Romney's off-camera remarks to his supporters have generated quite a buzz on the interwebs. In brief, the remarks I'm concerned with are when he describes the 47% of people that pay no federal income tax, “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.”
I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.~ Mitt Romney, candidate for President of the USA
Now, there are many things to be said, and many rationalizations that will be made. I happen to think these are extremely revealing remarks, and I've decided, for my own entertainment as much as anything, to lay it out in a dialogue. Roughly, I will deal first with the politically, then culturally, then economically motivated reactions of hypothetical conservatives.
Politically Disappointed Interlocuter: "How horrible for the campaign! How could he so blatantly air these politically unsavory hard truths?! What a huge error in this political game!"
Abandoned Certainty: Yes, this is quite a blunder politically, but more important is that you seem to agree with Romney. What I find significant is not that Romney said something crazy and fringe, but that many other people share the sentiment. He was speaking to his supporters, people he knew would agree with him. To them, the gaffe is just that it sounds bad.
PDI: "It's a bad political move, but not a big deal. Others have said the same before; Democrats are going to blow this out of proportion, and aren't being fair to Romney."
AC: That's right, remember when the Wall Street Journal referred to them as lucky duckies? The people at the bottom who pay no taxes are so lucky! So maybe this isn't new, but it's still as appalling. And the point I'm concerned about is not that Romney said he won't try to get their votes, but why he thinks he won't get them, which is that he'll "never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." What concerns me is that so many people agree.
Somewhat-Exaggeratingly Culturally Insensitive Interlocuter: "I for one think Romney's right! It's those poor people who are making it harder for the rest of us by having nothing, and making us bail them out all the time. We can't just let them die -"
AC: Though I bet some would! Remember that moment in the Republican primary debates where Wolf Blitzer asks Ron Paul who should pay for someone with no health insurance that shows up at the emergency room? Wolf asks if we should let him die, and the crowd cheers and someone screams "Yea!"
SECII: "Okay, but I'm not that insensitive. Don't interrupt!"
AC: I apologize. Continue.
SECII: "We can't just let them die, so they are taking our hard earned money and sitting on their asses for thanks! Or worse, using our money to buy drugs and alcohol!"
AC: Two things. First, you seem to think that 47% of Americans are on welfare or pay no taxes at all, which would be astonishing if it were true, but it's not. Over half of those 47% pay some form of payroll tax, and the breakdown of those 47% is quite interesting. Yes, the number is quite high, but Romney seems to equate it all with a culture of entitlement - people walking around with their hands out asking the government - asking you the taxpayer - for money, because they "believe they are victims." He seems to think half the country are complete degenerates.
SECII: "But what about those that really don't pay any taxes at all, those on welfare; Romney was right about them, even if he didn't say it "elegantly." They do want handouts. I never asked for handouts. I built it!!"
AC: That brings me to my second point, which is the complete devaluing of the self-worth of the poor. The main message behind"I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives" is that they are not like us; we have responsibility and those people don't; not just that they're different but that they're not worthy of the benefits they get. Even some of the poor share those beliefs. They know people who work the system to get welfare disability checks. But it's "those poor people, not us. We take personal responsibility for our lives, except we just can't get a break."
SECII: "You see! Those poor people work the system!"
AC: Sure, some people do, but the perception is that they all do, and Romney seems to think 47% of Americans do. Look, there is some merit to the un-exaggerated version of the above argument. Yes, it would be better if people could work, and if they didn't use what little they have to buy drugs and alcohol. If it were so simple, and yet they still insist on living in poverty, it must be their fault; but of course it isn't simple. Nothing about poverty is simple.
And this is where, uncomfortably, race comes into the discussion, because blacks have long been stereotyped in this country as lazy and stupid. Romney and the GOP's shameful (and repeated) lie that Obama removed the welfare work requirement was criticized by some as racist, not because most of the people on welfare are black (overwhelmingly, most are white), but because it fits with the stereotype that black people on welfare don't want to work. Incidentally, though race and poverty are intertwined and thorny issues, I don't think Romney's remarks were racist - which just means he disparages those poor people, of all colors, equally.
Well-Intentioned Interlocuter: "Look, what Romney really meant was: 'Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.' If we stop giving those poor people fish, they would become productive members of society, and they wouldn't be poor. It's all about incentives. They need to help themselves."
AC: This argument is sound, WII, even reasonable... except for the fact that we aren't teaching them to fish either. The worst schools are in the poorest neighborhoods, the high school drop-out rate is astonishing, 10th-graders read at a 2nd grade level, etc. The poor in this country are without both fish and the means to acquire fish... and so they starve. It takes fish to make more fish, and the top 1% of fish-holders are controlling more and more of it - some even waving it in our faces going "haha, you can't have it!"
(At this point I can't help but bring religious conservatism into the picture, which has aligned itself with the political conservatism of "stop giving people fish," because as I recall, Jesus had no problem giving people fish. Lots of it.)
Ahem, moving on, I certainly hope most conservatives are of the WII variety, i.e. only disagreeing on how the problem of poverty can be solved. But, I don't agree that this is all that Romney meant. To say that those poor people have no personal responsibility, no care for their lives, is to believe that they can't be taught to fish no matter what we do because they think they are entitled to fish. Government fish. Your fish.
WII: "That's right, and the Democrats just want to keep throwing my fish at those people! It's not my fault the economy is in the crapper and the social safety net has holes; I work hard for my fish."
AC: Presumably your net has no holes! You know, to catch fish! :-D
WII: ...... *cough* ......
AC: Well.... I understand where you're coming from, and assuming you aren't a hedge-fund manager, I don't think you should give up any more of your fish either. I think the best way is to raise taxes on capital gains so people like Romney don't have a lower effective tax rate (13.9%) than their secretaries. But, as I said before, I think Romney is saying something far worse. I think his comments express a complete disdain for the poor, and that makes me sad.
Regardless of political opinions, I think we need to stop thinking about poverty as those poor people and start thinking about how to help those poor people.
