The saying, “Birds of a feather, flock together,” is not working in favor of Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. I recently had the pleasure of watching Richard Williamson, his campaign advisor, provide insight on…actually… nothing, during CSPAN’s presentation of the July 25, 2012 press conference on the U.S. presidential Election and Foreign policy. In fact, Williamson’s inability to directly answer a plethora of questions about the economy and important international relationships, has me flying even farther away from idea of Mitt Romney being the future President of the United States.
As I watched Williamson struggle to construct a coherent argument to support any one of his claims, I wondered, “Is the Republican’s game plan: When in doubt, just talk negatively about Obama?” While Michele Flournoy, Co-chairman of the National Security Advisory Committee provided insightful and enlightening facts and concrete examples in her responses, Williamson proceeded to talk in circles, seeming only to provide opinion based and speculative information that expressed how he does not believe President Obama is the “right man for the job.” Yet, without any reasoning, Mitt Romney will immediately possess the Midas touch upon presidential inauguration.
Furthermore, at no point was Williamson clear on any details of Governor Romney’s economic policies, which are going to miraculously stop the recession in its tracks and restore prosperity and American growth. When asked, repeatedly, “Where will you get the money from?” in relation to Governor Romney’s proposal to increase both the Army and the Navy, Williamson explained, “Defense is the first responsibility” of the country and the American people.
True, after 9-11, the security and safety of American citizens is a top priority; however, Flournoy thoroughly explained that the Army is currently slightly larger than at the time of 9-11. In addition, Flournoy articulated the reality that the defense budget under the Obama administration is actually larger than it was during the Bush administration. Yet, Williamson was adamant about the increase of funding for defense. Again, this time someone from the audience asked, “Where are you going to get the money from?” I was not the only person who realized Williamson never answered, the question; he simply conveyed his support for Romney and disdain for Obama and his administration. Nevertheless, during Williamson’s second attempt, he illuminated the overall agenda and goal of Romney and Republicans alike.
So where exactly would the money come from to increase the Army and Navy? To answer this question, Williamson again struggled before he circles around to discussing the philosophical differences between President Obama and Governor Romney. Williamson’s lose elaboration revealed, without getting into specifics, that Governor Romney would eliminate billion dollar stimulus bills, “that he would argue are a waste of money versus trying to support and unleash the private sector for growth.” Is Williamson referring the stimulus bills that allowed for the bailout of Wall Street and enabled many Americans to feel a moment of relief and survive financially for another day? Now it is clear; the middle and working class will be the ones funding the increase defense budget, as well as the growth of the private sector.
As Michele Flournoy pointed out, the Bush administration employed the same types of policies now advocated by Williamson and the Romney campaign, and these tactics have proven they do not work. Williamson rebukes, “I understand the desire to run against Bush a second time but this is Governor “Right,” he mistakenly called Romney, desperately searching for the light at the end of the tunnel.
When asked, again, “You think it’s possible, short of an agreement on the economy and the fiscal cliff that is described for the end of this year, you think it’s possible, short of an agreement to increase the navy and increase the army and put more money into defense; do you really think that’s possible?” Williamson’s response, I believe we can, should, and need to have an adequate defense,” completely sidestepping the issue, yet again.
It finally occurred to me that there is no plan for the economic growth of America; there is only an agenda for economic growth in the private sector. In all of Williamson’s rhetoric, two aspects of Romney’s future economic policy became transparent; one: America will increase the defense budget to enable financial dominance over other nations, and two: America will heavily invest money into the private sector to promote economic growth and resurrect the nation. However, there are three glaring omissions from Romney’s policy.
One: there has been no discussion about the lack of integrity, unethical practices, and disregard for social responsibility rampant throughout the private sector. Two: Romney’s vision would hardly result in tax cuts for middle or working class Americans, not to mention devastating effects of the projected reduction in money for stimulus packages (most likely unemployment, but even in education) that create revenue and help many Americans survive. Three: It is unclear what is preventing the private sector from helping with economic growth and creating jobs for Americans. Since 2001, the private sector has continued to grow and profit at a much faster rate than the average American, even if it is not at the rate they desire. In fact, despite the reports of the economy’s dire state, many Americans (within the elite one percent) continue to collect hundred-thousand dollar bonuses, living lavish lives that stretch beyond what my fantasy fathoms.
Let’s face it; the Republican party is nothing short of socialism for the wealthy. But, instead of paying higher taxes to ensure the greater good of their society, the Mitt Romneys and Richard Williamsons of the nation fund their utopia with the blood, sweat, and financial sacrifices of the “middle class” and working poor of America. The Republicans at the top thrive at the expense of those at the bottom. As you descend down the totum pole, meer survival is nearly impossible. Why does the private sector feel entitled to billions, when the average American struggles to bank in the thousands? Why does the private sector feel entitled to exploit the American people, especially the youth, and abandon the working poor in order to build personal empires? Why does the divide between the “haves” and the “have-nots” have to be so wide?
Republicans clearly intend to renew the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to maintain economic growth for the private sector, but in that investment lies no guarantee for a positive chain reaction for the average Americans. For the struggling mothers, high school English teachers, students in debt, and the unemployed, there is no guarantee that the Bush tax cuts will have a significant effect on improving the lives of citizens in impoverished areas. Many cities in our nation: Detroit, Compton, East L.A., Miami, New Orleans, New York, (or any other low-income neighborhood infested with gangs, guns, and drugs) are home to honest, hard-working citizens, who are held hostage by the violence, neglect, and the failure to adequately educate and integrate all members of America. These members of society are excluded from Mitt Romney’s list for growth and prosperity.
Remember, this is the same private sector at the heart of mortgage crisis. Yet, only four years later, the American people are supposed to not only trust, but “support and unleash” a deregulated private sector as a means to restoration? With Mitt Romney as president and the implementation of economic policies like the one Williamson “outlined” in this press conference, I can only see growth for The Republican Socialist Nation of America, not all the citizens of the United States of America. I welcome an explanation from a member of the Republican party that would make me reconsider this conclusion Richard Williamson helped me reach.
As Williamson continued to talk, he confirmed that Mitt Romney’s dream for America would be a dismal nightmare for many Americans, like me, who live in the real world– outside the boundaries of the private sector. If birds of a feather flock together, I am flying far away from Mitt Romney and any policy represented by Richard Williamson.
Obama, on the other hand, seems to be flying in good company. Michele Flournoy soared above Williamson, presenting the Obama administration as knowledgable, transparent, and actively working towards rebuilding the nation as a whole and improving international relationships through means other than exerting our military dominance. But, you are entitled to fly with your own flock; view the press conference on the U.S. Presidential Election and Foreign Policy, featuring Michelle Flournoy and Rich Williamson, respective Obama and Romney campaign advisers. Let me know what you think.
