Republicans get what they deserve: Election 2012

Republicans must stop nominating candidates with the ethical equivalency of their opponentsRepublicans must stop nominating candidates with the ethical equivalency of their opponents. The election of 2012 is over and the result is indicative of any choice one must make between two marginally different philosophies. At their core, there is no difference ethically between Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama, and this lack of distinction resulted in a dismal future for generations to come.

Any common sense analysis of the two candidates in their actions and advocacy makes this apparent:

Equal support of a health insurance mandate

Astoundingly, Republican voters nominated the one person who has no ethical standing to criticize President Obama on the one issue that is his biggest vulnerability, Obamacare. Although Romney tried to separate his advocacy for the Massachusetts law and the federal law, his refusal to admit at a minimum the Romneycare experiment in Massachusetts is a failure, he left people to assume the conclusion that Obamacare will deliver on its promises. Romneycare did not in Massachusetts and Obamacare will not nationally.

Although such an admission would be a somewhat effective means of exposing one of Obama’s biggest weaknesses, the more important point that should have been made is the fact that Obamacare is not ethically sound. A person or group will never ethically possess the “right” to force others to purchase a product or service from a corporation.

Romney could not make this point because this assertion does not square with his ethics. One cannot blame a fool for being a fool, but one can blame the population of people who put him in a position to oppose his own ethics with the expectation his value system would not be a deterrent. The republican voters are at fault because Romney’s stance in this regard was evident from the outset, even during the primary debates, yet they nominated him anyhow.

Bailouts and Quantitative Easing

Romney’s feeble advocacy in favor of the bailouts and quantitative easing also lent legitimacy and credence to the decision to move forward on these actions by both the Bush and Obama administrations. Again, without a clear ethical and logical repudiation of these actions, what is a voter to think? That somehow it is more favorable to agree a half measure bailout is better than a full measure? This makes no sense, and without a person of principle saying the idea as a whole is wrong, voters draw the only logical conclusion: If a bailout is ethical and legitimate, then why not “do it right”?

In any ethical society, people and organizations have the right to succeed and fail by their own accord, and no one is obligated to help them.

Taking a position of this caliber would have upset the small minority of people who would have benefited by the bailouts and easing, but this would have made sense to exponentially more people seeking a person who can communicate a logical position. Yet because both Romney and Obama share the same ethics, this position was never even considered.

Wars

Finally, Romney had a clear opportunity to strike at Obama’s complete lack of regard and discretion in foreign policy. The events of Benghazi, Obama’s underhanded whispered promise of more flexibility after the election with our enemy Putin, and the unprovoked attack on Libya years prior were an open opportunity to draw parallels between Obama and the Bush Administration.  Although some points would have offended die-hard Republicans who view the Bush years as favorable, making this logical point would have resonated with nearly all other war-weary and less partisan voters. It also follows that die-hard partisan people will vote in favor of the party candidate regardless, so no real loss in votes would have been realized.

Yet this was not the strategy used by Romney. Why? One can only guess. It is quite clear, though, Romney and Obama share the same ethics and therefore it is certainly conceivable that, yet again, Romney saw very little wrong with these actions and therefore felt uncomfortable attacking Obama in this regard.

One cannot fault Romney for the way he conducted his campaign. He never claimed to disown Romneycare, he never said bailouts were unethical, and he never said that unprovoked war is wrong. He acted in accordance with his values, values with very little difference than that of Obama.

The fault lies in the establishment Republican Party. Our country may never recover from the debt, ill-ethics, and un-Americanism of the Obama administration. Those who are to blame are those who cast their ballots for Romney during the Republican primaries.  They, not Romney and not the Democrats, are the destroyers of our children’s future.

Leave a Reply