An Outsider’s View—15, Romney reveals Republican strategy in 2012 bid to oust President Obama
Posted on January 14th, 2012

By Shelton A. Gunaratne-Professor of mass communications emeritus, Minnesota State University Moorhead

The next two primaries””‚South Carolina on Jan. 21 and Florida on Jan. 31″”‚would most likely confirm Mitt Romney as the surefire candidate of the Republican Party for the U.S. presidency. Romney’s New Hampshire primary victory speech gave us a peek into the major themes, carefully crafted by his PR team that he would reiterate in his presidential election campaign against the incumbent President Barak Obama, the Democratic Party candidate.

Romney, 64, a multimillionaire businessman with a net worth of between $190 million and $250 million held in blind trusts, would blame Obama, 51, a community organizer and a constitutional law professor whose household income is less than $6 million mostly earned from the sales of his books, for not keeping three promises Obama made during the 2008 presidential campaign: “to bring people together”¦ to change the broken system in Washington “¦ [and] to improve our nation.”

Romney has already denounced Obama’s “Buffett Rule”””‚which would ensure that millionaires couldn’t pay a lower tax rate than middle-class families””‚as “class warfare.” The U.S. Congress, almost one-half of which comprises millionaires, has obstructed Obama’s plan to “change the broken system in Washington.”  My hunch is that Obama intended to carefully diminish the nexus between the nation’s 1 percent super-rich and the U.S. Congress, the Trojan horse that ensures theprivileges of the self-same class. No president can change “the broken system” without transforming the composition of the Congress. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s inane ruling allowing “super-PACs” with unlimited spending power on the phony grounds of enhancing the freedom of speech is likely to make the situation worse.

Romney and the GOP take cover behind the antediluvian trickle-down theory to justify not increasing the tax rate on the super rich. They argue that free enterprise and hard work created the super-rich who generated the jobs for the less enterprising majority. The “invisible hand” was at work. The Fed should assist this natural process and avoid redistributing the national income in the form of social security, “Obama care” and the so-called “socialist” entitlements. In other words, the Republicans think that there is no other way but the free-enterprise way “to improve our nation.” They don’t believe that the era of unbridled “capitalism” has come to an end.

In his New Hampshire victory speech, Romney accused Obama of putting free enterprise on trial””‚”such a mistake for our Party and for our nation.” Moreover, Romney claimed Obama has already divided  “us with the bitter politics of envy.”

 Romney asserted, “We must offer an alternative vision. I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success. In these difficult times, we cannot abandon the core values that define us as unique “”‚ We are One Nation, Under God.”

Romney declared that he would “offer the American ideals of economic freedom a clear and unapologetic defense.” His campaign was “about more than replacing a president; it is about saving the soul of America.” Romney then gave a list of differences between his vision for America and that of Obama’s:

  • Obama wanted to “fundamentally transform” America. Romney wanted to restore America to the founding principles that made the United States great.
  • Obama wanted to turn America into a European style entitlement society. Romney wanted to ensure that the United States remain a free and prosperous land of opportunity.
  • Obama took his inspiration from the capitals of Europe. Romney looked to the cities and small towns of America.
  • Obama put his faith in government. Romney put his faith in the [top 1 percent of] American people.
  • Obama was making the federal government bigger, burdensome and bloated. Romney would make it simpler, smaller and smarter.
  • Obama raised the national debt [to $14 trillion following the misadventures of Republican administration of President Bush]. Romney would cut, cap and balance the budget.
  • Obama enacted the job-killing regulations. Romney would eliminate them.
  • Obama lost the country’s AAA credit rating. Romney would restore it.
  • Obama passed “Obama care.” Romney would repeal it.
  • Internationally, Obama adopted an appeasement strategy because Obama believed America’s role as leader in the world was a thing of the past. Romney believed a strong America must “”…” and would “”…” lead the future.
  • Obama failed to see the need for overwhelming American military superiority. Romney would insist on a military so powerful no one would think of challenging it.
  • Obama chastised friends like Israel. Romney would stand with friends of the United States.
  • Obama apologized for America. Romney would never apologize for the greatest nation in the history of the Earth.

In my view, Romney’s alternative vision for America reeks of arrogance in the age of globalization. The world is unlikely to bekowtowed by the might-is-right stance of a Romney administration. Romney’ vision ignores America’s weakened economy in the light of the rise of Asia. It shows no compassion for the hoi polloi, while it mollycoddles the super-rich and the upper class as the cream of the capitalist socio-economic system.

Romney’s alternative vision is an illusion that will bring out the Wall Street protestors back into action against the immoral concentration of money and power in the top 1 percent.  It will throw back America to the days of its founding fathers that prospered from the exploitation of slaves. It will fail “to bring people together”¦ to change the broken system in Washington “¦ [and] to improve our nation.” 

The best bet for America would be to return Obama to the White House for a second term together with a Democratic-majority Congress so that he could execute his promises bypassing the pesky nonsense of the Tea Party troglodytes, right-wing libertarians, racists and their assorted cronies. The 90 percent majority should demand the immediate abolition of “super-PACs” to slash the power of money and the media.

Most of all, the majority should be cautious in casting their votes to elect millionaires and billionaires to the U.S. Congress for the principal concern of this elite is to preserve the status quo””‚their privileges in the pursuit of ceaseless capital accumulation through the exploitation of labor and brain power worldwide.

One Response to “An Outsider’s View—15, Romney reveals Republican strategy in 2012 bid to oust President Obama”

  1. jimmy Says:

    Shelton
    First of all I am very proud of my fellow Srilankan being a Professor of a University in America.

    I am sure Obama will win the Presidency because More independents will vote for him than Romney
    I am disappointed with Republicans . How can any one in the right mind could go against the tax loopholes the rich enjoy
    Obamas victory depend on the swing states like Ohio , Virginia, Florida and Pensylvania
    I wil be happy if Donald Trump or Ron Paul contest as Independents where they can take the votes from Republicans and it will help Obamas victory easily

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 


Copyright © 2020 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress