An Unlikely Inspiration

Name: George Foster

Roughly a month ago, I had the pleasure of attending the 2026 National High School Model United Nations Conference from March 18th to March 21st. However, as much as I enjoyed discussing the decolonization of France’s overseas territories in SPECPOL (Special Political and Decolonization Committee), the highlight of the experience was listening to guest speaker Mitt Romney on the second day of the conference. It was such a highlight that I recorded several of the key points he shared about how to lead a life of principle in politics, as well as his views on US foreign policy. 

What made the session so interesting to me was the fact that his words were a reminder of an important truth that can be difficult to remember; political parties can bicker amongst themselves. Now, to many people, whether in the past or present, this would seem obvious, especially in US history. There are plenty of examples of political infighting, such as Alexander Hamilton vs John Adams among the Federalists, the split among Northern and Southern Democrats before and during the Civil War, Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party, and many more. Simply put, when the donkey and elephant aren’t biting each other, they can and will bite themselves.

But for a 17-year-old like myself, in an era where (until recently with the start of the war in Iran) polarization is high and being a Republican seemingly means being a Trump loyalist, the Republican Romney had some views that not only showed more in common with Democratic ideology, but could be downright critical of his own party and even respectful towards his "rivals".

It is this “shocking” revelation, as well as Romney’s personal beliefs and experiences, that I will be analyzing, and reflecting on; sharing my interpretations and views along the way.

Personnel “Code” and Beliefs on Political Line of Work

While much less detailed than what he presented on what the current administration was doing with US’s global relations, Romney had two insightful and relatable statements for those who choose to  work hard in a political, or for that matter, any other, career.

First off, Romney suggests to “live by your values and you will find success and happiness.”  He shared that his guiding values are “Love, service, and honour”. Now admittedly, such a creed is easy to understand, and can be summed up as “act as you would act and depression you will lack.” However the reason I found this so important and relatable today is because while the idea of acting within our moral boundaries may seem like the obvious style for many, it is hardly a stretch to say someone would abandon their morals and values for perceived success and happiness. 

It is a common trope both in fiction and real life to have someone trade honour for power, whether that be an influential lord from Game of Thrones or an influencer from Social Media trying to get more views. And when you are a politician, holding on to honour, or more accurately your values, can be detrimental to your aims. After all, you can’t always get elected, gain a promotion, pass laws, run standard policy, or even follow instructions from a higher up without playing dirty. This is especially true if you are faced with a situation where you can’t let morals influence your decisions, such as if you were forced to raise taxes on the populace to increase government funds. 

But the reason I like this advice so much is because it is a reminder that even when you have a job where you have to make hard decisions, you should not abandon your values, but rather hold on to them. That isn’t to say you will never have to compromise your values, but if you generally live by and follow them, you can act knowing you stuck to your guns and maintained a moral high ground. And if you work a job where you have to compromise those values frequently, then it may not be a job you want.

Romney’s second piece of advice  on his work experience not only defied the traditional attitude I have heard on the matter, but also rings true for a Junior like me. When asked if he thought his failures had helped his political or business career, he stated that “Failure is not necessary on the road to success, but it is inevitable”. 

Traditionally, in school, we are told that failure is not a bad thing and is simply an opportunity to grow and learn from our mistakes to improve for the next time. While this is a mindset that students struggling with Algebra can get behind, a former businessman and politician like Romney would see it differently. For a student, failure is usually a bad grade that can be made up or improved, but for a businessman/politician like Romney, failure can mean the loss of a valuable client, failure to win an election, pass a bill, getting fired, or even drastic changes in international relations that don’t benefit the US. When comparing that to a bad test grade, it is not shocking that Romney is happy to avoid failure, especially when it can’t be undone in some cases.

But Romney is also a good example of why failure is inevitable, as he explained in that same speech how he had faced failure politically, the most notable example being his loss to Barack Obama in the 2012 US Presidential elections. Such a defeat for such an esteemed office was undoubtedly disappointing, yet Romney still has had great successes politically, serving as governor of Massachusetts from 2003-2007 (impressive since he was a Republican in a generally Democratic State) and was a Senator for Utah from 2019-2025, long after what some may call the low point in his political career.

To me, despite not wanting to face failure due to upcoming college applications, failure is and always has been inevitable alongside success. While I usually get good grades, I have gotten bad ones. While I am sometimes noted for my wit and intellect, I have said enough stupid things for a quote list to be made. I have won tennis games for Varsity, but I have also gotten metaphorically curb stopped in them. I have written great short stories for writing competitions, yet more often than not, I didn’t win them. I am also still single and have never gone on a date. Yet still, I carry on, striving to do my best, knowing that if I follow in the career path of Romney and maintain my work ethic, I will face victory, but I will also face defeat and disappointment.

Thoughts on Current US Foreign Policy

Moving on to US Foreign Policy, I must note that Mitt Romney is very experienced and passionate in this matter.  He served on the US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee during his years in the US Senate, and  also advocated for a strong US foreign policy during his presidential campaign, particularly taking a tough stance on Iran (this is very ironic considering what he said at NHSMUN). As such, I feel confident saying that he has a good idea of what he is talking about and his words don’t need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Romney’s first point is on the nature of world superpowers and controlling their actions, something that has become increasingly relevant today with the actions of Russia, China, and the US. When probed on the subject, Romney stated that he believes “smaller countries bow to the UN because they need to, larger powers never will because they don’t have to, and will keep doing what they do.” Unfortunately, this assessment does make sense based on what we have seen, both past and present. 

