As an American citizen with deep-rooted conservative values, I feel great disappointment in the aftermath of Mitt Romney’s infamous “47 Percent” comments. However, my disappointment is not the result of what Mr. Romney said, but rather, it stems from our country’s negative reaction to his common sense conclusion: too many in this country take from the system, but they do not give back.
For readers who are unaware of the video that led to this political firestorm, Romney was secretly taped at a May fundraiser saying that, “there are 47 percent (of the American public) that will vote for (President Obama) no matter what…who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that the government has the responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it… These are people who pay no income tax… so our message of lower taxes doesn’t connect… My job is not to worry about those people. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center.”
This statement is one of political strategy, not one of governing strategy. In other words, the fact that 47 percent of the American people will vote blue in November “no matter what” means that it would be nonsensical to focus campaign resources on this demographic, but it does not mean that Romney is apathetic toward their concerns. He is admitting a glaring — but painful — truth: Big government proponents have developed large segments of society that are entirely dependent on federal aid for their daily wellbeing. Therefore, the Romney-Ryan message of less government and increased personal responsibility does not resonate with people living on the government dime because it is a direct attack on the entitlement system from which they benefit.
Political pundits and Democratic candidates have pounced on Romney’s remarks, calling them short sighted and greedy. However, I listen to his comments and cannot help but feel some relief; someone has finally taken the bold but necessary step to admitting that our country is on a path toward complete dependence on the government. Nearly half of all Americans have been duped into thinking that daily provisions are the responsibility of federal bureaucrats, and that the only way to preserve those benefits is to vote for candidates who promise more. Instead, we need a candidate who promises less.
The public outcry resulting from Romney’s comments highlights the monumental task facing the GOP this election. Romney is competing against a big-government establishment that grants free handouts under the pretenses of providing for the “general welfare” and establishing domestic equality, even though no such powers related to the provision of healthcare, food, housing or tuition money are enumerated in our Constitution.
Romney seeks a tougher path for America, but one that relies on the demonstrated success that comes with individual responsibility. His opponents disagree, and would rather see the American people enslaved in their dependence than liberated in their self-reliance. I would encourage all young people to consider one question when voting this November: what better way for a politician to retain public office than to equate your daily subsistence with his or her political success?
