05 December 2011

Romney

So really, Romney's the best bet for the Republicans. He's got very high analytical skills, understands finance, understands business management, and knows how to be a CEO. His Mormonism is not important. That he governed a liberal state from a moderate position was really the only choice he had as governor of Massachusetts. He's not a nut case or a dummy like some of the other Republican candidates. He harkens back to an earlier (and better) Republican party when executive competence mattered and ideological zeal was suspect.

This argument for Romney is very weak.  Pure analytical ability is worthless if the assumptions upon which one’s analysis rests are false, irrelevant, wrong, or counterproductive.  While Romney may be more intelligent/analytical than his opponents (which is isn’t saying a whole lot, except in comparison to Ron Paul), it does not follow that his analysis is superior because the rapidity with which one can reach correct conclusions has no bearing on the premises said conclusions are based on.

Understanding finance is also a false flag, mostly because of federal debt and the continuing budget deficits.  The current federal debt is massive, and the current levels of federal deficit spending are unsustainable.  Thus, the problem is not a lack of nuanced financial wizardry when planning the federal budget—which has been tried for the past couple of decades and is now coming to a very painful fruition—but rather a lack of discipline of the sort that requires the federal government live within its means.  The solution to the problem is simple:  cut the budget until federal expenditures are less than federal tax receipts.  One needn’t have a degree in finance in order to determine whether one number is greater or smaller than another.  Fixing the budget, then, does not require a high degree of financial acuity but rather the math skills of a third-grader and the self-discipline of a successful adult.

Business management is too nebulous to serve as anything other than a Rorschach test in this discussion.  Some will this as an ability to prune out unproductive labor from the government.  Others may see this as a way of increasing how efficient the government is at taking away citizens’ freedoms.  The former, needless to say, is good while the latter is terrible.  “Business management,” then, is the sort of phrase that belies reader interpretation along a continuum, and is pointless to consider since it can easily be all things to all men.

CEO experience is irrelevant to the discussion, mostly for reasons listed above in regards to business management.  Beyond that, though, being able to efficiently discharge the laws of the land is not necessarily a good thing in light of oppressive federal statue has become.  It would be much better to elect an anti-government zealot or a chimpanzee because a hamstrung government is better for promoting liberty and wealth than an efficient government could ever be, at least at this point in time.

Romney’s pragmatism is indicative of short-sightedness.  Pragmatic people tend to focus on fixing short-term problems without much concern for long-term consequences (which basically explains how and why political problems arise).  While Romney’s pragmatism may lead to effectively handling short-term problems, it doesn’t mean that his solutions won’t lead to other problems later on.   His seeming lack of principle is highly problematic since this tends to lead to contradictory policies that

As can be guessed, we here at Le Cygne Gris have no love for Romney and therefore do not endorse him.  Perhaps if Romney were to search out and apply the wisdom contained within the phantasmal walls of this prestigious bibliothèque of learning we would be inclined to change our minds.

2 comments:

  1. As far as I'm concerned, Romney is 'Obama Lite'. There is little substantive difference between the two; when one looks at their respective positions on global warming, health care (Romney's people went to help the Obama Administration craft Obamacare), et al, they're quite similar. If Romney is the GOP nominee, I'll stay home. Why vote when there's no real choice?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "If Romney is the GOP nominee, I'll stay home. Why vote when there's no real choice?"

    That's how I felt about McCain. I didn't vote that year. Since that time, I've often viewed elections as waste of time for that very reason: there's no substantial difference between most Republican candidates and their Democrat opponent.

    ReplyDelete