White Middle Class Blues, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld
September 29, 2012 Martha Thomases 7 Comments
Last week, I didn’t write about Mitt Romney. Others had started, and I was sure that Michael Davis would leap upon the topic and eat my rhetorical lunch (i.e. get all the good laughs).
This week, I can no longer summon such restraint. It’s too important. And I have two week’s worth of bottled-up spite.
Having said that, I don’t want to talk about how personally loathsome the Republican candidates may or may not be. Stories like this make tempting, low-hanging fruit for partisans like me, but they don’t really speak to the issues that are at stake.
Actually, I suspect that Mitt Romney is a nice guy. I think he cares about people, and that, like his father, he went into politics to make the world a better place. It’s his perspective of the world that troubles me. He doesn’t seem to know how Americans live. Even worse, he doesn’t seem to know what he doesn’t know.
For example, when he said that 47% of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes, that may be true (although the tax code is complicated enough that I’m willing to bet that most of those 47% don’t realize he’s talking about them). They pay state taxes, local taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and other taxes, and I’m willing to bet that most pay a higher total percentage than Mr. Romney’s professed average 14%. But let’s give him his interpretation of the number for the purpose of this discussion.
And let’s not nit-pick when he said he “couldn’t worry about them.” In context, I inferred that he meant he couldn’t worry about picking up their votes. As if.
It’s when he said this that he enraged me. He said that those 47% felt “like victims” and were “dependent” on government.
And he said they felt “entitled” to food, shelter and health care.
I didn’t know that this last was a controversial perspective. It was agreed to on a planet-wide basis in 1948, when The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was passed. Specifically:
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection
Because Romney doesn’t seem (to me) to know any people who aren’t his social and economic peers, he doesn’t understand how the safety net works, and that it’s not a permanent condition for the vast majority of people who use it. In fact, as in the case cited in the link, it’s a good investment for our communities, providing not just a repayment in future taxes, but also important goods, services, and quality of life.
And, as someone who has said, “No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less,” Romney clearly doesn’t know the facts about how people live, since the median household income in this country is $51,000.
He accepts his privilege with so little questioning.
I, too, have lived a life of privilege. For one, I was born to parents who valued books and education. For another, my father earned a lot of money as I was growing up, and invested it in ways that accrued to my benefit. Because of him, I never had to take out student loans, nor did my son. Because i had a financial cushion, I could take chances, try to start a business, be a writer and an activist. I was successful at times, less successful at others, and I hope I’ve improved the world with my choices. I know I had opportunities to take chances that are not available to those whose parents live paycheck to paycheck.
People who live paycheck to paycheck also make the world a better place, often much more than I do. Teachers, police, fire fighters, editors, garbage collectors, security staff, bartenders, waitstaff, nurses, accountants, theater ushers – make your own list, because I will never be able to include everybody. You wouldn’t know it from listening to the modern day Republican party. On Labor Day, which honors American unions, GOP House leader Eric Kantor tweeted
“Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success.”
That is tone deaf.
People who have done the math understand that we’ve all received a helping hand from the government in one form or another, not just Romney’s 47%. Instead of arguing over who gets more, we should have the grace to say, “Thank you” and seek out ways to pass it on.
Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, wishes to thank Howie for this.
Pennie
September 29, 2012 - 1:17 pm
Tone deaf. As ever, Martha, you nailed it. Party-wide for the elephants.
How can one who wishes to be president of all the people, be so out of touch with so many?
47%? The out-of-touch factor is significantly higher.
When you hang out in country clubs and that is your global reality, you can’t hear the roar of the greasepaint and smell of the crowds.
Elisa Thomases
September 29, 2012 - 2:55 pm
Yeah dad did think of us. That’s why I can have some fun with my baseball team. And I can also give to charities and groups who I want to give to.
R. Maheras
September 29, 2012 - 3:07 pm
Martha wrote: “They pay state taxes, local taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and other taxes, and I’m willing to bet that most pay a higher total percentage than Mr. Romney’s professed average 14%.”
Uh, doesn’t Romney also pay all of the above except payroll tax, which would mean his actual tax rate would also be a lot higher than 14 percent?
I’m just sayin’, ya know?
Martha Thomases
September 29, 2012 - 3:57 pm
Russ, you may be technically correct (although I’m not sure. For example, I pay taxes in three different states, and I know that makes a difference on my federal returns), but I think my larger point stands.
If you make $50,000 a year and pay 15% in taxes (a number i’m using because the math is simpler), that means you pay $7500 a year, leaving you with $42,500. I would argue that this makes a much bigger difference in your lifestyle than the person who makes $1 million a year, pays $150,000 in taxes, and then has $850,000 left.
