We’ve probably all heard about the video of Mitt Romney saying (within context), that he feels 47 percent of the electorate are freeloaders who feel “entitled,” and that his “job is not to worry about those people. [I’ll] never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
He believes that 47 percent will vote for Obama “no matter what.”
Liberals hear this and become enraged with glee (if there is such a thing). And I admit, at first, I did, too.
We can’t believe Romney would be so stupid and so obviously mistaken as to label nearly half the country as “dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims.” We see it as a glaring campaign mistake and a death nail for Romney.
It’s not. Not on a strategic level. And you have to step back and think like a generic, conservative Republican for a minute to both find your way to the truth of this moment, and to understand the other side.
Mitt Romney could not have been more accidentally eloquent in stating the true position of the new, Libertarian-infused GOP: “If you’re not rich, it’s your own fault. You deserve to be poor, and I don’t need to help you. Your needs should not get in the way of my freedom.”
Fundamentally speaking, there is no grey area for many conservative thinkers. It is ingrained in their biology, and sustained by their environment: Everything is black and white, and becoming more so:
If you’re not happy with union bargaining postures, it’s “destroy all unions.” Don’t like Obamacare? “Repeal it entirely.” Don’t like the President’s proposals or Democrat ideas? “Filibuster.” Abortion? “None after fertilization.” And no taxes: never, ever, ever!
Oh, and: “if you got laid off and need food stamps, it was your fault for not being more indispensable to your profession. Quit being a parasite.”
There is no compromise. No sympathy. You're either successfully rich, or you're "looking for a handout."
It’s the old t-shirt: Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Liberals should not be shocked by this. Only their side perceives this as a selfish, indecent perspective. If you listen closely, the New Right has been whispering this for years: the rich are deservedly infallible, and then there’s everyone else.
Romney just used more vivid grammar in describing “those people.”
Another thing I think liberals are mistaken about is when they see Mitt Romney flip-flop, and think that this is supposed to mean something about his character that will change his voters’ minds.
Listen: Mitt Romney doesn’t care what you think about his character. Mitt Romney is a businessman. Business, at his level, is about competition and winning. Character is secondary to winning. Truth is secondary to winning. And in the words of “Glengarry Glenn Ross”: Always—always—be closing.
Mitt Romney will be whoever he needs to be, in front of whoever his audience may be; because if they leave that room sold on him, he believes they will do what he needs them to do. It doesn’t matter to him if they hear that he told someone else, something else. He aligned himself with their beliefs in the now.
Once you’ve done that to a die-hard conservative, facts are irrelevant. You’ve made an emotional connection. Truth and facts are for hippies. What else explains why a growing number of conservatives don’t believe in the mountains of evidence for evolution and climate change? They don’t want it to be true, so it is simply not true.
Liberals need to quit standing idly by and assuming they’re going to come around and face facts.
Finally, and most succinctly, liberals need to realize that there’s a percentage like the 47% on the GOP side which accounts for all of this.
Romney didn’t “write off half of America.” He played to HIS HALF. And liberals need to start understanding that, in an election, a large chunk of the people who side with Mitt Romney would side with him, no matter what he says or does. Period.
Romney can lie. He can enjoy firing people. He can believe that corporations are people, hide his money in the Caymans, and he can use dogs as roof ornaments. These are not “gaffes” or campaign mistakes. He can do no wrong for his base. These things liberals are shocked by-- which they believe no one could possibly hear and vote for-- are reasons many people find Mitt Romney endearing. No amount of policy or campaign “incompetence” can hurt the Romney campaign, because so much of the Right only cares that he is not Barack Obama.
But let’s take a journey of hypothetical extremes.
Let’s ask ourselves: What would actually cause Mitt Romney’s percentage to drop dramatically? What would actually be “going too far”?
Let’s say he was to drop an N-bomb during the debates, directed at Obama.
Do I expect him to do that? No. Is he a racist? I don’t see any evidence of that. But let’s say he did; absolutely and purely hypothetically. If he committed that absolutely horrifying and disgusting sin, unparalleled in political history, what percentage would Mitt Romney keep?
The answer to that question, assuming it’s anything over zero, is Mitt Romney’s 47%. And I know, and you know, that answer is not zero. It’s not even close.
Flip that scenario if you like. Put similar words in Obama’s mouth (if there are any). What’s his entrenched demographic of voters who would abandon human decency and support him anyway?
For either side, what would really be an unforgivable sin?
