Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Moralitical Dilemma

My wife has been wrestling tonight with whether or not it is morally…and … American-ly… correct to oppose Mitt Romney on the grounds that he is of a religion with some pretty “unusual” beliefs and practices.

I tell her “If that doesn’t feel right to you, then don’t oppose him on those grounds. There are plenty of other
grounds on which you can oppose Mitt Romney.”

For one, he is a gazillionaire who has never in his life had to struggle for financial security. This, it would seem, would put him out of touch with about 99% of the population who have had to face financial difficulties in their lives. Further, much of that money he made, since leaving his wealthy parents’ nest, was from off-shoring and outsourcing jobs and putting Americans out of work – in the name of profit for the few at the top of those companies…and, of course, for Romney. Seems like kind of an Anti-American thing to do.

Then, there’s the concept that he refuses to release his tax returns, so that prospective voters can see for themselves how much money he actually made and how he made it, and what kind of “write offs” he used to protect it…how much of it was invested outside the United States, thereby contributing to the economy of those other countries, instead of the one he says he wants to lead.

One could conceivably oppose him on the grounds that he is the ultimate flip-flopper. He rails against so-called “Obamacare,” which was modeled after the plan he pioneered as the governor of Massachusetts. A plan, which by the way, has been enormously successful, boasting a 98% success rate in the number of Massachusetts citizens who are now insured. Contrast that to about 84% of Americans, in general.

Romney seems to embrace whichever of his successes that are beneficial to him at a given time; and then ignore them when they’re not helpful to his immediate agenda. Right now, his agenda is getting himself elected President, within a party whose platform is pretty much built on tearing down President Obama’s crowning achievement – watered down as it was by the Republican congress. He doesn’t like being reminded what a success the “trial” program for Obamacare was…when and where he was governor.

He could be opposed on his selection of a man for his VP who, if one didn’t know better, might be confused for one of his sons. Or, perhaps, a younger clone. There’s not even a veiled attempt there at diversity in any sense of the word; sort of shouting to the American voter “Here I am. Take me or leave me.”

It would be understandable if somebody opposed Romney on the basis that even his own party, who made no bones about disliking him during the primary, just felt compelled to place him as a candidate because he was “next in line” – excluding, of course, John McCain, who proved last time that senility has no respect for even those seeking the top job.

Then, of course, I tell her that she could oppose him on that feeling she has deep down in her gut that Romney will live up to his look and be simply a lackey for the other CEOs of corporations, and one more step toward the eventual oligarchy that science fiction writers have been warning us about for years. Followed by his number two, who was voted “Biggest Suckup” by his high school classmates – and not that long ago.

But, I tell her, if you can’t oppose The Mitt on any of those grounds, and feel “clean” doing it…well, then, you should vote for him.

© 2012, Rick Baber

No comments: