Why You Should Vote Obama

The end game of years of campaigning by both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is near.  Odds are, the victor will set the policy in Washington over the next four years and the loser will drop into relative obscurity.  Until then, the race appears very, very close.  National polling often has the two tickets apart by a mere fraction of a point.  As the electoral-college count projections seem to favor the President, numbers on how independents split, along with early voting exit polls, seem to favor the former governor.  As tight as it appears, this could be something that looks like the 2000 election.  Many have pointed out that the contrasts between these two factions aren’t as stark, as say, the differences between the Libertarians and the Green Party, but rest assured, these are two very different visions of America’s future.

The President’s crowning achievement of his first term was the Affordable Care Act.   This is what’s largely seen by both sides to be the first step towards a fully federalized health care system.  The original health care debate mainly started as a result of a dramatic increase in costs and premiums.  However, the dialogue was hijacked by the left and turned it into an opportunity to create another monstrous government program along with a score of new taxes that debilitate individuals and struggling businesses, alike.  Real reform like curtailing frivolous medical lawsuits, which would lower liability insurance premiums for doctors and cut costs for patients, was gently swept under the rug.  Instead, the President and Congress jammed through their bill using a tactic that’s never been used for legislation of this magnitude, avoiding the process of reconciliation as laid out in the Constitution.  It was even sold as a tool to lower the deficit but current numbers estimate the overhaul will actually add to our nation’s debt.  Nevertheless, its passage formed a new bureaucracy that crushes hiring and does little if anything to improve health insurance premium costs.  Those large businesses and unions fortunate enough can opt out of the program and pay a fine which consumers may end up bearing.  Regrettably, the small businesses that create the overwhelming majority of new jobs in America will get hit.  As so many teeter from red to black, already suffering from a credit shortage that has stuck since the 2008 recession, they’ll now incur costs that will no doubt contribute to higher unemployment and create new bankruptcies.  A majority of Americans along with the Romney/Ryan ticket take issue with the program.  Others embrace Obamacare.  You may be one of them.  If undecided, the choice is clear.  If you’re into bankruptcies, more taxes, more debt, ignoring real healthcare reform, and adding to the unemployment rolls…then the Affordable Care Act is for you.  And there’s no question--you should vote Obama.

As one unaffordable government program takes shape, a host of others, already established, are reaching their breaking points.  The Obama age has seen a new development.  Social Security revenues, for the first time in our history, aren’t able to pay all its benefits.  As a result, it’s dipping into the general fund where we’re forced to borrow.  Simple GOP reforms like modernizing the retirement age to curb future expenditures has brought vitriol from the Left, portraying such necessary steps as akin to euthanasia.  Also, other federal programs like Medicare, food stamps, disability insurance, welfare, and unemployment insurance have seen huge increases in cost and participation during Obama’s reign.  Not only are these programs busting the budget, as is, but with so many taking advantage of government support our nation is defying the independent spirit of the original American, relegating the citizenry to a life of government dependence.  From the Medicaid payments that cover a birth, to the retirement income from Social Security, and everything in between, we are slowly beginning to see a growing demographic that is fully dependant on government for nearly every aspect of their existence.  Perhaps you find these developments favorable.  Perhaps a life where people are never encouraged to be productive, never contribute income tax, and habitually have their healthcare, food, housing, education, and retirement paid for by the government sounds good to you.  Perhaps insane European tax rates to pay those benefits, while nurturing a new unproductive class that finds government benefits an easier path than working for a living is something you find desirable.  If so, there’s only one candidate for you--vote Obama.        

