Surprise surprise! Upon news of Mitt Romney’s dismissal of the forty seven percent of voters he expects to remain loyal to Obama “no matter what,” establishment Republicans are either cowering and hiding (their two preferred pastimes) or joining liberals in taking pot shots at the Republican presidential nominee. Considering how adamantly these people demand party unity whenever one of their favored RINOs joins the Democrats in a complete betrayal of conservative principle, it is altogether amazing that they will so quickly turn on any Republican who dares disparage the beneficent “nanny state” and its chronically dependent constituency. Or perhaps it is not really so amazing after all.
Clearly, an ominously large group of “moderates” are intent on moving the GOP to the left, in order to eliminate any real contrast between the two parties. By this they hope to escape ridicule from the liberal press, though historically they have never enjoyed equal status with the undiluted liberalism of Democrats (and they never will). Nevertheless, they seize any opportunity to fawn, and thereby show themselves superior to the crude and primeval principles undergirding real conservatism.
David Brooks, the token “conservative” in residence at the New York Times, likened Romney to Thursten Howell III of Gilligan’s Island. William Kristol of the Weekly Standard characterized his comment as “stupid and arrogant,” and further attempted to draw a moral equivalency with Barack Obama’s “bitter clingers” diatribe of 2008. Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan described the Romney campaign as “incompetent,” which she later upgraded to “a rolling calamity.” Not surprisingly, the liberal media has thoroughly relished what it perceives as infighting among “conservatives.”
Yet in spite of these profound and stirring platitudes, Governor Romney’s statement represents great news for the American people, or at least to those who believe in their country’s promise of opportunity and freedom. Of even greater significance is that Romney has refused to back away from the fundamental truth of his commentary. In short, he can never win the loyalty of that segment of the electorate which eagerly condones the disaster Obama has perpetrated, since he ostensibly represents their best hope of staying on the public dole. Nor should Romney consider making any appeal to them on such a basis. Unlike the politically hapless “strategizing” of those GOP “moderates,” Romney recognizes the futility of attempting to compete for votes by offering his own “giveaways.” In a contest of squandering the national treasury for the pursuit of political empowerment, Democrats will always win.
Responding in a manner that should greatly encourage his serious conservative supporters (Brooks, Noonan, Kristol and their kind notwithstanding), Romney seized the occasion of this manufactured “controversy” by digging in his heels. Despite all of the caterwauling and accusations, he has in no way dismissed that “forty seven percent” as Americans, but merely as an unreachable voting bloc, whose support would be futile to court. Such an endeavor would require the complete abandonment of the remainder of the American people who actually desire the preservation of a country in which they can aspire and labor to make their dreams become reality. It is they who are appalled by the degree to which the once transcendent “American spirit” has increasingly been supplanted by a presumption of “entitlement” to the wealth and earnings of others. And it is they who, in wholehearted agreement, will rally to Romney’s camp if he maintains his resolve.
Far from committing some unpardonable sin as his critics allege, Mitt Romney merely stated the obvious, reflecting such timeless truths as President John Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you” exhortation of his 1961 inaugural address. However, current liberal ideology represents a stark departure from President Kennedy’s vision. Indeed the segment of the population that considers itself perpetually needing government for its survival has mushroomed to monstrous proportions, and as is the case in those European nations that pursued this dark course, it threatens to cripple and collapse the economy under its enormous weight.
Romney warned of these people who “believe they are victims,” and who expect the government to provide everything from “health care to food to housing to you name it.” He is altogether correct in asserting that, as a candidate, he will “never convince them that they should take responsibility and care for their lives,” especially while his opponent continues offering empty utopian promises of a full and happy existence at “government” expense.
As a grim reality check, even a cursory glance at the condition of this nation in 2012 reveals a declining economy, and worse, a narrowing window of opportunity for motivated individuals to pursue their ambitions to the general betterment of themselves and their communities. The economic climate once enjoyed by America’s entrepreneurs and self-starters has been systematically undermined by a government that regards them as the enemy of its agenda, while it lauds those who, through their helplessness and subservience, would empower it beyond the founders’ worst nightmares.
The only element of Romney’s commentary that warrants debate it is that the segment of the population which exists in a perennially needy condition (and is contented to remain so) has actually risen to forty seven percent of the nation’s population. If Americans want to maintain a country to pass on to their posterity, they had better hope that the number of people suffering with a chronic addiction to the public trough has not yet risen to that level.
Amazingly, in Obama’s world, the downturn of economic activity in the Heartland, which has dragged on for four years, is perfectly acceptable, as evidenced recently by his callous and ludicrous assertion that “the private sector is doing fine.” Such an optimistic appraisal of the faltering business activity can only be concocted in a world where the average person’s lot is to exist between a soup line and a roadside work crew (complete with shovel, of course). Once the veneer is removed, this is the ugly and dangerous face of that “change” which the American people were so glowingly promised in 2008.
Copyright ©2012 Christopher G. Adamo