So, Mitt Romney was secretly taped saying that he thinks people need to take responsibility for their lives, and that the government's purpose is not to take care of us.
Oh, the horror.
I'm not a fan of Romney (not capitalist enough, and generally wishy-washy), and I will agree that on some counts he seems to be out of touch with the populace in general, but this is not one of them.
The fact that his statement is regarded as a smutty secret to be "revealed" in order to destroy his reputation is about as strong an indictment of our country's political and moral state as I can think of.
Why moral? Because the purpose of morality is to tell us how to live, and life is not served by using others as beasts of burden so we may avoid the responsibility of living. And please don't make the mistake of confusing "helping" others with forcing others to help. It's not even remotely the same thing.
What I fear is that Romney will backpedal on this, and grant his opponents the moral high ground, which they don't deserve. Coercion is not moral.
I couldn't resist this one - all I can say is "Preach it." I could really get going and rant about the enormous voting block that has been created which includes all people who are financially dependent on the government in a variety of ways - those who work and those who don't - and rant about people who think we don't pay enough taxes - but I won't. :-) I think any potential presidential candidate, and congressional candidate for that matter, are largely out of touch with the general, normal populace.
ReplyDeleteK
HT - Yes, and I think one could just as well make a capitalist critique of Romney as a liberal one. For example I think that keeping the tax rate lower on certain economic activity (such as capital gains -- which seems to be a source of a lot of his income) is a decidedly anti-market viewpoint. I say let markets decide what's important, not tax rates. Seems like clear pandering to the very wealthy, in free-market disguise.
ReplyDelete“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy."
ReplyDelete― Alexis de Tocqueville