In his opining on the topic of Romney's sons serving the country, Geraghty (who's blog I enjoy) takes an illogical turn:

Eh. I realize equating campaign work and military service wasn't necessarily Romney's intent, but he did describe his sons' work as "showing our support for our nation," and that statement, or at least its wording, leaves me a little cold. I don't think working for a political candidate or cause - no matter how great the candidate, no matter how noble the cause - is synonymous with support for the nation.

Geraghty is a smart guy, but I find this almost silly. No political cause is a service to our nation? The problem here is Geraghty disagrees with Mitt on gut instinct, but to rationalize it, you have to make the assertion that I doubt most would agree with. This holds very little truth when set to example.


The founding fathers are a great example. I am guessing that they saw their political cause (democracy) and it's founding as a service to the nation in which we live. I am positive that when Abraham Lincoln worked to fight the secessionist, not only was that a political cause (I'm positive the Civil War was a political battle first) but one that served our nation. I would argue those who fought for desegregation through the political system were not only fighting a political cause but serving those for whom they fought, and the generations that followed.

If offering help for a political cause is not supporting your nation, than what is supporting your nation? Only paying taxes and fighting in the army? The problem, and the one I think Geraghty is actually tacitly addressing, is that to say one political cause is supporting the nation means that you would either have to say all political causes serve the nation, or make a value judgment deciding which ones do and which ones don't.

That should be no problem.

After all, we put a value judgment on our political philosophy for the very reasons Geraghty says do not exist- our political philosophy supports our nation. I approve of Conservatism because in my estimation because it supports our nation's ideals and the Constitution. I don't support liberalism because I believes it harms the same.

It's fine if Geraghty disagrees that Mitt's sons are supporting our Nation. The reasoning should be though, because the cause they support does not support our nation (at least in his mind,) not because supporting a political cause could never support our nation, after all, our nation was founded on a political cause.