Friday, September 28, 2012

100% $Rmoney: The 1% on the 47%

     Normally I'm so jaded about political follies that when the mask slips I don't even bother to blink. Yet every so often someone drops a big enough nugget that you just have to sincerely admire it for it's sheer audacity:
"[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
     Personally what I find truly baffling is how many folks (esp. non-wealthy) sincerely think $Rmoney (or for that matter, anyone in the upper echelon of monied interests) will actually represent them and their comparatively petty, mortal concerns. This toxic and dysfunctional yin-yang of rampant, social apathy coupled with naked classicism ensures the electoral process remains effectively hamstrung and neutered.

     One of the core reasons $Rmoney is so patently wrong here in his blithe dismissal of almost half the citizens in America is that a significant portion of that 47% he belittles are Republicans, who will continue to mindlessly support him – even when he openly insults them. Then again, current Republican senators and congressmen function purely as constipational obstructionists, operating on the single, overriding principle of rejecting any legislation whatsoever from President Obama, solely based on the source (ie willing to cripple and/or destroy government over partisanship). But in this obsessive-compulsion mission they only reflect their base constituency. By that I mean the significant majority of voters who will elect anyone other than Obama – even someone like $Rmoney (“Roughly half of Romney’s supporters say they are voting against Obama rather than for the Republican nominee”), whom they actually hate or, at the least view with contempt.

And the feeling is mutual.

(More below the fold + NSFW image)

     That a politician would be safely ensconced within a balloon of bloviating sycophants and the usual echo-chamber idiots is no surprise, but this particular candidate seems to firmly insist upon single-handedly manning the wheel behind the Privileged Schmuck Express®™. Still, many of us disenfranchised observers have seen this train-wreck coming from a long ways away:
“Not concerned about the very poor”
“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”
“Corporations are people, my friend…”
“Middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.”

     An even more taboo topic than wealth is Romney's religious beliefs, and to what extent they will play a role in his politics, since in the court of public opinion and upon the world stage Romney now serves as defacto ambassador for the Church of Jesus of Latter-day Saints. Given the rampant stereotypes and ignorant biases of the general public this is a perilous position to be in, though to use the (undeservedly) reviled Jimmy Carter as an example, it is possible to maintain a balance. There is, after all, a supposed wall of separation - yet according to some even within the Mormon church, that is debatable:
“Mr. Romney has said repeatedly that his religion would not get in the way of his presidential responsibilities, but the simple fact is that his presidential responsibilities would get in the way of his religion.”
     Lying with impunity is of course a hallmark of political discourse, more of a badge of honor and a rite of passage as opposed to a sin. But even from an outsider's perspective it seems that anyone who can pull it off with such brazen and astonishing frequency is particularly well-served by a theology that doesn’t really have a traditional Judeo-Christian concept of “Hell.” Already a Bishop, it's safely assumable that when it comes to safeguarding the secular underpinnings of America, a President Romney deserves about as much trust as Huckabee (an ordained Southern Baptist minister) or any one of the other theocratic nutjobs in the apocalyptic stable.

That is to say, not one damn bit.

     While all this may or may not be a legitimate concern this election, what most certainly is an overriding factor for many folks is more of a fundamental observation of personality. Case in point being when presented with the opportunity to redeem himself over the apparent callous indifference behind his behavior, perhaps display some humility and compassion... $Rmoney chose instead to double down:
During a press conference on Monday night, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney admitted remarks he made in a recently published video were “not elegantly stated.”

     Somewhat lost amidst the 47% kerfluffle is the far more horrifying and amoral anecdote (there are other hints) he offered up regarding a business trip taken to survey yet another Bain Capital acquisition:
“Mitt Romney looked around the World for something to buy to make his investors more wealthy. What caught his eye was a chance to make money off of gadgets manufactured by young women living in a barbed wire compound, in cramped barracks with one bathroom for 120 women. The way Romney tells the story, it's obvious that he perceived and understood the terrible exploitation of these women with perfect accuracy. He just didn't really care. He had no impulse to protect, but rather considered how he might profit from the exploitation of these women. Why does Romney tell this well practiced old story? So he can pat himself on the back for being American.”

     In short, Romney proudly displays the patriotic virtues of a predatory capitalist, which in the business world are marketable - and literally bankable - assets (there is a good reason his trusts are called "blind"). Many of these dubious traits share essentially the very same symptoms of being a sociopath, discussed elsewhere at length in this post.

That and of being a complete asshole.


  1. I agree with you 147%.

    Great cartoons on this one. Sharp and cutting -- the way editorial cartoons should be!

  2. Thanks: I'd been struggling with depicting Romney's eyes, and wound up adopting a deliberate design choice used for the monster in "Alien" - that of not having any. Appropriately creepy and simple solution wherein caricatures sometimes are a more honest portrayal of character.

  3. Thanks - good material to work with...

  4. Yeah, the dead eyes approach certainly seems best...

  5. Truly "windows to the soul" or in this instance, lack thereof. Sad ewhen the defining feature on a face is only the occasional smirk...