Sorry, but the 47% Comment is Indefensible

BY RAJA KRISHNA

My colleague Kaity Shea offers a defense of Mitt Romney’s leaked 47% comment:

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.”

Shea even went so far as to turn the tables on President Obama and the First Lady:

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.

I posted the following comment on the article:

There are couple of things wrong with this:

1. Even though you’re correct in saying that Romney was talking campaign strategy in this video, what he said was still just plain incorrect. He framed the 47% as moochers, people who don’t take responsibility for their lives. He even went so far as to say that he never COULD convince them to take said responsibility. This IS insensitive and does merit critique. The fact that he thinks the very poor, the elderly, and others don’t take responsibility for themselves indicates that yes, he is in fact out of touch with the middle class and out of touch with voters.

2. It’s not at all fair to say that because Michelle and Barack Obama live in the White House they are just as “out of touch.” It may be true that neither man had control over the conditions surrounding their respective births, but that doesn’t make them equally in or out of tune with voters. The fact that Obama spent much of his career in inner-city Chicago and that Michelle Obama grew up in poverty DOES give them a greater sense of the issues facing those populations.

…And that’s exactly the point. Romney doesn’t recognize that the conditions of your birth DO affect your lifestyle and the person you can become. Just as you argue it’s not Romney’s fault that he wasn’t born in the right environment to be “in touch” in the same way Obama is, I argue that it’s not the 47%’s fault that many of them require federal assistance, or can’t afford to pay a federal income tax.

The argument works both ways, and until Romney understands that, 47% of the country has every right to be angry with him.