If a smaller country challenges UN authority, it can often face repercussions in the form of sanctions (Sierra Leone), political isolation (North Korea), or even military intervention from another nation with UN support (Iraq, Libya). Such consequences can often be too much to face for smaller and poorer nations who can be reliant on foreign trade or economic assistance, and who definitely can’t withstand military intervention from a power like the US.

 But in complete contrast, countries like the US, Russia, and China, which can easily bear the brunt of or outright ignore such consequences, often find themselves free to do what they want. We have seen Russian military action in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Africa, Ukraine, and the Eastern Bloc during Soviet times. Meanwhile, the US, while often being the backbone of sanctioned UN intervention in the Korean, Gulf, Balkan, and Somalian Civil Wars, has also conducted its own condemned military interventions in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq (2003), and most recently Iran. And while not having as many military interventions (excluding a possible future invasion of Taiwan), China is  (similar to Russia) condemned for its brutally censored society and crackdowns, most famously at Tiananmen Square. 

 It's important to remember that these three nations, the US, Russia, and China  are all permanent members of the UN Security Council, and therefore, they  have the power to veto any resolution that could condemn or implement punishment for their actions. This, combined with their economic and military power, makes them untouchable from anything greater than criticism and stern finger-wagging. As such, Romney is hardly wrong to assume they will continue to act in nefarious ways so long as it benefits them.

The second important point is focused on the US, and this is where Romney seemingly breaks from the standard, unconditional support politicians generally have for their respective parties. And he does something that many of his fellow Republicans would never do, or at least not yet; he criticizes Trump.

In a very relevant observation, Romney comments how “Trump changes US policy by exerting power rather than strengthening it with Allies, hypocritical that one minute he calls out European allies for help then later says he doesn’t need it. Republicans will eventually change their line of thinking”. Once again, the assessment is fairly accurate, as Trump has become by far the most hostile US president in history to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). While his actions are too many to list here and could take an entire article or even book, they include criticizing European leaders for a lack of support and spending, tariffs, threatening full withdrawal from the alliance, openly stating interest in taking land owned by NATO members including Canada and Denmark, increased collaboration and even praise for Russia and President Vladimir Putin, pulling out from supporting pro-western nations like Ukraine, and most recently expressing anger at a lack of support from Europe in the recent Iran conflict.

And as this alliance weakens (at least politically), Romney’s comment aboutTrump exerting strength rings true, as seen by increased direct military action in the Caribbean, Venezuela, and Iran, operations that while seemingly (for now) having been military successful, make the US less and less trustworthy in the eyes of the world. In my opinion, the US, under Trump’s leadership, has become similar to Russia in its aggressive, seemingly unjustified military action - the only difference is that the US happens to attack autocratic nations whereas Russia attacks a democratic one.

And it is because of this separation between the US and its traditional allies, as well as having become closer to an international pariah, that I dearly hope he is right that Republicans will abandon Trump's lunacy. Many have become more critical of Trump, especially after his war in Iran, and it may be in the realm of possibility that Trump’s military actions may soon be opposed, and a more moderate, traditional policy may come to pass after Trump is gone. 

However, I see two problems with this. Firstly, the damage has already been done internationally, and recent years have shown US foreign policy is as inconsistent as the results of American elections. Since 2016, we have gone from Trump's damaging policy to Biden’s traditional one and then back to Trump. Why would Europe, and many other allies like Japan, and South Korea, invest and trade with a country that only occasionally has their backs? Might it not be easier to forge new alliances with each other, or even modern relations with seemingly more reliable countries like China? Secondly, many Republicans are in favor of Trump's originally more isolationist "America First Policy”, calling for greater focus at home over overseas involvement. It is this promise, which was broken by Trump's many military interventions, that saw growing Republican discontent. I think a break from Trump would be less likely to see a return to a traditional Republican pro-intervention policy, and more likely to see the Republicans embrace an isolationist stance.

Said rhetoric is also commented on by Romeny, quite savagely it must be said. He points out the hypocrisy of the policy, saying that one “cannot be ‘America First’ if you don’t cooperate with global allies.” In other words, it is in America’s interests to be involved in the world and cooperating with its Allies, not isolating itself and letting other nations fend for themselves as Russia and China press their advantage, as their biggest rival takes a break. With America out of the game, these autocratic nations can continue to act without a counterbalance to their expansion, with Russia showing no signs of bartering its expansionist desires in Europe, and China seeming ready to attack Taiwan, areas that the US has heavy trade relations with. By allowing these nations to continue to act as they do, we will lose allies, trade partners, and areas of influence to an enemy who wants to see the end of American Hegemony. The best example I can liken it to is what may have happened if the US hadn’t intervened in WW2 and let the Axis Powers run amok. Imagine what could have happened if the US was left as the last bastion of democracy in a world surrounded by Fascism.

Biggest Takeaway:

The experience of listening to Mitt Romney was not only a great way to gain wisdom on US foreign policy and the perspective of a politician, but it was also an important reminder about how even an area where lines have been drawn based on political association, no group or party is fully united behind the same ideas, and there can be more similarities between two people with opposing views than people from the same ideology.