Defending Romney's "Gift" Remarks

Romney’s explanation of his election loss may be closer to the truth than a lot of people want to believe.

Mitt Romney’s explanation of his election loss—that President Obama bought the election with “gifts” such as health insurance coverage and student loan forgiveness—may be closer to the truth than a lot of people want to believe.

The losing Republican presidential candidate’s remarks were made in a telephone conference with campaign donors that was monitored and reported on by the Los Angeles Times. The comments were immediately denounced by journalists and by other Republican politicians. Politico’s Mike Allen enumerated “five problems” with Romney’s explanation and quoted the governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, a Republican, as describing the Romney remarks as “absolutely wrong.” Plenty of other critics piled on, too; Newt Gingrich, for example, called Romney’s remarks “insulting and profoundly wrong” and also “nuts.”

In fairness, Romney’s remarks, at least as they were conveyed by the Los Angeles Times, were less than artfully phrased, and, by characterizing the gift recipients in terms of racial groups, did have the potential to be unnecessarily and unfortunately divisive.

The professions of shock, dismay, and outrage that greeted the Romney remarks are nonetheless exasperating. The situation brings to mind Michael Kinsley’s definition of a gaffe as when a politician tells the truth.

At least two important points are being missed in the discussion of Romney’s remarks. First, there’s a double standard at work. When reporters suggest that donors to Republican causes are motivated by self-interested desire to keep their taxes low and their businesses unhampered by environmental or labor regulations, that’s groundbreaking investigative journalism. (See, for example, The New Yorker magazine’s Jane Mayer on Charles and David Koch.) Yet when Romney suggests that Democratic voters might have been motivated by self-interest, his comments are condemned.

The second missed point is that Romney is hardly the first to suggest that voters might be swayed by the government benefits they are receiving. There’s an entire field of economics, known as public choice theory, devoted to the idea that, as the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics summarizes it, “people are guided chiefly by their own self-interests and…as such, voters ‘vote their pocketbooks,’ supporting candidates and ballot propositions they think will make them personally better off…Public choice, in other words, simply transfers the rational actor model of economic theory to the realm of politics.”

As the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences put it in a press release back in 1986, when it announced it was awarding the Nobel Prize in economics to James Buchanan, a pioneer of public choice theory, “individuals who behave selfishly on markets can hardly behave wholly altruistically in political life.”

The idea that voters might consider what’s in it for themselves, in other words, isn’t some screwball sour-grapes idea dreamt up by Mitt Romney as an excuse for his defeat. Rather, it’s been part of mainstream social science for decades.

Faced with these insights, free-market-oriented political candidates and their advisers and backers can respond in a variety of ways.

•They can give up on winning, figuring that they’ll never outspend, or outgift, the left-wing Democrats. This approach leads, also, to talk of secession, or of emigration to overseas tax havens.

•They can give up on the free-market approach and try to compete with the left-wing Democrats on the gift-giving front. Romney tried some of this during the campaign, saying in one debate, “I want to make sure we keep our Pell Grant program growing.” President George W. Bush was accused of this by some critics when he added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

•They can try to exhort or educate voters to altruism, preaching some sort of modern version of President Kennedy’s, “ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”

•They can try to make the case to voters that the voters would be better off under the free-market policies. With lower taxes, you’ll have more money in your pocket. With less government spending, the share of the national debt that you will have to pay off will be lower. With school vouchers or tuition tax credits, you can send your children to private school. With free-market health care, you’ll have better medicine and more innovative medical devices than under a system with more government involvement.

Which combination of these responses Republican candidates choose in the months and years ahead will be a big factor in determining whether in the days following future elections they will again be, like Romney, offering explanations of why they lost, or whether they instead will be savoring victory and turning to the details of governing.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • LemonMender||

    The problem was not so much with what Romney said as it was with the implication that he was any different. Of course people were voting for the "gifts" they would get, but he ran a campaign that essentially promised not to take away any of those gifts and simultaneously to lower taxes for everyone. In other words if Obama promised pie for everyone, Romney promised pie and ice cream for all. But people didn't believe him because they all like to get to pretend that they are altruistic and kind.

  • daveInAustin||

    Exactly. Romney spent more time in the frist debate criticizing Obama for cutting goodies than he spent talking about what goodies he would cut in his entire campaign. Romney received a majority of the 65+ vote, who are disproportionately part of the "47%", and less than 1/3rd of the Asian-American vote, who are disproportionately not part of the "47%".

  • SIV||

    less than 1/3rd of the Asian-American vote

    GOP WAR ON HINDOOs!

  • Incredulous||

    The "65+" vote is not "disporportionately part of the 47%." "The 47%" refers to people who are pigs at the government entitlement trough although they haven't paid for these entitlements - welfare, food stamps, etc. The 65+ group largely worked for and earned what they have - including Medicare and Social Security. They are dependent on government "handouts" but rather depend on the programs they paid into. It is not their fault that the money "invested" in these programs has been so badly misspent or stolen.

  • ||

    No, 47% refers to the portion of the population that receives a government check. That includes SS and Medicare, which are thus the realm of the 65+ vote.

  • Calidissident||

    That's not even what the 47% refers to. It's the percentage of the population that doesn't pay income taxes. It has nothing directly (key word) to do with spending or welfare

  • DJK||

    Big deal. Romney was wrong on the 47%, like he was wrong on just about everything. The point still stands. Look at Gillespie's numbers for Social Security and Medicare. Seniors are by far the winners in the game of government largesse.

  • Duelles||

    Yes, I am a winner! As well as providing for myself, I consider the SS check each month gravy or ice cream as one might say. Should I refuse the governments largesse? No way. would I vote to privatize it so that the FICA tax goes into an individual account of T Bills? Absolutely. My self interest allowed my to short the market the morning after the election. Isn't this a great country?

  • aprescoup||

    How does paying payroll tax for service to government become "government largesse"?

    Or how does a gov. mandated private insurance system, all of the sudden become anything other than corrupt government enforced transfer of wealth to financial industry middlemen?

  • ||

    You don't "pay into" Social Security or Medicare. You pay a tax as a younger worker that provides current beneficiaries with their benefit, and the government implies that you will receive the same benefit when you are older on the backs of future taxpayers. It's not a pension plan or a 401(k) or a health savings account. People collecting those benefits, particularly the people who have enough resources that they don't need to rely on them, are welfare mooches the same as anybody else. The only slightly mitigating factor is that they were sold a bill of goods by politicians and the nature of the taxes they paid have been completely and utterly misrepresented to them.

  • sasob||

    I got news for you: You don't pay tax only as a younger worker - older workers are paying the same taxes, including workers who also receive social securtiy benefits. Furthermore, even social security recipients who have no other income have to continue paying tax for medicare; it is deducted from their social security benefits. And if that isn't bad enough, some social security recipients must pay income tax on their benefits, if their other income is over a certain amount.

  • DJK||

    That's a load of shit. Social Security is a defined contribution, defined benefit program. And the benefits out are greater than the contributions in for anyone retiring before at least 2011. Seniors who retired before 2011 are definitely taking out more than they put in.

    Try some numbers:
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....ers-vs-y/1

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    SS is welfare. Maybe it's the kind welfare we ought to have. Maybe it's the moral thing to do. But it is welfare. And if the benefits are dispersed at the whim of the current congress, then they aren't "defined".

  • Duelles||

    DKJ? Do your homework. Some get more than they were taxed, some get less. How long do recieve SS, the senior welfare program? What is your life expectancy? You flat out do not know. I am currently on senior welfare benefits, and could live without them, but I am self interested.

  • Kroneborge||

    @ DJK

    nope not true, in fact the supreme court has already ruled that SS are a tax, not a contribution which is why the benefits can be changed (or eliminated) at any time

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Yet when Romney suggests that Democratic voters might have been motivated by self-interest, his comments are condemned.

    The entire "What's the Matter with Kansas?" thesis--that the hicks are voting against the own best interests--is basically the addendum to this.

    Team Blue openly panders to the Free Shit Army, does it shamelessly, and expresses outrage when certain segments of the population they are targeting with this pandering don't get on board. Yet point this out, and watch the pearl-clutching and "How dare you call me a whore!!" expressions of spittle-flecked outrage commence.

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    Romney was right about the 47% as well. Too late Reason, too late.

  • Calidissident||

    Everyone who doesn't pay income taxes voted for Obama? Cause that's pretty much exactly what Romney implied

  • T o n y||

    And he surely didn't mean to include himself or any of the other tax-dodging millionaires out there--Rich people not paying taxes is called ingenuity.

  • Torontonian||

    Tony,

    I'm pretty sure Romney paid more in tax this last year than you will in your entire life.

  • T o n y||

    Well yeah he was running for office for Pete's sake.

  • Alex the wolf||

    It is because of rich people like Romney that Washington can still afford all the free stuff without totally collapsing.

  • T o n y||

    How? Romney is a pathological tax evader. Lots of big corporations get their taxes deducted completely away too. They are freeloaders, not contributors.

  • Calidissident||

    Depends on the individual. In general, the people who make the most money pay most of taxes, even beyond their share of the income. And plenty of corporations lots of income tax, not to mention the taxes paid by their employees and shareholders, excise taxes, etc. That said, there are plenty of benefits that go to the wealthy. Corporate bailouts, subsidies, Social Security and Medicare benefits that go to everyone over a certain age, regardless of need, the Federal Reserve, which benefits the big financial companies, regulations that stifle competition, etc

  • Alex the wolf||

    Absolutely true. In no way I defend those cronies Solyndra likes who make millions at the expense of taxpayers.
    However, my feeling was that Romney was critizised for being rich, as if that would be something bad. For some people he somehow had to apologize because he had succeded. He was ¨out of touch¨

  • Alex the wolf||

    Absolutely true. In no way I defend those cronies Solyndra likes who make millions at the expense of taxpayers.
    However, my feeling was that Romney was critizised for being rich, as if that would be something bad. For some people he somehow had to apologize because he had succeded. He was ¨out of touch¨

  • aprescoup||

    His wealth is a product of his closeness to first money.

    If you like fiat, and government largesse to those closest to the printing press, you're both out of luck and deeply unReasoning.

  • DarrenM||

    ...a pathological tax evader.

    Have you ever called any member of the current administration anything even close to this?

  • Incredulous||

    Can you provide a link providing evidence Romney was guilty of tax evasion?

  • Alex the wolf||

    Tax evader?
    Any evidence?
    The IRS has full access to his tax returns.
    If he didn´t disclose them to the public was because he knew that they would be distorted and some people from the left would start saying lies, as you have just proved.

  • ||

    By "tax evader" he means that Romney used every legal method at his disposal to lower his tax burden.

    Which makes him just like everyone else.

  • d_remington||

    Lowering your tax burden used to be something people took pride in.

  • Duelles||

    Poor Tony! In spirit and pocketbook. Did Romney write the tax laws? Did he break a law? Was he more or less transparent than BHO?

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    I think he meant it as being 47% who dont pay income taxes and/or collect some form of government "assistance". Certainly the retirees and well off folks dont pay income taxes now after all the years they saved/invested. But Romney's underlying premise was spot on (just like with his recent comments, its a recurring theme), too many people are on the dole-yet Reason attacked him for it.

  • Calidissident||

    If that's what Romney wanted to say, then he could have said it. He didn't. Don't pretend he did. There are too many people on the dole, but many of them vote Republican. Poor minorities on food stamps and TANF aren't the crux of the problem. Social Security, Medicare, and the military are the three biggest items in the federal budget. All three benefit groups that primarily vote Republican. Not to mention, minority groups like Jews and Asians, who are disproportionately not on the dole, vote Democrat in numbers equal or greater to minority groups like Latinos, who have been everybody's favorite punching bag lately for giving the Democrats the election because of how much they love welfare

  • XM||

    What Romney said was statistically true. 47% is actually pretty dang low.

    The point is, the minorities (primarily Latinos) are now not only tipping the scale in favor of big government (by voting insistently for one party), but also giving that side a sense of legitimacy by the virtue of their multicultural coalition. Meanwhile, most people who even remotely interested in limited government are mostly white. Guess what the narrative is going to be?

    Republicans who like medicare and or Social Security would vote for someone like Ron Paul (if he was a candidate) or entertain some thoughts on reform. The other 50% of other whites + 70% of active minority voters would summarily dismiss any notion of cuts as evil, darwinian, or driven by cultish white people.

  • Mike M.||

    The plain and obvious truth needs no defense to real libertarians or anyone with a brain, only to Beltway cosmotarian dipshits who are primarily concerned with the next cocktail party, face time on television, and their future job prospects.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Some of contributors to Reason are prolly beltway cosmotarian dipshits whether they admit it or not.

  • T o n y||

    Good point about voters acting in their self-interest, but you need to go a lot further to prove that Democratic voters are motivated in the nakedly transactional way Romney described (which is basically just rightwing coded racism--I've just assumed he said what he clunkily thought his audience wanted to hear, as usual).

    It's entirely plausible some voters think "Democrats promise to keep my welfare check coming." But, while I don't have a scientific survey at hand, I believe most Democrats' self-interested practical concerns are along the lines of "We don't want Republicans fucking everything up again/more" and "We want a more egalitarian sensibility applied to economic policy so that it is more likely for us to be upwardly mobile." Mainly a concern for society as a whole, which will benefit individuals including the individual concerned. I guess in the end "voters vote their self-interest" is a trivial truth.

  • ArbutusJoe||

    "which is basically just rightwing coded racism"

    Speaking of needing go further....

  • Alex the wolf||

    ¨Mainly a concern for society as a whole¨

    Just beautiful my friend. You have been exposed.
    There is no society as a whole, society is just many people together.
    Society doesn´t vote, society doesn´t has any interest, society as such doesnt existy. For example, if the price of corn goes up, is that good for ¨society¨?

  • ||

    IOW, exactly as Stoll points out the article, Democrats voting in their self interest is noble, anyone else voting in their self interest is sinister.

    Trivial indeed. Not sure how much "truth" is contained therein though.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    I thought Romney was an insensitive prick who was wrong wrong wrong and immigrants are wunnerful and all that. Make up your damn mind already before no one gives a crap about the election results anymore.

  • Wintermute||

    Exactly.

    And it IS almost completely impossible to shame voters out of benefits paid for by others.

    The thing to watch is which people denounce Romney's truth-telling, thinking it will make them more attractive to the primary electorate.

  • T o n y||

    Romney brazenly campaigned against Obama's supposed cuts to Medicare, which makes his statement a lie wrapped in a lie.

  • DarrenM||

    Any objective observer must admit that Obama is a much better liar than Romney.

  • T o n y||

    Perhaps. He has a better poker face, but every time Romney articulates a policy belief he's lying, since he has no such thing, so he's much better practiced. But yeah nobody ever seems to buy it. Probably not even the people who voted for him.

  • DJK||

    I thought Obama had pretty good practice about lying on policy as well. End the wars, Guantanamo, opposition to Patriot Act, wouldn't sign NDAA, wouldn't enforce federal crackdown on marijuana...

    I'm sure these will all be overlooked by the Team Blue shill.

  • Torontonian||

    "The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."
    - H. L. Mencken

  • Coach Panto||

    Libertarians show own the Maker vs Taker dichotomy. Ntl Review online says the term taker is "unnecessarily insulting". I disagree.
    The term isn't meant for 77 yr old retirees on social security that they paid into.
    It's not meant for 7 yr old children, who are legal dependents.
    It is not meant for govt workers who do dangerous jobs to earn hazard pay.

    The term Taker is meant for
    statist politicians,

    overpaid/undertalented govt workers (millions),

    welfare kings and queens with no intent to work (millions),

    public workers who fake disability to get off work or pad their retirement (millions),

    students with no intention of paying their student loans back,
    Wall Street bankers who know that they'll be bailed out if their high risk securities and loans go bust, and

    people who vote Democrat because they let their envy of people with more money overwhelm their analytical sensibility that further tax increases and regulations will destroy jobs.

    Taker is a bit coarse, but it works. Insults to Takers are justified when the consequences of the taking are cataclysmic economic failure.

  • T o n y||

    Politicians, government workers, people on welfare, and students all pay taxes too. You don't get to conveniently exempt the Republican base with weaselly excuses. The biggest "takers" by far are old people on Medicare, the GOP's main constituency.

  • Calidissident||

    That may be true, for pretty much all those groups, except some students, they get far more in pay or benefits than they pay in taxes (at least during the time period where they're working for the government or on welfare). If a government employee makes $50,000 and pays $10,000 in taxes, it's effectively the same as that employee making $40,000 and paying no taxes.

    I do agree with your point about Medicare and not exempting the Republican base from the taker category

  • Calidissident||

    *The word "but" should be between the comma and "for" in the first sentence

  • seguin||

    Politicians, government workers, people on welfare, and students (on the various forms of welfare) are all paid with by taxpayer money. Engaging in the self-satisfying fiction that "they pay taxes too" is meaningless and/or stupid.

