Politics: The Trouble with Romney
In the midst of what likely is to become the bloodiest of all Presidential mano-a-manos, the last man standing in the bid to become the champion of the Conservative route, Mitt Romney, suffers the insufferable—too smart for his own good.
Romney is an indisputably competent businessman, with an eye and a head for the microeconomic and macroeconomic indicators that comprise the world of business commerce. At a mere glance, he likely can recognize leading indications of trends and, in a matter of minutes, deftly put his finger on just where and how the pulse will manifest. Yet, those same indicators will enslave noted economists in ponderings, for weeks, only to revise a bunch of tea leaves that never seem to lie where they should. Like most well-minted business experts, to Romney, the if’s clearly indicate the irrefutable then’s, without having to trifle with the logical minutia in-between.
But this is the world of Romney and other members of the Conservative Choir. The economic calculus that drives capital, as well as the language of capital, itself, comprise a world where men like Romney not only are comfortable, but they are the binocular lenses through which they view the doings of commerce. It enables their glib sound-bites that are more reflective of news headline. They are not conversational explanations of that which remains inscrutably arcane between the if’s and then’s of macroeconomics. Even if Romney’s pedantic proclamations should be intuitively clear enough to warrant no explanations, they tend to leave large amounts of room for denial and disbelief.
When Romney boldly took the stage to stare down the NAACP and deliver an unadulterated message of devotion, it was a decision that should be heralded as a blow against executive retreat and one for unassailled intent; however and though his remarks about repealing Obamacare were precisely on-target with respect to his campaign agenda and prescient mandate, they exhibited his tone-deafness to just how that particular audience might receive such a message. Until that point, Romney had garnered some applause, albeit polite, for his candor and views that comported even with so-called liberal Black America. Even when he spoke of needing to constrain rising debt and out-of-control spending, the audience remained poised in respectful silence. But, when “their man’s” signature bill, Obamacare, was put on the list of things needing to be cut, they revolted in a chorus of disdainful departure from the air of respect commanded by the occasion.
Instead of bringing the audience to calm and asking for the chance to explain what he meant and why he meant it, Romney missed what could have been one of the most promising teachable moments he may get for the duration of his campaign. He should have said, “Let me explain why this is important.” And, from that point, he should have walked them through Economics .009, much simpler than Economics 101, and pieced together the dynamics that would take place and would lead to unspeakable devastation for the country…AND THEM. And, given Romney’s arguable comfort with business realities, he could have capably unleashed the devil in the morass of details that has escaped anyone as unschooled in economic realities as is the average Black voter. If there is ONE thing that scares the pudding out of Blacks, it is the devil.
No one plans on being a fool. And, if Romney had left the NAACP audience with a fundamental understanding of how legislation like Obamacare impacts the entirety of the economy, he would have sounded a bell that would ring and resonate for the rest of the campaign. It would have left the audience with a better approach to thinking that may forever escape many, if not handheld through the logic of it all.
This, Romney could have done in a way that may not have gotten many votes this November, but it may have convinced many that Obama was not worthy of their vote. He need not have gotten their votes, so long as he preempted Obama’s gains. But, like most Conservatives, for Romney, facts, figures, and cold actuarial calculations is thought to be all that is necessary to win an argument…argument, yes. Elections…NOT!!!
Milt Thomas is an executive consultant and author of BLACK, DUMB and BAREFOOT...AND KNOCKED UP BY THE DEMOCRATS. He also blogs at: http://myouthouse.net/