Some reflections on this presidential election...
I. I have always found the premise of the politicized question "Are you better off now than four years ago?" in very poor taste. The suggestion that we should vote based on how well we personally are doing financially under a particular president is a politics-by-fear and an appeal to personal greed that should have no place in a healthy republic. Where is the more noble call, "Ask not what my country can do for me, as why I can do for my country..."?
The question ("are you better off...?") was famously asked by Reagan in 1980, beginning his years of popularity by calling upon fear and greed. Poor form. Cheap politics.
II. Nonetheless, on a more holistic scale, it can be a reasonable question - are we heading generally in a better direction now than four years ago? It is not a question that I think the GOP really wants to raise, though.
III. For me and many, many others, that question is EASILY answered. No matter how disappointed we may be in many directions Obama has gone, there is no contest. The direction the GOP and George Bush were leading us in was an historically disastrous direction. We are infinitely better off now than four years ago. Light years.
There is no question, no contest, no doubt: Yes, I and we are better off now than four years ago.
Duh.
IV. We can see that we're better off now in the hints by Romney/Ryan of the direction they'd like to take us in - the direction BACK to the Bush year policies.
For instance, Ryan and Romney (probably the better clarification of the direction of this team) have stated that Obama is not doing "enough" and is not "strong enough" a leader when it comes to foreign policy. What are they suggesting they'd do instead? Invade more nations under questionable pretenses? Spend even greater amounts - hundreds of billions dollars more? - in a never-ending war against the rest of the world-as-national defense?
No thank you. We've gone that route and it costs dearly and we quite frankly doubt the efficacy of foreign policy by bomb.
V. We see in Romney's just released comments about the so-called "dependent" and "thoughtless-ness" 47% of "victims..." Romney's contempt for the poor and middle class and, well, those who disagree with him and the GOP.
"I'll never convince them (the 47%) they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives... What I have to do is convince the 5 percent to 10 percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful." Romney said.
Oh, really? We're a bunch of leeches living off the gov't teat that won't take responsibility for our lives? We're not thoughtful?
We, the people are TIRED of these politics of demonization and demagoguery. We're tired of the Dems engaging in it and we're tired of the GOP engaging in it. Those who disagree with me are not mindless, they are not worthless, they are not evil. We disagree. Let it go at that.
Yes, I think we are solidly better off now than four years ago and I don't see any suggestion that Ryan/Romney want to take us any direction but backwards. We, the thoughtless and dependent, think we're doing better, thank you very much.
41 comments:
I have always found the premise of the politicized question "Are you better off now than four years ago?" in very poor taste. The suggestion that we should vote based on how well we personally are doing financially under a particular president is a politics-by-fear and an appeal to personal greed that should have no place in a healthy republic.
I agree with this sentiment.
Where is the more noble call, "Ask not what my country can do for me, as why I can do for my country..."?
I prefer "Ask not what my country can do for me or what I can do for my country, but ask what I can do for myself and my family."
Self-sacrifice may seem noble. I can understand the appeal. But it's potentially dangerous. If you offer yourself up for sacrifice, there will always be someone willing to sell you an altar.
Be wary of people who call for self-sacrifice. Watch and see if they have already sacrificed themselves.
There is no question, no contest, no doubt: Yes, I and we are better off now than four years ago.
We're going to disagree here. And probably the 11.2% Americans who are unemployed will, too.
We see in Romney's just released comments about the so-called "dependent" and "thoughtless-ness" 47% of "victims..." Romney's contempt for the poor and middle class and, well, those who disagree with him and the GOP.
I watched the Romney video and didn't see anything scandalous about it. To the contrary, Romney was speaking sensibly. He seemed to understand a major political problem: we have half of Americans voting on tax increases for the other half.
If we're going to have income tax--and I'd rather abolish it completely--then everyone should pay it. Perhaps at different rates, but everyone should have "skin in the game." If you support the expansion of government (e.g. a new entitlement, a war), then you should pay for part of it.
Otherwise, we'll end up with a morally corrupting system that lets people use taxation to take the possessions of other people. That's bad. Romney seems to understand this. Or at least talk about it.
Dan, do you understand how this system could be morally corrupting to our republic? Or how someone could see it that way?
That said, I don't take Romney seriously as an opponent of big government. So I'm voting for Gary Johnson.
We, the people are TIRED of these politics of demonization and demagoguery. We're tired of the Dems engaging in it and we're tired of the GOP engaging in it. Those who disagree with me are not mindless, they are not worthless, they are not evil. We disagree. Let it go at that.
Thank you for saying this.
I do want to add something, Dan: how very much I appreciate debating you and certain other people on the left. I like it that I can engage with people with whom I strongly disagree without getting ugly. It keeps my mind open and sharp.
I have a difficult time understanding how someone can hear a candidate for President say about 47% of the US population, "And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." and thinks it is true that half the country refuses to take responsibility for their lives or that it is perfectly OK for the President to write off almost half the population.
"He seemed to understand a major political problem: we have half of Americans voting on tax increases for the other half."
Except, of course, when you actually look at where the 47% he was talking about live: All the red states. The people he's talking about are the people voting for him, actually.
So no, we don't have half of Americans voting on tax increases for the other half. That's demonstrably false. Instead, we have Republican poor and lower-middle class voters voting for tax increases for poor and middle income voters to pay for tax cuts for the rich, and then blaming Democrats for it.
Alan, the Tax Foundation has an interesting graphic that confirms the basic gist of your claim, and it's an organization that Reason.org likes but Paul Krugman does not, so it's not exactly a left-wing spin machine.
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/20100524-229-nonpayers-map-.jpg
But while it confirms your claim, your claim doesn't have nearly the statistical significance that you think it does.
I invite you to compare that graph to Wikipedia's image of red states and blue states, determined by presidential elections since 1996.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Red_state,_blue_state.svg
Texas is a bright red state for whom 39% of filers had no income tax liability.
But are California and New York really that much different, at 37% and 35% respectively?
The bright blue state of Minnesota is at 30%, but other bright red states are even lower:
North Dakota - 29%
Wyoming - 28%
Alaska - 21%
Yes, I agree with myself Bubba, that every one of the red states in the Tax Foundation map that you link to, is in fact, a red state in the Wikipedia map that you link to. In other words, the biggest donor states are indeed all red states. (Note that I did not claim that all red states are donor states, nor did I claim that the reddest states are the largest donors.)
So yes, I agree with your agreement that what I said is, in fact, correct.
(BTW, one hates to be Conan the Statistician here, but there is a difference between statistical significance and effect size. I think you mean effect size, not statistical significance, because I would bet my lunch money that 35% and 37% and 39% are statistically significant differences given the large sample size -- the entire tax-paying public of each of those states.)
"Yes, I agree with myself Bubba, that every one of the red states in the Tax Foundation map that you link to, is in fact, a red state in the Wikipedia map that you link to."
Except for purple Florida and light-blue New Mexico, but, hey, I'm sure the difference between 80% and 100% isn't statistically significant for such a small number of states.
You write that, "I did not claim that all red states are donor states, nor did I claim that the reddest states are the largest donors," but it's not entirely clear what specifically you were claiming. I got the gist of it, and the graphic supports the gist of your comment, but you really, can overstate the importance of that.
I invite you to open Excel and crunch the actual numbers.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/states-vary-widely-number-tax-filers-no-income-tax-liability
The blue states (and the very blue District of Columbia) account for 49.9 percent of all income tax filers, and 47.2 percent of those who have no federal liability.
The red states account for 39.0 percent of all filers and 41.3 percent of those who have no federal liability.
Indeed, red states are disproportionately represented, but you invited John to "actually look at where the 47% he was talking about live: All the red states." Well, ALMOST HALF are in blue states, about only 41 percent are in red states.
Alan, I honestly think analysis of socio-economic status and political preference is made more complicated by the fact that the party preferences aren't summarized by saying that one party is at one end of the spectrum and the other party is at the other. Instead, one party tends to attract people from the middle while the other attracts people from both extremes.
A partisan Democrat will crow about how individuals with post-graduate degrees tend to skew left, as if that proves that smart people prefer liberalism, but the boast ignores the fact that people without high-school diplomas ALSO skew left.
Look at the exit polls from 2008, when Obama defeated McCain, 53% to 46%.
The voting patterns of those who received a moderate amount of education vote mirrored the general election results or even skewed slightly right, at least by comparison:
50-48, with a college degree
51-47, with some college coursework
52-46, high-school education
Those on both ends of the educational spectrum skewed to the left more strongly than the middle skewed right:
58-40, postgrad education
63-45, no high-school diploma
(Note that the strongest skew is for the least educated.)
What's MUCH more interesting and relevant to this discussion is household income.
For every income group from $50K to $200K, the two candidates were separated by 3 percentage points or less, and McCain actually won three of the four groups.
Those who made more than $200K supported Obama by a margin twice as big, 52-46, more closely matching the national popular vote.
Those who made less than $50K supported Obama by an increasingly greater margin, the less they made:
55-43 (12 points), $30-50K
60-37 (23 points), $15-30K
73-25 (48 points), under $15k
--
Let's summarize.
If you're solidly middle class in education and income, you're more likely to vote Republican.
If you're part of the upper class, you're more likely to vote Democrat, and if you're part of the lower class, you're MUCH more likely to vote Democrat.
Exactly. While almost half of tax filers live in the more populous blue states, that entire population accounts for 47% of those who have no federal liability. Meanwhile, only 39% of tax filers live in red states, but they account for 41.3% of those who have no liability. I don't need Excel to see that means that a larger number of people who live in red states pay no federal Income taxes, but if I did, the calculation is pretty simple.
BTW, Also interesting is looking at maps of the government services these entitled victims are receiving. If you look at Medicaid recipients for example, the map is ... well ... all over the map. Some states with the highest numbers of income tax payers have the highest percentages of medicaid recipients, but some of the states with the lowest percentages of income tax payers have the lowest percentages of Medicaid recipients, too. Washington and Minnisota for example, are donor states in income taxes, but utilize the services paid by those taxes higher than many other states (at least when looking at medicaid) and Florida, Georgia, and Alabama have lower percentages of income tax payers, but also are higher users of Medicaid. So, political party affiliation aside, the actual correlation that Romeny was trying to make looks much flimsier than the correlation that I made.
So, please continue to argue with me while agreeing. LOL.
Of course, what gets lost from this conversation (in the side issue that I, admittedly, was the one who brought up) is that I am actually not the one who thinks who pays taxes should determine who gets a say in our government. In fact, I disagree with that completely. But if someone like Romney believes that's true, they should at least be aware of who they are talking about.
In addition, I am not the one arguing that, even if one thinks paying taxes should buy access that federal income taxes are the only thing one should consider. Given that the poor and middle class pay a much larger proportion of their taxes in property, payroll, and sales taxes than Romney does, it was a pretty dumb thing to say. Let them eat cake indeed.
And finally, it seems amusing that this comment about paying income taxes comes from a candidate who has been so cagey about releasing his returns, but that's a bit of a tangent, too.
Alan, you'd have to navigate to page to of the "Presidential Exit Polls" for each of individual state -- the first pull-down UNDER "Exit Polls" -- but it's worth a closer look at the 2008 exit polls.
Here is Mississippi's second page of '08 exit polls to get you started.
Below is the exit polling data for the two lowest income groups, for the eight red states in the top 10 of that list from the Tax Foundation, in descending order of ranking.
(For less populous states, not all polling data is available. I'll skip any group that's N/A.)
Mississippi
76-24 Obama, under $15K
59-41 Obama, $15-30K
Georgia
83-17 Obama, under $15K
59-41 Obama, $15-30K
Arkansas
59-39 Obama, under $15K
54-44 Obama, $15-30K
Alabama
53-46 Obama, $15-30K
South Carolina
60-40 Obama, $15-30K
Louisiana
63-35 Obama, under $15K
55-44 Obama, $15-30K
Texas
70-29 Obama, under $15K
60-38 Obama, $15-30K
Idaho
64-33 McCain, $15-30K
The sole exception is Idaho, but the other seven deep red states follow the same very predictable pattern: every low income group supported Obama, and the lowest income group supported him by even larger margins, sometimes by 3-to-1 (MS) or even more (GA).
"So no, we don't have half of Americans voting on tax increases for the other half. That's demonstrably false. Instead, we have Republican poor and lower-middle class voters voting for tax increases for poor and middle income voters to pay for tax cuts for the rich, and then blaming Democrats for it."
