A self-made man. Romney is not.
The country continues
to recover from the severe downturn that damaged many sectors of the
economy—housing, employment, energy, currency—during the last couple years of
the George W. Bush administration, a contraction characterized by many as the
worst since the Great Depression, and one that President Barack Obama inherited
at its most onerous depths, not to mention two deadly wars that contributed to the
buckling of morale and resources. President Obama has enacted a number of
resuscitative measures, including stimulus, health care reform, ‘corporate
rescue’, and military draw-down, and while progress has been made, joblessness
and debt have persisted. Enter the Republican brain-trust, who, emboldened by
gains in the 2010 midterm elections, chose the route of political disengagement,
and after several cycles of disengaging with the White House, steered to the
nomination, through fits and starts, a single-issue candidate for the presidency,
a six-year campaigner for the office, former governor Mitt Romney. In addition
to offering scant specifics on his single issue, that is, his claim to be the supervisor
who can revitalize our sluggish marketplaces, Governor Romney defaults to a set
of antiquated stances on social issues and traffics with the electorate amid a host of bumbling personal narratives that cannot be remediated, despite his attempts at likability. Blood And Gutstein endorses President Barack
Obama for reelection in 2012, based, in particular, on clear-cut differences
between the candidates in the following five arenas, but also because I
distrust Romney’s appetite for indiscriminate criticism. He reminds
me, in a certain way, of an over-anxious bachelor who cannot pick-up women, and
trust me, Mitt Romney could stand to ‘pick-up’ a few women, the majority of
whom will vote Democrat this year.
1. TAX POLICY AS A
TOOL FOR LOWERING DEBT AND GENERATING GROWTH. We have managed to avert
economic catastrophe, and in order to avoid a return to the precipice, it would
make sense for wealthy individuals and (wealthy) corporations to feed the kitty
at a higher clip than in a period of stability. Obama supports this tax policy,
while the G.O.P., led by Romney, does not. Romney advocates for companies and the
“upper crust,” only he cannot demonstrate how routine tax cuts would generate
the millions of new jobs he’s promising, with an implication that high-wage
factory slots would appear in short order. The phrase “voodoo economics”—championed
years ago by George H.W. Bush—comes to mind, as such a promise skips too many
intermediate stations. I believe that wealthy persons and corporations can adapt
by paying more tax and investing in growth, simultaneously. Obama terms this
“economic patriotism.”
2. PRESERVATION AND
EXPANSION OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES. A large number of Americans—probably a
majority—believe, for example, that a woman should have the opportunity to make
every decision about her health. Obama supports this individual liberty, while the
G.O.P. platform, as espoused by Romney, does not. The Republicans—perennially,
daily—stress their commitment to shaping a less powerful federal government, one
that would relieve us from its own smothering presence in our
lives, except for the part where this depleted federal authority would regulate
the reproductive practices of every American household, loom in every doctor’s
office, and potentially, dictate arrests, prosecutions, and prison sentences. The
contradiction notwithstanding, restrictions on a woman’s right to choice, for
example, would especially imperil low-income families and single mothers.
3. APPEARING
PRESIDENTIAL IN THE FOREIGN POLICY ENVIRONMENT. During his carefully manicured
trip to the London Olympics, Romney recklessly (and prematurely) criticized the
security apparatus at the summer games, eliciting “Mitt the Twit” headlines,
and drawing the ire of English political leaders. The prime minister reminded
Romney that securing the entirety of big, bustling, international London was
just a tad more cumbersome than securing venues in “the middle of nowhere”—a
potent dig at Romney’s stewardship of the 2002 Salt Lake City (winter) Olympics.
No security breaches materialized in London.
The diplomatic ink-stain, however, accompanied Romney on the remainder of his “break-out”
international tour, a dud that fizzled out in Israel
and Poland,
but was intended to buttress his soggy profile. Romney’s more disconcerting error
involved criticism of the President shortly after the American ambassador to Libya
had been killed as part of an insurgent attack. He was vitriolic when, instead,
he should’ve projected the calm statesman: “Today, I will put politics aside
and stand together with the President during these difficult moments for our
diplomatic mission,” or words to that effect, but the G.O.P. challenger cannot muster
this sonority. Obama, on the other hand, matched coolness to the demands of the
situation.
4. CHOICE OF A
RUNNING MATE WHO COULD ASSUME THE PRESIDENCY. It’s not clear to me how
Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan, Representative from Wisconsin, broadens the tent
for Republicans. He may prize them a few additional voters in his otherwise ‘blue’
home state, or reassure the legions of ‘tea party’ activists, or stamp a
youthful grin on the ticket, but at 42, with just a couple years under
his belt as Chairman of the House Budget Committee, he does not reassure as
broad a swath of voters as does the presence, on the Democrat ticket, of seasoned
political veteran, Joe Biden. Prone to the occasional gaffe, the otherwise
affable Biden has been involved in government since 1973, when he was first
elected Senator from Delaware, and when Ryan was about three years old. He has
chaired various committees in the Senate, served for nearly four years as Vice
President, and owns a track record, in this position, of negotiating across party
lines.
5. PERSONAL NARRATIVE
IN THE ERA OF CORPORATE GREED. Mitt Romney wasn’t reared in an apartment
above a storefront, the way Ronald Reagan grew up, but was the son of George
Romney, CEO of American Motors and Governor of Michigan. Mitt Romney’s enduring
fantasy—that he’s a self-made man—must enable additional delusions on his part.
Surely, he understands what it takes to create millions of manufacturing jobs,
despite the fact that Bain Capital, where he served as CEO, never manufactured
anything, and wasn’t headquartered in a factory. A self-made man would have little
to hide on his tax returns, and would release them to the public, although a
self-made man might, out of unrelated cruelty, strap the family dog to the roof
of his automobile. Several contemporary presidents, including, to the right,
Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan, and to the left, Carter, Clinton, and Obama, could
be described as men of humble origins. Obama was raised by a single mother, and
as a person who identifies as African American, has probably overcome more
obstacles than Romney can imagine.
The tenor of 2012
America calls to mind, in certain ways, the tenor of 1944 America, in
particular for a half-remembered quote by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who
charged Americans to keep entrusting him with the country’s efforts in World
War II, even as it was a dark era filled with uncertainty. He might’ve said
something akin to, “Don’t trust the war to anybody else,” and while I may have
the quote jumbled-up, the nation reelected him over his Republican challenger,
Thomas Dewey, with that sentiment at heart. A different America now grapples
with a different type of uncertain future, but there are compelling
reasons—policy and character, alike—to keep entrusting President Obama with the
nation’s economic recovery efforts.
.jpg)
