In 2008, in the wake of Barack Obama’s nomination, Michelle
Obama declared that she was more proud than ever of America. In 2012, I have never been more disappointed.
This should be a year where the grand ideas of Republicans
and Democrats meet in the open and are debated on their merits. The American people were to weigh the costs
and benefits of health care, entitlement reforms, tax reform, and more, and
decide which party, and which candidate, has the vision that they believe
in. Instead, we have two candidates with
a grand total of zero ideas, biting each other in the knee caps, hoping to be
the least dirty by November 6.
On the democratic side, Barack Obama has gone to great lengths
not to run on his legacy as a president, despite some of the large legislative
accomplishments that defined his presidency.
Instead, he slings mud at Romney, hoping to hang the man from the
rafters based on his wooden personality and unbelievable personable
wealth. Romney, Obama says, doesn’t
understand you. His friends don’t sit
around playing baseball or watching Nascar; they own baseball and Nascar
teams. His policies will help line the
pockets of the Romney family first and foremost, then those of Bain’s
principles, and then the remainder of his Wall St. brethren (though, probably
not me). However, Obama doesn’t say what
he’d do better, aside from the incredibly vague promise of not raising taxes on
“the middle class”. He acknowledges the
seriousness of the debt crisis and the necessity of entitlement reform, but he
doesn’t show what policies he would propose in a second term to alleviate the
building pressure or, more importantly, how he would sell these ideas to his
Republican colleagues in congress.
This last point is probably the most important one. Obama entered the scene in 2008 with a
tremendous lead in the popular vote and electoral college, giving him a clear
mandate to follow through with his campaign promises – certainly more of a
mandate than George W. Bush could claim in 2004 (and, yes, he did claim a “mandate”
to follow his “conservative” principles).
Obama took this mandate and pushed forward with health care reform ,
along the way seeking to find a common ground with the Republican minority (and
attempting to fulfill his second campaign promise of a more united government). Obama was hopelessly naïve, though. Through health care, financial reform, and
the debt ceiling, Obama approached the table ready to play a game of “Solve
America’s Problems”. The naivety of this
was that the Republicans were not playing the same game; they wanted to play “Kill
the King”. And, because of this, Obama
couldn’t maneuver around the Republicans at all, since their only concern was guaranteeing the failure of
the democratic president and paving the way for a republican successor. Now, this is less of an issue in a second
term – in 2004, this was a repeating game for Obama, assuming a second term; in
2012, it’s Obama’s last term, and he doesn’t have to worry about meddlesome repercussions
as much. That said, Obama didn’t
demonstrate his strength when his party was at the height of their power, with
clear majorities in the Senate and House; I have doubts that he will grow
bolder, stronger, and more forceful in a second term.
Now, for the Republican side, we have Willard “Mitt” Romney
(hey, if the Republicans could spend all of 2008 screaming “BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA”, I can call Mitt by his given name, Willard) and Paul Ryan. This should be the team I am routing for, to
be honest. Romney was a successful
businessman and governor, and showed tremendous leadership throughout his
career. Ryan proved to be the
intellectual leader of the Republican party over the past several years,
reinvigorating an ailing party. However,
since becoming the presumptive nominees, both men have shown an astounding lack
of specificity in there plans and lack of intellectual integrity in their arguments.
For Mitt, the question is, why aren’t you running on your
record? Romney isn’t talking about a
single specific thing he did as governor, head of the Salt Lake City Olympic
Committee, OR as the CEO of Bain Capital.
How can I possibly believe that your business and government experience
give you the right skills to be president when you won’t talk about what you
have done, what you have learned, and how you can apply these skills to fix
America’s vast problems? I have to
believe that his record as a corporate raider is significantly less attractive
than his bullshit line of “I created hundreds of billions of jobs” would have
you believe. I also believe that his
record as governor was neither as impressive as it should be for a potential
commander in chief nor as conservative as it needed to be for a modern
Republican candidate.
With Ryan, we have a man who attacks Obama for (1) ideas
that Obama doesn’t actually support but (2) Paul Ryan actually does. For example, Obama never cut $700+ billion in
spending from Medicare through lower benefits, though Ryan’s own budget
suggests dollar cuts of this magnitude without specifying where they come from
(implying that it could be services, instead of lower negotiated prices, as
seen in Obamacare). Ryan promises a bold
new future where everyone pays less tax, keeps more money in their bank
account, gets better social services from the government (something that every
voter wants, no matter how “conservative” they are), and yet the government
pays down its debt faster. Perhaps Ryan and
Romney are distinguished students from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and
Wizardry (and perhaps Romney’s name is actually Wizard, not Willard). If that’s the case, I say “bravo” for creative
use of magic in solving your country’s financial woes. If not, I have to say: are you kidding
me? Because, using anything short of
magic, this plan doesn’t add up.
Budgetary issues isn’t the only place where Romney shows an
alarming lack of specificity. In fact,
for his entire 59-point economic plan, he doesn’t provide a single law which he
would change, specific tax loophole that would broaden the tax base (though he
does push a rather large tax cut despite the looming deficit), or even a
specific social policy that he would push for (or a plan to get the Senate
democrats to acquiesce to any of these ideas!)
Instead, his only ideas are to repeal every single thing that Obama did
over his entire presidency on “day one”, pushing the country back to Bush-era
policies. And, isn’t that what Obama had
a clear-cut mandate to change in 2008? I
doubt anyone wants to return to 2007-2008, when the economy was a falling knife
(which both Obama and Bush cut themselves on while trying to catch). With that said, what the hell are you going
to do as president, Mitt? Because,
seriously, you’re asking us for the keys to the car without even saying where
you want to drive to. My car may be a
piece of shit, but the last thing I want to see is my car careening off the
Grand Canyon.
So, what can we do? I
think my only option is to get into politics myself. Unfortunately, I couldn’t bring myself to
constantly beg for money to run and pander to the most attractive demographic. It looks like all I can do at this point is
swallow one of these candidates’ faults and cast my vote – and pray for better
in 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment