#
]]>This presidential race has been silent on the issue of immigration. Maybe, this is because neither party has a good track record on immigration. Although the number of deportations under President Obama reached their peak during his term, we have seen some recent progress with his passing of the initiative that allows for some undocumented youth remain in the country. Still troublesome, however, is Gov. Mitt Romney’s “self-deportation” policy that remains part of the Republican party platform. This policy essentially supports “humane procedures to encourage illegal aliens to return home voluntarily.” According to their platform, examples of “humane” procedures include denying federal funding to universities that allow undocumented students to attend college at in-state tuition rates, and using the e-verify system to check the legal status of job applicants. Upon closer examination, this “policy” and other GOP actions appear to be a collection of contradictory statements and misguided decisions that will likely alienate Latino voters from the Republican Party.
Contradiction 1 – Specifically using “humane” and “illegal alien” in the same sentence of the party’s immigration platform:
Several elements of this self-deportation policy are extremely troublesome, beginning with the language used. The most egregious example is the use of the term “illegal alien.” Although the term “alien” mirrors how the U.S. government classifies those who are born outside of the United States yet reside in this country, its use is pejorative and does not convey to immigrants that the party (or the U.S. government for that matter) respects who they are as individuals. If anything, it reinforces their position in our society as outsiders regardless of their actual legal immigrant status.
Add to this that oftentimes individuals refer to the undocumented segment of the immigrant population as “illegals,” using the word as a noun instead of an adjective. What is disturbing about this language is that it dehumanizes immigrants. No individual is illegal. To suggest that is to strip individuals of their personhood, a paradox coming from a party whose platform aims to respect “the dignity of life.”
Contradiction 2 – The idea that “self-deportation” is something that can be “encouraged” using “humane procedures:”
The idea that certain practices would convince immigrants to return home is perplexing. First, because no such humane practices have been elaborated, and second, because the idea of self-removal makes little sense. What this policy is really suggesting is a full endorsement of the anti-immigrant climate that has increased in recent years with laws like Arizona’s SB 1070. This climate has created an environment of insecurity, not just for immigrants, but for U.S. born Latino citizens—and it has been anything but humane.
Deportation explicitly involves removal from a country. Implementing a policy of self-deportation raises the question, Under what conditions would immigrants “remove” themselves from a nation?
I imagine what Gov. Romney means when he talks about “self-deportation” is what in academia we call “return migration,” which occurs when immigrants exit environments that they believe are detrimental to their well-being.
One way to look at “self-removal” is when teenagers want to change schools or opt out of going to school altogether because someone there is bullying them, or when women drop out of the workforce because of gender discrimination or hostile environments that drive them to the point that they no longer want to participate in the labor market. The real meaning of “self-deportation” is the decision to opt out of trying to pursue a meaningful life in the United States. The answer to why immigrants would do this has nothing to do with any kind of humane procedure as the GOP suggests.
The answer is what fellow sociologist, Helen Marrow, bluntly calls “making life hell for immigrants.” Living in fear of being pulled over, of being separated from one’s family, or of being deported to a country you barely remember, constitute what some would consider living under “hellish” conditions. For some of these immigrants, the anxiety and insecurity that these conditions create may drive them to “choose” to return home, to opt out.
According to research I have collaborated on, immigrants consider returning to their countries of origin when they have felt discriminated against. Our research has shown that those who have experienced discrimination either in the course of entering the country, or in public spaces, by immigration officials who questioned the legality of their presence, were most likely to think about return migration. This did not mean they returned. It did, however, affect how attached they became to the nation. This kind of experience led them to feel rejected and in some cases profiled based on their race and country of origin. Young men are often the targets of racial and ethnic profiling to a greater degree than their female counterparts. Those who experienced these forms of discrimination were significantly less likely to support a McCain presidency than an Obama presidency in 2008 when they were polled.
