On the Other Hand

If I were assigned the unenviable task of trying to make a rational case for Mitt Romney’s election it would go something like this;

“After four years the nation is not appreciably better financially than when Obama took office. This may be the result of an intransigent disciplined Republican opposition committed solely to his defeat. But in an emergency the financial well being of the nation trumps democracy as it’s supposed to work. If the past is prologue Romney will have a more compliant Congress to enact his agenda. There’s no reason to think that Obama will be more successful with Congressional Republicans than he was in his first two years with a Democratic House and a Senate, filibuster proof until Ted Kennedy’s death after a hundred and thirty three days. It may not be nice for corporations to refrain from investing available money that would create jobs because it would help Obama. But that would change to some degree if Romney is elected. To the extent that Republicans have control of the nation they’ll have some interest in working for it rather than against it as they have since Obama became president. It may not be pretty, but that’s the way it is.”

Remember, this is just an exercise. The specifics of Romney’s agenda, that a sympathetic Congress would be likely to enact, are by themselves grounds to knock the whole argument into a cocked hat. As a strictly practical matter they would be voting for a candidate who advocates expanding the fiscal policies of a man whose presidency is held in such regard that his name was barely mentioned at his party’s convention. But there are unaffiliated pragmatic voters who may be susceptible to my feeble attempt at logic. I hope enough of them give further thought to the consequences.

In a deeper sense these people would be selling the nation’s soul and the well being of younger Americans on the premise of little more than a hunch, that the next four years will be better for themselves. It’s sort of Hansel and Gretelish, enough food for two but not for four. It’s all quite simple. For the past thirty years the disparity of wealth has been growing with financial support from an already rich minority. A major step was taken in just one day by the Citizens United decision. To paraphrase an old song, Republicans and their nominee want to help the rich to continue getting richer while the poor are having children, that are becoming more expensive to raise and particularly to educate to their potential.

It’s inaccurate to paint all extremely wealthy people with the same brush, Warren Buffet being a case in point. But a majority is inexorably devoted to becoming even wealthier. Should they control both the executive and legislative branches of government, resulting from an election where the lines are as clearly drawn as this one, with many poorer voters disenfranchised, there’s no telling where they’ll stop. It’s not fear mongering to suggest that some sort of serfdom could be in our future. Right wing “historians" take note. This is something for which the early Americans known as “settlers” would never have settled.