47 Percent and Out of Touch Politicians: A Conservative Perspective

Mitt Romney’s recent “47 percent” comment has dominated the newsreel since Mother Jones published it September 17. The video, the release of which was facilitated by the grandson of former president of Jimmy Carter, depicts Romney speaking to a room of millionaire donors.

The mainstream media and Obama campaign alike have criticized Romney’s statements as out of touch, but it is absurd to conclude from these statements that Romney simply doesn’t care about 47% of the population or that he is any more out of touch than his opponent.

Putting the Statement in Context

When Romney stated that it was “his job not to worry about those people” who do not pay income taxes, he was speaking strictly of election chances and strategies. He made a rational assumption that those who do not pay income taxes, many of whom are unemployed, elderly, and below the poverty line, are likely to support Obama. Thus, it would be foolish for him to focus time, money, and energy on winning their votes when he could target swing voters.

Romney never stated that he did not care about the welfare of nearly half the population. He never said that he does not worry about their economic situation. He didn’t imply that he disregards the impact of poverty and welfare dependence on the overall economy, or suggest that as president he would not feel just as responsible for the interests of the so-called “47 percent.”

The intentions of his comment are clear when taken with the full context of the video, which is often left out by the mainstream media. Additionally, Glenn Beck’s news and opinion site The Blaze suggested that a key portion of Romney’s “47 percent” answer was missing and that Mother Jones was dishonest in its claim that the comments were “shown in full.” The source of the tape later backtracked on this statement, reporting that “one to two minutes” of audio was missed.

It is also valuable to consider that Romney was still campaigning during this video. During any campaign, a candidate will generally say what they believe will gain the most support from the group they are addressing. They will go as far and extreme as they believe they can without drawing the attention of the press. How sincere Romney was in his comments describing the 47% is up to interpretation.

Being In Touch with the American Voter

The Associated Press ran an article on Friday under the headline “Obama suggests Romney is out of touch with America.” Most American voters already agree with the president, with 66% believing Obama is better described by the phrase “connects well with ordinary Americans” than his opponent, according to a recent report by the Pew Research Center.

To believe that the lifestyle of the Obama family bears any semblance to that of the average American, or even attempts to, is absurd. Michelle Obama’s life could fittingly be aired as a reality TV show entitled “16 Vacations and Counting.” A February luxury ski trip to Aspen, Colorado was the sixteenth vacation the Obama family had taken in three years (a number that has since grown), which include shopping trips to London and Spain. Just three of these pricey vacations cost taxpayers over $1 million. At a time when many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, this lifestyle hardly resembles that of the average voter.

The similarities between Obama and Romney continue. Both are Harvard lawyers, both have a net worth above $10 million, and both could be considered elite. Romney’s experience and success as a businessman should not be held against him anymore than Obama’s success as an academic and politician should be held against the president.

Success in business is a good thing. It should be valued. Romney’s experience as a business leader means he understands how to work with private businesses to create jobs. It also means he understands how to lead, communicate with people, set and reach goals, and be responsible for the interests and livelihoods of other people. These are all qualities that are good in a president as well.

Holding Romney’s privileged childhood against him is also unfair. He had no more control over the family and lifestyle he was born into than Obama did. Both men worked hard and were successful. Romney did what anybody as fortunate as he should have done: he appreciated what he was given, he took full advantage of the privileges he had, and he gave back a significant portion of his income to those in need.

His recently released 2011 tax returns reveal that Romney contributed 30 percent of his income, just over $4 million, to charity. And this is not just a political move in preparation for the election. A 20-year summary of his tax returns shows an average annual donation of 13.45 percent of Romney’s adjusted gross income. Still not convinced? Obama’s tax returns from 2000 through 2011 suggest that he donated less than 7 percent of his adjusted gross income annually.

To say Obama worked harder than Romney is not fair. Both men faced very different challenges and come from very different backgrounds, but both have earned what they have today.

Quite frankly, it’s not the president’s job to have first hand experience with the challenges that everyday Americans face. It’s his job to solve those issues, and as long as he’s equipped and qualified to do so in a way that I support, I have no qualms voting for him.

Romney’s 47 percent comment was very much taken out of context. To believe that he doesn’t care about the well being of nearly half the country is foolish and unfair. To believe that he is any more out of touch with the nation than Obama is ridiculous and narrow-minded. The gaffe should not be a determining factor in the way citizens vote.