The exit polls make this claim implausible.
Even in deep red states, those with the lowest income tend to vote for Democrats: those who are most likely to depend on the welfare state vote for the party committed to its expansion.
I also agree with you that people play pretty fast and loose with demographics. In CA, for example, some on the right crowed about the fact that African-Americans voted for Prop 8 in higher percentages than whites. (This was supposed to shoot down the argument that Prop 8 was a civil rights issue, I guess.) However, looking at the actual statistical analysis shows that race was not a predictor of voting patterns, but socioeconomic status and educational status and geography were.
And then there's religion, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. The well-to-do executives living in Grand Rapids, MI (the second largest city in the state) with high educational attainment, who by your numbers, ought to vote Democratic, are Republicans because they're all Calvinists (De Vos, Van Andel, Price, etc....)
It turns out people are not monolithic, with their decisions based only on race or socioeconomic status or education. I get that. You get that. Politicians do not get that because it isn't something that one can use to pit one group against another, as Romney's statement clearly demonstrates (and any number of other statements on both sides would also demonstrate just as well.)
As for politics, my point stands, even if the numbers were 50/50 (which we agree that they are not) and if the best we could say is that there are donor states among both Republican and Democratically leaning states then it still disproves Romney's thesis that it is just the "entitled" who pay no taxes who vote Democratic. As I said in my initial comment: his statement is demonstrably false.
The problem with drilling down on the numbers as you're doing, Bubba, can be summarized in two words: electoral math. Pockets of poor folks in deep red texas might vote for Obama, but Texas didn't. So long as we're stuck with the electoral college, small groups don't matter too much.
Ever since Bush v. Gore, I've basically written off the popular vote as unimportant. :)
Alan, about taxation and suffrage, I think it's worthwhile to quote a recent article by Andrew McCarthy.
--
As constituted, our government offered two visions of "providing for the general welfare." First is the Madisonian principle that Congress’s capacity to tax and spend is strictly limited to its enumerated powers — which do not include running social-welfare programs. The second is a Hamiltonian gloss, giving Congress additional latitude, provided that its schemes benefit all Americans equally — which would preclude welfare programs that take from A for the benefit of B.
Once you abandon these moorings, once you accept a wealth-redistribution system in which government becomes the arbiter of "social justice," the ball game is over. If government is given license to even the scales between the have-nots and the haves, the political incentive to even them will be constant and overpowering: Enough will never be enough. If the rationale for giving government this power is that the asset in question is corporate property, not private, what is to be the limiting principle? Why health care but not housing or income? And when it comes to providing for the truly needy among 310 million people, central-government planners will simply never be as good at it as decent societies and their local governments. And so the allocation of burdens and benefits in federal entitlement programs is guaranteed to be warped, wasteful, and ultimately unsustainable.
[link, emphasis in original]
--
In sum, there are three views of government:
1) Madison's view, that the (federal) government can only provide for the "general welfare" through constitutionally enumerated powers.
2) Hamilton's view, that the government can do anything to provide for the "general welfare."
3) the progressive view, that the government can do anything to provide for any individual's SPECIFIC welfare, not JUST provide programs that "benefit all Americans equally."
This third view, the redistributionist view, is unsustainable, because 51% of the electorate can vote to confiscate the wealth of the other 49%, and there is ALWAYS this push to vote for programs that benefit you personally at the expense of others.
IN THE ABSENCE OF REDISTRIBUTIONIST POLICIES, indeed there seems to be little justification for limiting the vote to those who pay taxes, but the equation changes drastically with the advent of the welfare state.
The approach surely brings its own problems, including unintended consequences, but a sensible approach to keeping the welfare state from metastasizing *IS* to limit voting to net contributors to the tax base.
- Want to vote? You must contribute to the treasury more than you take in welfare payments.
- Want to be a ward of the state? You must relinquish your partial control over the state through your vote.
It's not an unreasonable position.
"The problem with drilling down on the numbers as you're doing, Bubba, can be summarized in two words: electoral math. Pockets of poor folks in deep red texas might vote for Obama, but Texas didn't. So long as we're stuck with the electoral college, small groups don't matter too much."
Small groups DO matter in at least one respect: if a person claims that red-state welfare recipients vote Republican, exit polls can either verify or discred it the claim.
You don't really think those are the only three views of government, do you? Or if you do, it seems odd to classify 3 as the progressive view only. Republicans are for tax credits that benefit only parents, are they not? Seems to me that goes beyond enumerated powers, and does not benefit all people equally. I don't know you're view on that one, perhaps you're consistent and believe that the government should not create social-welfare programs AND should not provide tax credits for procreation.
Or, perhaps I could take a broader view of what "benefits all Americans equally" which might include a different view of tax credits for procreation, and a broader view of welfare programs. Perhaps I could take a broader view of education as something that "benefits all Americans equally" as, although I do not have children in school and yet I pay taxes for them, I was a kid in school and someone else paid taxes to provide those services for me (not to mention the other social goods of an educated citizenry, etc.)
If you're going to argue about benefits to all Americans, you probably need a fairly consistent definition of what that means.
So I don't think the argument is what you have described. I think it is more accurately framed as an argument about what "benefit to all Americans" actually means.
And the McCarthy view stated above, that because the line between one program and another may be difficult to draw thus makes it impossible to draw a line anywhere is simply intellectual laziness. While they may disagree, rational people can make difficult, but rational choices about such things.
As I remember it, the slogan was "no taxation without representation" not "no representation without taxation" as Romney seems to be arguing. I'm pretty sure that both Madison AND Hamilton would agree with me that the two ideas are diametrically opposed; they are not equivalent.
BTW, it is an interesting argument to suggest that depriving people of participation in civic life is a method for ... what? Increasing their personal responsibility? Isn't your argument that treating people like children makes them behave like children? So, why is that true economically, but not in other spheres of public life?
And, if we cannot draw lines between these programs as McCarthy states, why bother with these social programs at all? Are there no poor houses? Are there no prisons? LOL
Alan,
The opposite of "progressive" isn't "Republican," it's "conservative." The contrast is between the political philosophies of the modern/post-modern liberalism of Dewey and the classical liberalism of Adam Smith, and that conflict doesn't precisely map to the two political parties. The vast majority of Democratic politicians are obvious progressives, but so too are far too many Republican politicians who, at best, use statist means to advance socially conservative goals.
The more I learned about tax credits, the more I've come to oppose them, at least in the instance of "negative taxation." When a tax credit results in the individual being paid by the government -- as opposed to a mere deduction that limits the extreme case to no transfer of wealth to OR FROM the government -- you have wealth redistribution. It's welfare by another name, just as Social Security is welfare marketed as a pension program where, against all logic of a true pension, the benefits are unmoored from the contributions. I'd prefer a more honest argument over welfare.
And even when it comes to deductions, I'm inclined to believe that the goal ought NOT to be social engineering. The goal ought to be the much more modest goal of neutrality when it comes to incentives, to offset the distortions that, for instance, encourage consumption over investment and discourage childbirth. Both of these examples point to the future economic health of the country -- declining capital investments and collapsing birth rates can only exacerbate our problem unfunded government liabilities -- but I think the goal should probably be limiting government distortions rather than introducing distortions in the "right" direction.
About those three views of government, what you're proposing is a government that has the INDIRECT goal of promoting the "general" welfare by the DIRECT means of promoting the "specific" welfare of an individual.
His writing has other serious but unrelated flaws, but Kevin Williamson touches on something when he asserts that modern socialism is characterized by central planning and the welfare state -- "the public provision of non-public goods."
He employs a technical definition from economics to limit public goods to those that are both non-rivalrous and non-excludable: my consumption of unit of the good doesn't result in one less unit for others, and consumption cannot be limited to paying parties. Roads and bridges meet the first definition (tolls CAN limit access), and national defense and law enforcement meet BOTH definitions.
Williamson writes, "one might argue that there are significant public benefits from things like public schooling, government-subsidized health-care programs, and Amtrak, but those things, whether we enjoy them or not, whether we desire them or not, do not meet the technical definition of a public good."
That distinction can help us draw a more precise line between those three views.
1) A Madisonian approach envisions a government providing public goods ONLY through enumerated powers.
2) A Hamiltonian approach envisions a government providing public goods through any means.
3) A progressive approach envisions a government providing non-public goods.
You can see what distinguishes that third view in discussions about hiring more cops. Two very different philosophies are behind the argument that we should increase the police force "to reduce crime" and the argument that we should do so "to provide jobs."
Either way, the policy would result in more jobs for police officers and presumably lower crime rates, but there's a HUGE difference between seeing the jobs as the means to the goal of less crime, and seeing less crime as the side effect of the goal of more jobs.
One can pick at the edges of any definition to argue that it's insufficiently precise, but I'm really not interested in anyone who does so to suggest that there aren't obvious differences between law enforcement and welfare -- between the Bill of Rights and FDR's proposed Second Bill of Rights. The New Deal was new, after all.
"As I remember it, the slogan was 'no taxation without representation' not 'no representation without taxation' as Romney seems to be arguing. I'm pretty sure that both Madison AND Hamilton would agree with me that the two ideas are diametrically opposed; they are not equivalent.
Never mind what possesses you to think that Madison and Hamilton would agree with you, you're wrong, the two ideas are NOT diametrically opposed. Indeed they are not equivalent, and one doesn't even necessarily lead to the other, but the two CAN be implemented simultaneously.
The former states, taxpayers MUST have a political voice.
The latter states, ONLY taxpayers CAN have a political voice.
There's nothing contradictory about affirming both at once.
I think the latter position would encourage personal responsibility -- "want to vote? pay your membership dues and become a net contributor to the treasury" -- but that's not the main reason for the policy.
"BTW, it is an interesting argument to suggest that depriving people of participation in civic life is a method for ... what? Increasing their personal responsibility?"
It's a method for limiting their corrosive and corrupting effect on the body politic. Your balking at the notion makes me wonder if you make the glib assumption that more voter participation is always and automatically better, but there's a reason that we can (and should) prohibit toddlers and at least incarcerated felons from voting: they're less likely to be responsible voters, and their voting en masse is more likely to result in a less responsible government.
You essentially affirm the progressive idea that the provision of non-public goods to specific Americans benefits all Americans. Couple that idea with the progressive theory of "root causes," that social maladies like crime result from poverty, and you have an argument for an ever-expanding welfare state.
Just what is the limiting principle on the size and scope of government? If even the welfare state can be justified by arguments that it benefits all of society, where exactly does your political philosophy draw the line?
If you accept FDR's assertion that the government ought to guarantee food, housing, health care, a job, a living wage, and retirement benefits, what can government NOT do?
And what is the political mechanism that would prevent the obvious vicious cycle of those who are dependent on the state supporting politicians who expand the state to encourage even more dependency? I mean, other than bankruptcy and collapse?
That last question is no hypothetical. A society with a large middle class approaches a tipping point when politicians begin to aim the welfare state right at them.
And that observation brings us right to The Life of Julia.
The Obama campaign's pitch is aimed squarely at the middle class, NOT to encourage them to support government programs that assist the handicapped homeless through tax increases on the middle class, but to encourage them to feed at the trough themselves.
Dan writes, "The suggestion that we should vote based on how well we personally are doing financially under a particular president is a politics-by-fear and an appeal to personal greed that should have no place in a healthy republic."
Well, if Reagan called upon fear and greed by asking if you were better off after four years of Carter, surely we should see Dan's vocal disapproval of a web presentation that can be summarized thus: "Look at all the myriad ways Obama can help you personally, which Romney plans to eliminate."
But, then, maybe here too I just don't understand Dan when it comes to his criticism of the politics of fear and greed. It's like his affirming that one's political enemies aren't evil while Republicans are war-mongers who don't care about the poor: there's nuance that a simpleton like me would chalk up to partisan hypocrisy.
Sorry, just too much to read there as my time is pretty limited, so I only quickly skimmed, but I did catch this, "You essentially affirm the progressive idea that the provision of non-public goods to specific Americans benefits all Americans. "
Actually I haven't really come down on any side other than to state that these 3 views, as you have framed them, are not the only views one could have. How you could go from that clear statement to deciding that I have affirmed one of them, when I clearly disagreed with your underlying categorization, is a bit of a mystery.
In fact, I would say that my approach to government, both on fiscal and social issues, would probably be much closer to being called "Goldwater Republican" (back when such people actually existed in the Republican party) than your view of my view, but, as the kids say these days, "Whatever."
BTW, I will agree with you that the Venn Diagram of conservatism and Republicanism is not a perfect overlap. Actually, I would argue that there is, these days, nearly no overlap at all, but that's an argument for a different day.
Finally, we're starting to repeat ourselves, which is the point in a conversation at which I rapidly lose my enthusiasm for the proceedings. We're clearly not going to agree that people should have to pay for the right to vote. So...OK. I think you've made your case clearly, I simply disagree.
But, at least you've been agreeable in our disagreement. So, thanks for the interesting conversation. Actually pretty surprising and refreshing change here for once.
I'm too busy these days to engage in this deep of a discussion. I will say there have been some interesting and thoughtful comments lobbed about. Thanks.
I will try to address what I can, beginning WAY back with John, at comment 1, who said...
I watched the Romney video and didn't see anything scandalous about it. To the contrary, Romney was speaking sensibly. He seemed to understand a major political problem: we have half of Americans voting on tax increases for the other half.
Let me see if I can explain what I find problematic about his comments (problematic, mainly/especially for Romney).
1. I don't think there's a problem saying, "There are some people out there who I'm not going to win over to vote for me, that's okay..." The problem comes in saying that half of Americans aren't going to vote for me BECAUSE they are too greedy, selfish and/or stupid to be won over, and that seems to be the problem most folk have with Romney's comments. It is the problem I have, anyway.
2. For one thing, it doesn't really make much sense... He references "the 47%..." those who aren't paying any DIRECT, SPECIFIC federal income taxes. Currently. This group would include MANY people who could very well be won over by Romney's opinions. It would include, I read, about 4,000 millionaires, for instance.
It would include retirees - folk who've paid in all their lives to taxes and social security and who no longer make enough to pay taxes. These are people Romney could easily win over.
It would include wounded veterans and others with disabilities who very well may have contributed (some quite dearly) over the years and who may be natural allies of Romney.
3. I could go on and on, but you get the point, I hope. From what I understand, the VAST majority of "the 47%" are not freeloading "welfare queens..." (and the suggestion seems to be there in Romney's comments to a bunch of his rich colleagues - offensive enough in itself), but people who are rational, moral, respectable, civic-minded and who, for various reasons, currently aren't paying FEDERAL income taxes.
4. Romney criticizing THESE people as a lump group...
"I can't convince THEM to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY..." - the implication being that the whole of the 47% are deadbeats and immoral leeches...
"I'll have to convince the 5-10 percent in the middle... who ARE THOUGHTFUL..." - the direct implication being that the 47% are NOT thoughtful, not reasonable, not rational...
cont'd
You don't find it troubling that he would write off 47% of the population currently not paying federal income taxes as brainless, immoral leeches? For one thing, don't you think the characterization is simply offensively false? Do you really think that the disabled and elderly who CURRENTLY no longer pay federal income taxes (noting that they may have in the past) are, as a whole group, brainless, leeching and immoral?
Beyond being offensive, don't you think it's just stupid of Romney to characterize that many people thusly with such a broad brush? What will the tax-paying family and friends of the 47% think of having their loved ones referred to as immoral and thoughtless? Can you really afford to turn so many people off on you, as a candidate?
I FULLY understand making an off-the-cuff comment in private amongst peers who you may think would appreciate such a stupid mischaracterization, BUT once it becomes public, don't you think the rational thing to do would be to clarify...
"I'm sorry, I spoke sloppily. I DID NOT MEAN to suggest that the entire group (or even most) of those who aren't currently paying federal income taxes are brainless, immoral leeches who can't be reasoned with. OBVIOUSLY, many of the 47% have contributed greatly to our nation in many great ways and I apologize to the whole for my silly and mistaken stereotype I lumped them into. What I was TRYING to say (and failed terribly) was that there ARE some who don't pay income taxes - and who have gone out of their way to avoid doing just that, when they COULD be contributing to our great Commonwealth.
Those who have done so out of greed and selfishness, THAT is what I was pointing out as a problem and for whom, my message simply won't reach. Not anywhere like the full 47% of those who aren't currently paying federal income tax. I'm sorry for the poor way I handled that speech..."
Wouldn't that have been more reasonable? And, for me, his failure was not the initial statement, but in his unwillingness to back down from and apologize for it.
The problem is that his direct words are being attacked rather than the spirit behind it. In this I mean that it serves the left to do this while rushing to defend every off the cuff statement by one of their own. One cannot be honest in doing this. Either all politicians must be hung for poor articulation or all must be given slack. The history of this man does not suggest that his words in this small sound bite from a larger context match his history of giving and concern for others less fortunate than he. It shows the desperation of those who have no real defense for the failures of this presidency that something like this is given so much attention.
What's more, he has clarified his position since this non-issue was made into the issue it is. All the bite truly shows is that he is no more adept at speaking extemporaneously than is Obama, who, quite frankly, shows little skill for it.
As to the question put forth by the title of this post, I submit that it is a legitimate question to ask.
I. As I said, it is legitimate. Our government was formed to serve and protect. The question is how it does that. If the actions of government lower the quality of our lives, as this administration has done, we are not better off. The question Kennedy asked is about the country doing for us, not the government. We serve the country in the way we live, not the government, nor are we required to serve the government. It must serve us.
Politics by fear? Fearmongering suggests stoking fears without justification. But to say, "don't play with fire" is to stoke a legitimate fear of and respect for fire. Reagan, by asking the question, refers to a legitimate situation that would worsen by the reelection of Carter, just as the reelection of Obama would worsen the current situation. Thus, it is a legitimate fear that must be considered by responsible citizens. Nothing cheap about it. It is cheap to accuse the question of being a cheap ploy.
II. This is not only a question the GOP wants to raise, they have been raising it all along. Ryan especially looks forward to arguing the point. That we must deal with Romney's off the cuff remarks and stories of his dog on the roof show it is the Obama admin that fears discussing the situation.
more later...gotta go
The poor articulation argument would be reasonable if he hadn't affirmed and actually doubled-down on what he said in a statement the next day.
Sorry, MA, but Romney doesn't agree that his words are taken out of context, he's defended them.
Frankly, the 47% comment is, in my mind, a tiny deal. Who cares, really? I mean, does it actually surprise anyone that Marie Antoinette Mongomery Burns Thurston Howell Romney III is contemptuous of the working poor? How could anyone alive be surprised by that? Didn't everyone already know that?
So...you know, sure it's a little impolitic of him to say, but it isn't like it really matters, because according to both Bubba and him, those losers weren't going to vote for him anyway.
A bigger worry, it seems to me, is his clearly stated Middle East policy called "kick it down the road", and the fact that he clearly doesn't have a single idea in his head about what a dirty bomb is.
And I'd be worried if there were any chance in hell of his getting elected, but given that it is more likely that the Mayan prediction of the end of the world will occur than Romney ever seeing the inside of the Oval Office without a visitor's pass, frankly I think arguing about his distain for hardworking Americans is a little ... boring.
A more interesting question is whether Rush Limbaugh will ever fulfill his promise to leave the country when Obama is re-elected. Shall we place bets? :)
See, if we only wanted to mock someone for a stupid gaff, we'd just post stuff like this:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/09/20/latest-romney-attempt-to-misquote-obama-into-a-gaffe-results-in-a-romney-flip-flop
Clearly Mittens needs a time out.
"I mean, does it actually surprise anyone that Marie Antoinette Mongomery Burns Thurston Howell Romney III is contemptuous of the working poor?"
It seems to be a great surprise to most people who know him. It is no surprise that someone like you pretends to know with any degree of certainty that he has contempt for the poor.
Alan, it may be that both of us jumped to conclusions. You wrote, "We're clearly not going to agree that people should have to pay for the right to vote," but I didn't actually assert that that's my position. I only defended it as not unreasonable, but I also pointed out that it probably comes with problems of its own.
Limiting voters to net contributors of tax revenue does limit the electoral risks of the welfare state, but my preference is to dismantle the welfare state, at least at the federal level, since the state and local governments can more easily lose their tax base if they go too far. (It's not clear what political mechanism YOU believe prevents the welfare state from metastasizing.)
But, anyway, I did presume too much. When you wrote, "perhaps I could take a broader view of what 'benefits all Americans equally'," I assumed that you do.
I had no idea that your views remotely resembled Goldwater's. Even when I commented here frequently, I didn't always keep up with your comments, but I've never taken away that impression. Very early on, our host claimed to have "communist leanings," and his politics still lean quite definitively to the left, and yet I never noticed any public disagreements between you.
Even now, to suggest that it ought to be obvious to everyone that Romney holds the working poor in contempt -- and to insinuate that that contempt is a function of his wealth: "Marie Antoinette Mongomery Burns Thurston Howell Romney III" -- doesn't make me think that you're the kind of guy who would be attracted to Goldwater.
Dan:
"The problem comes in saying that half of Americans aren't going to vote for me BECAUSE they are too greedy, selfish and/or stupid to be won over, and that seems to be the problem most folk have with Romney's comments. It is the problem I have, anyway."
In all the time during the 2008 election, between your crowing over Obama's lead in the polls and your praising him, writing that Obama ran "so that all our children could fly," did you ever write a single critical word about Obama's off-the-cuff remark in which he denigrated Midwesterners as xenophobes clinging bitterly to their guns and religion?
--
"'I can't convince THEM to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY...' - the implication being that the whole of the 47% are deadbeats and immoral leeches...
"'I'll have to convince the 5-10 percent in the middle... who ARE THOUGHTFUL...' - the direct implication being that the 47% are NOT thoughtful, not reasonable, not rational..."
Shall we apply equally carefully scrutiny to an arguably more infamous comment on Obama's part, about what businessmen did and did not build?
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."
Notice the emphasis on business owners: "If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that."
Even with the charitable but contextually dubious claim that "that" was a reference to roads and bridges and not the business itself, singling out the businessman leads to the DIRECT implication that they're net consumers of government services: never mind the innumerable taxes he pays, the businessman didn't build the infrastructure, nor presumably did businessmen before him: other taxpayers did.
Or shall we not so carefully scrutinize every word of the great orator?
--
"You don't find it troubling that he would write off 47% of the population currently not paying federal income taxes as brainless, immoral leeches?"
Do you not find it troubling that the incumbent would write off businessmen as arrogant leeches, arrogant in their attributing their success to their own intelligence and hard work?
--
And do you not find it troubling that the incumbent's pastor of twenty years accused the U.S. government of attempted genocide? No, you defend the S.O.B. as a "man of God."
And do you not find it troubling that a man would write a putrid, vicious poem accusing his political opponents of deicide and worshipping a bloodthirsty idol? No, you wrote that poem, you were proud enough of it to publish it twice, you've never expressed remorse for doing so, and even in this blog post you repeated the basic smears while lamenting political demagoguery.
Surely there's a good reason for what troubles you and what doesn't, but I can't find one that doesn't entail partisanship and seheer hypocrisy.
Must be just me.
It's just you.
Bubba...
Shall we apply equally carefully scrutiny to an arguably more infamous comment on Obama's part, about what businessmen did and did not build?
The problem with your reasoning here, Bubba, is that you are operating off a clearly mistaken view of what Obama actually said. The quote you offer, in context, was clearly presenting this message: None of us get where we are all on our own. There are a great many things, policies and people who've helped us all achieve anything we've achieved, and gov't is included in that mix.
The message he offered was we don't achieve ON OUR OWN. No one is an island.
It's just an obvious fact that is hard to disagree with. Do you?
Now, IF somebody MISUNDERSTANDS the intent of Obama's words and asks him, "Did you REALLY mean that business people are arrogant leeches...?" He could look surprised and say, "Um, well no. You see, I didn't say that, nor did I intend that. I merely meant that no one achieves on their own..."
On the other hand, Romney - given the chance to clarify - stood by his words. He apologized for not saying what he meant more elegantly, but he stood by WHAT he said. In other words, he appears to be standing behind the false comment that 47% of the people - all those who don't pay taxes - are not reasonable and that they're leeches.
“I recognize that among those that pay no tax…I’m not likely to be highly successful with the message of lowering taxes,” Mr. Romney said Monday evening. “That’s not as attractive to those who don’t pay income taxes as it is to those who do. And likewise those who are reliant on government are not as attracted to my message of slimming down the size of government.”
Thus, he thinks that those 47%, he won't be able to reach them (those millionaires, veterans, elderly, wounded veterans, disabled, decent poor and middle class folk - all as a class of "the 47%") because they're too beholden to the gov't to vote for him, that they're too intellectually and morally challenged to vote for what's best for the country rather than just for their own greed.
So you see, in my case, I'm not condemning Romney for the initial stupid and false comments - anybody can make a stupid off the cuff comment. I'm condemning him for STANDING BY the stupid and false comments (and let's not even get started on all the other inflammatory comments released at the same time...).
Do you see the difference?
In your case, you are operating under a mistaken understanding of what Obama meant and, if asked, he could clarify what he meant so you wouldn't be mistaken.
In my case, I'm operating under the assumption that when Romney said that, and then repeated that he stood by what he said, that he meant what he said.
Are you suggesting that Romney doesn't REALLY think that the 47% - as a class - are too immoral or greedy or unintelligent to be won over by his arguments, if he (Romney) thinks they're good arguments? If so, great. The smart thing for him to do would be to re-clarify what he meant and step AWAY from the argument he made and then repeated. I can't believe he actually thinks what he said and repeated, either.
Do you have any statement from Romney where he backs away from his words (not just how he said it, but his actual words and intent)? I have not seen it.
Bubba, you keep bringing up my poem about the immoral invasion that Bush did in Iraq - the one that came at a cost of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. I have a question for you...
Do you think the Bible compilers were wrong to include the Psalmists' imprecatory prayers?
You know the prayers - When Israel and/or the psalmist was oppressed and being killed and robbed and harmed... and the psalmist prayed for the destruction of the enemy...
O that Thou wouldst slay the wicked, O God... Do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee?
Do you think those are wrong and shouldn't be in the Bible?
My poem is an imprecatory prayer - praying for an end and a damnation of the ways of evil. And I continue to think the Iraq Invasion was a moral evil.
That isn't to say that Bush isn't a Christian, nor that he is evil himself, or that the GOP (and Dems) who, as a group, supported him mostly are evil.
I was condemning, quite specifically and strongly, this...
Who preaches war
That corporate whore
That distorts scripture
So the rich can get richer
On the backs of the poor
Do you not agree that those behaviors are to be condemned?
If you agree that those behaviors ARE to be condemned and if you DON'T think that imprecatory psalms are wrong and should be removed from the Bible (I certainly don't), then I can't seriously think you have a problem with my poem. Yes, you may disagree that Bush's policies represented the above, but you should be able to at least agree with the sentiment and we, as fellow citizens, can disagree on whether or not the apply to Bush's invasion.
Dan, you seem willing to give Obama a measure of the benefit of the doubt that you are not willing to extend to his opponent, going so far as to defend Obama based on what YOU think he COULD say if somebody asked for a clarification.
But set that aside.
"The message he offered was we don't achieve ON OUR OWN. No one is an island.
"It's just an obvious fact that is hard to disagree with. Do you?"
No, but does anyone else? What's the point of stating the obvious? WHO EXACTLY WAS OBAMA DISPUTING?
Obama makes explicit who he's disputing: businessmen who, he says, believe that they accomplished everything quite literally on their own.
"I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."
The direct implication, Dan, is these people are arrogant for attributing their success to their hard work and intelligence.
Whitewash the tension between that "obvious fact" and the arrogant businessmen who dispute that fact, and there's no longer any reason for Obama to state the obvious.
"and to insinuate that that contempt is a function of his wealth..."
His wealth has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of wealthy people who are not contemptuous of the poor and have, in fact, given vast sums of money to help people around the world. I just think he's an ass. Or a robot. Or both. :)
"Very early on, our host claimed to have "communist leanings," and his politics still lean quite definitively to the left, and yet I never noticed any public disagreements between you."
Yeah, MA has said this sort of thing before as wll. Since he comments so much more frequently, I'm inclined to think he just hasn't been paying attention, but in your case, you probably just missed it. Dan, for example is much more of a pacifist than I am, and we've had conversations here and elsewhere about that. I'm pretty sure I'm for smaller government than he is. His theology leans much more Baptist, while mine is pretty down the middle 5-point Calvinist, etc.
But as I am less inclined to see someone's disagreement with me as a sign of their total moral decay, I probably don't harp on him as much as some might. So, we have disagreed now and then. But when I do disagree, I don't always feel the need to state my disagreement.
This:
http://xkcd.com/386/
isn't me. :)
Alan, the Thurston-Howell-Marie-Antoinette bit suggests to me that you do think his wealth isn't unrelated to his supposed contempt for the poor, but sure, I may have inferred what you didn't imply.
About you, Dan, and Marshall, I could see a Goldwater-ite (or someone near Goldwater's philosophy) disagreeing with Marshall because of rhetorical choices, matters of mere personality, and details of belief, but it stretches credibility with me that a Goldwater-ite would hang around here and not find more of Dan's claims worth disputing.
Proof, pudding, etc.
This is all very exciting. I mean its amazing to think that conservatives would side with Romney on the "47%" comment and liberals would find his comments distasteful (to say the least).
Romney is right in that there is a certain percentage of the vote that he has no chance at. The same could be said for Obama. What is left is a few factors in the next six weeks. One is this fight over the truly undecided voter. What does this person think of Romney's comments? Personally, I dont think many even noticed. But, some did. Second is that comments like these motivate liberals to get out and vote. I mean, can you imagine somebody like that in the WH? The horror. To a lesser extent, I think it disenfranchises conservative voters. Finally, with Obama winning key states and up in the poles, Romney needs to cut into this lead. There are about 45 days left until election day. Factor in many voters, myself included, that vote well before the actual "election day", Romney is running out of time. And, he just spent 10 days getting out of the way of himself. 10 days of him trying to explain comments and not talking about the "terrible economy".
We are slogging it out with only the debates left. Is Romney going to win these? Doubtful, as both sides will claim victory and Obama doesnt seem likely to make a terrible blunder in the next few weeks. The window is closing on Romney.
Now, Dan:
About your vile poem, you now claim, "My poem is an imprecatory prayer - praying for an end and a damnation of the ways of evil."
A prayer? Directed to God, or do you not limit your prayers to God?
(Never mind your apparent earlier admission that you're willing to outwardly join ostensibly interfaith prayers directed to Vishnu.)
Your poem was a prayer to God?
"Shame on your god"
Was that directed to Jehovah?
"Damn your god!"
Was that?
"We had a Good God
And you killed him"
Do you often accuse God of killing a Good God?
"You religious,
You white washed tombs,
You serpents,
You blind guides,
You gnat-straining, camel-swallowing, hellspawn-making
Blind Fools"
Do you often call God such terrible things, in plural? Is the Triune Deity "Blind Fools" in the plural, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?
"Shame on you
And shame on your god."
Shouldn't it be, "And shame on your god, Amen"?
If this prayer is typical, your prayer life is pretty screwed up, Dan.
--
"If you agree that those behaviors ARE to be condemned and if you DON'T think that imprecatory psalms are wrong and should be removed from the Bible (I certainly don't), then I can't seriously think you have a problem with my poem. Yes, you may disagree that Bush's policies represented the above, but you should be able to at least agree with the sentiment and we, as fellow citizens, can disagree on whether or not the apply to Bush's invasion."
Your poem didn't just condemn specific behaviors -- and you're omitting the worst behaviors, the ones I mentioned: deicide and idolatrous worship of a bloodthirsty false god -- it attributed those behaviors to your political enemies.
BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS, I can most certainly object to your poem on that ground.
Romney condemned thoughtlessness, irresponsibility, and voluntary dependency. Do you not agree that those things are to be condemned?
If so, you shouldn't have any problem with Romney's comment -- except, of course, you do, because you have concluded that he attributes those things to people who do not pay federal income tax.
Your objection to Romney's comment is PRECISELY the same as my objection to your poem.
- You object to his attributing those negative qualities to those who don't pay federal income taxes; you think such attribution is unfair and therefore demagogic.
- *I* object to your attributing those behaviors you list to "W and his spawn," and I think such attribution is unfair and therefore demagogic.
It's quite literal demonization, with that bit about making hellspawn.
You accused your political enemies of 1) hypocrisy, 2) war mongering, 3) exploiting the poor for the benefit of the rich, 4) distorting Scripture, 5) worshipping a bloodthirsty false deity, and 6) MURDERING GOD.
**MURDERING GOD.**
(You also invoke the free market as if it's an epithet.)
You would be a fool to do so, but you could defend the attack on the grounds that you actually think it's fair and accurate, but a reasonably sane and intelligent adult would at least concede that those who disagree on whether the charges apply DO INDEED have plenty of reason to object to the poem as vicious demagoguery.
"I can't seriously think you have a problem with my poem"? Even if I disagree with that attribution?
Absurd, and there's no good conclusion I can draw about you from the way you're defending that garbage: it's not enough that you so implausibly claim that the poem directed to people you loathe is actually a prayer to God, you defend the indefensible by claiming it's basically inoffensive.
Dan, consider:
"I stand by my poem because, accounting for hyperbole and poetic license, I think that its very serious charges against Bush and his supporters are right, but those who disagree with me have every reason to object to what I wrote.
"If my charges against Bush and his supporters are true, they have a lot to answer for, in the next life if not this life. But if they're not true, I'm guilty of slandering them in the worst way.
"I understand the chance I'm taking, but I'm willing to take that chance."
I truly think the only proper thing to is to renounce that poem entirely. It's wholly inconsistent with your current, convenient pleas not to treat one's political opponents as evil, and -- more than that -- it's unhinged.
It's judgmental to a degree that would make the Pharisees blush; not for the only time, you invoke pharisaical insults but miss what Jesus was actually criticizing.
I cannot imagine your writing something half as hateful toward jihadists who have brutally murdered journalists, filmmakers, ambassadors, and even nuns, and who have deliberately incinerated civilians by the literal thousands. No, you don't expend your rage on actual violent savages, you reserve it for your political opponents.
You seethe at your political opponents as if we are the very enemies of God.
This poem is your Two Minutes Hate.
But if you cannot renounce your hateful poem, the least you could have done was something like what I wrote above.
You could have stood by your poem on the basis of its accuracy while acknowledging its vicious nature if indeed it's inaccurate.
That would have been defensible ground.
But rather than that half-measure, you've decided to make the literally unbelievable claim that your poem was a prayer, and then you write that I couldn't really object to it even if I disagree with it.
You embarass yourself all over again.
And I say this because you ought to be publicly denounced, but I have no illusions about the likelihood that someone who doubles down on dishonor might eventually reconsider.
"but it stretches credibility with me that a Goldwater-ite would hang around here and not find more of Dan's claims worth disputing."
Meh. Worth disputing, why, exactly? What purpose would it serve? Why would I bother? And how is it really any of my business?
But then, you know, it also stretches credibility with me that anyone criticizing "demagoguery" &etc. would not find more of what you call MA's "rhetorical choices" worth disputing. ;)
What purpose would it serve to dispute Dan's claims?
That's a very good question, Alan.
Honest, well-intentioned individuals usually don't have disputes with "rhetorical choices" based so often on facts, truth, logic, reason and common sense. But even you don't dispute them so much as attack me personally out of petty hatefulness. That's just your way as it's all you have. I forgive you.
Okay, I get your point, Dan. Or most of it. Romney's number was far too high and included people who are not leeching off of their fellow taxpayers, such as retirees, disabled veterans and so forth. It was bad politics. The real number is much smaller.
Should he have apologized? Perhaps for some moral point of view. But I think that it would have been bad politics to do so. It's sort of like when Republicans criticize Obama for not admitting to any mistakes or giving himself an "incomplete" grade for the economy. Well, of course he would! This is politics, and admitting to a mistake publicly diminishes one's credibility rather than enhances it.
(Privately is another matter. See, for example, Lincoln's amazingly humble letter of apology/acknowledgement to General Grant.)
Romney was being criticized not simply for having a number that was too high, but for the root idea he was espousing: that being dependent on fellow taxpayers is a bad thing.
It should be shameful and embarrassing to live on the dole. People who live on public assistance should consider their status to be so humiliating that they strive to get off it as soon as possible.
But the Obama Administration, particularly its Department of Agriculture, has been aggressively working to counter this sense of independence. Romney, as a matter of both political strategy and principle, should have responded with an attack on Obama. He shouldn't get sidetracked from the central issue: Obama's expansion of government dependency.
Post a Comment