By now we all know that Mitt Romney has nothing but disdain for the social welfare “entitlement” of the supposed 47% of Americans who pay no income tax. (Romney’s 47% claim is now getting torn apart as inaccurate.) But what of the entitlement program created by his father that he used for connections? Is that not an entitlement program, albeit a private one?
Romney’s entire life is a study in entitlement. Yes, he may have been a ruthlessly hard worker (what’s new on Wall Street?), but surely his father’s success in business and politics greased the wheels of Mitt’s life and fortune. Like a monarch, he was handed the keys to whichever empire he liked—ultimately, he chose both business and politics.
In 1963, when Mitt’s father, George Romney, was sworn in as Governor of Michigan, a 16 year-old Mitt became an intern. Mitt also met powerful people in business and politics at the 1964 Republican National Convention, in which his father was actively involved. Like George W. Bush, Mitt was never a great student, but still managed to gain entry to Stanford University. Must have been personal achievement and all of the extra-curricular activities. It couldn’t possibly have been his father’s influence, right?
While on missionary work in France, Romney lived a cushy life as the assistant to the French mission. Again, it simply must have been because of his great personal bona fides as a missionary, and not because of his father’s incredibly influential role in Mormon culture and politics.
Returning to America in 1968, Romney enrolled in BYU, and by 1970 he was again awarded a position in his mother’s election campaign because, yes, he deserved it. He had worked hard for it. It’s similar to the Kennedys, to be sure, but at least they admit how incredibly privileged they were and pledged to work for those who didn’t have it so good.
At 23 years old, Mitt Romney had already enjoyed a level of entitlement that few could possibly attain let alone imagine. The only thing that he’d really worked for was the absurdist task of converting French people to the Mormon religion. By this point he’d also become a solid student (or so we’re told), and easily enrolled in Harvard’s dual J.D./M.B.A. program, then newly-created.
Now, in fairness to Mitt, he established his own name in business, leading to his success first with Bain & Company, then with off-shoot Bain Capital. But, in a very real sense, his success in both business and politics was pre-ordained. He was the prodigal son. Every possibly opportunity was his for the taking. Does this make him necessarily a bad person? Not at all.
It only means that instead of government assistance, Mitt had access to vastly superior assistance from his father, his mother, and their business and political connections. His experience is wholly unlike the 47% he is so quick to define, as if he somehow knew any one of them or their unique stations in life.
Perhaps if his parents had lost everything, and Mitt had been forced to start from scratch, he could more easily sympathize with the plebeians.
[Photo: Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters]
September 18, 2012 at 8:07 pm, Ken Jackson said:
Doesn't your article completely define Mitt's statement!
Your assertion is that not all people are privy to Mitt's business and political connections. Hence if they haven't succeeded like him, then the system hasn't provided them the means to succeed. So…they are "victims".
Seriously, you folks that write articles have ultimate "spin control". Amazing!
September 18, 2012 at 11:50 pm, Patrick Boatman said:
The subject of the article was Mitt, your statements about what the author 'says' about others are just your imagination. You're doing a quick and dirty forced dichotomy of "successful" and "not successful" (when a whole continuum of options exist between) and saying the author says "They are victims". You said that, not this author.
Why do so many people want to argue with people (sitting in chairs) or positions that only exist in their head? Try looking up "Straw Man Fallacy" maybe in Wikipedia. It's definitely relevant here.
September 19, 2012 at 2:09 am, Ken Jackson said:
Nothing forced here…quite logical and almost impossible to conclude any other way. It's the central theme of this entire election…more OR less government…more handouts, government assistance and incentives OR more free enterprise, self reliance and independence.
It's a new definition of what America IS or a return to the definition of what America has been, from the very start.
Of course with any political stance there are shades of gray, exceptions to the rule, etc. etc. Hence the ridiculousness of holding someone to a single phrase, word, etc. Somewhat of a double standard eh?
And the author IS writing in response to Mitt's words at a private party where he used the term "victim". Never said the author said that…
What other more politically correct word would you use to describe why someone doesn't succeed because they aren't afforded the same supposed luxuries Mitt Romney received? These are straight from the article.
September 19, 2012 at 2:24 am, Ken Jackson said:
One last thing…
I am in COMPLETE agreement with you about your "Straw Man Fallacy". Never have I seen people argue more about positions that are completely invented, even at times arguing for something that their opponent is actually FOR and who they are supporting is actually AGAINST. It's ludicrous!
Largely, people are emotionally driven and the media has their way of having people believe the first emotion a headline elicits. What appeals to emotion, to humanity, to what feels good coming off the tongue wins nowadays…damned the consequences, long term or otherwise.
September 19, 2012 at 2:44 am, Patrick Boatman said:
Asserting your argument is logical does not make it so. Equating your position with "almost impossible to conclude any other way" does not bolster your argument, it's just an attempt to control the narrative. Watch "I'm right because I had shepherd's pie for lunch. It's the most logical conclusion". Nope, it didn't work. Can't say I didn't try.
In those 47% are low income families that get standard deductions that you and I get (should they get lower than you because they make less?) and get Earned Income Tax Credit (championed by liberals like Reagan to not raise the minimum wage), the elderly living on fixed incomes (how much do you want them to pay after being a taxpayer for half a century?), college students working their way through college (victims?). Many of these that work do pay Social Security, Payroll taxes, Medicare, Sales Taxes, various local taxes, which due to low income end up comprising a substantially higher percentage of their income than someone better off. Do you think that a guy that is single and earns 200,000 a year actually spends money on taxable items at 10 times the rate as a guy earning 20,000 with a family of four?
here's a decent breakdown of some categories
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/18/161337343/the-47-percent-in-one-graphic
If you really want to be seen as self reliant move to Somalia. No one will accuse you of mooching off of our taxes via interstate highways, regulated energy production, the infrastructure necessary to have internet, no socialized law enforcement, no socialized education, no socialized fire fighters, no silly socialized libraries, etc…
Yes, you called the above victims, the article author did not. On this we can agree. I imagine we could call them citizens or americans, or something like that. When the narrative you're pushing is matched to the facts, it's found wanting, when it's analyzed logically it's found to lack coherence.
September 19, 2012 at 3:11 am, Ken Jackson said:
Your last sentence is basically the same as my first… You saying it lacks coherence because you analyze it "logically" doesn't make it so and attempts to control the narrative as well. We can argue that back and forth till we are blue in the face…
And I believe we are talking about completely different things now.
My initial response to you was going to say, "I agree with your "straw man fallacy" statement, yet I BELIEVE you and the author defined being such persons with regard to what mitt romney believes with regard to the statements in that video and perhaps what you may think I believe too based on my apparent move to Somalia."
You are exactly right, there are "whole continuum of options existing between" most anything. If everyone had to verbalize the long list of gray areas for every definitive thing they wanted to say then there would be little time to say anything at all. That's what politicians seem to do so well…say nothing at all, which is why I BELIEVE these kinds of remarks get the kind of publicity they do. Straight to the point, yet open to people taking them completely out in left field and coming up with "straw man fallacy" kinds of arguments. Which I believe this article most definitely does.
That's why it's ridiculous to take a single statement and analyze it to death. It's just like you said, "it's people (sitting in chairs) arguing about positions that only exist in their head". It's a single statement and based on everything else I shared does define how a lot of people view themselves in the pro-Obama camp. Maybe they would never use victim…though perhaps only when it serves them well. Harsh? Maybe…
Regardless if you think it's my attempt to control the narrative, I do believe it's an easy conclusion to make that this headline and article amidst the many many others just like it today are trying to say that Mitt Romney is out of touch with Americans because of his upbringings, his wealth, his whatever else anyone wants to come up with…and everyone else has had barriers preventing them from succeeding, whether they'd call themselves victims, unlucky, downtrodden, without someone to give them a fair chance etc. And to my whole reason for commenting…that's exactly what Mitt Romney said…they feel like "victims".
It's the "straw man fallacy" defined.
September 18, 2012 at 8:23 pm, Shiloh Foster said:
Is this an op ed
September 18, 2012 at 11:39 pm, Patrick Boatman said:
Just a point on one of your literary allusions. I'm not sure that "prodigal son" means what you think it means. The prodigal son turns his back on his father, wastes everything and then is welcomed back. It is priviledge that is squandered and then restored.
Other than that, great points.
October 02, 2012 at 6:18 pm, Ardie Akers Hawkins said:
The other 47%…