Over recent years, green energy companies have received huge government incentives under the guise of stimulus for the economy.  Many have connections with the administration and reaped the rewards.  Unfortunately, several of these poorly thought out ventures have gone bankrupt or have brought greater productivity to other countries.  Even several conventional energy companies have taken advantage of these subsidies, giving some of America’s largest corporations a tax-free card.  When it comes to traditional energy sources that have been tried and true for over a century the President has gone to great lengths to limit their production, increasing the costs to consumers.  The President blocked the Keystone Pipeline that would have sent oil from Canada to be refined in the U.S.  Now, that opportunity along with the jobs it would have created are gone.  In addition, the EPA has put the squeeze on energy providers like coal companies, and the administration has denied a slew of oil drilling and refinery permits.  At a moment in history when the science of oil is changing and we’re finding more domestically, even to the point where some studies claim the U.S. has the potential to be the world’s number one oil producer, it boggles the mind why the President has taken such a negative stance on energy--especially, in the face of record gasoline prices.  But of course, there are those that don’t want inexpensive gas in their cars or affordable home energy costs.  There are those that don’t want lower unemployment with jobs in the energy sector or acquire fewer resources from overseas.  You may be one of these people.  If that’s the case, the current administration is where you should lend your support--vote Obama.

Abroad, the President has faired slightly better.  Mainly, because he followed up on Bin Laden and adopted the Bush timeline for troop withdraws in Iraq.  His other positives include keeping Gitmo open and utilizing drone attacks against the wishes of his left wing base, even breaking promises to the contrary.  But with few exceptions, the administration’s foreign policy philosophy has been naïve and our adversaries have latched on to it.  The President was going to adopt a softer tone than his predecessor, changing wording on official government documents--eliminating terms like “war on terror”.  Soon, the administration’s newspeak translated into action.  We saw how trying terrorists domestically fell flat on its face.  Then there was the proposal to sit down with America’s antagonists and iron things out.  This flawed notion allowed a meeting with Hugo Chavez that became an international embarrassment.  Then there was the speech given in Cairo.  Intended to heal wounds, it only emboldened those that hate us.  Once the Arab spring rose under the façade of secularism and the President’s support waned for those that held back the tide of extremists, countries like Libya and Egypt were taken over by militants and their vitriol became more squarely honed on America and Israel.  As our officials were slain and classified documents strewn about the shell that was once our embassy in Benghazi, it’s easy to understand how soft peddling our enemies encourages attacks like these.  It’s no wonder Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Putin have endorsed the President for reelection. They’ve had it pretty good these last few years.  However, some of us here at home would prefer a more postured foreign policy from the United States.  But who knows?  You may go for the gullible, Chamberlain approach.  In which case--vote Obama.

          In 2008 we saw an enthusiasm to get away from Bush.  In 2009 and ‘10 we saw a willingness to get away from Obama.  Oddly, the President is hastening the declines that used to be associated with the previous administration.  But hell, you probably like that sort of thing.  So, you better vote Obama. 

