HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Economy & Education » Economy (Group) » Why I have no pity whatso...

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 07:36 PM

Why I have no pity whatsoever for Mitt Romney. None.

Nor do I have any pity for Ann Romney, their five sons, Paul Ryan, his wife (whatever her name is), or any children they may (or may not) have.

I would like to say I do not wish them ill, but in a way I do. They lost the election and perhaps for some people that's enough karmic justice. It's not enough for me.

The cornerstone of American democracy is the belief that all people are created equal. Jefferson said it, Lincoln repeated it, and the steadily bending arc of justice brings us closer to making that belief a reality.

We know that however equal people may be at the moment of their creation -- whether that moment is defined as conception or birth -- their lives proceed in varying degrees of inequality. Some come into this world surrounded by wealth and power and unlimited opportunities. Others arrive to unending poverty and frustration and disappointment. The difference between someone like me and someone like Mitt Romney is that I believe that disparity is unnatural and wrong and should be alleviated as much as possible, while Mitt and his supporters see inequality as natural and normal and right.

All of their policies, all of their actions are in support not only of the existing inequality but also in expanding it. No matter what they say and no matter how loudly they say that they support equality, their actions speak far louder than their words.

So Mitt Romney has no concept of there being anything wrong with his hosting a victory party only for the wealthy supporters. To him, they are the only people who matter. They are equal to him, and that's the only equality that matters to him.

Anything that would mitigate the disparity between Mitt Romney's elite class and the have-nots is simply not permitted under the administration he would have led. Labor unions that promote fair and living wages, good benefits, a just and equitable sharing of the wealth produced by the workers are simply not acceptable. Collective bargaining interferes with the process of dis-equalizing the distribution of wealth. Universal health care -- not mandated insurance -- again levels the distinction between rich and poor and is just not acceptable. Public education, which has traditionally given even the poorest citizens an "equal" chance to advance, is anathema to the Romney camp.

They use phrases like "trickle down economics" and "job creation" to dupe their followers, but they do it knowing that the phrases are lies. For them, lying is perfectly all right as long as it furthers the objectives of maintaining inequality. Similarly, they preach "family values" while feeling perfectly free not to practice those values themselves. That's because along with double standard of economic inequality comes a double standard of social behavior and responsibility. When one of their own -- Mark Stanford, David Vitter, John Ensign, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain -- falls from grace, there is no crucifixion. There may be complaints and criticism, but the double standard of morality applies right alongside the double standard of economic justice.

And they see absolutely nothing wrong with it. That's why they can't be shamed.

So how is that someone like Mitt Romney manages to collect as many votes as he did? If he has so little regard for people who are not like him, why do those people vote for him?

They vote for him and for other candidates like him, and they support the very policies that contribute to their own oppression, to the diminution of their own hopes and dreams and opportunities, because they are afraid. And more than anything else, they are afraid of change.

Because they have bought into the same belief that the world is and is supposed to be fundamentally unequal, they are afraid that any change will drop them into a less-equal status. Various forms of hope are dangled in front of them, everything from winning the lottery to inheriting a fabulous estate to making a killing in the stock market. None of these forms of hope, however, are actually attainable by their own efforts. They cling desperately to what little they may have and they hope to gain more through luck -- or the grace of their god -- but they do not see hard work and determination and equality of opportunity as viable roads to success.

How do they manage to hold these diametrically opposed notions in their heads at the same time? They do it because they are afraid not to. This is why so often they either become belligerent or enter into profound denial when confronted with facts, and especially when confronted with the fact of their own contradictory beliefs. The right wing mantra is that people should work, not expect hand-outs, but they also promote the belief that the true road to wealth is paved with unearned gold. It can't be both.

That's why I have no pity for Mitt Romney. I am deeply grateful that he lost. I loathe him as I loathe Sarah Palin and George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Todd Akin and Joe Walsh and all the other right wing fanatics who lie and prey upon other people's fears. They are parasites, they are cancers on the social fabric. They earned their defeat, and I can only hope that they learn something from it. But I have no faith that they will. For it is in their own best interest not to learn, and they will always put their own best interest ahead of anyone else's. No one else, you see, matters.

8 replies, 3894 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why I have no pity whatsoever for Mitt Romney. None. (Original post)
Tansy_Gold Nov 2012 OP
Mike Nelson Nov 2012 #1
Hugin Nov 2012 #2
Tansy_Gold Nov 2012 #6
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #3
niyad Nov 2012 #4
Fuddnik Nov 2012 #5
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #7
Post removed Nov 2012 #8

Response to Tansy_Gold (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 07:44 PM

1. I don't feel sorry for them, either.

They should go on an apology tour - of the USA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tansy_Gold (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 07:50 PM

2. ...

I'm going to use my super powers to pin this for awhile.

So, it can be seen and absorbed by readers of the Economy Group.

Already, Old Mitch is trying to re-start the refrain about Tax Cuts that we've heard for so long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugin (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 08:35 PM

6. :blush:

Thank you, Hugin. I'm honored.

I've spent quite a bit of time the past few days trying to explain to people why Rmoney got the support he did, and I thought it might be helpful to put it here in our safe little Economy group. To me the key to understanding it all is to keep in mind that the fundamental difference between the right (and especially the far right as championed by Rmoney) and the left lies in how they view "equality." I think I need to re-read Animal Farm.


Edited to add:

Take a look at the clip from the Joe Scarborough show that was posted by kpete here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021783208

And put each of the comments made by the various contributors into a context of "Does this support a social system dedicated to a proposition that all people are equal, or does it support a social system dedicated to the haves and dismissive of the have-nots?" I think it's Scarborough himself who makes the comparison that Rmoney's -- and by extension the GOP's -- message is NOT relevant to an 18-year-old Latino, but IS relevant to a 65-year-old white guy in the south. In the context of equality, which of those two demographics is probably more likely to believe in equality, and which isn't? And I'm talking in terms of racial equality, economic equality, gender equality, education, job, pay, housing, EVERYTHING. The more unequal the person WANTS things to be, the more likely they are to vote for someone like Mitt Rmoney or Todd Akin. The more EQUAL that person wants things to be, the more likely they are to vote for a Democrat or even someone of a more liberal party.

That's why I so firmly believe that if the Democrats -- with a capital D -- would take a MORE progressive stance and be MORE liberal and MORE aggressive on the side of equality, they could be even more successful politically. Not to mention the rest of the country would be better off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tansy_Gold (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 07:53 PM

3. mitt who?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tansy_Gold (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 07:57 PM

4. k and r--I have nothing but the deepest loathing and contempt for all reichwing pols and the

people who adore them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tansy_Gold (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 08:14 PM

5. Now, tell us how you really feel, Tansy.

I loathe Mitt Romney like I've never loathed another person. He and his ilk, including his wife are scum personified.

I can see him right now, eating Placidil by the handful, and stuffing envelopes with anthrax. He's not used to losing at anything. And for him to lose to a black man has to just rub salt into his wounded ego.

Eat shit and die Mitt. Same to Akin and Mourdock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tansy_Gold (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:50 AM

7. No pity for wealthy sociopaths. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tansy_Gold (Original post)

Reply to this thread