The Liberal Elitist

Romney, the 47%, and the Republican hatred of social insurance

When a candidate behaves as badly as Mitt Romney, what can one more voice add to the din?

Probably not much, but I have one thought I want to share:  Republicans hate social insurance.

They hate Social Security. They hate Medicare. They really hate Medicaid, Food Stamps, and unemployment insurance. In their hearts, they look at people who collect Social Security retirement--especially the ones who depend on it for most or all of their income--as freeloaders and "failures," people propped up by FDR's pernicious socialist scheme.

It radiates out from there.

That disdain is what Mitt Romney communicated at that fundraiser back in May. Look, Mitt wasn't talking with a bunch of working class Tea Party types. He was talking to uber-rich plutocrats who want our entire social contract system dismantled. Why? Who know?  They just do.

This is really not complicated. The Republican Party--who never liked these programs--is now fully controlled by people who honestly believe they can eliminate "the culture of dependence."

But here's the problem. As a society, we long ago made the choice that certain things--old age pensions, health care for the elderly, health care for people in deep poverty, and temporary support for those unemployed through no fault of their own--were costs we shared together. Not as a matter of entitlement, not as a forms of welfare, but as ways to insure all of us against the storms of real life.

These social contracts are not radical--no more radical than believing that public education should be free and available to all.

But Republicans have decided that it's time to turn the clock back to a pre-1937 world.

Will the voters let that happen?

Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? Can Mitt possibly ask a dumber question?

I haven't posted here in a long time. Chalk it up to a general sense of dealing with too much noise in the political marketplace and not seeing the point of trying to cut through all of it. But as I look at the way this election is unfolding, something just finally struck me:

Mitt Romney is truly a terrible candidate.

Disingenuous. A fraud. An empty suit. Anemic political skill. I honestly think he won the nomination because he was surrounded by the most pathetic field to run for the nation's highest office since the Democrats ponied out midgets to run against Lincoln.

Mitt honestly believes he can channel Ronald Reagan and ask, "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago."

The reason he is losing is because people have come to believe that yes, they actually are better off than they were four years ago. Maybe not way better off, and maybe not close to where they want to be, but yes--they're better off. Among other things, all they have to do is look at their 401(k) statements.

Or, maybe they can just go back and remember how things were back then. It was just about four years ago at this time that our economy came unraveled. We faced a collapse like none we had seen in almost 80 years.

It's easy to look at the American people and think they are just inattentive and sometimes plain dumb. Yes, a lot of people think it was Obama who signed TARP and bailed out the banks. But you know what?  Most people aren't as stupid as the Republicans hope they are.

They remember who was in charge four years ago. They remember what and who caused the crash. They remember that they voted that party out and put another one in.

So Mitt, you're asking a really dumb question--a question that is going to help assure your defeat, not seal your victory.