Coming Apart by Charles Murray: A Book Report

          Have you ever heard some old guy whine about how America went into the toilet in the mid 1960’s and never quite recovered? Of course, we all have. Most people my age just tend to roll their eyes, as the cliché goes in one ear and out the other. With certainty, all stripes of Americans recognize the cultural shift of that era but many tend to think it’s more defined by its progress rather than its regression. Certainly, several social gains we’re achieved, but as a net result…the idea that the 1960’s ruined a large part of American life is absolutely, undeniably true. And Charles Murray has the data to prove it.
          Now, before you chuck your non-fat latte at the next table’s lap dog, please hear me out. And to get there, first understand that the title premise of Coming Apart might even find appeal for those on the left. The central thesis is that a new upper class has formed that is isolated in more ways and more so than ever before. Because of that and other factors the working class has suffered. Doesn’t this sound like a familiar 1% argument that we’ve heard so much about in recent years? It’s not quite that simple, though. The rich taking from the poor doesn’t begin to explain this very nuanced phenomenon.
          The transformation began when college educations started to become more common in the 1950’s. Also, intelligence became more valued in the workplace and with these two factors both intelligence and financial success became consolidated in the same demographic. Murray explores the direction marriages went, becoming less educationally diverse and with more IQ similarity. In short, smart men and women began going to college in large numbers, meeting, and marrying; eventually consolidating smarts and money and passing these advantages on to their children.
          This arrangement might seem commonplace today, but that wasn’t always the case prior to the mid 20th century. There has certainly always been an uber elite, but the top 20% of Americans used to look much more like those in other classes. People married earlier. If someone went to college, often their spouse did not. Pre 1960’s Americans largely shared the same tastes, food, cars, home geography, leisure activities, literature, family structures, ethics, education, language, and a dedication to religious and civic events. Now, the new upper class, which in some ways resembles more of a European aristocracy than a product of American culture, embraces increasingly distinct differences from their working class counterparts.
          Before you surmise that this is an indictment of the wealthy, please note that Murray reaches no such conclusion. His contention is that this new, pronounced alienation between upper and working class has damaged those demographics and society as a whole. The upper class benefits from the working class’s influence to remain grounded in the realities and the simplicities of common American life, but the new working class is in dire need to follow some of the examples of the more affluent.
          In other words, the modern working class has fallen way, way behind since the 1960’s in so many varieties, while the upper class has faltered at times but generally stabilized. This is where much of Murray’s exhaustive data comes into play. I would like to apologize in advance for the extent of the following list, but I think it’s necessary to show how undeniably damaged working class society has become over the last 40 years. These changes are thoroughly graphed throughout the book. (Note that all of the numerical comparisons are usually drastic and proportional to the times, covering circa 1963 though circa 2008) In all of these ways the statistics demonstrate the incredible regression that’s been suffered in working class America: A drop in marriage, rise in percentage of singles, rise in divorce, decrease in happy marriages, decrease of happiness overall, rise in single parenthood, decrease of children living with both parents, decrease in male work participation, increase in unemployment participation, men working fewer hours, increase in those dropping out of the workforce altogether, fewer unmarried women working, fewer women working overall, more men going to prison, more bankruptcies, lower participation in civic minded church activities, lower church attendance overall, increase in those not able to make a living, decrease in civic involvement, and a decrease in voter participation. In addition, PTA participation, entertaining at home, families eating dinner together, common trust of others, opinions of other’s fairness, and confidence in other’s potential to help are all down.
          Again, all of these indicators are proportional to population sizes over the years and mostly relate just to the working class. While the new upper class has had its share of troubles, it has somewhat bounced back from its downturns. However, these regressions have been felt in varying amounts all across the board. These indicators are thoroughly charted in Coming Apart, illustrating the gradual losses and the differences between these demographics.
          Murray categorizes these downtrends in the quality of the American life by examining the changed behavior and attitudes towards four aspects of traditional society in the USA: Industriousness, honesty, marriage, and religiosity. Many of the indicators listed previously can fit into at least one of these four categories and comprise what he considers to be the essential founding virtues of, what he calls, the American Project. There are many ingredients in early America, some indigenous, some not, but he argues that no logical observer of the time would admit probable success of American society without these elements. It’s clear from Murray’s data and anecdotal research that working class behavior has changed considerably when it comes to these founding virtues.
          Industriousness, long a hallmark of our nation’s heritage, prompting nearly every able bodied man to make the most of his day, has lost its luster in the modern era, producing a growing number of adults that consider work naïve and almost gullible. In this age of nearly nonstop calls for job creation, one can’t help but wonder if many unemployed working class Americans would even care to show up if there were additional opportunities available.
          The second virtue, honesty, has taken substantial hits, too. Considered by our founding fathers the most important of our values. It was thought that what separated the American Revolution from others taking place in Europe was the desire for honesty. Murray explores the explosion in the prison population and the sharp increase in bankruptcies to support the notion that honesty has regressed in working class America. His point is further solidified through surveys taken during previous decades that show a growing lack of trust in their neighbors.
           Then there’s marriage, the most basic of societal structures, laying the foundations of just about every civilization to walk the planet--or as Cicero put it, “The first bond of society”. Murray reiterates the well-known science on marriage, emphasizing the empirical fact that, categorically, the best children are bred from lifelong male/female marriages. There’s not even a close runner up. What we also know is that divorce rates, cohabitation, and single parenting have surged since the 1960’s--across all demographic lines. What I found new is how central marital fidelity has historically been in America, distinct from other parts of the world. Several sources reveal that a happy marriage was closely tied to happiness itself in America and therefore the oaths related to marital fidelity were more commonly fulfilled than elsewhere. Murray’s data proves the connection between marriage and happiness and even goes so far as to conclude that the benefits of a happy marriage far outweigh the downsides of an unhappy marriage. Again, this is all charted for simple digestion.
          The last of the author’s founding virtues is religiosity. Like marriage, this is a virtue that has suffered some horrible outcomes with its devaluation in both demographics. Church attendance has suffered dramatically, which I don’t think comes as a surprise to anyone. What is striking is the level of happiness that is expressed in surveys of those that regularly attend and contribute in some way to their religious institutions. Another central theme throughout the book is the importance of what’s called “social capital”. Simply put, this is social interaction that makes a contribution to a community and society. It just so happens that religious life has traditionally been an effective avenue for creating those benefits. This reminds me of the worn out idea I’ve heard from so many of my peers when it comes to practicing religion. Inevitably, for whatever reason, they’ll express their unwillingness to practice faith in a traditional setting, opting for some type of ambiguous, private spirituality. Unfortunately, the data in Coming Apart shows that approach actually limits one’s level of happiness and in general decreases the social capital contributed to one’s surroundings. At any rate, the result of the gradual deficiencies of the four founding virtues is well documented.
          The causes, however, are a bit more difficult to pin down. One reason, especially in light of how dramatically the working class is unproportionally affected, is the drastic transformation the welfare state has had on the motivations of the people. The idea being that your desire to achieve is stifled when your needs and wants are met without any personal effort. Eventually, the value of a day’s work and the incentive to sacrifice and risk more begins to erode and complacency sets in. Before you know it, the social structures we’ve traditionally relied on and flourished within (work, church, community, family) take a back seat to government agencies that simply send out checks. The problem is that it’s not only about providing the resources to sustain life, but also the growth that comes along with individually earning these resources. In other words, it’s not the bank account that makes the man, but all those experiences and social capital put forth that contribute to that bank account that have such a substantial impact.

