I believe in one’s personal right to not only vote, but to vote for whomever they want. Whether you are a Republican or Democrat really doesn’t matter to me.
Rather, the most important thing to me is that you strongly support the views and ideologies of the candidates you vote for. Similarly, I believe political candidates should campaign on a platform that is inclusive of all their constituents.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s recent “47 percent” comments do not foster inclusiveness, instead they promote division.
During a private fundraiser where Romney was secretly recorded, the candidate made the following statement:
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it – that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. …These are people who pay no income tax. …My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Romney’s comments floored me. Here was a man running for president of the United States of America, yet he was rather clearly disregarding nearly half the country.
There are a variety of negative remarks in Romney’s relatively short comment. Perhaps the aspect most astonishing is when Romney said, “my job is not to worry about those people.”
Failing to care about a very specific demographic is not presidential; neither is referring to select voters as “those people.” Oh, and while I am at it, it’s not necessarily fair to assume every individual who receives food stamps or any other type of government assistance is a “victim” who wants government to take care of them for the rest of their lives. Another gaffe on Romney’s part is that he assumed everyone in that 47 percent receives public assistance of some form, which is completely untrue.
Really, Romney?
Many people have sighted Romney’s extensive wealth as a reason not to vote for him in November, I really don’t think that should be a factor for not voting for a person. Simply because a person is wealthy does not mean they cannot relate to poor or even middle-income level people. Consider Warren Buffet. Currently, Buffet is one of the wealthiest men in the world, yet he has a heart of gold and is compassionate about people of all ethnicities and social-economic levels.
However, if a person is super wealthy with an elitist attitude that belittles others, yet wants to be president of the United States, I would strongly suggest voters carefully examine that person’s true intention and relate-ability aspect.
If Romney is dismissing nearly half of American voters while he is on the campaign trail, imagine what type of damage he can do if elected.
A president has to be able to effectively relate to and consider all Americans. Only focusing on a specific group as opposed to the general public is not realistic in the role of America’s public, nor is it fair. Imagine the backlash Obama would receive if he only did things that benefit Blacks or multi-racial people. He would probably be impeached. America’s commander-in-chief has to be president of all people, not a select group.
There is a phrase that says something like, “People show you who they really are by what comes out of their mouths. Perhaps Romney’s comments are proof that he is divisive and out of touch. You be the judge.
You can email comments to Shannon Williams at shannonw@indyrecorder.com.