I think that we have become so polarized in this country that no political sin—no gaffe, no lie, no contrary facts, and no amount of selfishness or indecency— could ever cause a large chunk of your voting bloc to defect to the other side. And the number of people in the middle, who keep open mind in search of facts, truth, and character, is shrinking.
It’s becoming an unsolvable problem in our country.
And on that much, and on that over-arching point, Mr. Romney was correct.
You can follow/yell at Patrick on twitter: @PatrickInPublic
As an independent, I was pleased with Obama's first-term campaign commitment to compromise, even when it was clear that the goal of some leading Republicans was to make him a one-term president at any cost. As an American, I am deeply disappointed at the continued Washington gridlock, which is rapidly turning away legislators with the political will for compromise like Steven LaTourette (who was an excellent Republican representative of his district). But regardless of the politcal tide these days, I still believe that we, the people, CAN turn it if we nurture our better natures, listen despite disagreement, and do not give up hope and action toward a better future.
Strong ending. I was pleased to see that you acknowledge that there are those that will vote Obama no matter what as well. It seems that you were attempting to show yourself as an independent thinker and not a part of the “problem.” Did I miss read that or do you consider yourself an independent thinker? For the sake of continuing with the divisiveness, Dog roof ornament < eating a dog.
Show some compassion.
I think of myself first and foremost as "independently curious." As someone who also has a degree in Media/Telecommunications, I'm pretty aware of how bias and gatekeeping works in the media, so I make a serious effort to check multiple, multiple sources for everything. It's a bit ridiculous, actually. Still, people could decide I am part of the "problem." I do blog on here once a week, and my blogs are mostly left-leaning, satire-based rips on the right. I do consider myself liberal-- but part of that is being open-minded to different opinions and ideas. It's also dictates that I might be proven wrong. My problem is I am now "unwillingly entrenched." I feel forced to side with the Democrats. I don't want to-- and I get verbally abused on here every time I say that I'm not a Democrat-- but I see a total abdication of (what I consider to be) fact-based truth and a willingness to compromise on the part of the right. I was much more open to Republican ideas in the late 90s and early 00s, when they were more moderate and talking about compromises between government and private enterprises; things like cap-and-trade, and what eventually became "Obamacare." Now, the Republicans pretend those were not their ideas-- and that sucks for someone like me, because I thought they were solid ones. So, I'm on the record with my opinions. But there's a lot of curiosity, effort, history (and yes) independent thinking that had to be done to arrive at them.
I would point out that the democrats, including Obama, haven't reached across the isle in any meaningful way. They have been as partisan as the right including the passing of major legislation without any bipartisan support and resorting to bribes to get it accomplished. I haven't been reading your stuff very long but have read what you have written recently. I often read opposing viewpoints to challenge my assumptions, your posts fall into this category. It is clear that you are not trying to change anyone's viewpoints and are just having some fun with your posts. Your satire is apparent, but your arguments are not convincing, although I doubt that is what you are intending to accomplish. I would challenge you, perhaps in a future post to describe why you think either Obamacare or Cap and Trade are even remotely good ideas. I have yet to hear a compelling arguement for either program. Perhaps you have already done this in the past, again I don't pretend to read everything you write or have written.
NOBAMA2012!
ObamaCare will not solve the issues with healthcare; it may help with somethings and will likely hurt other things. It will likely end up like most government programs which over promise, under deliver, and cost way more than were intended. With that said, there might be an overall gain, it is possible. Romney/Ryan will not remove every “safety net” that has been put in place over the last 100 years. The statement “If Romney and Ryan get in there will be no safety net” is just silly. I find it inconceivable to argue that no changes can or should be made to SS, the Medi’s, unemployment, food stamps, etc… Wanting changes, reductions, and trying to implement them isn’t equal to wanting old people to starve, children to starve, the military to not be supported. In all honesty, none of us knows how any of this will work out. We don’t know if Romney would be any better than Obama or if Obama would be better in a second term or worse. We are all guessing. Once we recognize that, perhaps we can see that most of us have the same needs and desires. We may just disagree on the best path forward. Or perhaps we should just continue to get in slap fights like kids on the playground where nobody ever wins, but we all lose.
"Homeowner wannabees", by the way, are how I characterize those greedy people who wanted bigger and newer homes and got caught biting off more than they could afford to chew and now want a handout. Sure the banks and mortgage gouging companies helped them with their "dream" homes. But no one forced these greedy folks to get in over their heads or buy huge McMansions when older, established neighborhoods (with trees, by the way) are right next door. If you can't afford a home, that's OK... Save up and purchase a home you can afford.
