Aggression Does Not Equal Win

by muon

After the presidential debate last night, all the pundits jumped on the bandwagon and said Mitt Romney was more aggressive, therefore he won.

Aggressive, mind you. Not assertive. Not confident. Not presidential. Aggressive.

And I agree. Romney was aggressive.

Bullies are aggressive. Road ragers are aggressive. Domestic abusers are aggressive.  We try to teach our kids not to go down that road, to have the self-confidence and self-esteem not to feel so threatened that attack is the only option. Since Columbine, we have organized programs against bullying. We counsel people who use aggression to get their own way in our society. Often, they get jail time.

So how can Romney's aggression be a good thing?  Do we want our president to be aggressive? Do we want someone so combative that he'll say or do anything to, in his mind, win (including telling 5 very big lies during the debate)?  Do we want someone who always has to have the last word, and an angry one at that? Would you send someone like that to enter into delicate negotiations with foreign countries?

Do we want someone that aggressive with the authority to start World War 3?

A president who won't admit he's wrong, who always needs the last word, who never apologizes for his lies and offensiveness? Who honestly doesn't seem to care for anything but how powerful his bullying makes him feel? Would that really be good for America?