Mitt Romney is a Weathervane in a Tornado

Mitt Romney is a candidate who lacks a foundation, solid principles upon which he can build a coherent philosophy, as well as the charisma, or oratorical skills, to sell this philosophy to the American people.

If Romney isn't sticking his foot in his mouth, then he is changing his mind. Daily.

Once again, here is the infamous 47% video:

According to Romney, we're just shit stuck to the bottom of his perfectly polished John Lobb shoes.

But, wait, he didn't really mean that he thought we were meaningless peasants playing the role of professional victims. He "clarified" his remarks at a recent campaign event for Latinos in Florida:

“My campaign is about the 100 percent of America,” Romney said in his opening comments at a Univision forum here. Romney repeated the phrase “the 100 percent” three more times in his initial statement.

When speaking in public, Romney claims he wants to help all Americans, all 100% of them, but in private with his millionaire pals at $50,000 a plate fundraiser he asserts he doesn't think too much about the bottom 47% of American society. When are people most truthful, in public or private? I think we know the answer.

In a matter of days, Romney moves from 47% up to 100% and, I dare say, he'll claim to be working for the 250% sometime next week.

He says, it wasn't "elegantly stated." How does one elegantly state that 47% of Americans are whiny serfs perfectly content to shirk personal responsibility and pride in order to suck on the government tit?

But, he's the consummate businessman. Shouldn't he know how? He did save the Olympics. And, Staples. And, Godfather's Pizza, etc.

I wonder how hands-on he was at Bain Capital. His hands look Jergens soft.

Romney's twisting in the wind isn't just about his comments on the 47% of Americans. It covers nearly every single political position he has ever advocated. He is the for it before he was against it kind of guy.

Consider universal heathcare:  he has defended his healthcare bill in Massachusetts, attacked Obama and the Democratic Party's achievement, then claimed he wouldn't outright appeal it, but simply reform it, then vociferously describe how much he just straight fucking hates it.

Then, he says this in the same Politico article linked above:

The Republican even embraced the Obama administration’s claim that his Massachusetts health care reform plan made him “the grandfather of Obamacare.”

“I don’t think he meant that as a compliment but I’ll take it,” Romney said, adding that such a depiction was likely not “helpful” during the GOP primary.

But, it doesn't stop there. John Aravois at Americablog reports the following:

Today, the Romney campaign will hold a press conference call to discuss... that Obamacare is a costly disaster for American families and businesses. The call will feature Governor Bobby Jindal.
 

It's like he's playing a role now, acting as a stereotype of himself.

Does he really want to be President?

Mitt Romney is presented as the consummate businessman, a paragon of capitalist achievement, so I'm quite surprised at his inability to adequately helm a national presidential campaign. Isn't he the Great Fixer? Didn't he turn-around countless failing companies and save the Olympics? Now, he suddenly can't do what an inexperienced, community organizer achieved four short years ago.

I'm not surprised that Romney lacks a foundation. He is a corporatist, after all. When one's professional existence is defined by profit margins, then it stands to reason that they are willing to do, or say, anything in order to achieve profit. Profit justifies the means.

He should have more charisma. The acne faced kid working at the local American Eagle has better salesmanship skills than the embattled GOP candidate. Americans are getting tired of hanging the phone up on Romney.

Epic fail.

Reaction to Romney and the 47%

Mother Jones recently released a video of Mitt Romney speaking before a group of the wealthy elite at a $50k a plate fundraiser. The video has opened up a Pandora's box of criticism directed at the Republican candidate, and rightfully so, as it seems to confirm the narrative of Romney being a detached millionaire unable to understand and, therefore, alleviate the suffering of the poor in America. The idea of a group of millionaires sitting behind closed doors using the language of denigration to describe the struggles of 47% of Americans is antithetical to the egalitarian nature of the majority of Americans. If Romney wanted to lose 47% of the vote, and then add another hefty 10% of undecideds, he could not have been more successful. The video is below:

When first viewing the video, I gave Romney the benefit of the doubt that he was not denigrating a large sector of the American voting population. I thought he, perhaps, was adopting a politically weary tone in that no matter what he did he would never be able to win the vote of these 47%, mostly due to the sharp political stratification in contemporary American politics. Then, I kept watching and this comment caused me some alarm:

I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

 Jon Stewart on the Daily Show had a humorous segment where he compared Mitt Romney to C. Montgomery Burns of the The Simpsons. The analogy, especially in the light of these comments, is apropos. This is the type of language expected from cartoon villains in describing the poor and unfortunate. It is not based upon reality, but upon caricature and stereotypes.

Mitt Romney cannot understand the struggle of the poor in America because from his lofty perch he cannot fathom the reason why such people even exist. I would not be surprised if he followed these comments with a contemporary Modest Proposal of his own and advocated the consumption of the poor. He is that detached from reality.

Reaction to his comments have been swift and furious. They have been running on every major network, and the Romney-Ryan campaign, and associated surrogates, have scrambled to explain his comments and defend his character. For a campaign that sought to humanize their candidate, the Romney camp seems to be offering a blueprint for how to lose a presidential race in humiliating fashion.

The Obama campaign has issued the following, highly effective, campaign ad:

h/t Daily Kos

This is the type of story that ends presidential campaigns.

There are other reactions to the 47% gaffe (though, I shouldn't say gaffe because since this was done behind closed doors this is simply an example of his true philosophy).

Peta Lindsay, presidential candidate of the Party of Socialism and Liberation, reacted by saying this is what the ruling elite think, but aren't supposed to say.

There is also criticism from the political right. Peggy Noonan, conservative columnist, stated that the Romney campaign was incompetent, and in need of an intervention.

Mitt Romney is having a no-good, very bad month of September.

The Necessity of Community

There is an episode in the classic Twilight Zone series which, I believe, is relevant to the contemporary political landscape.

In this episode, an Air Force test pilot suffering from amnesia wanders through a town empty of people. He enters a gas station, a police station, and a diner finding all the common accoutrements of life, but without the people that give the inanimate objects meaning and purpose. Gradually, his temperament evolved from confusion to frustration to anger to disconsolate weeping.

Physically, he never changed from the man that first entered the town, but on a mental level he underwent a dramatic shift. He was the same. The town was the same as any other American town. The only aspect not the same was the absence of people. This absence was so abnormal that the character just wanted out, to awake from the nightmare and live in a normal world filled with the living.

And, that is the most basic psychological fact:  people need people. Humanity, as a species, needs social contact in order to function properly. Without each other life does not hold meaning or purpose. Much as the insentient needs the sentient to give it meaning and purpose, so does the sentient need each other. Societal relationships are the heart of the human experience.

Community.

A community can be defined as a unified body of individuals; united in meaning and purpose, and sharing common values. We are not detached entities buzzing in our own separate vacuums, but are beings sharing a common space with other beings. Our words and actions influence each other, to the point that groups of individuals united in a common cause, or working towards a common goal, may generate a commonly shared feeling, or understanding, they will achieve their goal, no matter the obstacle. This is collective efficacy and it is a positive psychological development. Just ask any sports team or military unit.

This collective idea that unites humanity can also be seen in the realm of thought, or our very understanding of existence. There are three levels of the human mind:  the conscious, subconscious, and unconscious. Carl Jung noted that the level of the unconscious could even be further subdivided into the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious. In the collective unconscious the shared experiences of the human and pre-human species are collectively stored. These experiences are universal and contain the totality of our ancestral experiences. This concept eventually leads to the archetypes and comparative mythology of Joseph Campbell, where all humanity shares the same psychological myths imprinted upon their genetic code through the process of evolution.

We share goals. We share human experience. We share each other. We are all linked.

Community.

This leads to the contemporary political landscape and the philosophical argument being waged between Republicans and Democrats about the nature of humanity and the importance of social relationships. The following video that aired at the Democratic National Convention was widely lampooned by Republicans:

 

The point of contention concerned the statement, “The government is the only thing we all belong to.” Republicans, and Fox News, used the statement to insinuate Democrats believed we belong to the government as articles of property or as a commodity. This is counterintuitive as just a few moments before the same video stated, “We do believe you can use government in a good way.” Slaves cannot USE their master. The reasonable conclusion is that Democrats believe in the common belief of all Americans:  that we use the government as we would any other social club, whether to better the shared human experience or, returning to the concept of collective efficacy, to attain a common goal.