Well, I pretty much already threw my hat in the ring with a satire on the "radical parts" of Obamacare (that's here: http://lakewood-oh.patch.com/blog_posts/the-truth-about-obamacare), but I have yet to do much on cap-and-trade. Maybe I'll save that for later. I mentioned those to you because I think those are good examples of Republican ideas. They're not maybe what I would do, personally, but I respect them as compromised solutions. I understand that right-wingers want to bad mouth these two things, but that is because their party has moved so far right that the discussion makes those seem like left-leaning ideas. They're not. And that, to me, is the problem. People are so entrenched in what they believe that they can't see that both really are right-leaning solutions. A true, socialist idea would be a government-run, no insurance companies allowed, system. A more right, but still left-leaning system would have been the public option (which is in keeping with most systems we have: education, law enforcement, libraries, etc). A right leaning solution is a government-oversight exchange system ("Obamacare"). A far right solution would be insurance companies doing whatever they want in the free market, without any regulation. So, as controversial as it is, the Affordable Health Care Act is, historically and politically speaking, a right-based solution. It's just not accepted that way in our current political climate. (More)
All I'm saying with this whole thing is that people need to take a step back and understand where things fall on the political spectrum before decrying them as radical, or-- as you said-- failing to discuss them as issues that need solving before losing our minds and acting like children. Whether you like Obamacare or not-- and there are people on both sides who don't like it-- if you can't discuss it in rational terms and work together towards solving the problem, nothing gets solved. And I think that's what we're seeing with the current deadlock in Congress. So, that's where I'm at. And I'm sure I've just opened the door to fifty people calling me a Socialist, or a "libtard," or any of the other myriad names I've been calling while blogging on this site. But... the heck with those people.
If Avon Lake does something I disagree with, for instance passes a 9.2 mils emergency levy, I can move out of the city if I so chose. I can much easier run for local government, or at least make sure my voice is heard. If Ohioans thought it was a great idea to vote for a single payer system, I could move to a state that had a majority of people like me that think it is a terrible idea. Sure moving out of state is harder than out of a community, but still very doable. I further believe that the more local the tax dollars stay, the better they are used. This isn't true in every case, but the politicians can be held accountable much easier for poor decisions. I can't understand why it is a good idea to send money to Washington to be filtered through a bureaucracy (department of education) then sent back locally to be filtered through and additional bureaucracy. By e time the money gets back to Avon Lake (if it does at all) it must be pennies on the dollar.
That perspective is COMPLETELY fine with me. We don't have to agree on that (federal vs. state) element of it, and I think you make a completely compelling argument. That is a totally acceptable to rationale to me; and I believe that anyone who understands the situation, and articulates their position as you just did, should voice that opinion (and use their vote as their voice) to get behind the candidate that best espouses that philosophy. What is not acceptable to me is when people call the Affordable Health Care Act "socialist" (when it's not), or feel that somehow an angry rhetoric full of hyperbole and name-calling is somehow a logical argument against any issue. Unfortunately, those people's voices are drowning out the respectful dialogue, and preventing any progress in this country; so I have no problem having a little fun at their expense. And, yes, those people are on both sides. But-- and this is my perspective-- I just see a lot more of it coming from the Right than the Left. I see the Right on the attack using that rhetoric, and the Left playing defense. And, again, I have tried to take in as many perspectives as possible before arriving at such a judgement. But that's generally my focus when I start in with the sarcasm and satire: I'm much more against attitudes of radicalism and hyperbole than I am Republicans who are willing to bring good ideas to the table and compromise.
Anyway, I'm off to wage war on women, work to ban contraceptives, plot on how to screw he poor, the elderly, the children, and ruin the environment at the weekly super secret evil conservative meeting. I would invite you, but you don't know the secret handshake.
I respectfully disagree. Mr Obama does not know how to spell or pronounce compromise. It has been and will continue to be his way or the highway. The world is a big "give and take". He needs to get with it , we as a nation will not be able to hold on much longer.. PEACE!
I like this very much. Brandon
Understood. And I would invite you to our liberal meetings; but we meet in a secret, EPA-protected forest where we are currently drawing up this year's War on Christmas, and finishing our investigation of W. for planning of 9/11.
First we have to remove the impediment......Obama.