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:
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.
Tags: 2012, 2012 Presidental Race, Aristocrats, Bill Kristol, Corporate, Corporations, Electoral Purchase, Elite, False Equivalence, George Will, Language, Plutocrats, Pundits, Republicans, Rich, Rick Perry, Right-wing, Romney, Success, Taxes, Weekly Standard