For a party that is trying to win over the Latino vote, particularly in swing states like Florida, it is puzzling that its platform would endorse self-deportation. Given these research findings, such an endorsement amounts to giving one’s blessing to racial profiling and discrimination in the hopes that immigrants come to feel unwanted, and eventually give up and go home. This is peculiar for a campaign whose goal is to win at least 38 percent of the Latino vote. There is more to self-deportation than what Republicans are letting on. If the Romney-Ryan ticket prevails, Latinos should prepare for what lies ahead, including the real possibility that they will increasingly be the objects of racial profiling in Florida, Arizona style.
]]>With the conclusion of the third debate, and a week to digest it, we now have a pretty good idea of what the differences are between President Obama and former Governor Romney. The pundits commented almost immediately that Obama won the debate and that Romney pretty much agreed with the Obama Administration’s policies while criticizing the Obama Administration’s policies. Certainly, Romney’s statements have changed since the Republican primary, embodying the etch-a-sketch strategy that they previously announced. Even FOX News called the debate a draw, which is a sure sign Obama won. But again, the punditocracy made their judgments largely on style, saying that despite his loss Romney did what he had to. Basically, for the media, it was the Sarah Palin bar that he had to clear, i.e. not look entirely foolish. But did he?
In fact, it’s a little different than they portrayed it and, in that respect, a little scarier. Romney’s comments on each area of foreign policy had no specifics. They were all expressed in very general, vague terms, resembling the table of contents of an introductory book on world affairs. What specifics did exist were those borrowed from Obama. However, important points did emerge. Consider the following.
Four times Romney referred to Syria as Iran’s highway to the ocean. Apparently, Romney is unaware that Iraq stands between Syria and Iran. Moreover, Iran (i.e. Persia) has access to the Persian Gulf (hence the name), the Gulf of Oman, and the Arabian Sea. It is somewhat frightening that the best the GOP has to offer for Commander-in-Chief is so unfamiliar with (arguably) the most important region of the world for foreign policy that he can’t get the geography right.
With respect to Iran, the Obama Administration has orchestrated a situation in which virtually the entire world is now allied with the U.S. in efforts to control Iran’s nuclear ambitions. More bellicose foreign policy, including one allowing Israelis to force us into drawing red lines in the sand, would not have made Obama’s achievement possible.
More importantly, just days ago Efraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad (the Israeli counterpart of the CIA), after describing Obama’s approach to Iran as “courageous” and “brave,” claimed that “What Romney is doing is mortally destroying any chance of a resolution without war. Therefore when [he recently] said, he doesn’t think there should be a war with Iran, this does not ring true. It is not consistent with other things he has said.”
Aside from that, Romney’s claim to have a strategy for peace resembles his strategy for balancing the budget while cutting taxes and increasing spending; there are no specifics.
Finally, former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell has endorsed President Obama. Saying that he has concerns about the constantly changing positions of Romney on foreign policy, he went on to say “sometimes I don’t sense he has thought through these issues as thoroughly as he should have” and, Powell thinks, “there are some very, very strong neoconservative views that are presented by the governor that I have some trouble with.” Neoconservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz determined U. S. foreign policy under Bush II and orchestrated the invasion of Iraq, Powell’s position as Secretary of State notwithstanding. And it’s important to point out that the phrase “I have some trouble with” is diplomatic speak for “this is really crazy.” Disturbingly, but not surprisingly, former Governor John Sununu, a Romney surrogate, immediately accused Powell of racism, of supporting Obama because of his race.
So we have a pretty good idea of what a Romney/Ryan foreign policy would look like. And, to use diplomatic speak, it’s troubling.
]]>By now most of the media have weighed in on the Vice Presidential debate. Predictably, almost all ignored the substance and issues and focused on style. Some seem to think that Biden’s chuckling at many of Ryan’s comments was “distracting.” Others pointed out that it was a not too subtle way of marking Ryan’s claims as wrong or as misinformation (“malarkey” is an Irish term used among friends for fibbing/lying; as in “the fish I caught was two feet long” would be malarkey). Getting away from style, the appeal of demagogues, let’s look at the issues.
