But it will be forever changed.
I'd like to break it down for those Republican family members and Facebook friends of yours that might argue these sorts of things:
a) Romney's no worse than any other politician!
b) The world didn't end when Romney was a governor of Massachusetts, so what's the big deal if he becomes President?
c) He won't hurt the middle class—he is no extremist!!
d) If a company is going down the drain, it may as well go down in an orderly fashion with the help of firms like Bain, so what's so goshdarned wrong with them turning out a little profit for their services?
I'm sure there are skeletons in many closets, and on both sides of the aisle, but what is undeniable is that the worldview that Mitt Romney represents—the Romney vision for what a fair and just future might look like for our country and for the planet—is incredibly dangerous, near-sighted, alarmingly pro-rich, and sufficiently irresponsible considering the seriousness of the technological and societal problems the next generation will be saddled with.
I'm not saying the world will end with Romney as President. I'm saying that the kind of worldview that Romney has, and the kinds of policies he and his party will support, will lead to a starkly different world than the one I think we need. Comparing his tenure and impact as governor of Massachusetts is hardly applicable to what his tenure and impact as President of the entire country will be like, because a state is a self-contained entity subject to far more local interests and needs than an entire country, and that state is very liberal to begin with, so he would have had a hard time advocating for anything too far right. That is an entirely different situation than what would happen under his presidency, one in which he can appoint life-term supreme court justices and one in which the Republican party will actually do more than merely obstruct, because they won't be indebted to some Norquist "don't vote for anything Obama for the next 4 years" ideological doctrine*.
What I believe in is a government that helps the largest number of people become as self-actualized as possible, and lead as persecution-free a life as possible. That translates into investments in infrastructure, education, and proper healthcare, the sorts of things that then enable more citizens to pursue ideas and start businesses and create new opportunities because, hey, the government has done its part to lay the groundwork for its people's success. It's a social contract the likes of which Romney and most conservatives do not believe in.
To my second point, about happiness and lack of persecution, I believe in governments that do not codify discrimination into law. Thinks like the right for gays to marry; the right of people to vote (without silly ID requirements that address non-existent problems); the right for women to make equal pay for equal work; the right of elderly and sick people to have access to reasonably accessible and realistically affordable healthcare like most other first-world countries already have...these are the sorts of things that also maximize happiness in the living, and, as you know, many of these things are not in the purview of Romney's worldview or, at the very least, not likely to happen under a Republican presidency given its impact on the voting patterns of Republican congressmen/women and Republican Senators.
But, yea, the way those private equity firms make their money is also fucked up. It's legal, sure, but ethically insidious in the long run. I stand by my assessment of Romney, then.
*[correction: there is a difference between the 2009 Inauguration Night Republican dinner and the Norquist tax pledge.]