          Another conclusion, that’s not to be overlooked, is that the founding virtues are a framework for self-governing, the essential other half of a limited constitutional government. In short, the founders knew that the American Project wouldn’t work without people being, simply put, good. Ben Franklin said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need for masters.” I hope you’ll agree that these themes get at the heart of the problems in this country today, exposing the nuances of human nature and the obtuse segregation of the practical from the righteous. David Brooks called Coming Apart the most important book of the year. I believe that to be a gross understatement.

Takers

In my line of freelance work I’m constantly laid off.  Like clockwork, as soon as a job ends, I jump on the phone or go online and start the process of collecting unemployment benefits--whether I’m in need or not.  After all, my employers are forced to pay into an unemployment fund.  So, I might as well take advantage of it.  Right?  Well, yes.  Up to a point.  The federal government also subsidizes those claims and once the benefit period was extended from 6 months to 3 years there was no way that the small percentage of payroll tax contributions were going to cover these expenses. 

However, the economic shortcomings are only half of the equation.  When I’m receiving government money that I didn’t really earn and I don’t really need does that fall inline with the original intention of the program?  And does knowing this take its toll on one’s integrity--their sense of honor.  I hear a lot of talk about social programs starting off with the best intentions but then their permanence manipulates the people into a slothful dependency, lessening their desire for an honest days work, rewarded by an honest days pay.  When “funemployment” becomes a commonly used term to describe the process then the flaws in both the system and participant becomes apparent.

           Today’s unemployment situation is only one aspect of the greater significance of increased reliance on Washington’s financial giveaways and it raises a lot of questions about what is honorable and what is dishonorable concerning government money.  News of record participation in disability and food stamp programs abound, while Welfare spending has sharply surged.  Now we get to contend with the Affordable Care Act and subsidize health insurance premiums along with existing government healthcare programs like Medicaid.  Of course, many would conclude that the weak economy is to blame for these increases, but keep in mind that while unemployment went down from 10% to 8%; expenditures on these programs went up.  All in all, roughly half of Americans live in a household that receives some type of government assistance.  With so much over-participation in these “safety nets” how can this become anything but an economic train wreck.