Douglass Abramson
September 29, 2012 - 4:32 pm
You’re right Martha, and that is exactly the reason to that the progressive tax codes were written in the first place. The funny thing about current Republicans who want to destroy the tax code and businesses and environmental regulations are destroying their own party’s legacy. The Progressive Era was driven, in large part, by Republican politicians. Estate taxes, the FDA, anti-monopoly policies and major Federal protection for endangered wildlands started with Theodore Roosevelt’s administration; Eisenhower spent billions on infrastructure and Nixion helped start the EPA and the endangered species list. Well over half a century’s worth of policies in the public’s interest that the current GOP would denounce as commie crap.
Elizabeth
September 29, 2012 - 5:16 pm
Martha,
Your decency and humanity is one of the things I so respect about you. Thanks for a truly thoughtful column.
Pennie
September 29, 2012 - 5:40 pm
Elizabeth, funny but I was saying the same thing to our revered author just this morning.
Mike Gold
September 30, 2012 - 8:19 am
When George Bush Sr. was mocked for not knowing what a supermarket scanner was, I came to his defense. That is not being oblivious to society; that is shopping. When scanners came into general use Bush Sr. was just about to get Secret Service protection.
Wilfred Romney has no such excuse. He claims to be a businessman (in the sense that the guy who runs an abattoir is a vegetarian); he should know the median family income. He’s been running for president virtually the entire Millennium and has lots of advisors, somebody should have told him the single core figure that affects all businessmen and all politicians is the average family household income. Wilfred is only off by about 500%.
Rene
September 30, 2012 - 6:46 pm
Economically, the Right has become more and more radical in the last decades, while the Left has moved to the center. My theory? The fall of Communism. It had opposite effects on the two sides of the political spectrum.
It was a wake-up call for the Left, who saw the need to move on and embrace as much of the free market as they could (see Bill Clinton).
For the Right, it was sort of confirmation or a divine sign. Or maybe they thought they no longer needed to appease the unwashed masses. The Cold War was over. The Revolution would never come. So let’s screw the fucking poor, they have no other option but us, baby!
So the gestures made by Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Nixon towards thos in need, or even Reagan, are no longer needed. The GOP has come out of the closet as the Party of entrepreuners and investors. Workers are superfluous. Actually, workers are losers.
Mike Gold
September 30, 2012 - 7:28 pm
TR was the anthesis of damn near everything the Republican Party is today. You’re right: they have defined workers as losers. Absolutely. Jobs are just another form of welfare.
Amusingly, tonight’s episode of The Simpsons had a scene that took place at the Ayn Rand Day Care Center.
Interesting analysis, Rene. I’ll be thinking on it a lot.
George Haberberger
October 1, 2012 - 10:45 am
It’s kind of funny to read positive comments about Richard Nixon when 38 years ago, everyone wanted to have his head and Gerald Ford lost his election largely because he pardoned him.
And as far as Romney being out of touch: it is a fair point. But is he any more out of touch than someone who would say: “And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Rene
October 1, 2012 - 1:18 pm
George – The “positive” comments about Nixon were only (a) relative to Republicans of today and (b) restricted to the economic arena, not about his morals or ethics. He still deserved to be decapitated, but Nixon wasn’t the radical, foaming, 110% free marketeer, screw the poor, sort of guy
that today’s Republicans are.
Mike – Thanks. Yeah, the GOP rethoric has become so strident and radical that workers are really just a tiny, little step up from the parasites living on welfare.
It’s funny, but today’s Conservatism is really taking a page from Randism, in that it’s basically Marxism, but the opposite. Bizarro Marxism.
To Marxists, the bosses are parasites, and the workers generate all the real wealth. To the GOP, the bosses, in the role of entrepreuners and investors, are “job creators” and the true generators of all wealth, while the workers are slobs who should be grateful to them. If they were real men, they would be entrepreuners themselves.
Whitney
October 3, 2012 - 12:24 am
Beloved Ms. M –
We finally disagree: I’m not convinced that Romney is a nice guy.
Looking at clips of his public interactions are difficult because he is so obviously uncomfortable.
Except when he is in his element. When he is joking about being glad that he had a dream of being rich and famous. About telling his peers that 47% shouldn’t be respected while members of that demographic were serving them their top shelf drinks after their meals of milk fed veal.
He was comfortable about how he made his money. I don’t think he lost any sleep when he used proceeds from lost jobs to buy a show pony.
He was comfortable. Not nice.