Social Security/Medicare: It is clear that Romney/Ryan want to privatize Social Security/Medicare. Biden drilled this one home and Ryan, who has advocated and proposed privatization several times, didn’t escape it. (Note: Why anyone would think that individuals investing in the stock market after the panic of 1987, the panic of 2000 and the panic of 2007, is a good idea is beyond me. For example, if you had money invested in the best of index mutual funds (e.g. Vanguard, Fidelity) in 2000, the value of your 401(b) is only now returning to what it was in 1999, and that’s assuming you continued to contribute 10 percent of your income during that period. There’s a reason these days that the super wealthy invest not in the market (or real estate) but in priceless art and automobiles. But privatization will result in great commissions and administrative fees for Wall Street.)
Winner: Biden.
Taxes: Again, the claim that you can cut tax rates by 20 percent and not eliminate those deductions that the middle class draws upon does not add up. Several independent analyses have illustrated this. Just saying that it adds up doesn’t make it so. No matter how many times someone wants to say 10 minus 4 equals 9, it doesn’t.
Winner: Biden.
The Stimulus: Ryan trotted out the old argument that it failed. Biden, who helped oversee the stimulus, countered that despite the fact that when Obama took office the U.S. was hemorrhaging jobs, it is now adding them in the private sector and stressed the impact of the automobile bailout. That saved not only automobile workers’ jobs, but those of all subcontractors who the auto industry helps keep in business, e.g. producers of glass, plastic, hub caps, tires, energy for production, etc., etc. But the best line was Biden’s reference to Ryan’s request for stimulus money with Ryan claiming that it had created jobs. Ryan, of course, is not the only opponent of the stimulus to request money from it (and then take the credit for it existing). Biden’s parting comment, that he would entertain subsequent requests from Ryan was classic.
Winner: Biden.
Abortion: It comes down to this. Romney has changed his position on this, according to his own campaign, no less than three times in the past two weeks. Ryan’s position is clear: his Roman Catholic faith dictates to him that no one, Catholic or not, should have access to abortion. So Ryan would foist his religious beliefs on others. Biden wouldn’t.
Winner: Biden.
But this brings up another point. Both Romney and Ryan are on record as saying that their religious faiths dictate their political and public positions (unlike JFK, who said his Catholicism would not result in rule by the Vatican, a position that Ryan seems not to rule out). If their faith is that important to policy, why isn’t scrutiny of that religious faith a topic of political discussion? After all, if I were running for office and said that Karl Marx’s Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts dictated my politics, I would expect the philosophy contained in those texts to be a legitimate focus of political scrutiny. If the Book of Mormon is going to set policy for all of us, we should be debating whether or not it contains the values we all can endorse. Keep in mind, it is Romney and Ryan who have brought their religions into the public sphere.
Afghanistan: Ryan’s position was so convoluted (he endorsed the Obama timeline and policy, but then went on to criticize the policy and timeline) it led one observer to comment that Ryan was more lost in Afghanistan than the Russian Army was. His rhetoric on Syria, similarly devoid of specifics, similarly reflected someone who was clearly out of his league.
Winner: Biden
The Attack on U.S. Consulate in Benghazi: Ryan went after this one big time. The result was a “he said, he said” exchange including Ryan’s falsehood that it was the Administration that issued the first response that came from the American Embassy in Libya. Biden countered that Romney had politicized the issue before getting any information other than that an attack had taken place. So this is how the issue weighs out: Will undecided voters think that the most important thing here is that Obama has to take responsibility because the attack occurred on his watch? Or will they think that Romney politicizing a tragedy is a cheap shot? This one is close to call, but because voters who are undecided at this point are the most inclined to be convinced by the shallow arguments, one liners, and zingers, I think the Romney campaign wins, but for all the wrong reasons.
Winner: Ryan
So the question will be which will have greater effect, the issues or style. One thing is clear, Biden came out ready for the debate in ways that Obama didn’t. Democrats will hope that signals a new, more aggressive stance for the Obama/Biden campaign. The one thing you can’t appear to be in these debates is weak, taken off guard, or befuddled. For the Republicans, at least Ryan didn’t have to get into too many specifics. But whether the same vague, misleading talking points can sustain their attempt to overtake Obama is unclear.