We’ve all heard stories about rampant fraud when it comes to, so called, entitlement programs.  Cities are lined with medical shops that constantly abuse the system.  Many of us have seen government cards whipped out at convenience stores for products that don’t qualify as food.  Then there’s the famous clip of the woman at an Obama/Biden rally who lends her support, expecting a future where she won’t have to worry about paying her mortgage or buying gas for her car.  Isn’t that incredible?  My parent’s generation would have been insulted if someone else paid for their living expenses and it’s not because they were suckers.  It’s because they realized it would have shamed their honor, igniting unhealthy trends for themselves and all those around them.  It used to be it was wrong to take without giving.  Now you’d be considered a fool to have such a notion.  And by the way, when it comes to the national debt, there are many economic incentives to hastening it’s elimination like currency stabilization and to maintain high credit ratings, but one huge reason that I never hear is that paying your debts is simply the right thing to do.  It is wrong to owe others for so long.  You wouldn’t want to make a loan that never got paid.  Nor, would I.  And I think if we began to view the elimination of debt, both personal and governmental, as a moral obligation then we’d act more decisively.     

But beyond economics and integrity there is a third reason we should be suspicious about the new society of takers we’ve created.  Alexis De Tocqueville said, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”  Isn’t it fairly obvious that both political parties, especially the Democrats, are bribing the electorate for votes?  There’s cash for clunkers, mortgage programs, healthcare, retirement payments, prescription drug plans, tuition funding, and I haven’t even scratched the surface.  They’ll call it social justice, they’ll call it human rights, and they’ll even inadequately label it as progress; but at the end of the day it’s merely a kickback for votes--pure and simple.

But where will it all lead if we continue down this dark path?  19^th Century historian, Alexander Tyler identifies certain chilling similarities between the histories of the worlds’ democracies:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage.

Look around.  Where are we on this list?

Happy May Day!

As spring emerges another May Day is upon us, also known as International Workers’ Day.  This year the Occupy Wall Street crowd is planning a general strike in over a hundred U.S. cities.  They’re calling for “no school, no work, no chores, no shopping, no banking”.  It’s like a midweek Sabbath for agnostics.  The idea is that the incredibly wealthy business owners, the 1%, will feel the pinch when their workforce, the 99%, doesn’t show up on Tuesday. 

By the way, I am still blown away by OWS’s arrogant self-appointment as the voice of the 99%.  It’s unbelievable that any entity can seriously claim to embody the will of virtually all Americans--especially in the face of record political polarization.  With this false notion as their centerpiece slogan, much doubt is cast on the truthfulness of the entire movement.  It reminds me of the claim that the left speaks for women (meaning all women) and defends their existence against murderous, evil white men on the right.  The big problem with that misperception is there are actually a lot of women on the right.  The tea party’s full of them.  And believe me, if the woman happens to be traditional, conservative, apolitical, or not yet born; the left wouldn’t spit on them if they were on fire.  Rhetoric like “equality” and “rights” goes out the window when a woman isn’t inline with the left’s orthodoxy.  You’ll find the left’s “annexing” of demographics to be widespread:  the gay movement, the student movement, the immigrant movement, the civil rights movement--the list goes on and on.  Of course, they have no legitimate right to claim all of these individuals but they will, nevertheless, because it makes for effective propaganda--much like the absurd notion that one school of thought encapsulates the wishes of 300 million Americans.   

But I digress.  May Day is the topic at hand and the OWS has big plans for their events.  Of course, there are rallies, marches, and protests scheduled; followed by nonviolent acts of civil disobedience.  If history is any indication, this means they’ll violate the terms of their permits (assuming this time they’ve actually arranged for permits) and begin blocking intersections, bridges, tunnels and any other place they can impede drivers and get attention.  What a contradiction it is to claim the 99% as your own and then deprive them of getting to work and making a living.  Does this happen to stump anyone else? 

OWS websites brag on their hopes of shutting down New York City, if not partially then in its entirety.  If memory serves, that was Bin Laden’s goal, too, which makes me wonder if the shared objective is somehow ironic or simply apropos.  At any rate, if you live or work in Manhattan, hopefully, you won’t need an ambulance or a fire truck that day.  Of course, it does keep with one of the May Day tag lines, “be the crisis”.  Wow, isn’t it great to have goals?  And I may be going out on a limb here, but don’t we have enough crisis on our plate without fabricating entirely new ones like producing gridlock in our major metropolitan areas? 