George Haberberger
October 3, 2012 - 7:40 am
“About telling his peers that 47% shouldn’t be respected…”
I’m very sure that is not what Romney meant and it isn’t even what he said. In speaking to a gathering of his supporters, he was saying that it wouldn’t be prudent to spend his time or resources trying to win votes from people who were not going to vote for him no matter what.
Rene
October 3, 2012 - 8:10 am
And the apologist cometh.
Well, that is the charitable interpretation
It would have more weight if Romney hadn’t also called them parasites too cowardly to take responsibility over their own lives.
I felt fear when I saw it. There is a flicker in the video if you pause it. I really thought I could see Ayn Rand’s ghost possessing Romney’s body
George Haberberger
October 3, 2012 - 9:05 am
Rene said:
It would have more weight if Romney hadn’t also called them parasites too cowardly to take responsibility over their own lives.
Again, that is not what he said. No mention of “parasites” or “cowardly”
This is his quote:
“I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
So, yeah, not the most altruistic view but you don’t have to like him to at least quote him accurately. If his position was so obviously reprehensible, you shouldn’t need to claim he said something he didn’t.
I take it you’ve seen the video of the woman who got an”Obamaphone”? She makes Romney’s point so succinctly, she could almost be a Romney operative.
Rene
October 3, 2012 - 9:17 am
You left out a few parts of the quote:
…”who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it”…
So they believe they are victims, they believe they are entitled, etc. If that is not parasitic, then what is it? No, he didn’t use the exact word “parasite”, but it’s difficult to intrepret his MEANING in any other way.
Maybe I was pushing it a little too much with “cowardly”, but why does he thinks he can’t convince them to “take responsibility?” What is it “they” lack? If not courage, then what? Drive? Independence? Strength? Guts? One who lacks those attributes, what is him? Not cowardly, then what?
This part also worries me:
“[M]y job is not to worry about those people.”
Charitable interpreation – He meant “job” as merely presidential candidate. He won’t worry because he can’t win then over.
Uncharitable interpretation – He meant “job” as potential president. He won’t worry about the 47% after his election. The way GOP rethoric is shaping up, I would not be surprised if this is what he meant.
Martha Thomases
October 5, 2012 - 6:27 am
And by “Obamaphone,” you mean this: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/obama-phone-video-13167096#ixzz28AXIkvRD
Try not to get all your news from Drudge.
George Haberberger
October 5, 2012 - 8:04 am
I knew that program had been started under Reagan and expanded under Bush. I suspect the woman in the video does not. Hence my point.
And I get my news from PJ Media.
R. Maheras
October 5, 2012 - 8:28 am
On this whole deal, keep in mind that when Obama was also candid in a similar situation, he was dismissive of what is even a larger percentage of the population than 47 percent: Those who “cling to their guns and religion.”
Wrong-headed as both comments may have been, the amount of energy pundits from either side spend on them is disproportional to their overall import.
Jonathan (the other one)
October 5, 2012 - 9:10 am
You know who fits neatly into that 475?
American servicemen and -women, serving in conflict zones like Afghanistan. Combat pay is not taxed. (It complicated the tax picture in this household a bit when my roommate was deployed to Iraq – his pay was not taxable, but his Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) was. Still zero taxable income, and a substantial refund from the IRS…)
So, combat soldiers are “…victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it…” who can “… never [be] convince[d] … they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives”?
(Incidentally, regarding Nixon’s economic and political statements – he also favored single-payer health care, the dirty leftist commie…)
Jonathan (the other one)
October 5, 2012 - 9:11 am
First sentence should read, “You know who fits neatly into that 47%?”
I really wish there were an edit function here… 😉
Neil C.
October 7, 2012 - 6:59 am
Romney could say “I’m in favor of killing poor people” and R. and George would find a way to spin it how he REALLY meant it….sometimes a GOP person is wrong on things, you know. Admit it, it won’t mean someone takes your balls away.
R. Maheras
October 7, 2012 - 9:22 pm
Neil — Exactly the point I was making about Obama. His candid dismissal was of a far larger portion of the U.S. population than Romney’s, and nary a peep about it in most press outlets except those on the right.
Doesn’t seem like a level playing field to me.
And the only reason I can think of as to why you keep trying to pigeonhole me as a right-winger is that it makes you feel politically more reasonable and objective. But I’m not a right-winger simply because some of my views may be to the right of yours.
I’ve been an independent since the late 1970s.
Neil C.
October 7, 2012 - 10:01 pm
Whatever you say, R.
Neil C.
October 7, 2012 - 10:04 pm
I am a lot more ‘objective’ and ‘reasonable’ than you, if a mental analysis from a messageboard is any indication.
