The American Spectator : Beware the Election Year Populist

Text Size

A Further Perspective

Beware the Election Year Populist

A losing proposition for all concerned, starting with our country itself.

Seeing pictures of Mitt Romney doing his laundry reminded me why I am not a populist. If I were a populist, I’d actually care if a presidential candidate did his own laundry. Though I want my president to have a strong grasp of how an economy operates, I’m really not that concerned whether he knows how to get out those really tough stains, or knows the proper way to fold a shirt. To be honest, I really don’t spend much time considering if the multi-millionaire former venture capitalist and governor is more “in touch” with the average American than is the multi-millionaire consultant and former congressman, or how either one of them stacks up in this regard with the multi-millionaire Harvard-educated lawyer who has never attempted to make a living outside of government.

The problem with populism, whether on the left or right, is that it tends to play to the prejudices of the “common man” whether or not those prejudices are based in fact. Both the “Tea Party” and “Occupy” rail against Wall Street as a symbol of corporate greed that has fleeced the common man. Now it is true that the focuses are a bit different. Occupy argues for Wall Street’s destruction; the Tea Party argues against government “bailouts.” But both tend to portray Wall Street (by which they usually mean investment bankers, mortgage bankers, and commercial banks generally) as inherently corrupt, a leach on society whose members are paid more than they “deserve.” Occupy, apparently not following the stock prices of Bank of America or Morgan Stanley, argues that Wall Streeters actually engineered the financial collapse for their own benefit. Newt Gingrich, taking on the mantel of conservative populist, portrays successful private equity firms, responsible for the growth of numerous business enterprises (like Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital) as “vulture capitalists” and argues that owning stock in Goldman Sachs is evil.

People involved in finance, especially those who make a lot of money at it, are inherently far removed from the common man and hence an easy populist target. Aside from making money, many people have very vague notions of what the financial industry actually does. Even Democratic Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, commented that the financial industry is not part of the “real economy.” Everyone knows that manufacturing (idealized as it is) is “real” but services are a bit harder to grasp. But the fact is that those ghouls on Wall Street who make the flow of equity and debt capital remarkably efficient play a key role in bringing together those who need capital to expand businesses and those who have capital to invest, and thus are responsible for keeping the cost of capital (a major cost to most every business) significantly lower than it otherwise would be. It might not play well on Main Street to defend Wall Street, but demonizing Wall Street is not good economic policy.

The so-called bailouts to banks and other financial institutions may be hard to swallow, particularly given the culpability of many of those institutions in engaging in bad lending practices, not understanding financial instruments they were buying or insuring, and doing a poor job of managing risk. But many were more sinned against than sinners — victims of government policies that essentially mandated risky lending, corrupted rating agencies that routinely gave AAA ratings to securitizations they knew carried far greater risk, and being blindsided by the ripple effect of forced deleveraging and imploding home prices resulting from the collapse of the bubble caused by other, more reckless lenders. Stepping in with support to prevent the financial collapse from wiping out most of Wall Street and the banking industry, and with it a good deal of Main Street, may not have been popular, but it was nonetheless imperative (though certainly the execution by the government and the Federal Reserve may have been far from perfect).

Good economic policy, however, does not usually make for good populist politics. Take for example President Obama’s push for the so-called “Buffett Rule” that would effectively double the tax rate on capital gains on those who do the most investing by taxing anyone who makes more than $1,000,000 a minimum tax rate of 30%. Raising the tax rate on capital gains from 15% to 30% effectively raises the cost of capital to all those businesses that need that capital. There could hardly be a more effective job killer. But this is “fair,” argues Obama, because millionaires and billionaires shouldn’t pay a lower rate than their secretaries. Fairness is a big populist war cry. The problem is that fairness is rather subjective. It’s easy to argue that a billionaire shouldn’t have a lower effective tax rate than an average office worker. The reality, however, is most high income people pay effective average tax rates well above those paid by the middle class. In fact, according to the CBO, the average effective average federal income tax rate (federal income tax paid divided by total taxable income) in 2007 for middle America — the middle 60% of Americans — was 4.2%, well below the 14% paid by Romney. So, is that “fair”? Is it “fair” to have one person paying many multiples of what another person pays in taxes simply because he works more hours, or took his education more seriously, and/or put a lot of capital at risk in a business enterprise that prospered? Fairness is a tricky issue when you get beyond populist rhetoric and actually look at the facts.

