Mitt and Unity: Why the "47 Percent" Commentary Was More than a "Gaffe"

by Rick Hill

Recently the Romney campaign has faced criticism from voters of all parts of the political spectrum over comments made during a May fundraiser, in which Governor Romney blasted the 47 percent of the American population that does not pay federal income taxes.  Referring to them as “freeloaders,” Romney continued with the assertion that these voters will not support him anyways in the election, lopping off a huge portion of the electorate to which he will appeal.  I understand that the Governor was speaking at a fundraiser, amidst a couple hundred people firmly in support of him.  Looking at the issue from a more populist perspective, and seeking to give Governor Romney the benefit of the doubt, I still find myself still coming up short to support him on his comment.  Consider:

As a college student and a dependent of my parents, I work part-time and pay federal income tax.  However, most of the time it is returned to me at the end of the year, in the form of a tax return. Does this series of actions put me in with the 47 percent?

Let's be honest, Governor... money's tight when you're in your 20s.

I’m not the only college student in this country who works to make a financial dent in my education.  I’m also not the only conservative-leaning college student in that category.  The last thing I wish to be called is a “freeloader,” considering I do what I can to finance a horribly inflated college education without having to rob Peter to pay Paul at the very end.  I want to pay for my education the old way; however, I don’t want to be lumped into a category considered “unproductive” in the process.  With the ambition to get a job that makes an impact on American foreign relations directly out of my master’s program, as well as very low student debt, I don’t consider myself at the moment a particularly large burden on the American taxpayer.  If I’m not paying taxes on the bottom line at the moment, please be patient with me.

President Obama is by all means a divider, with his incendiary commentary regarding the rich and misguided statements against those with traditional cultural values.  Mitt Romney, through a candid comment made amongst a group of loyal supporters, positioned himself as someone no different.

Don't lose NASCAR fans, Governor... just don't.

I used to give Governor Romney credit for not stepping on his tongue while building relationships with the American middle class.  I understood that he was out of touch (comments related to being friends with NASCAR and NFL owners, yet not having a lot of personal interest in either sport, come to mind), but to make a comment that divides an electorate to which he was trying to appeal was beyond ill-advised.  I just heard on the Jerry Doyle Show last night that Romney now polls lower than Obama among NASCAR fans…  NASCAR fans?!?!?!  We’re talking about an interest group, mostly from the American South, who finds its niche among American culture through movies such as “Talladega Nights” and “Viva Las Vegas.”  If any group was expected to vote Republican in 2012, it was those frequenters of America’s answer to the Circus Maximus.  Anyone who believed Governor Romney was out of touch before the comments surfaced received quite the vindication afterwards.  I wanted him to be a “uniter” so fiercely… Unfortunately, even one video clip these days can leave the sourest of tastes in a voter’s mouth.  If Jerry Doyle speaks accurately, I’m baffled.

You can build all the support you want among groups in which you poll among the weakest; but once you’ve lost the base, you’ve, well, lost.

Governor Romney’s comments were not just damaging because of the divisive implications:  he also found a way to alienate part of his base.  Seniors, who have trended Republican in the past three elections in spite of constant Republican cries for Medicare reform, now find themselves in a bind because they fall into the same category I feel that I’ve fallen into.  I’ll still support the Governor in the end, but pissing off the base is about as useful to a political campaign as fumbling the snap is in football.  If there is anything the Republicans need to show up in droves in November, it is the political and ideological base.  If Governor Romney believes that the rich serve as his niche, then perhaps his comment is well-appointed; unfortunately, that group just does not carry the weight necessary to carry the popular vote.

Republicans will discuss back and forth over the next couple weeks as to how exactly to field the reaction to Governor Romney’s comments.  Some will attempt to forget them, others defend them tirelessly.  Others (like me) will plead for Governor Romney to watch his mouth.  In the context of a presidential election as crucial as the one in November, any divisive slip-up will perpetuate the “Divider-in-Chief’s” (borrowing this brilliant term from Kate Obenshain - http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/10/obenshain-obama-is-the-divider-in-chief/) reign over not only the White House, but the metaphorical driver’s seat on re-uniting the sides of the American political spectrum.

Reading Beyond Borders

by Rick Hill

Not all of it is Greek to me... just a headline and a few words...

Since the beginning of the War on Terror, Americans and Europeans have been at odds, to say the least, about American culture and the role of the United States on the global scene.  Pick up a copy of The Guardian, Die Welt, Le Monde, O Globo, The Times of India, or publications from whichever country you choose, and you will find anti-American editorials and/or coverage of anti-American political action abroad.  As the primary recipients of the criticisms, members of the American Right struggle to skim even the news section while they sift through the paper.  As a result, most readers prefer to remain stateside to get their news.

I write this piece today to suggest a new approach to my fellow Republicans:  stop being afraid of foreign opinion.  Not everyone hates us.  Here is how I got to this point:

Remember that the United States still has allies in the world.  In most cases, European right-wing newspapers and online sources are going to support at least some American initiatives in the world and are worth reading against the conventional anti-American screed written elsewhere.

Many of you might have experience reading a British periodical (many of my political science professors have suggested either The Economist or The Guardian, neither of which come to my surprise).  You might have found articles such as these, should you have visited the opinion website:  “Mitt Romney is too rational for a deluded Republican base (Guardian),” or “Mitt Romney’s problems:  Elite defection (Economist).”  In spite of the headlines (and the comments, if you choose to peruse them), it takes a well-read individual to understand that, like in the United States, other countries have a variety of periodicals that cover the spectrum.  To my friends on the right, I would suggest The Telegraph (www.telegraph.co.uk), a prominent right-leaning newspaper based in London.  While I do not mix well with its pro-European editorials, it also gives space for Eurosceptics such as Daniel Hannan, of Youtube fame (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs).  These opinions, though full of language and terms understandably foreign to Americans, still give a set of metaphorical water wings to the readers as they broaden their horizons.  Keeping to the Anglosphere, I also suggest Australia’s Daily Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au), Canada’s Toronto Sun (http://www.torontosun.com/) and South Africa’s Sunday Times, specifically the politics section (http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/).  Pointing these out leads me to the next conclusion:

Foreign opinions matter because they often give insight from perspectives that American writers miss.

Smacking down Marxism, Brazilian style!

One of my favorite foreign political commentators is the Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho (www.olavodecarvalho.org/english), and I found him through my frustration with Brazilian politics, having studied it the past couple years.  For those with little to no background on Brazil, the country has been under firm control of the left since 2003, but still operates under a largely backward political structure.  Political clientelism runs rampant, no matter which side takes control.  Olavo writes as a ruthless critic of political leftism, pointing out errors and fallacies through his weekly radio show, True Outspeak.  He also gives insight on the American political scene, as he lives and operates today out of Virginia.  Regardless, Olavo gives opinions from a Latin American perspective, which integrates opinions on political culture that we Americans are not accustomed to seeing.  Tim Stanley, from Britain’s Daily Telegraph (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/timstanley/), is another favorite.  One of the first steps you can take, as a conservative committed to being better-read, is to pick two foreign authors and mull over what they write.  They will help you understand not only international anti-American opinion better, but also gain a new perspective on American politics that you may not have conceived in the past.  With that, a final point:

Reading foreign opinion gets you out of the “grid.”

I could have lumped this point into the previous one, but I wanted to explain separately the pitfalls of limiting yourself to only American opinion.  It is true that the right and the left hold divergent opinions in the United States, like any other country, but our prominent issues are not issues in other countries.  Take Brazil, for example:  how do you structure the abortion debate in a country where abortion is illegal, except in cases of rape or incest?  Moreover, how can we criticize President Obama’s healthcare law without gaining opinions and insight from foreigners who have fallen victim to a universal healthcare system?  In a debate concerning issues rather than ideology, the foreign angle is vital to applying the concepts of a new law on our society.  Although we do not always share the same cultural values as France or Brazil or India or Australia, the effects of reform still have economic consequences that any sensible conservative can see and apply to our current situation.

I appeal to my fellow conservatives by simply saying that the American story does not always tell the whole story.  Consider picking up a foreign publication this week, and see what you can find.  Sometimes the opinions of a Telegraph, a Financial Times or a Sun can help to shape a well-founded opinion just as much as the Wall Street Journal or the American Spectator.  Food for thought.

The Fallacy of the Welfare State

by Josh Guckert

Conservatives and Republicans are constantly vilified as heartless, evil monsters when they propose austerity measures. My liberal friends often ask me, “How can you put someone out in the cold when they have nothing to live on?” It doesn’t help that conservatives usually don’t make their own case very well either. The top argument in favor of cutting welfare payments is often that there is some “welfare queen” who is cheating the system and loafing around on others’ tax dollars. Mitt Romney recently exacerbated this misconception when he said (as out of context as it may be) that he “doesn’t care about the very poor,” because they have a safety net. I feel it’s important for Americans to know that not only is it the most economical plan to cut public assistance (or even eliminate it entirely), but it is the most moral as well.

Get a man this excited about fishing, and he'll feed a community...?

The old adage goes that, “If you give a man a fish, you’ll feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, you’ll feed him for a lifetime.” No other quote perfectly synopsizes how I feel about poor relief quite as well as that one. By subsidizing poverty, we are not helping to eliminate it, but rather, we are perpetuating it. Those receiving the payments are the true victims. They never get the opportunity to practice self-reliance, and therefore become just another cog in the machine that results in roughly a third of those on welfare being comprised of second generation recipients. And still, 15% of the country remains below the poverty line, even as big government doubles-down on its initiatives.

Believe it or not, welfare is not that old of an institution in the United States. It was prominently introduced by Franklin Roosevelt in 1935 to combat the Great Depression. The new government expansion eliminated any need for private-sector companies like the Women’s Christian Association and the Charity Organization Society, which had existed to do the same job. Even with this act of “compassion,” the U.S. suffered through unemployment above 20% for the rest of the decade. We will never know what might have happened had FDR been willing to put his trust in the free market and the good faith of American individuals and charities.

That brings us to the largest misperception about what would happen without welfare. Many seem to think that, without help from the government, the streets would be filled with homeless people, slowly starving to death. But in reality, we would not suddenly see Americans en masse, in the streets begging. Without the government to bail them out, it is only human nature for people to do what is necessary to live and prosper. Instead of sitting back while working minimal hours and waiting on a government check, a man might realize he’d better look long and hard for a second job if he wants to keep his electric on. As a result, he would gain life experience he would have never had otherwise, and would improve society as a whole.

As alluded to earlier, not everyone would be able to prosper on his own. And that is where soup kitchens, food banks, private charities, and churches would come into play. It is well known that Americans are some of the most compassionate and caring people on this planet. With citizens now having more faith in the tax system and better knowing the way in which their money is being spent, not only would they feel more inclined to help, they would also have to pay less in taxes, resulting in them having more discretionary income to give to the charities that help the poor. Citizens would no longer have to worry about someone “cheating the system,” or think that they should hold their money when someone asks for a little help, because the government should have them covered. By eliminating welfare and other public assistance programs, we would save our government billions of dollars, and create a better society, where every American can live, prosper, and better him or herself.