’m sorry.
“There are religions that place individual freedom absolutely central to the religion. One of those religions is Mormons.”
If they did that women would be allowed to take three husbands, for example.
” I don’t think your frequent expression of hatred towards religious people does you any favors in building your credibility to be a voice of tolerance.”
I think your application of scary words to what I have said is not that worthy of notice by me, nor does it make you a moderate. There is no hatred here, only the opinion that their line of thinking does not comport with man’s place in the universe as it presupposes that which is not supposed to be in the realm of empiricism or reason. That just makes me want to make less people think that way and to influence the culture around me so that religion seems unattractive or superfluous. That is not personal hostility towards anyone - it’s just making their thinking and opinions less common by making people think that they are wrong.
Mormons don’t practice polygamy any more, Xel, and have not for over 100 years. If you’re going to spew snarky nastiness, at least make sure first that it is not also ignorant.
If you do not believe that Mormons place individual freedom (called “free agency” in their faith) at the center of their religion, I suggest you look up the LDS “Articles of Faith” and look specifically at #2, #11, and #13. I would also call your attention to #12, since it is pertinent to many of the other common misrepresentations about Mormons which you, in your obvious ignorance on the subject upon which you are commenting, probably have fallen victim to.
Your claim that there is no hatred present behind your comments is starkly out of tune with what you actually say. For example, when you use an inaccurate anti-Mormon stereotype about polygamy as the basis for your response above, it is hard to see that as anything but pure bad faith on your part. And when you single out Christians for “special treatment”, it betrays that prejudice is at work rather than principle.
LOL, well, Xel, I think Jason’s point also applies to your last statement there: “making their thinking and opinions less common by making people think that they are wrong.”
Your aggressive approach is counterproductive because as Jason points out, you don’t display the tolerance that you ‘preach’ as the virtue of secularism.
You should do a little more reading about the Indian caste system, and the influence of the British. Its rigidity varies by time and place. In a lot of cases it is little different from what we would consider our class system.
Either way, I don’t see where Xel advocated for a caste system
The Mormon church doesn’t allow it anymore. It’s still practiced. And I think you’re missing Xel’s point, unless you concede that Mormonism was not concerned with freedom as a principle before polygamy became unacceptable.
It was Dustin who said that, Chris, in response to my challenge to show that there were other potential support structures for society in lieu of Christianity. I’m not sure what else Hinduism contributed to its societies other than that social structures (and I’m not discounting that there may be other positive factors, but if you’re going to complain about what Christianity has wrought I think it’s silly to put forward Hinduism as a better alternative, even if the societies that practice it do have a longer history).
I grew up Mormon, Chris. I think I know what I am talking about when I describe LDS belief systems. And the principle of “free agency” (that we are morally responsible for our own choices, through and through) is absolutely central to LDS belief. To dismiss that by waving a snarky reference to polygamy is grossly disrespectful (as, of course, it was intended to be). It is true that the emphasis on personal agency is more prominent now than it was in Mormonism’s earlier days, but since ALL religions evolve somewhat over time (and all secular ideologies do as well), it seems unfair to use that as an excuse to condemn Mormons.
Further, the penalty for polygamy is excommunication. I happen to know personally someone who waas excommunicated for polygamy. So I think it is clearly improper to tag the LDS Church as polygamist when it takes the strongest sanction available in response to it.
The polygamy buggaboo is purely a tool of prejudice — it is designed, intended, and deployed to make Mormons look scary and weird. The choice to invoke it is a “red flag” that bigotry is in play. It is no different than making jokes about blacks or Hispanics being lazy. In truth, we should just instantly ban anyone who invokes it just like we would instantly ban anyone who started peddling racist stereotypes or “all Muslims are terrorists” stereotypes, but I chose the lesser sanction of just calling it out in Xel’s case due to his/her long history on this site. But I’m frankly reaching the end of my tolerance for anti-Mormon and/or anti-religion bigotry.
—————–
Xel,
There is no question that some of the people pushing Ten Commandments displays have bad motives. Often those displays will be in a form that actually does violate the separation clause of the First Amendment. I don’t object to those who might question whether they should be in the courthouse. I do object to those that accompany their objections with sweeping, hateful characterizations against all Christians just because SOME Christians might have ulterior motives.
The Ten Commandments MAY be part of a purely history-of-the-law display, as they are in the mural than runs above the Supreme Court. The line exists at the point of whether the content is cited as law or whether the tablets are merely evoked as a symbol of the law’s emergence and evolution through human history in the Western tradition.
And Xel, if you don’t like that the Christian religion contributed to the emergence of the ideas at the center of the Enlightenment, it doesn’t change that it did so. Many scholarly historians (not soley religious ones) have highlighted the role that Christianity played in the development of liberal ideas. It is unreasonable of you to highlight the legitimate tensions that exist between some Christian practices and liberal ideals while simultaneously covering up, ignoring, or even outright misrepresenting the positive contributions that other parts of Christianity made to those same ideals.
Does this thing work?
Romney makes me sick with his talk of tolerance out of one side of his mouth and his lack of tolerance for Muslims out the other side.
http://blogs.citybeat.com/porkopolis/2007/11/romney-bashes-m.html
He won’t put a Muslim person in his cabinet not because he doesn’t know of any qualified Muslims to fill those positions, but “because they don’t meet a certain required quota of representation in the demographics of America”. Romney defines bigotry. Why don’t you run a story on that Michael?
Romney accomplished what he wanted to with this speech. He convinced the evangelicals that he is downfor their theocratic plan. Free Republic is pretty excited bout the line “common creed of moral convictions.”
Code for advancing the evangelical’s agenda.
Seriously, Mitt scares me. I see him as a demogogue of the highest order, willing to say or do anything to get the presidency. Historically, he who panders the most gets the presidencey.
He picked the right party for it, that’s for sure.
Those who hate Mormons will be unmoved, but I see an uptick in the enthusiasm about this guy from the crazy Right-Wing base.
I very much hope is that Huckabee wins in Iowa, screwing up Mitt’s three-state strategy and catapaulting the much more vulnerable Rudy to the nomination.
“Historically, he who panders the most gets the presidencey.”
That’s a bit sweeping, don’t you think?
No