Obama, however, is merely playing the populist card. Does he really believe that sticking it to the rich is more important than creating jobs? Probably not. But he knows that much of the voting populace can not make the connection, and so he can potentially win needed votes with a populist rallying cry against the rich, knowing full well that the “Buffett Rule” has no chance of passing in either the House or Senate. Obama also knows that even if a “Buffett Rule” became reality, the effect on revenue to the Treasury would not make a dent in his trillion dollar deficits. There simply are not that many Buffett’s and Romney’s out there.

Sticking it to some bogeyman should not be an end in itself, regardless of how satisfying it might feel. Yes, I understand that politics is politics and populist pandering will always be a part of it. It is far easier to play to a crowd than to educate a crowd. But we should always understand that playing the populist card is inherently dangerous, particularly when it seeks to place the blame of our problems on some small group of people who we deem to be not much like ourselves. Conservatives have always competed well in the realm of ideas, and that’s where we should strive to keep any political debate. When government becomes more beholden to populist politics than to sound policy considerations, we all lose in the long run.

About the Author

Brandon Crocker is the chief financial officer of a commercial real estate development and management company in San Diego.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (50) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Jack in Wi.| 2.7.12 @ 6:30AM

The only populist running is Ron Paul. Obama and Romney are both the candidates of the corrupt banking class and military industrial complex. Look who gives the money to their campaign's. Follow the money trail.

Jack in Wi.| 2.7.12 @ 6:36AM

The Federal Reserve and all it's bailouts were pushed by both Mitt and Barack. They are both peas in the same pod. End the FED. It has looted enough and taken too many trillions from Americans by inflation. The government gives this private bank huge amounts of money to screw the average american citizen. Andrew Jackson was right. their should be no central bank for the upper class to control our money supply.Our currency has been debased to 2% of it's value in 100 years of rule by the FED.

c. j. acworth| 2.7.12 @ 6:52AM

"Does he (Obama) really believe that sticking it to the rich is more important than creating jobs? Probably not, but he knows that much of the voting populace cannot make the connection..."

And he will do or say nothing to help them make the connection, either. This is a portrayal of Obama at his most cynical. If indeed he does know that "sticking it to the rich" will cause more harm than good, he is guilty of the worst sort of rabble-rousing, setting one group against another to the detriment of both, for his own benefit. But then, that was his job back in Chicago wasn't it. Community Rabble-Rouser.

Vern Crisler | 2.7.12 @ 8:01AM

I believe Perry was the one who used the term "vulture capitalist."

It's a good description of Romney. Vultures perform a necessary function in nature, but they are not a pleasant sight. So, those who are the immediate recipients of Romney's vulture capitalism -- those who are fired -- aren't likely to have pleasant memories of it.

No matter what we might think of vulture capitalism, it is still a necessary part of the capitalist system as a whole. When people pursue their own self-interest, it results in an efficient use of capital in the long run.

Does being a capitalist qualify one for being President. I don't think this question has been asked by the Romney-boosters. We want more in a President than someone who is always focused on the bottom line.

A leader is more than an accountant -- more, dare I say it, than a venture capitalist.

JimH| 2.7.12 @ 8:47AM

The term ‘Vulture Capitalism’ is misleading and an insult to vultures, which as you say perform a necessary and valuable function. Vultures however, wait for death before picking over the corpse, while it appears that in at least some instances Bain Capital helped it along, though not necessarily intentionally. There is an article over at NRO today and last week the Economist had a good overview on the workings of PE firms. It would appear that these firms are merely responding to distortions in the market created by government policy and tax law. While one might hold them blameless, they are hardly the poster children for the virtues of free markets.

VonMisesJr| 2.7.12 @ 10:14AM

Vern and JimH,
Intelligent and valid comments as always. I would simply make the observation that Wall Street is not working on capitalism and free markets principles, as we speak. The Democrat and Republican Establishments have corrupted and perverted the system.
How did Corzine get dealer status, still lose the firm and investor's money; and then walk around a free man? How does Kerry make some $200K on insider trading, and Boehner is too busy trading on insider information to bother to remark, or have the credibility to comment? Pelosi, Moran and others are alledged to have shorted the markets just before the September 15-16, 2008 crash that was triggered by Schumer's IndyMac bank scare. Then the same people bought Citi and BOA once they heard Paulson him announce the bailouts in closed meetings, resulting in doubling their money.
Bailouts, TARP, Dodd Frank and nationalization of Chrysler and GM are not capitalism.
Capitalism is based on property rights and free trade. When Obama gives the unions bond holder's money, and subordinates taxpayers to Solyndra and other crony capitalist deals, markets are not free.
This is why Soros and the GOP Establishment are for Romney. Soros said nothing will change from Obama's regime under Romney. This is why they feared Cain, Bachmann and Perry; and they are petrified of Newt.

