Last week, the popular liberal magazine Mother Jones released online the now infamous videotape of Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney speaking at a fundraiser in May. At the private campaign event in Boca Raton, Fla., a confidential source secretly recorded Romney candidly expressing his views on Obama supporters, whom he described as "47 percent of (Americans) ... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims ... who believe that they are entitled." Romney's polarizing remarks were met with outrage from the media and unbridled glee from Democrats. While the comments were "not elegantly stated," Romney has since announced, they shed light on the importance of socioeconomic perspectives in American politics.
Since both candidates have declined to use the limited funds available through the federal campaign finance system, they are both equally susceptible to the lure of large donors. The effect of money is the true heart of the issue. Romney's most damning comment was not about vast numbers of Americans, but about himself. After speaking about the "47 percent," he concluded, "My job is not to worry about those people."
We strongly rebuke Romney for his comments, which are filled with misleading facts and overgeneralization. Earlier in the semester we strongly advocated for a higher commitment to fact-checking in political campaigns. Luckily, the media has dissected the demographics of the 46.4 percent of American households that did not pay federal income tax in 2011. It turns out that many in this group are not, in fact, people who will "vote for the president no matter what."
For example, elderly voters as a bloc are less likely to pay income taxes or payroll taxes, but they leaned toward John McCain in 2008 by an eight-point margin. According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, eight of the top 10 states with the lowest income tax liability voted Republican in the previous election. Romney was merely playing to the opinions of the donors gathered at the fundraiser in Florida, a battleground state that also happens to be one of those top 10 states with the lowest tax liability.
This hearkens back to the heightening of socioeconomic class tensions on the campaign trail. An anonymous online source has provided us another sincere perspective on political victimization in a rather unorthodox manner. In contrast to the Occupy protesters who rail against the 1 percent, Romney has depicted himself as a humanized corporate interest fighting back against America's parasitic welfare structure. By maligning half of the country as entitled moochers, Romney has unscrupulously turned class warfare on its head and generalized the plight of the poor billionaire against swathes of irresponsible freeloaders.
David Brooks was correct in saying that this video "reinforces every negative view people have about Romney." If the executives and private equity managers present at this fundraiser convened to manufacture a presidential candidate tailored to their interests, they would create Mitt Romney.
In the aftermath of the video, the overwhelmingly critical backlash has put the Romney campaign on the defensive. But the issue at hand is still dangerous if left alone. It is not really an issue that the elite class in American society contends for the presidency. After all, our nation's earliest presidents were solely large landowners - George Washington remains the richest president in terms of net worth, at over $500 million in today's terms. The problem is the manner in which the elite compete for the nation's highest public office. America will never need a leader who has prematurely decided that almost half of the country should be ignored.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