There are many definitions to the term “belong.” Republicans used the one most advantageous to their criticism, ignoring the context of the video which is contrary to their argument. If one listens to the entire video, especially the statement of citizens using the government in a good way, then the term “belong” simply means being a member of a social club or other organization. If my son becomes a member of the Boy Scouts, I do not weep, wail, and gnash my teeth at the thought of the organization owning my child, but that he is simply a member, one of many, belonging to an organization that he can use to better himself or his immediate environment.

Congressman Paul Ryan argued that when he gave his oath upon obtaining congressional office, he swore his service not to the government, but to the People. When deconstructing the statements of the DNC video it would appear that Congressman Ryan, unwittingly, is in agreement. There is a reciprocal relationship between the People and the government, where the latter is a social construct created by the former, and which the former, by their very membership, are the latter.

This can be explained another way. When we are born in the United States, we automatically become citizens of this nation. We are members of this nation. The nation does not own us. We own it by our very membership because we are the United States. The United States would not exist without our membership. In much the same way, the government would not exist without our membership or consent to exist.

This is the basis of the social contract.

In the beginning, humanity existed within the natural world acting as hyperindividuals, free of all social constructs or responsibilities. Whether one looks at the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke (a favorite of conservatives), or Jean-Jacques Rousseau, this natural state of humanity did not work. Humanity acting only within their own self-interest precipitated the necessity of the creation of government as a mechanism of safety and security. By shared agreement, humanity willingly relinquished some of their freedom in order to create an agency to protect their basic rights. There is even an escape clause written into the social contract that states, if the government acts in a tyrannical manner, not living up to its stated responsibility to its creators, then it may be disbanded and reformed. A return to the natural world is not possible as we are unable to live in such a state in harmony. The government is necessary.

This is simple common sense.

There is an important philosophical argument at play in the upcoming presidential election. It involves arguing whether humanity exists as hyperindividuals or collective members of the same shared community and human experience.

Hyperindividualism is a sociological term defined as “the tendency for people to act in a highly individual way, without regard to human society.” When we consider the current Republican platform to be based upon hyperindividualism, it must be noted they do not do this consistently. It is more of an economic hyperindividualism, whereas on a social or personal level they advocate a theocratic model. There is almost a sociopathic tendency within hyperindividualism, and it is a philosophy running counter to the human condition, especially when seen in the light of Locke or Rousseau.

Social constructs are necessary. The government is necessary. We all belong to these organizations, but they are owned by us. The creation cannot own the creator. It is a fallacy to believe this to be the case.

Rousseau wrote, “Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and in a body we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.” The general will is our will and it acts in our best interest because it is humanity which is the primary agent. We need each other and we need the constructs we created to maintain security and harmony in our lives.

Secretary of State Clinton was correct all those years ago when she wrote It Takes a Village. It truly does, otherwise we would just be lonely souls pressing the panic button.

First Letter

It is a worn-out tale that says the beginning of a story is the hardest section to write, but if all stories have a beginning, can it truly be that difficult?

I think it is more about fear and trepidation than toil. I do not think I shall bleed, sweat, or cry from the effort, at least I hope not, and even if I did I would take a shower and then return to crank my thoughts again. Sorry, Winston.

Therefore, I enter the public domain.

It is pure thought that I exercise and if anyone cares to join me on the journey then they shall be welcome.

My first post is nothing more than a greeting, a stroking of the intellect, a test of the software, etc. It will not deal with Quakers or Kum. It is my Dickensian birth, though I pray I am not as long-winded. Sorry, Charles.

Politics, philosophy, history, literature, society, religion, and anything else that catches my fancy will be the subject matter. Perhaps, I’ll even find time to speak of how the googleplex scientifically proves the existence of reincarnation. Perhaps, not.

I have always enjoyed first steps. Nothing trumps first crossing the threshold to enter the Forest Sauvage and engage in the heroic journey.

Rise, fellow proletarians, there are more of us than there are of them.