For years President Obama has been called a socialist, Marxist, communist, statist, and other such things. President Obama and myself, an actual socialist who understands Marx's critiques of capitalism, share few things in common. We seem to have different priorities and different ideas for what the country should be doing. Please don't accuse President Obama of being a socialist until he proposes any sort of halt on free trade, or nationalizes the banks, or pushes for a 100% tax rate on incomes above $1,000,000 a year.
What I wanted to talk about is how the election is looking to shape up between Mitt Romney and President Obama. Certain issues have become pretty important in this campaign and I thought a socialist perspective would make for an interesting blog post.
First thing I'd like to talk about is who I think will win. Here's the CNN projected electoral map:
Just look at that thing. Romney has to pick up too many swing states for him to win. If he was polling better in any of them, he's down in the big three (Florida, Virginia, and Ohio), then maybe we could talk. He's not, though. I just don't see a path to victory for Romney, and he's not coming out with a message that can swing Ohio or Pennsylvania. I actually think Santorum could have had a strong message in both of those states, he at least will mention a "blue collar working class" and talk about how the manufacturing sector needs help.
Between the electoral map and Romney being a weak candidate I just don't see a path for victory for the Republicans. The other big issue is that Obama's negatives are known and accounted for already. Romney's negatives are just now starting to be exploited.
Everyone knows President Obama. A lot of his actions that aren't very popular, the Affordable Care Act for one, aren't popular because they are compared to some ideal that doesn't exist. When compared to what was happening before, they end up being more popular. Since these topics are already baked into any polling numbers the Republicans won't end up getting much traction by talking about them, yet will waste hundreds of millions of dollars doing so anyhow.
The big issue I'd like to talk about on this semi-regular column is Romney the candidate. It's been four years since the meltdown in 2008, one that really started in 2007 but nevermind that, and we are finally starting to talk about the dangers of investment capital. Capital exists unto itself and only exists to create profit. That is all. I'm not even being hyperbolic as any free market fetishist would gladly say the same. It can be no surprise that Bain Capital destroyed lives in the pursuit of profit. Expecting "corporate citizenship" or for capital to otherwise act in ways that benefit anyone but those that control the capital is naive.
|There's a strong chance I'll write in Eugene Victor Debs.|
Seriously, just look at the things Mitt Romney has done that he is now running away from:
Governor of Massachusetts
President of a venture capital firm
Saved the Olympics
As Governor of Massachusetts, he ended up being a fairly moderate politician. There's really not much to talk about outside of his healthcare plan, which ended up being the inspiration for the Affordable Care Act, and he's now in a position where he can't talk about his executive experience.
With Bain Capital Mitt Romney made billions of dollars by destroying thousands of lives. While the American public isn't quite ready to cast down the bourgeois class and usher in a perfect society where the workers control the means of production, they still realize that a man should not make money by betraying pension funds and using financial loopholes to make money at the expense of working people.
Mitt Romney wanted it both ways for a long while: he ran as a businessman who did well in business but now believes that anyone attacking what he did as a businessman is doing so because of "class warfare". Here's a quick reminder for you folks on the right: until the owners of the means of production fear the working class, there is only one instance of class warfare and it isn't against the wealthy.
Mitt Romney can not, and will not, ever mention his being an official in the Mormon Church. I would sooner expect Mitt Romney to admit he speaks French, which he does, before ever talking about his Mormonism in any concrete way.
Mitt Romney also saved the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. I have a serious question: when have the Olympics ever been a disaster? I'm serious, when has the Olympics ever not happened or otherwise been a disaster? It just seems to me, and I'm just a simple member of the heroic proletariat, that running the Olympics isn't a real good reason to vote for someone.
Where does all of this leave Mitt Romney? It leaves him with being vague, as he should be since his actual policy proposals involve raising taxes on the working class while lowering them for the wealthy, and attacking President Obama for socialism? I guess he's also attacking President Obama for not bombing Iran and for waging a literal crusade against Christians? I'm still unclear, but outside of veiled attacks at Obama's "otherness" I don't really see much in the way of a credible campaign.
I'm still not sure if I'll vote for President Obama. It depends on what 3rd party candidates get on the ballot here in Virginia and how close Virginia ends up being. Don't get me wrong, Mitt Romney is the single most detestable and lamentable candidate in years so it will be hard to do anything but hold my nose and vote for the neo-liberal Obama, but there you are.
I had planned to get into the minutiae a bit more with this post, but why bother? President Obama is a disappointment and Mitt Romney is a jackass who believes in nothing. At this point I don't even think Hank Hill would vote for Mitt Romney.