  • Alex the wolf||

    ¨they let their envy of people with more money overwhelm their analytical sensibility that further tax increases and regulations will destroy jobs¨

    well said

  • SerenityNow||

    You drag out the tired Republican red hearing of Well Fare Queens and then question the analytic ability of others? All of your points are the fevered boogey men of paranoid shut-ins that are certain someone, and probably a dark or female someone, is taking their money while sitting around being lazy.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Well, one would have hoped that the notion that we're well on running out of other people's money to blow and when the whole damned thing goes belly up we'll all be more right and royally screwed than we'd ever be without the freebies might have woken people up. But I guess expecting people to look beyond the next free birth control pill or Obamaphone is a bit much to ask.

  • JM1001||

    I have no problem with Mitt Romney saying that Obama won by promising "gifts." The problem I have is with the implication that he was any different.

    Just to take one example: Romney promised a huge increase in military spending. One could characterize that as promising a "gift" to defense contractors and the National Security State.

    They can give up on the free-market approach...

    That's assuming Republicans are practicing a free market approach now -- which they aren't. The GOP, like the Democratic Party, are a corporatist party, devoted to maintaining the system of corporate feudalism we live under. There's no biggest "gift" than that.

  • Juice||

    If anyone thinks that Romney was not promising gifts to people from the US Treasury, they are deluded.

  • ||

    That's assuming Republicans are practicing a free market approach now -- which they aren't.

    True, but sadly, the electorate thinks that the Republican party is not just a free market party, but a radically quasi-anarcho-capitalist cabal that survives by drinking the blood of the poor.

  • wanderlustmisfit||

    People don't vote for getting less things. Romney's point, while offensive, is completely true.

  • aprescoup||

    Once taxes are paid, why should people have no expectations of where, and how they are allocated?

    Cut the DOD budget by half, and right there you have 1 Trillion more than the "Grand Bargain" to either give back to taxpayers, or attend to the dilapidated, third-world resembling commons.

    Doesn't seem like Reason threads are anything more than Republican sycophant numb nuts mouthing unexamined talking points.

  • Jim in Denver||

    Will the stupidity ever cease! Learn to do some research, the DOD budget is less than 6 Billion dollars. The issue should be Military Discretionary spending as part of the Discretionary Budget which is negotiated between Congress and the President. 700 Billion in 2012... guess who requested and spent that money? I'll give you a hint, he was just re-elected as President.

  • aprescoup||

    Discretionary spending on our war machine is approx 1.2 Trillion.

    DOD spending $707.5 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"

    Obama is s fucking neoliberal neocon, much as Romney.

    I thought this was a "libertarian" site?

  • DarrenM||

    With lower taxes, you’ll have more money in your pocket.

    The tricky part is using this line to pursuading people who don't pay taxes.

  • T o n y||

    Mitt Romney seems thoroughly convinced.

  • ||

    Small wonder. He paid, what, 2 million dollars in taxes the last couple years?

  • Russell||

  • ||

    It's times like this you actually start to miss anonbot

  • ||

    Ah yes, Gingrich. After being called a moonbat so many times for supporting Ron Paul, there was only one politician who actually wanted to colonize the moon.

    As far as why Romney lost the election, I believe that Christan conservatives are still the majority in the GOP, or at least a good 1/3rd. Enough that, although they are now a minority as far as population, the GOP still needs to appease them to nominated a candidate. Yea, Romney did more than his fair share of fraud during the nomination, however I'm still convinced he would have won without it. The Christ-Cons get their irrational dogma from their pharisees, and will not vote for anyone who does not fall in line. Sadly, the other 70% or so of the American electorate is scared shitless of that dogma.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Just when the fuck did Gingrich ever support Ron Paul?

  • royal||

    As gift from Obama "health insurance coverage and student loan forgiveness" this is really a very important gift for the Americans:) that's why they give all the votes to Obama.

  • aprescoup||

    Whoa, there.

    A corporatist, monopoly establishing Health Insurance mandate, is no gift to anyone other than the Insurance industry middlemen!

  • 16th amendment||

    Romney's comment is right on the mark, though as you point out, he was wrong to single out minorities.

    Everyone's voting for a politician who will help them out some way. A liberal told me Bush won the 2004 election by buying seniors with his Medicare Part D promise. Sounds divisive, but true. We have increases in the conforming loan amount (currently 417k but would be about a quarter of that if it had only increased with inflation, so obviously voters wanted more free stuff by getting larger loans backed). We have the child tax credit, additional child tax credit (which is refundable). Then we have the great society programs. Remember, it was LBJ who said "we'll have these n***ers voting for us for the next 200 years". I wonder what is the context of this statement -- maybe it was medicaid or one of the civil rights acts.