Rene
October 8, 2012 - 6:33 am
Exactly, nary a peep from me, Russ. And you know why? Because, unlike George, I don’t try to excuse the inexcusable or say Obama didn’t mean what he said.
And I really don’t understand what is it with you guys and your tremendeous reluctance to admit you’re right-wingers. Tell me one, just one position in which you’re not aligned with the right. Just one. C’mon. I dare you.
I will even show you mine: I believe in the death penalty. I believe Israel’s version of events is truer than Palestine’s. I am for the right to bear arms. Okay. I showed you three. Now show me just one.
Neil C.
October 8, 2012 - 9:08 am
I agree with your positions on those, too, Rene. And I’ll add another non-liberal thing: in school, you should not be awarded for just participation: life has winners and losers. Outlawing things such as dodgeball is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.
R. Maheras
October 8, 2012 - 11:42 am
Rene — You dare me? What is this, the playground?
You don’t need to dare me. I don’t mind sharing some of my “liberal” viewpoints (or viewpoints liberals claim are exclusively theirs).
I don’t believe the universe is 5,000 years old.
I’m not a racist.
I’m not a misogynist.
I’m not anti-immigration.
I’ve recycled since the late 1960s, and I’ve been environmentally-minded since the 1970s.
But unlike partisan liberals or conservative, I have no problem voting for either major party, or the occasional independent, if I like a given candidate.
And Neil, while I don’t know your voting record over the years, if you vote only, or nearly exclusively, for a single party, you are NOT “more ‘objective’ and ‘reasonable’” than me. You are partisan and subjective.
Neil C.
October 8, 2012 - 2:24 pm
R.,
I have voted ‘the other party’ in the past, until I found they became a bunch of nutjobs.
George Haberberger
October 8, 2012 - 5:43 pm
I do not excuse the inexcusable. “Inexcusable” of course being a subjective.term.
And as far as positions that are not “right wing”… I have no problem with gay marriage. And unlike Rene, I am opposed to the death penalty. The death penalty violates the Pro-Life view. If anything is truly inexcusable, it is abortion.
Satisfied? You had to drag abortion back into the discussion.
R. Maheras
October 8, 2012 - 6:30 pm
Neil — The Republicans as a whole aren’t any nuttier than the Democrats are, as a whole.
Neil C.
October 8, 2012 - 10:39 pm
George,
Even if it wasn’t, you’d find a way to do so. And R., in my opinion, you are wrong.
Rene
October 10, 2012 - 1:56 pm
Okay, “dare” was a bit juvenile, but worth it, just to see Russ and George say stuff that is not their usual conservative discourse.
I wish every site with political commentary had at least one day a month when everybody should be required to argue for the opposite side they normally do. Just for the fun of it.
George Haberberger
October 10, 2012 - 4:56 pm
I have stated that I am not against gay marraige and do oppose the death penalty on these boards in the past, so your perception of my ” usual conservative discourse” must be because you we’re not paying attention. And it is also possible that those positions are in sync with the majority of others here so arguing about it never occurs. I am not one to chime in “me too” when I am in agreement. What would be the point?
I do chime in when someone says Republicans are categorically evil, Democrats are categorically benevolent or being Pro -Choice is morally acceptable.
Neil C.
October 10, 2012 - 11:28 pm
Your definition of morality, George. Not one everybody agrees with.
Rene
October 11, 2012 - 6:27 am
I don’t think I ever said Republicans are categorically evil. I do think they’re an antiquated political organism that evolved to fight Soviet Communism. Now that is gone, but they remain, like the fever that still attacks the body long after the infection is gone.
And they’re self-destructive too. Militant capitalism ultimately cannot co-exist with militant christianity. You oppose abortion? Abortion rights are a result of capitalism, as much or more as of feminism. Feminism itself thrives under capitalism. As long as you got money, you’re somebody. It doesn’t matter if you’re woman, man, or hermaphrodite. Capitalism is the great equalizer.
But the GOP doesn’t see that. Read Balzac. A great conservative mind. He correctly identifies the decline of Christian ideals precisely when modern capitalism is born, as money and the search for material comfort replace familial bonds.
George Haberberger
October 11, 2012 - 7:05 am
The Repulican Party evolved to fight slavery, not communism.
This link list planks in the Republican platform from 1856 well into the 20th century.
http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/10/10/historical-ignorance-thy-name-is-spielberg/#more-41877
R. Maheras
October 11, 2012 - 8:48 am
Rene — I’m not a conservative simply because some my views are to the right of yours.
Let’s take women’s rights, for example. Almost across the board, I have been a champion of women’s rights since the 1970s in both words and deeds. In fact, I can only think of one women’s rights issue where I do not agree with the the left: Unfettered abortion on demand. My reasons for this are both moral and scientifically objective because an abortion involves two beings at some point, not one. It is not, as some far left advocates attempt to portray it, simply a “medical procedure” akin to removing a skin tag or a mole. It is the termination of a life, and should be treated with the same gravitas as executing a criminal by lethal injection, or dropping a hellfire missile on a suspected terrorist.
And because I have reservations about “no limits” on that single women’s rights issue, liberals label me not just a conservative, but an ULTRA conservative.
If that’s not bullshit logic that is absolutely wrong (not to mention wildly unfair), I don’t know what is.
Rene
October 11, 2012 - 12:16 pm
George –
I was refering to the current incarnation of the Republican Party. Like Mike has said, the 19th-century version of both Parties bear little resemblance to what they are today. We could as well be talking about Whigs and Tories.
The GOP’s current platform, with its emphasis on free market capitalism, Christianity, and strong foreign American presence, are all artifacts of America’s fight against communism.
It’s a Cold War agenda that has been given a new paint of coat after 9/11, replacing Communist with Islamic Terrorist, basically.
Russ –
Fair enough, man.
I also think abortion is the termination of a life. Whoever says it’s not, is being unscientific. What I disagree with the Right is on the question of whether said life has the rights of a human person. Because it’s problematic (in a practical way) to defend those rights when the “person” in question can’t be separated from another person.
Reg
October 11, 2012 - 1:01 pm
“What I disagree with the Right is on the question of whether said life has the rights of a human person. Because it’s problematic (in a practical way) to defend those rights when the “person” in question can’t be separated from another person.”
The following is in no way intended to derail this thread, but since I don’t have your email address to have this dialogue continue in a more private way, here it ’tis…
Your statement (in it’s framing) begs the question of whether a co-joined person can elect to terminate the life of the other ‘person’ attached without it being considered as murder. Even if the other ‘person’ is considered as being ‘non-viable’ from a cognitively developmental aspect. Does that ‘person’ have a right to life?
R. Maheras
October 11, 2012 - 1:35 pm
Yeah, there are a lot of ethical and moral questions about the issue, but one rarely hears them discussed anymore — especially on the Democrat side. If you have any reservations about abortion and you are a Democratic candidate, you will be shunned or marginalized by your national-level party peers. That is simply not fair. At least on the Republican side, nationally there is some space between those who believe life begins at conception and are against things like the “morning after” pill and those who have a more open view regarding the issus.
Rene
October 11, 2012 - 3:00 pm
Reg –
I would have to think about it. If one siamese twin tries to kill the other, how do you send the one to jail without punishing the other? That has the making of a bizarre black comedy movie.
A lot of our assumptions about murder takes into account that you can separate murderer from victim. It is problematic when some Conservatives start calling abortion “murder”.
I think I said something in an earlier post. If some parent tries to kill their child, the authorities can and should take the kid away from the bad parent, send the parent to jail, and find a better place for the kid to stay.
Now, in the hypothesis that abortion is considered murder, like some Christians do, if a woman tries to abort and is caught, what do you do? You can’t separate the victim from the culprit. You gotta keep the woman under observation for the remaining of the pregnancy.
Do we have any other legal situations where a sane person must be kept under watch 24 hours a day, against their will, for months? Possibly restrained so that she can’t harm herself to get rid of the child?
Whether you personally think abortion is morally right (and I do have a lot of personal objections to abortion), I think outlawing abortion opens an even bigger can of worms. Ultimately, it’s the woman’s body. And I don’t say this in a feminist way, I say it in a pratical way: It really IS her body the baby is inside of.
My own experience as a Brazilian, a citizen of a society where abortion is illegal, is that abortion will happen, and it will happen a lot, only it’s a sort of “open secret black market”. Christians can ignore it and pretend if does not happen, but everybody knows it happens.
The political will to actually punish abortions and send those women to jail can only exist in a pretty severe theocratic state, in my opinion. I suspect even most Republicans would be disgusted if they were magically transported overnight to a USA where they regularly punished women who had abortions with the severity reserved for murderers. They claim to want such a USA, but do they really?
Reg
October 11, 2012 - 3:36 pm
Rene,
As I’ve expressed in the past, I mostly try to avoid stepping deeply in these waters due to the simple fact that my plumbing does not allow for the carrying of a child, but I appreciate both the tone and content of your response.
And I do agree that no earthly government can successfully legislate behavior. Culture shapes culture.