Romney is a backwards choice

 366 total views

In his New Hampshire primary victory speech, Mitt Romney described this year’s presidential election as “a choice between two very different destinies.” He argued that it was a choice between Obama, who supposedly “wants to ‘fundamentally transform’ America” and Romney, and his super-awesome vision of a ‘restored America,’ reintroducing “the founding principles that made this country great.’ This conservative vision of America evoked a rapturous applause. Granted, his audience was his fans – a declaration about his indifference to cauliflower would have evoked a similar reaction. This reaction highlights a certain counter-progressive attitude in American society.

The USA is ruled by a codified constitution that was made in 1787. From this text, America developed its complex federal governmental system, with three branches of political power all acting as a check on each other, often leaving the state politically deadlocked on contentious issues, such as health care. In addition to this, the nation’s federal law is centered around the Constitution’s supreme laws, thus protecting the values of the founding fathers; to protect the legacy of America’s origins as the City upon a Hill.

On first glance, this seems to be a good way of protecting positive moral values; however, when one considers that only 27 amendments have been made to the US Constitution in over 200 years, and how the world has changed since the founding fathers drew up the Constitution in 1787 it seems such a conservative attitude may be stunting progression.

To break away from traditions is a step into the unknown, and whilst there is a risk that the result of trying something new may not be as satisfactory as doing things the traditional way, but in taking this risk, great things may be accomplished that would never have been possible before. Benjamin Franklin – one of the founding fathers of the United States – kept a diary, in which he had a list of 13 “virtues”, and in a quest for self-improvement, he would make note of which virtues his day’s activities had displayed. Surely, considering the value they place on the deeds of the founding fathers, the American electorate would want a leader to improve their society?

Something needs to fundamentally change; troglodyte Romney’s vision of a ‘restored America’, promoting old-school laissez faire ideas about a small state and big independent enterprise may, if made reality, may do more harm than good. It already appears that Mitt is the alternative to Obama’s presidency. If Romney gets into power, what does it mean for the western world? What would that say about the American people? What would that say about the stagnant mire that is American politics?

Similar Posts
Latest Posts from

1 Comment

  1. I think the problem with Romney isn’t that he imagines a “return to the America our founders imagined” or whatever he says in his stump speech; they’re highly likely to be full of meaningless rhetoric anyway. The problem with Romney is that he is a fundamentally unknowable character. It should be borne in mind when discussing the politician Mitt Romney who is currently running for President that we are discussing a 2012 version of Mitt Romney who is fundamentally different to previous incarnations of the former Governor of Massachusets. The current incarnation is essentially a more-moderate-that-his-opponents Republican who claims to have special expertise on the economy because he was CEO of Bain Capital. This is a completely different brand to what was being sold in 2008 when he ran as a fairly extreme social conservative who wanted to “double Guantanamo” and was basically trying to be Ned Flanders, with all his “gee” and “golly gosh” horseshit. He also had some fairly embarrassing moments when he would talk to black voters about “bling bling” and ask them “who let the dogs out.” Shit you not, YouTube it. Even different still is the 1994 Romney who ran for the US Senate against Ted Kennedy – a social libertarian denouncing Reagan-Bush and incredibly claiming to be some kind of advocate of gay rights. Remember, this is the guy who passed the Massachusets healthcare bill on which Obama’s version was modelled. If you want a short masterclass in spin then I suggest you check out his answers when he’s asked about that.

    I would say, Romney is even more of a wild card than someone like Gingrich because at least with him you actually know he’s a fucking crazy narcissist who cheated on his wife whilst she had cancer and wants to build scientifically pointless US colonies on the moon. With Romney, he’s been so many different people that you really have no idea who he is. But in my view, he is essentially a corporatist politician who exists solely to further the interests of big corporations and has no discernible views on anything else aside from making life easier for firms like Bain Capital. I seriously doubt he gives a shit about turning America into a country that resembles Pleasantville. Also, there are some pretty strong arguments in favour of a codified constitution that is xtremeky difficult to change, but I wasn’t sure if you were arguing against that idea or not so I left it.

Comments are closed.