    All this free stuff is causing crushing debt and will eventually strike us. What happens when people stop showing up to buy our treasury bonds? Then we have to print money, which causes inflation, and more people suffer.

    Plus, all the free stuff creates a nation of dependency. I find that because of the existence of social security and medicare people save less. Warm fuzzy feeling -- government will be there to take care of you later on. A safety net is cool, but it has become a hammock as Allen West says.

  • RandomJackass||

    The problem with Romney's comment is that, yet again, it was tone deaf. David Axelrod, on election night on MSNBC, was beaming with pride when he told the viewers that the UAW pension bailout (the GM bailout) was a genius strategy to win the midwestern states. The way Romney says it, people think of Obamaphones and welfare. The reality is that crony capitalism and union payoffs buy a lot of votes, too.

    One could make the same essential point without making people think you are just trash talking about poor minorities.

  • KRoyall||

    Everyone knows what Mitt meant and he was right. Politicians have been buying votes since the beginning of time. Obama bought the unions, the minorities, the single women, the list is endless. I don't care if anyone is offended by it because it is true.

  • Sevo||

    Re: Obama and the Unions.
    I see a question about who was the buyer and who was the seller.

  • SerenityNow||

    "With free-market health care, you’ll have better medicine and more innovative medical devices than under a system with more government involvement."

    but the "you" in that statement is the very few rich Americans and international slime balls that can afford it. We have the greatest health care in the world, for the few people that can afford it.

  • dinkster||

    So many dead bodies, everywhere. Stacked up like cordwood. Oh the stench.

  • Sevo||

    SerenityNow| 11.20.12 @ 6:03PM |#
    "With free-market health care, you’ll have better medicine and more innovative medical devices than under a system with more government involvement."

    but the "you" in that statement is the very few rich Americans and international slime balls that can afford it. We have the greatest health care in the world, for the few people that can afford it."
    =================
    Not real bright, are you? No, slime ball, it would be cheaper for everyone and people could afford to buy their own insurance.

  • aprescoup||

    Is that way the average expenditures in OECD countries on healthcare is half of what you propose, with better outcomes to boot, slime ball?

  • An0nB0t||

    Not that trolls would ever do so, but everyone else can Google illness survival rates by nation and see how full of shit proggies really are.

    The wonder is that that's true even though US healthcare is only marginally less statist & repugnant than all the single-payer systems fools like apie here idolize.

  • dinkster||

    Free-market Republicans? Isn't that an oxymoron? Right wing corporatism is going to lose to left wing populism. Simple as that.

  • Jim in Denver||

    Too bad most Dems are too dim to see that Republicans aren't acting alone when it comes to Corporatism.

  • Sevo||

    "Right wing corporatism is going to lose to left wing populism. Simple as that."
    Not sure the red/blue split is that clear, but the PR push from the blues try to claim it.

  • jeanysale@hotmail.com||

    he wonder is that that's true even though US healthcare is only marginally less statist & repugnant than all the single-payer systems fools like apie here idolizehttp://www.shopnflcolts.com

  • Harun||

    One thing with this recession is that due to its deep and long nature, many people have given up the hope for a job. This is why social security disability rolls are so high. A guy looks for a job for 99 weeks, can't figure it out, then goes on SSDI. He's done. He's probably not super proud of that, but he's out.

    So, when he goes to vote, he doesn't want to hear about fiscal discipline or God Forbid maybe someone testing his "disability" to make sure it really exists.

    So he votes for Obama.

    I doubt any of these guys are voting for Romney.

    Another point on the election. There were many tweets about Romney taking away our EBT cards. Those happen for a reason. Romney never said he would do that. But this rumor gets out, of course. Just Obamaphones "don't exist" except for the website with that name that directs you where you can get a free phone, and people on the street using the word Obamaphone. In their minds, it does exist. (My question for a journalist would be to find out who owned that website and how much money do they make per referral to the free phone program.)

    So, if you like your EBT card and even hear a rumor that it might be taken away, you vote like hell to keep that benefit.

    By the way, if we assume a $200 / month EBT card to an individual, you would need to have $220,000 in a bank CD to create such a benefit for yourself.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement