Mitt Romney's 47% remarks provide some interesting insights into how his brain works in terms of time and in absolutes. This is valuable information for those assessing him for his fitness to be President of the United States.
As a programmer, I have often found that the effects of time can be a difficult concept for some people to grasp. For example, a business user calls and complains that the data in their data entry system does not match a transaction that was processed yesterday. We reseach the issue and explain to the customer that the data was entered after maintenance was run. It's all there NOW, but it wasn't there when the transaction was processed. Some people get it, and some don't. If you don't get it, you won't last long as a programmer.
And, you certainly won't last long as a President.
More, below the fleur de Kos...
Romney made a false assumption in his 47% remarks. He assumed that if a person fails to pay taxes in one year, he never has and never will pay taxes, -- "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives", he says. I also find it interesting that he uses absolute terms in talking about people. He’ll “never” convince "them", and he seems to be implying all or any of "them", as if he doesn’t believe a single one of 47% of the nation’s taxpayers will ever, in all their lives, take personal responsibility and care for themselves.
He fails to take into consideration those who are laid off for a year and then return to work. He fails to take into account those who are at the end of their working lives, and have retired, whose income has dropped significantly. He fails to take into consideration those at the beginning of their lives who are starting to work, but haven't worked a full year yet, or who are working part time while earning a college degree. He fails to take into consideration those who have worked all their lives, and now have been stricken by cancer, or MS or any number of other disabling illnesses. All of these people have contributed, or will contribute, to paying for the benefits offered by our society. They are taking personal responsibility -- they just weren't contributing at the exact moment that Romney was observing them.
So, in addition to questioning his judgment (was it wise to make such a statement in public, even to an apparently carefully selected and private group of people, because recording devices do exist?), and questioning his ability as a communicator (critical, in a president. Do we really want this charmer representing us on the international stage?), I have to wonder whether he understands how time works, and whether he would fail to take the effects of time into consideration when making critical strategic decisions as a President of the United States, as he failed to do in this instance. And, would he use absolute thinking like this when faced, as president, with sensitive international issues. This is a serious question. He could start a war, or put us in a position where he has alienated a country whose help we desperately need. Would he view a country in the Middle East which is asking us for assistance as a country with a victim mentality that can never be convinced to take personal responsibility, or would he view that country as a potential strategic ally in the future, whose help we can win today with a little assistance? Would he lump all countries in the Middle East together and treat them all in absolute terms, or would he recognize the intracacies of diplomacy and regard each as an individual nation with it's own interests and concerns?
It’s an important question, and one that voters need to be asking themselves. Would you want Mitt Romney as Commander in Chief of the armed forces during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Could he wrap his mind around the timing of those events, and understand when is the crisis point? Would he have the diplomatic skills to say the right things at the right time to the right people? Would he lump all diplomats together and treat them the same, or would he recognize the individual traits that identified which individual would be the best person to carry his messages? This type of discrimination was a critical point in the Cuban Missile Crisis -- choosing whom to communicate with and what to pay attention to, and what to ignore, and when. Would he recognize how time was affecting negotiations and recognize that certain diplomatic responses might be delayed, that it might reflect the displomatic response after one of his messages was received, but before another of his messages was received? A situation like this occurred at Pearl Harbor, for instance, when our harbor was bombed before we had fully received and translated the declaration of war.
An understanding of how time works, and how it affects the diplomatic situation, is essential in a President. Mitt's comments raise questions as to whether he has that level of understanding.
Please be kind. I'm a novice diarist.