“When people show you who they are believe them; the first time.”--Maya Angelou (via the equally inimitable Oprah).
Charles Blow, an opinion writer for The New York Times, started his commentary today (see link) with that quote. How do we judge Gov. Romney? Should we judge him? Don't you wish there was some preference revelation calculus that we could do so that we could be comfortable with our judgements? I do.
We can look at the President who ran his campaign in 2008 based on an audacity of hope, that the middle class would reclaim its place in America. But the middle class is shrinking. Is it his fault? Can even the most powerful man in the world affect economic events like that? Should we believe that he tried to do what he said he would? How do we judge him? Again, economic theory is based on perfect information. We have none.
This editorial is absolutely scathing towards Governor Romney, and describes the way that I feel about the 47% speech more eloquently than I could.Once upon a time I liked Romney, I might have even voted for him this year if he was still the person he was as governor of Massachusetts. Recently however, I have disliked Romney mostly because of his political positions and because he seemed like he would say anything for votes. Now it appears that he was doing the real pandering as governor, and he is showing his true stripes in private rooms full of other multi-millionaires.
ReplyDeleteI don't think judging should be the world. What Romney said was wrong and he is now paying the consequences, but that speech has also "opened many eyes" and thats what we should talk about. More than judging, we should use these types of videos to really think about what we want for our country. What is said "behind closed doors" is probably the true feelings of a person and in this case, they greatly matter.
ReplyDeleteThe most powerful man in the world would not be able to affect economic events. One person cannot change the entire system, they can make a difference, but not change it completely. That takes more than one person. In the past, people have judge presidents after not doing what they said they would at the end of their term, but that doesn't improve the situation. We all want positive change, but one person can't do it all.
I agree with carl in saying that if Romney reflected the same man who was governor of Massachusetts, I'd look to defend him. But after reading this article, and the things he has said, to be honest now I am just confused. Did he really mean all these things? I almost tried to rationalize his words, in some way find a right in all of it; but sadly I came up with nothing. I like some of Romney's ideas, but this was a poor choice on his part. Abby is also right in saying that not one person can change everything. But who do we chose? During political elections it seems like we are only voting for one person... Obama, or Romney. What does the group behinds these men say? What are their plans? I'd like to know the people behind Romney's thoughts about his statements.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I truly do wish there was some type of calculus or algorithm that we could do in order to boost our confidence in our political choices. While the big events, like Romney's 47% speech, cause all kinds of new judgement to be passed, there is also so much day-to-day media that is specifically made to counter opposing advertisements, that it is getting extrememly difficult to feel good about your vote. I think it is also important to note that whether or not people personally judge him because of these comments, the media is going to (and already has) judge him to the max. Just by receiving a black eye in the media, that alone could potentially be the driving factor behind losing votes, not so much because people feel deeply hurt by his remarks, but rather because it seems to be the popular opinion at the moment. With all of the money that is spent on advertising, campaigns, and media exposure, voters are having to use less and less of their own intuition, which is unfortunate.
ReplyDeleteWhat I would rather see, instead of an algorithm boosting confidence in personal choices, an algorithm that would instead produce a relativistic reading on how much a politician's public views are those that actually found within his character. With the amount of back and forth that some politicians do with their political views how can anyone truly know what they will end up switching too next. Voting someone out of office can effectively solve this problem, but not before damage has been done. I would much rather see lie detector tests in the range of politicians personal beliefs. Its a method that's beyond intrusive, and hardly definitive, but it could help give the public a handle on what the devil is actually going on inside a politicians psyche.
ReplyDelete