"I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it."
The extent of Romney's concern for the poor is to make sure that there's a safety net adequate to making sure the very poor don't starve to death on the street. And if, for some reason, the safety net is "broken" and has a problem keeping the very poor from starving in the street, he'll fix that. After all, starving people on the street wouldn't look good for Romney if he's president. He's going to be running for re-election, for pete's sake. But will he do anything to actively help the very poor no longer be very poor in a way that actually involves keeping them alive? Doesn't seem that way; after all, he's not very concerned about them.
But maybe leaving the very poor alone is the best we can hope for from Republican candidates. Barring a brokered convention resulting from party stalwarts realizing in absolute horror what type of nominee awaits them, the only other remotely possible Republican nominee is Newt Gingrich. At the crest of his popularity, the former speaker of the House had just dominated the South Carolina primary, leading to a second round of speculation that winning the nomination was within the realm of possibility for him. At his victory speech, this is but a small part of what he had to say:
And I want to go into every neighborhood of every ethnic background in every part of the country and say to people very simply: if you want your children to have a life of dependency and food stamps, you have a candidate: that's Barack Obama. If you want your children to have a life of independency [sic] and paychecks: that's Newt Gingrich, and I'll bet you we have votes everywhere.
Unlike Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich actually is concerned about the very poor. While many people may take a quick look at Gingrich's association of ethnic backgrounds and food stamps—or his comments that poor children lack a work ethic and need to work as school janitors—the truth is more complicated, as Peter Beinart explains:
The fascinating thing about the exchange is that Gingrich is not a racist. I suspect he genuinely cares about the African-American poor. In fact, he’s convinced himself that his willingness to say things that many African-Americans consider insulting is an expression of that concern; that only he cares enough about African-Americans to speak the “politically incorrect” truths that black leaders won’t.Gingrich’s problem isn’t racism; it’s ignorance. Only someone profoundly ignorant of African-American politics would suggest that black Americans have spent the past few decades seeking food stamps, not jobs.
Yes, Gingrich and many ofhis fellow conservative ideologues are concerned about the poor and may actually want to help, but their definition of "helping" isn't the same one that you or I might have. A person with common sense may take a look at the plight of the poor and understand the importance of ensuring access to education, jobs and environmental justice. Conservative ideologues like Newt Gingrich think about the poor differently: In this worldview, the poor—especially black people—are no longer capable of taking advantage of those opportunities because the welfare state and food stamps have eroded their ability to have the work ethic required to take advantage of those opportunities. Consequently, the logic goes, the social safety net must be destroyed and poor minorities will have to swallow the bitter medicine that will make them and the country better in the long run.
Conversatives can keep wondering why so many poor people vote for Democrats. Perhaps its because the Republican Party only offers two approaches: the aloof, dispassionate plutocracy as embodied by Mitt Romney, or the destructively ideological social engineering espoused by Newt Gingrich. Democrats like Barack Obama, meanwhile, continue to try to expand equality of opportunity, and the results in November will once again reflect that philosophical disparity.
Comment Preferences