A democracy, a republic, whatever we call
our form of government, it is supposed to represent the people, all of the
people. Now that is very difficult as we are such a diverse people. But in this
presidential election who is representing who is pretty clear. Obama, gives all
appearances of being a political leader who affirms that attempt to represent
the people while providing presidential leadership and vision. I don’t agree
with all that he does: I think he was flat wrong to engage in the Afghanistan
war; I think he should have stuck by his guns on election reform even when he
was raising more than his previous opponent, and I think he is too chummy with
the usual power brokers; that seems to be a presidential hazard.
But Mitt Romney on the other hand seems to
represent a very small portion of the country, the wealthy. He is one which is
not a bad thing; so was Teddy Roosevelt and FDR and Kennedy, but they were
proponents of the common folk and worked very hard to improve the lot of the
middle class and protect the poor.
Romney is merely representative of his
class. His tax cuts are for his class, at the expense of the middle and lower
classes. He tells lies about those who are not in his classes i.e. the recent
47% debacle. He decries “entitlement programs” and coddling the poor for which
he seems to possess no empathy.
So, Romney pays his 14% of his 13 million
dollar income and protects his cronies.
Romney does not reflect representative
democracy, but he seems to have pulled the wool over a lot of people’s eyes who
he has no intention of representing. Romney is a real and present danger to
democracy, our republic.
"But Mitt Romney on the other hand seems to represent a very small portion of the country, the wealthy."
ReplyDeleteI don't see how you can get this idea. when there is a complete lack of evidence. From poll after poll after poll, he represents a very large proportion of the country's population: from 45% to 48%. No matter which percentage you look at, the wealthy are just a small minority percentage of his supporters.
"His tax cuts are for his class,"
To be generous to you, this is a very incomplete thing to say. He proposes 20% tax cuts across the board. He also proposes keeping the Bush tax cut package. Both of these policies benefit mostly the middle class. As Romney is rather rich, it is not true to say that most of the cuts are for his class.
" I don’t agree with all that he does: I think he was flat wrong to engage in the Afghanistan war;"
I completely disagree: it would have been a disgrace if Obama had not fought back against those who attack us. But I disagre with how he has gone about it. Victory should have been his main objective.
"So, Romney pays his 14% of his 13 million dollar income and protects his cronies."
Which is many many millions, and many many times more than the average middle class person pays. Not only is he paying his fair share, he is carrying a lot of people.
"but they were proponents of the common folk and worked very hard to improve the lot of the middle class and protect the poor."
That is an excellent description of Romney's proposed policies, which will have a very positive impact on the poverty problem by addressing the jobs problem Obama has ignored for so long. And his policies are focused on the middle class. This is in contrast to Obama, whose policies are focused on making the rulers more powerful and the ruled less powerful
"Romney does not reflect representative democracy"
This is only true due to the fact that Romney is not at this moment serving in government. as a representative in any fashion. If he were elected, he would reflect representative democracy exactly as Obama does now. Yes, democracy works even when the guy you dislike gets elected.
"but he seems to have pulled the wool over a lot of people’s eyes who he has no intention of representing."
This is a common mistake made by those who are contemptuous of those who make the informed decision to support someone the person dislikes. It is both arrogant and disrespectful of those the person disagrees with.
"Romney is a real and present danger to democracy, our republic."
yet, half of Americans, who happen to be more informed about their life situation and the impact of Romney's policies, happen to disagree with you. I side with them. They know their lives.
http://baselinescenario.com/2012/09/19/voters-not-so-stupid/
DeleteRecent polls do indeed show that voters believe that Romney in put in place policies that will favor the rich over others in contrast to Obama. Though in my article I was not talking about polls but who he represents; not the same thing. If I pay a higher tax rate the Romney, he is not paying his fair share, no matter what the total dollars are. Progressive taxes are fair, regressive taxes are unfair and have caused the redistribution of wealth that has taken place in this country despite Romney's statement they have not; check politfact to see this rated false.
IMO, Romney is basically a pragmatist. Historically he takes a moderate approach. In aligning himself with the
ReplyDeletebroad range of interests the comprise today's GOP, he will
end up using them; then ignoring them...or being used by
them. There are many and complex factors among the voting
demographics: gun rights, abortion, taxes, foreign affairs,
domestic programs etc. (those of us who be default, I guess, are less informed..Jewish, academia, scientists, teachers, labor, minorities, women...also are informed,
and happen to disagree. :)
I agree that not only Romney but most politicians are pragmatists; willing to do what every and say whatever to be elected. Integrity is lost in the process. Ah the philosophical question of pragmatists, "Is it better to be a pig satisfied or a disgruntled human being?"
DeleteLove the irony.
Exactly. Which is why I'm not being arrogant from the other side and making the equally false claim that Obama has pulled the wool over anyone's eyes.
ReplyDelete"... labor..."
From all indications, working people (labor) favor Romney and Obama about evenly; same as the general population. It isn't the best thing to confuse labor unions (which only represent less than 10% of workers) with labor as a whole.
Actually, 'labor' is a bit confusing. In my day,
Deleteit meant factory, manufacture, construction...
making stuff. Not much of that in this country anymore. So labor should refer to 'service' sector..salesmen, nurses, police, fastfood folk,
paralegals...a big broad sector. Additionally, it is generally accepted that regional labor varies in outlook (wellknown 'southern strategy) as well. IMO,Thomas Frank addresses
the interesting reasons why people vote the way
they do. I know many that worry soley about gun control (Idaho-self explanatory), many that want
to replace biology with the bible in the ed system, many involved in church/state issues, etc. No doubt, you and I have our reasons as well. The 50-50 split phenomenon arises from media blitzing as well, not so much that minds are changed, but causes reinforced. Kind of disconcerting for this WWII kid...we were all
Americans back in the day.
Labor and labor unions have indeed changed. The AMA is one of the strongest today. I belong to one, clergy in a mainline church where there are recommended minimums for salary. Our union just isn't very good in comparison to others of similar education.
DeleteSomewhere along the line pay ought to have to relationship to the value of ones work to the overall society; but that is not democratic.