Conclusion: Social scientists know the hazards of making predictions. Political theorists, even those who study American political history, are usually even more cautious. Caution on these kinds of things has never had much appeal to me.
Prediction: Romney/Ryan have peaked.
]]>With the Presidential Debates between President Obama and former Governor Romney about to begin, the media have begun to focus on previous debates for the kinds of things each candidate should, could, or must do if the debates are to work in their favor. In considering the potential effect of the debates it is important to keep in mind that in the recent past the immediate post-debate analyses have sometimes been embarrassing for a number of media outlets. For example, in the 2008 election, focusing exclusively on style, CNN announced success for Sarah Palin. It also pronounced John McCain the winner of the first presidential debate when next day polls showed Barack Obama with a far greater margin of victory about winning the debate among voters. The electronic media have also focused on the use of zingers or individual sound bites, the effects of which are overestimated. Lloyd Bentsen’s famous “you’re no Jack Kennedy” comeback to Dan Quayle did not win the election for the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket. Reagan’s repeated comment to Carter – “There you go again.” – had nothing near the effect as the U. S. military’s failure to provide back-up helicopters and air support for an abortive rescue mission of the American hostages in Iran in the summer of 1980.
When all is said and done, only two debates can be said to have a significant effect. The first in 1960 in which then Senator John F. Kennedy outshone Vice President Richard Nixon on a number of levels. The other was 2000 in which pundits assert that the polls shifted after Vice President Gore lost ground as he came off less likeable. Even in the latter case, what really shifted the election of 2000 was the purging of the voting polls of 94,000 voters in Florida by Governor Jeb Bush, the irregularities in Democratic precincts, and 98,000 votes cast for third party candidate Ralph Nader that allowed the election in Florida to be close in the first place. And, of course, Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000.
For the most part, people who actually watch the debates tend to come away from them with their decisions reinforced. Nonetheless, the debates are likely to be Romney’s last chance at changing the growing support for Obama, particularly in battleground states. Such an accomplishment is highly unlikely barring a complete meltdown by Obama. Although the mere appearance on the same stage could result in a slight, temporary bump in support for Romney, erasing the lead that Obama has is quite another thing. After all, Romney received no bump at all from the Republican National Convention. And even Fox News has Obama ahead by 4 percentage points with bigger leads in swing states.
All that said, it is possible that something of significance can be decided in these debates. With the focus on the economy for the first debate, the election could come down to a choice between the following. On the one hand there are the successes of the New Deal, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security (including survivor benefits for minor children), women’s health and safety (including not trivializing rape) and the role of government in advancing the American Dream for the middle class that is traced back to FDR and Lincoln. On the other hand, there is the Republican program with its goal of gutting Medicare, Medicaid, privatizing Social Security, limiting health care related to rape for women and young girls, and so forth. To achieve this it oscillates between two agendas. First, there is Andrew Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth that emphasizes trickle-down economics in the long run (despite, Carnegie acknowledged, the horrible suffering it caused) and philanthropy. This requires redistributing income from the middle class to the super wealthy and redistributing the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class and working poor. It should come as no surprise then that Romney is fine with the wealthy paying no taxes but chafes at the idea that the working poor pay no income tax. The other agenda, the one Paul Ryan’s endorses in his vision for Americans, is Ayn Rand’s philosophy that emphasizes selfishness as a virtue and could not care less about whether wealth of the top 1 percent trickles down to anybody. And it certainly has no tolerance for philanthropy for those it considers parasites (her words) and overly dependent because they receive Social Security or Medicare (Romney’s word).
In short, this could be a momentous election.
Visit the Florida Joint Center for Citizenship here for more ideas on how to help kids learn more about civics and their roles and responsibilities in becoming an informed voter.
]]>
]]>“I definitely think that Tampa has become an epithet for Democrats or progressives. “It was disturbing to have Tampa get flogged so badly by everyone at the Democratic National Convention. It was as if Tampa was the breeding ground for conservative Republican thought and people.”
]]>Most people who heard Bill Clinton’s speech nominating President Obama for a second term anticipated that the former president would be a hard act to follow. And it was certainly the case that in contrast to Clinton’s speech, the President’s was measured, informed by the realities of the moment. It was the speech of an incumbent having to encourage his party and undecided voters that, despite the inability of the country to achieve the goals he set out for it four years ago, there is still a clear picture of what needs to be done to get the country back to economic normalcy.
By and large, the media was guarded or critical of the tone. Many pundits claimed the speech didn’t encourage the enthusiasm that his first acceptance speech did, although one Republican consultant on CNN called it presidential. Moreover, it wasn’t just Clinton’s speech that overshadowed it. It was a night of speeches that energized and even excited the crowd. John Kerry’s speech on foreign policy was called the best speech of the night by some. Jennifer Granholm, former Governor of Michigan, gave an animated speech that was met with the most enthusiasm of any speech in either convention and had some Democrats bemoaning that she’s Canadian born. Even Joe Biden’s speech drew on a passion and experience that many middle class blue collar voters could identify with. The result was that Obama’s speech, that at times seemed almost more like an academic lecture than a convention speech, was overshadowed by others.
I think for the most part the media ignored how precise and thorough the speech was with respect to the achievements of the administration, achievements in spite of the scorched earth policies of the Republicans in Congress and in those states such as Florida where they control the legislature and governor’s office. He emphasized the creation of new jobs in manufacturing and saving the automobile industry; the increase in energy efficiency, opening of new areas for oil and gas exploration, and cuts in oil imports and dependency; the commitment to the environment; what is required to improve education, a problem that gets a lot of lip service but very little substantive effort; an allusion to the successes in foreign policy; and finally, identifying the successes and strengths of Obamacare. Interestingly, Gov. Romney just recently identified several of elements of Obamacare that he would actually keep.
But the most important thing he stressed, and the thing that went largely ignored by most of the media, with the exception of MSNBC, was the point about citizenship. Citizenship in a democratic republic is not simply a question of birth or naturalization. That wouldn’t make democratic citizenship very much different from citizenship in any other country. The democratic ideal of citizenship was captured in his statement that along with rights comes responsibility, that “a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism,” all the things precluded by Paul Ryan’s Ayn Randian vision, “is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense.” In that respect, it harkened back to the ideals of Jefferson and Lincoln, the idea that the sense of community, of civic virtue, of the middle class is the political, economic, and moral strength of American politics and economics.
The President has received somewhat more of a bounce from the DNC than Gov. Romney did from the RNC. But the real test will be how the voters sort out in the next several weeks. That is qualified by the fact that the number of undecided voters at this point is relatively small in comparison to past elections. Moreover, there is a good deal of research that indicates that voters who are undecided at this point don’t really have great interest in politics, tend to be less informed about the issues, and tend to have lower rates of voting. Some commentators suggest that means that the election will be decided by which party can generate the best turnout of its base. But it might come down to how many voters accept Obama’s view that we are not just consumers, employees, and employers, but citizens with obligations of civic virtue as well.
]]>To get a sense of the significance and effect of former President Bill Clinton’s speech, one only need take note of two things. First, CNN political commentator Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist and former aid to Mitt Romney said immediately after the speech: “This will be the moment that probably reelected Barack Obama.” Second, in television ratings, Clinton’s speech beat the NFL’s season inaugural game between two contenders for the NFC East championship and possible contenders for the Super Bowl, the New York Giants and the Dallas Cowboys. Even FOX commentators such as Brit Hume had to acknowledge the forcefulness of the former President’s speech, though criticizing its length.
The strength of the speech lies in two of its components. First, the passion with which the speech was delivered. There is a reason that the former president is able to animate an audience, and not just Democrats, and a reason why with a 69 percent approval rating he is the most popular living ex-president. His delivery at the convention, despite the length of the speech, clearly had an effect on the crowd as well as on most of the media.
In terms of substance, Clinton pointed out that the Tea Party dominated Republican Party considers compromise a form of heresy. Hence, even Republican incumbents with near perfect conservative voting records have been challenged and defeated by Tea Party candidates. Clinton, on the other hand, knows the necessity of compromise. Without give and take on the part of himself and the Republican dominated House of Representatives, led by Newt Gingrich, no balanced budget would have been possible in the late 1990’s. And he ticked off the number of Republican appointees to the Obama administration.
But the most important part of the speech was that, unlike Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s speech which was revealed to be permeated with untruths and distortions, Clinton presented a litany of facts and numbers all of which have been confirmed by multiple fact checkers. The accomplishments are substantial. The creation of 4.5 million private sector jobs resulting in part from the president’s recovery act, tax cuts for 95 percent of American workers, the addition of 500,000 more manufacturing jobs, the multiple successes in foreign policy, and the rescue of the auto industry that saved approximately 250,000 jobs in that industry, not to mention those jobs that were saved in related industries (tire, auto parts not manufactured by the auto companies, glass, radios, and so forth). But the perhaps the most stunning figure, and the one that attracted the most attention of the fact checkers, is the fact that in the 52 years since 1961, Republicans have held the White House for 28 years during which 24 million jobs were produced. Democrats have held the White House for 24 years, during which 44 million jobs were produced.
Now, it is well known that the factors that go into job creation are due to a number of influences, many of which are beyond the control of the President, both for good and for bad. Which party controls the Congress, the balance of trade, rates of investment, energy prices, outsourcing and downsizing of companies, and the list goes on. The result is that when things are good the incumbent president is likely to get too much credit and when they are bad, too much blame. Nonetheless, by making job creation an issue, the Republicans opened themselves up to the above criticism made by former President Clinton.
Despite the accolades heaped upon the Clinton speech, it does point to a weakness in the Obama campaign and more generally to his administration. Why did Obama need Bill Clinton, this late in the game, less than two months before the election, to point out the specific successes of his administration? Why haven’t the positives of Obamacare been more publicized. Why, as recent polls have shown, are so many Americans so misinformed about what it contains. For example, in one recent poll only 27 percent of Americans knew that Obamacare does not provide a federally funded healthcare option similar to Medicare and Medicaid. That means 73 percent either thought that it did or didn’t know enough about it to say one way or the other.
In some respects this failure of communication has plagued the Obama administration since day one. It was in evidence following the killing of Osama bin Laden when former members of the Bush administration flooded Sunday morning talk shows touting President Bush’s role in allegedly laying the foundations for tracking down bin Laden (even though he disbanded the CIA unit responsible for that task in 2006), while the Obama administration sent one undersecretary of state to one talk show and he was careful not only to give full credit to the SEAL team performing the task, but to the Bush administration for providing the groundwork for the operation. The contrast between Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” publicity for a task not accomplished and Obama’s reticence to communicate to Americans the specific successes of his administration is telling. It’s not surprising then that even commentators such as Nicholas Kristol of the New York Times have given a grade of “F” to Obama with respect to communication. If he expects to win what promises to be a close election, he’s going to have to do better than he has done so far.
]]>
Acceptance speeches by nominees for the office of the President are unique in that they are normally attempts to straddle a line between offering specifics and identifying a general, often vague, vision of the direction of one’s administration. Given the lack of specifics in the acceptance speech by Paul Ryan, many commentators were anticipating specifics about what policies Governor Romney’s would pursue if he won the election. This latter point seemed particularly important in light of the confusion in the Romney camp about just what parts of the Ryan budget plan and abortion agenda Romney would sign on to. But like Ryan’s speech, aside from the specific criticisms of President Obama, several of which are based on untruths, there were no policy specifics as there was with Obama and McCain in 2008, or Clinton in 1992. There were no specifics about how Romney would redress the alleged failures of the Obama administration.