JimH| 2.7.12 @ 10:47AM

All true. Real free markets require secure property rights and the rule of law. Both sadly lacking of late.

Kade| 2.7.12 @ 2:17PM

Dittos JimH -- there is no rule of law – Wild West capitalism.

Also free markets are a thing of the past – just look at how the OPEC lobbyists control oil. Or how a lack of immigration enforcement distorts and undercuts American labor.

And I actually agree with what most of VonM said, except for (unfettered) free trade.

Trade should be limited to an exchange of goods, not outsourcing our vital industry and technology for cheap labor. Even then trade is not free unless each country has the exact same government framework, laws and Constitution as ours. Free (Democracy) countries come the closet to us, while dictatorships and communists (China) are light years apart – it is very simple to see this elementary truth.

Pete| 2.7.12 @ 11:33AM

VM Jr, you should write articles for spectator. Your comments are much more informative than the articles.

VonMisesJr| 2.7.12 @ 11:56AM

Thank you Pete. I did submit a couple articles to American Thinker that got reviewed. But my writing skills are not my strong point. Heck, I can't spell without spellcheck or a dictionary.

But these are not my original ideas. They are Von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Laffer, Sowell; as well as Locke, Burke and other much more intelligent people's theories. I just have the time and interest to read them.
That is why the Library at Alexandria was burned, and you can only find touchy-feely nonsense in bookstores. You can find great books at www.mises.org, and Amazon will ship all kinds of classics if you know what you are looking for.

Dai Alanye | 2.7.12 @ 11:59AM

VonMises statement about Boehner appears to be false.

VonMisesJr| 2.7.12 @ 1:36PM

And your source? It was in the news, but if you refute it, pony up the proof.

SUBVET| 2.7.12 @ 2:07PM

VMJr................on the mark as they say at 100' after shooting a MK45.......running hot straight & normal.

I hope we haven't pissed GOD off to bad maybe he will reward us with Newt.

POST American| 2.7.12 @ 8:05AM

"Notice once again, as the campaign
approaches, the REAL issues disappear."

-------------------UNDENIABLE------------------------

Petronius| 2.7.12 @ 8:24AM

Not a word of this matters to the economically illiterate boobs who believe the world is a sand box where everyone is entitled to a level pail full. These people look at life through lens of life styles. And as the salaries they are paid do not buy the luxuries of the top 1%, they demand the rich be taxed to the point where they can't tell the difference. That's what "fair" means. So Warren is fine with him because understanding has been reached.

JimP| 2.7.12 @ 8:41AM

Comparing the Tea Party to the OWS crowd is simply wrong. Yes the TP was against the Wall Street bailouts and there is plenty of anger at the Wall Streeters that are cozy with their crony politicians in DC who bailed them out, but TPers are just as angry with the pols and deficit spending and over regulation, increased CAFE standards, not using our own oil, and all the other BS that is DC. It's not so with the OWS crowd. The OWS morons rail at Wall Street period, while agitating for more regulation by the corrupt pols in DC that caused the mess in the first place and want a socialist/communist/fascist system. The Tea Party wants freedom and for DC to do no more than ensure that our ualienable rights as enumerated in the Constitution are protected and no more.

Statements making comparisons between the Tea Party and OWS like the one made here are subtle propaganda against the Tea Party, whether intended or not.

JimP| 2.7.12 @ 8:44AM

Oh yeah, speaking of populists, how many real guys wear jeans with a long sleeve button down dress shirt? I'm convinced, Mitt is just like me. LOL

HH| 2.7.12 @ 3:21PM

JimP, the white shirt? Right. I think it has just come back from the Dry Cleaners. $8.50 fee for that.

Yes, me too. This is exactly how I look in the Super 8* guest laundry room.

He's probably only worn it three times max. And discards it.

*Romney would be lost if he was quizzed on naming 6 or 8 of the largest family budget hotels (chain hotels) in the nation.

He probably thinks Super 8 has something to do with G14 gatherings or some conference meeting in Davos.

JimP| 2.8.12 @ 5:46AM

LOL I bet you are right, HH!

PCC| 2.7.12 @ 8:45AM

If one is idiotic enough to actually believe the "fairness" argument of the Buffet Rule, then why not lower the secretary's tax rate to 15% instead of raising the capital gains rate to 30%?

TrueBlue | 2.7.12 @ 3:16PM

Because tax cuts are reductions in revenue according to the government (although anyone who looks at history will see it actually results in increased revenue) and they'd have to reduce spending. Can't go doing that...

Kade| 2.7.12 @ 8:50AM

If the mega-banks could not refuse give risky lending then why did many of the conservative corner banks not participate? Was bank of America mandated to give mortgages to illegals? Why are these gambling investment firms even called banks? Where was the SEC while the ratings agencies were corrupted? And remember all this Wall Street corruption happen under GWB.

And nothing has really changed since the crash -- the mega banks are still too big to fail. No downsizing, no reenactment of the Glass Steagal Wall -- just business as usual. Helicopter Ben keeps printing monopoly money and bailing out Wall Street and socialist Europe too.

Meanwhile the lowly populists, that is We the People, collect 1/2 % on CDs while the propped up stock marker continues to soar. But there will be another crash for sure and then the Wall Street elites with their bought out politicians of both Parties will come once again to us lowly populists for another too-big-to-fail bailout.

TrueBlue | 2.7.12 @ 3:25PM

My issue with the bank bailouts isn't so much that they got bailed out (they really were forced by the FDIC and various other government agencies to participate or risk being shut down). My problem is that only the large corporate banks got those bailouts. I know, I know, I'm going into "fairness" territory, but think about it. Why should ONLY the large corporate banks have gotten the bailouts, while the local banks, ones that on average show more concern for proper lending procedures and actually care about their customers, not receive the same bailouts?

My problem is that stupid phrase, "Too big to fail." If ANY bailout money was to be paid it should have been paid to EVERY bank or lending company that was forced to comply with the standards (which of course would be ALL of them). As the small local banks got closed because of the lending bubble burst who do you think swooped in to claim the facilities and take their place? That's right, those big corporate banks like BoA (who treat their people like crap) who were "too big to fail."

Then of course you have the auto-industry bailouts... what excuse was there for that? Plenty of auto-companies would have been left if Chevy and GM had gone out of business, but thanks to free government money via the bailouts and constant subsidies they are artificially on top of the market (if you believe the hype, I want to see the actual numbers). Remove the subsidies, and see how well Chevy is actually doing. Apply tariffs on GM vehicles produced outside the country and shipped back in while they are getting tax write-offs none of the other car companies get.

Crony capitalism at its finest.

JimH| 2.7.12 @ 4:44PM

Some were forced in order to hide from the market those that were truly at risk.

Tommy Frisco| 2.7.12 @ 9:11AM

"When government becomes more beholden to populist politics than to sound policy considerations, we all lose in the long run."

Please cite examples of when the Federal Government has ruled in favor of We The People over that of sound policy. Is it when they keep raising the debt limit? Was it when they passed ObamaCare? Was it when they passed Frank-Dodd? Is it when they 'invest' in companies like Solyndra? How 'bout Fast & Furious? Was that sound policy over public opinion?

The problem we have is not the will of the people, it's the corruption of our representatives in DC.

Don't re-elect nobody! The longer they're in office, the less they represent the people.

Kade| 2.7.12 @ 9:32AM

I guess We the People are supposed to be silent too when the Wall Street /Washington axis continually puts out bogus unemployment numbers and other Bagdad Bob statistics.

Who in their right mind who pays bills thinks the CPI is a benign 2%. This CPI formula is continually tweaked to overweight those non basic items that depreciate rapidly while weighting much less necessities like food, utility bills, travel, car insurance and repair, local taxes and all the other basics that we lowly populists need to live. Anyone know the true CPI using a 30-year old formula?

Alas the sheepie still believe these lies, damned lies and government statistics

Bob K.| 2.7.12 @ 9:55AM

Mr. Crocker,

If you want to discuss Populism in the future and have a better understanding of it, I recommend to you this book by Professor John Lukacs, one of the great historians of the 2nd half of the 20th Century:

"Democracy and Populism--Fear and Hatred." It was published in 2005 before anyone had heard of Obama or paid much attention to Buffett.

You can be a "populist" if you want, just like you can be a "nationalist" if you want. It won't make any difference. Because Populism and Nationalism are forces of History and History will have it's say. Populism is a force that includes elements of nationalism and culture. It has little, if anything, to do with Economic hierarchy. These are terms that defy new attempts at definition.

The forces of Nationalism and Populism are working now in our Nation's southwest where your company is located.

Latino Nationalism is appearing there, illustrated by organizations like La Raza. It is being driven by nationalist leaders who are culturally Latino and who also can be defined as "populist" if you would so like to do so.

It will do you and your shareholders more good if you understood these historical forces rather than incorrectly categorizing people who are economically handicapped and blaming the nation's problems on them.

Bill| 2.7.12 @ 10:26AM

Romney's problems:
1. Romneycare
2. Abortion
3. Gay marriage
4. