Middle-Class: Beware of "Mitt" Romney and the False Equivalence

Willard "Mitt" Romney yesterday fell into yet another self-inflicted gaffe: the false equivalence.

In an attempt to fend off attacks of being socially and financially effete, from both the Democrats as well as notable pundits and politicians within the Republican Party, Romney decried that the, "Obama team is ashamed of success".  In asserting this as a reply to the growing chorus (both left and right) he cites not only himself, but Apple founder Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, and "Papa John" as examples of success: you know, fellow members of the so-called 1%.  Is this his exclusive definition of "success"?

In Romney's detachment from say "successful" landscapers, hair dressers, dog groomers and other self proprietors, he fails to note the most widely used rhetorical device of all politicians: small business.

Most of us will not be those with whom Romney associates; his NASCAR owner friends, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, "Papa John".  Ironically, both Jobs' and Ford's socio-political views were often in stark contrast to Romney's beliefs.  No, at most many of us might hope to enter the self-proprietor realm at some point with perhaps even fewer being able to grow beyond that.

But herein, Romney again fails to identify with even these aspirations: those that come from the belly, from those of us (unlike himself) who truly start with nothing.  Give me the time (draft deferments) and nest-egg bestowed upon him and I could probably parlay it too.

To begin a successful small business means things like having access to loans, customers with disposable income, access to health-care (a noted reason many don't venture beyond the 9-5 doldrums).  To this end, many aspiring "entrepreneurs" are being held hostage by members of his elite class; the banker-class that could extend bridge and other loans, fellow "off-shorers" that are stashing reported trillions of dollars outside the American economy where it could be "recycled" and put to use for this latter group by way of greater tax bases, those who sociopathically view health-care as a privilege and not a right.  These and many other "conservative" policies are those that stymie the aspirations of the middle-class.

Let us not forget what "conservative" means in its most basic definition:

con·serv·a·tive /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/

adjective

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.

3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.

4. ( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.

5. ( initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.

Simply put, in this era of a rapidly changing socio-cultural America, one that in this generation is projected to become "majority minority," Romney and his class are simply "battening down the hatches" and attempting to use the frightened, often disengaged, sometimes racist, sexist, and xeno-and-homophobic middle-class to do their electoral bidding to ensure their success (see article on the "billionaire boys club" that seeks to own America).

One need not be a fan of Obama to see the danger in Romney as many on "the left" are equally suspicious of Obama for being too conservative.  What we can see in the honest opinions of Republicans like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry -- and the most recent growing chorus from the likes of George Will, Bill Kristol and others -- is the disquiet that comes from watching a man whose whole life has been built for this event.  A man who while governor of Massachusetts was proudly moderate and now disavows his entire tenure as governor, instead running on rhetorical philosophies most can not even fathom.  Willard "Mitt" Romney is simply not ready for prime-time -- and most likely never will be.  Can one envision Romney standing down Putin or other of the world's strongmen?  Sure, he will go in with his neo-con/Cheneyeque, spoon-fed talking points but when called on those . . . what then?  We have seen his contortions with softball questioning by Bret Baier on his "home team" Fox network!

People change their minds, people flip-flop, people pander . . . people lie.  Who or what Willard Romney is we will likely never know.  What we do know, however,  is that "Mitt's" math just doesn't add up for the middle-class and in candidate Romney it rarely does -- just ask fellow Republicans.  Is how he defines success your definition?  If so, about 99% of us will fail.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • fb_avatar

    Unfortunately, not only do you need a history lesson, you are terribly out of touch with current events. I suppose you have not noticed that the "middle class" is suffering more now than even during the Carter years... another "great" liberal. To the history lesson- every time (true) "conservatism" has been tried, it has worked. Every time your liberalism has been tried, it fails miserably. Obamanomics??? Don't make me laugh. Personally, (from a purely selfish standpoint) I hope he wins- I'm rich and getting richer (but I started that way). However, I've noticed the middle class are the ones who are suffering the most under this most oppressive regime with useful idiots like yourself to carry their water and throw despective definitions of "conservative" around. Clearly, from your anti-semitic references to conservatives in your "lazy" definition perhaps you would also benefit from some sensitivity training.

  • In reply to Al Capone:

    LOL (did I say LOL?), okay "Al" whatever you think. Did you read the post? Maybe you don't understand it? Your comments reflect those of one who doesn't get the point of the post. "Al's" post gives us a demonstrable glimpse into the portion of the middle-class to which I allude that is simply being "played" by the elite -- though "Al" claims to have "started rich and is getting richer". Another indication, then, that he doesn't/can't "get" the middle-class and is simply "battening down his hatches" like the rest of the effete elite.

    Folks, the "history lesson" from "Al" is (aside that he desperately needs high school civics again) is that it was "progressivism," from both the Democrats and Republicans throughout the 20th century (with abolitionists, socialists, Suffragettes, labor unions, civil rights workers, and farm laborers and others being the "wind in their sails," so-to-speak), that extracted from the "conservative" elite the middle-class America you enjoy today. Well, until Reagan and then "W," Paul Ryan and the current Republican congress started repealing the 20th century -- and the middle-class with it. Remember; there was no expansive, as-we-know-it, middle-class before 20th century, progressive policies!

    Do you really believe the "pro-business" conservatives of the day happily went along with anti-child labor laws, 40-hour weeks, rules in the mining industry etc.? Today we see they are fighting gender equity and black lung disease is returning in coal miners (thanks "deregulation" and poor funding of currently strapped investigating agencies!). The elite will break any back, bend every rule in pursuit of their (not our) well-being and their dreams.

    Elites like "Mitt" will outsource jobs, seek to reduce regulations, gamble on Wall Street, the very activities that will eventually destroy the very policies that created the strong middle-class in America in the first place as they can find their profits anywhere in the -- notably developing -- world if they don't get their way. And we see that is exactly what they are doing! "Mitt," his campaign's financial backers, and that ilk are no different than the robber barrons of the guilded age in America.

    Same tune, different band.

    Nice try "Al" but you fail in your "understanding" of factual history . . .

    . . . and while I am doing "sensitivity training" you may want to repeat "See spot run" as nowhere in the post were there any references that would make a literate person think anything anti-semitic. If you have an issue with the definition of conservative, talk to Dictionary.com.

    Again "Al," you FAIL.

    But let us end on a high note. You say, "personally (from a selfish standpoint) I hope he [Obama] wins" . . . Here I agree with you, I do believe he will narrowly win (not in the record numbers of 2008) despite resurrected conservative voter suppression tactics -- there is that pesky conservatism again rearing its un-American head. Personally, I favor the perspective, policies, direction, and vision of the Green Party's Dr. Jill Stein (and the overall GP platform) over those of the moderate Obama and the largely moderate-to-"blue dog" Democrats. Like I noted, however, I do believe you will be right herein.

Leave a comment