An example of the shortage of specifics is the claim that a Romney administration would balance the budget (forgetting, perhaps, that Congress has a role in passing laws). If one adds up the tax cuts that the Ryan budget proposes, it comes to $4.3 trillion. That is offset by $1.7 trillion in spending cuts born disproportionately by the middle class and the poor. That is not a move toward a balanced budget.
However, despite the lack of specifics about his own policies, Romney’s speech, like the Ryan’s, continued to rely on untruths about the Obama record. He reiterated the claim that the Obama administration cut $716 billion that would hurt seniors. In fact it has widely been demonstrated that the savings come in terms of reducing overpricing and cutting inefficiencies, two things Republicans have supposedly favored in the past.
Similarly, Romney accuses the President Obama of conducting an apology tour oversees. Again, fact checkers have repeatedly pointed out that the claim is wrong, but the untruth continues to be part of the Republicans’ attack.
But two statements stand out as more egregious. One, near the close of his speech, claims that under his and Ryan’s leadership a united America “will care for the poor and sick, will honor and respect the elderly and will give a helping hand to those in need.” How these things are going to be achieved when the Ryan budget would shred the safety net is unclear. The Ryan budget, which Romney earlier said he would sign into law if he were president, so hammers the poor it was called immoral by the U. S. Catholic Bishops. The analysis of the Ryan budget shows that 62 percent of the cuts in Ryan’s proposed budget would come from those programs that provide the safety net for low-income families, including the poor and the working poor.
But the most egregious statement of all has to be Romney’s claim that after Obama’s election, “Americans always come to together after elections. We’re good and generous people, and we are united by so much more than what divides us.” The Republican public pledge and commitment to oppose Obama on everything in order to see him fail, even when such opposition inflicted pain and distress on the country, is hardly and example of coming together nor is it an example of generosity.
The Republicans opposed everything the Obama proposed even though Obama made serious efforts, much to the consternation of people such as Paul Krugman, at bipartisanship. But as Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein have pointed out, time after time the Republican’s opposed legislation simply because Obama endorsed it, even when they were the co-sponsors of that very legislation! And, of course, this culminated in the Republicans taking raising the debt ceiling hostage (their words) even though they recognized it might do irreparable harm to the country. So single minded were they in their intention to see Obama fail that the party of “no” as they came to call themselves filibustered legislation in the Senate a record 231 times and included opposing such bills and providing health care for 9/11 first responders. The idea that Republicans were among those who came together behind the President in his early years suggests contempt for the intelligence of American voters.
One final point should be made. Despite his claim that his Roman Catholicism influences his thinking about economic issues, it is clear that Ryan’s budget has nothing in common with Roman Catholic Social Doctrine the principles of which are readily available on line. Ryan’s budget is inspired by a “me first – who cares about you” kind of individualism inspired by the novelist Ayn Rand. I am not a big fan of John McCain But looking over his acceptance speech from 2008, you find something that you will not find in the Ayn Rand inspired vision, a vision that glorifies selfishness (her words) and narcissism, of the Ryan-Romney ticket and their plan for America. After alluding to Barak Obama’s achievement (which I infer was a reference to Obama being the first African-American nominee for President from the two major parties), after specifying what initiatives that he would embark upon, McCain said “My friends, if you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you’re disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist…Enlist in our Armed Forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an — an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier, because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself.”
You won’t find any of that in the current Republican platform, nor in the speeches delivered at the RNC, and certainly not in the Ayn Rand-inspired speeches of the Ryan-Romney ticket. This Republican hyperindividualism, as conservative columnist David Brooks calls it, the idea that there is only an “I” and a “me” and not “we” or “us,” is really a kind of mythic individualism found in cowboy and detective films (Clint Eastwood, High Plains Drifter; The Pale Rider, Dirty Harry) but not in reality, not in a society where citizens depend on their own efforts but also on other citizens as well for their well being. Alexis de Tocqueville knew this. In Democracy in America he saw such hyperindividualism as the greatest danger to American democracy with its balance of properly understood individualism and equality. But he thought America had the resources to resist it. That may be the real test of the 2012 election.