For his six-year campaign for the presidency, much was written about who Mitt Romney truly was intellectually and politically. But based on his infamous comments at a fundraiser and campaign debrief conference call, I'm willing to conclude that he's the classic country club Republican -- successful in business, generous to those he knows personally, cruel to those that he doesn't, and unaware of the world's complexity. Both times Romney assumed he was speaking privately, only for his thoughts to become public unexpectedly. That he was nasty and remarkably uninformed both times is enough for me to comprise a record of his true self. Wouldn't he have spoken in a very similar way all those other times when the doors were closed but the conversation didn't leak out?
In the two weeks since the most recent revelation, much has been made about how Romney didn't understand the national electorate's changing demographic. But what struck me most forcefully was his interpretation of President Obama's "gifts" to different population groups -- his support of gay marriage, protection of the children of illegal immigrants from deportation, and extension of health care coverage to young adults under their family's plan to the age of 26. I call those policies, part of Obama's platform for expanded civil rights, recognition of immigrants' contributions to America, and health security. Under this terminology, Romney offered many gifts too, such as a 15 percent tax rate on capital gains that applied to hedge fund managers' income because he classified it as "carried interest." It just so happened that more of the country found the Obama campaign's policies -- sorry, gifts -- more appealing then those of Romney, probably because they emphasized greater equality (income and otherwise), access to education and health care, a social safety net, growth over austerity, and balanced foreign policy. When one's gifts are designed largely to favor the top 5% of the country's wealthiest people, one is probably going to lose the election.
Paul Ryan attributed his loss on the lower half of the ticket to the large turnout by the "urban" vote. In this context, "urban" is typically a euphemism for "minority" or "black," as in "urban music" is a very delicate way of saying "rap music." I suppose Ryan thinks he lost because more black people than he was expecting were motivated to re-elect the country's first black president, or that more poor people of color than he was expecting headed to the polls because they feared losing their government-dependent lifestyle. In a small way, Ryan is right: The turnout is urban precincts was very high and voted overwhelmingly for the Obama-Biden ticket. But that "urban" vote "looks" very different than it did 25 years ago, which Ryan might not realize while living in the suburban Wisconsin town of his youth. Superficially, the urban voting bloc is whiter than it used to be, but aside from only worrying about government subsidy, it almost uniformly cares about issues like a woman's right to choose or government spending on public education and transportation infrastructure, and just can't stomach the contemporary Republican Party's embrace of irrationality and know-nothing-ism. That philosophy is expanding well beyond urban cores to encompass much of cities' metro areas (see Northern Virginia for what's probably the most prominent example in the country).
I'd be quite glad if the Republican Party chose to continue down this path. Unfortunately, many of its next generation of leaders have rejected Romney's and Ryan's explanations, though perhaps only because they don't want to be associated with the election's losers. There's lots of talk among conservatives about the need to embrace immigration reform. Who knows exactly what that means. I was quite pleased that I was able to go to bed on Election Day shortly before midnight, already knowing who would be president for the next four years. I didn't expect the country to reject Romney so swiftly, but I certainly wasn't complaining.
In the two weeks since the most recent revelation, much has been made about how Romney didn't understand the national electorate's changing demographic. But what struck me most forcefully was his interpretation of President Obama's "gifts" to different population groups -- his support of gay marriage, protection of the children of illegal immigrants from deportation, and extension of health care coverage to young adults under their family's plan to the age of 26. I call those policies, part of Obama's platform for expanded civil rights, recognition of immigrants' contributions to America, and health security. Under this terminology, Romney offered many gifts too, such as a 15 percent tax rate on capital gains that applied to hedge fund managers' income because he classified it as "carried interest." It just so happened that more of the country found the Obama campaign's policies -- sorry, gifts -- more appealing then those of Romney, probably because they emphasized greater equality (income and otherwise), access to education and health care, a social safety net, growth over austerity, and balanced foreign policy. When one's gifts are designed largely to favor the top 5% of the country's wealthiest people, one is probably going to lose the election.
Paul Ryan attributed his loss on the lower half of the ticket to the large turnout by the "urban" vote. In this context, "urban" is typically a euphemism for "minority" or "black," as in "urban music" is a very delicate way of saying "rap music." I suppose Ryan thinks he lost because more black people than he was expecting were motivated to re-elect the country's first black president, or that more poor people of color than he was expecting headed to the polls because they feared losing their government-dependent lifestyle. In a small way, Ryan is right: The turnout is urban precincts was very high and voted overwhelmingly for the Obama-Biden ticket. But that "urban" vote "looks" very different than it did 25 years ago, which Ryan might not realize while living in the suburban Wisconsin town of his youth. Superficially, the urban voting bloc is whiter than it used to be, but aside from only worrying about government subsidy, it almost uniformly cares about issues like a woman's right to choose or government spending on public education and transportation infrastructure, and just can't stomach the contemporary Republican Party's embrace of irrationality and know-nothing-ism. That philosophy is expanding well beyond urban cores to encompass much of cities' metro areas (see Northern Virginia for what's probably the most prominent example in the country).
I'd be quite glad if the Republican Party chose to continue down this path. Unfortunately, many of its next generation of leaders have rejected Romney's and Ryan's explanations, though perhaps only because they don't want to be associated with the election's losers. There's lots of talk among conservatives about the need to embrace immigration reform. Who knows exactly what that means. I was quite pleased that I was able to go to bed on Election Day shortly before midnight, already knowing who would be president for the next four years. I didn't expect the country to reject Romney so swiftly, but I certainly wasn't complaining.
No comments:
Post a Comment