The contradictions are nearly endless.  They want workers to abandon their jobs, risking employment and wages, in an effort to demand that the government pay for healthcare, college tuition, mortgages, and a slew of other things.  But isn’t it self-defeating when those projects are financed by tax dollars that can’t be collected if the workingman doesn’t show up?  Furthermore, many cities on their target list can barely afford to stay above water, as is.  What happens to municipal social programs and emergency services when they’re funding gets siphoned off to finance the police and sanitation expenses that will be necessary for security and clean up at these protests?  While nearly a quarter of Americans are in need of employment it’s atrocious that the left is encouraging people to add to those dismal numbers and shake up an already shaky job market.  Not to mention, the toll it will take on employers, who seem to be OWS’s overall target on Tuesday, could be substantial.    

As a child, I recall the May Day events overseas.  Communist regimes like the Soviet Union and their Eastern Bloc subordinates had long parades that showcased their nuclear arsenals in an attempt to bolster internal support and strike fear into the hearts of free westerners.  This is what May Day represents to several generations of Americans--the greatest oppressor of all time threatening the rest of the world.  It’s no surprise that the OWS movement is in bed with the same Marxist ideology that led to the iron curtain, but it’s shocking to see a Soviet flag flown at an Obama celebration outside the White House--as was the case a few years back.  Furthermore, the president has endorsed OWS more than once, along with Democratic Leadership.  Even though the movement has taken a stand against the president it’s clear he has sympathies for their cause and has strong ties with labor leaders that work closely with OWS.

What’s coming on Tuesday could turn ugly in a hurry.  An investigator recently approximated that roughly a third of OWS protestors are militant and often armed at these events.  That means fights and teargas and police lines and arrests and plenty of property damage that everyday people get to pay for.  Additionally, it could also mean a loss of productivity and commerce for the businesses in the area.  There already have been shops that went belly-up with jobs lost in the vicinity of Zuccotti Park because of OWS’s presence over the winter.

          As I ponder what the organizers of the general strike are urging…no school, no work, no chores, no shopping, no banking; I wonder if there isn’t a more useful branding that could be used for the event.  After reflecting on the recent history of OWS’s stay in Zuccotti Park I’ve concluded that their message would be more constructive if it stated:  No raping, no public defecation, no pimping out children, (and most importantly) no Patchouli.  I think it’s obvious that if these were the instructions coming out of the Occupy Movement we’d all be better off. 

Mitt Vs. Newt: We've Been Here Before

Recently, I paid a visit to the Reagan Library and was surprised to see how many problems of the 1970’s, seeming so overwhelming and unsolvable at the time, are also difficulties we face today.  With largely the same collective shrugging of the shoulders that embodied the anemic leadership of that era, issues like high unemployment, slow economic growth, inflation fears, energy instability, an uncertain Iran, and a general disenchantment with Washington are all too familiar to the modern day observer. 

Soon after my trip to the library, I came upon another parallel between then and now when I noticed a cable news ticker on the night of the Republican New Hampshire Primary:  Romney is the first GOP nomination candidate with significant opposition to win both Iowa and New Hampshire since Ford in 1976.  On the same token, over recent years President Obama has drawn relentless comparisons to the ineptitude of Jimmy Carter; and more and more, Mitt Romney seems to encapsulate the country club, Nixonian fused with the uninspiring style of Gerald Ford.  Of course, Ford’s main primary challenger in ’76 was the dark horse, Ronald Reagan.  Because Reagan was considered the less safe of the two in the general election, due to his lack of incumbency and what some would consider rhetorical “bomb throwing”, Ford was given the nomination, going on to loose the Presidency and, in turn, the country suffered through the Carter administration.

Perhaps primary voters, once again, are facing the question of Ford or Reagan with the current contest between Romney and Gingrich.  The former seems safe and established while the later appears to be a riskier gamble.  Romney seems more akin to the business side of the party while Gingrich speaks to its conservative culture.  It’s true that they’re certainly each there own person but I can’t help but hear The Ramones playing in the distance as I wonder if history is re-dealing a past hand.

Romney has been attacked in recent weeks for his role as a venture capitalist--investing in new companies that lack funding or ones that are in trouble, attempting to make the best of their profitability.  Venture capitalism can be a solid tool in the free market to get great ideas off the ground.  Many businesses that create innovative products never would have existed if it hadn’t been for the investment end of the economy.  Often times, Romney’s endeavors did strengthen the economy, helped society, and kept people employed or created new jobs altogether.  On rare occasions, however, this meant liquidation of both resources and workers--not a pleasant scenario despite how seldom this occurred.  It’s obvious why this isn’t a pretty picture to defend on the campaign trail. 

The larger issue, though, is that Romney has been made a poster boy for unmitigated greed and a lack of ethics in big business, viewed by some as a symbol of one of the reasons for the economic instability of recent years. But there’s a larger point that needs to be understood. Not only does business bare the responsibility but so does the citizenry.  How can we expect business to care about more than the bottom line when we don’t?  For instance, here’s just one example I hear little about:  The majority of Americans have money in the stock market in some form, whether it’s actual publicly traded stock ownership, mutual funds, 401K’s, or other avenues.  Investors big and small in publicly traded companies primarily care about one thing--earnings.  Now don’t get me wrong; profit is generally a positive thing.  It makes jobs and raises tax revenues.  But if you own stocks then you probably are checking the current values before anything else.  You aren’t looking to see who got fired that day or finding out whether a factory closed in a small town.  No, you’re looking at the price next to a symbol on a ticker.  So, trying to pin the bubble’s downfall on venture capitalists without seeing the soullessness of our own personal venture capitalism is an incredible deficiency of critical thought--what some would call a double standard. 

Not to mention, that the various criticisms coming from more than one candidate have been hijacked and exaggerated by the collectivist occupy types that care more about their bottom line than any sense of social justice.  And that’s why I’m glad to see that Newt Gingrich has repudiated the efforts of his “unaffiliated” super PAC, which has been laboring to promote this inaccurate, anti prosperity rhetoric.  Personally, I think business should be about success in various ways including, not only, profits but nourishing one’s surroundings and promoting creativity and innovation.  I’ve seen it before and it’s good, sound business.  I think Mitt Romney probably fits this recipe better than your average E Trade customer.  And I’m convinced Gingrich is championing such a culture, although, his criticisms have become oddly questionable.  Actually, I’d like to think that Gingrich was trying to exploit the chasm that exists between fiscal conservatives and cultural conservatives, an important distinction to make.  But now it’s snowballed into something else and he should just leave it alone.

This whole line of attack is, of course, a response to the ads in Iowa that were funded by Romney’s “unaffiliated” super PAC and emboldened, if not given the green light, by the collective power of the GOP establishment array of columnists--Steyn, Coulter, Krauthammer, and the editors of the National Review.  Even Beck joined in, clamoring for anyone but Newt.  And although I generally hold the opinions of most of these figures in high regard, they have initiated an ugly and unnecessary dialogue that became more than it should have been.

A look at Newt Gingrich’s missteps certainly gives pause but in the political realm they are only brief stumbles compared to the enormous turnabouts that seem to define Mitt Romney.  There are still some things where Newt and I don’t agree, but we largely do and we always have.  But, furthermore, his talent and eloquence is unmatched and his ability to create and communicate innovative ideas and remind us of those bedrock fundamentals that the fog of modern thinking has allowed us to forget is an absolute necessity to electrifying the base--the sleeping giant that must awaken to reestablish a conservative White House for, what is, a conservative country.  Perhaps I’m romanticizing this way too much, but I can’t help but remember a history teacher turned congressman that had Reagan’s back and later took Goliath’s head in the form of 40 years of Democratic congressional dominance.  And I must admit, I relish the thought of him rhetorically decapitating our Carter of a president on a daily basis every time a camera or a microphone points his way.  It’s 1976 again and the low expectations of perceived safety that acquiesced to a Ford nomination are burgeoning ahead.  It’s South Carolina or nothing.  It’s Reagan or Carter.  It’s Gingrich or Obama.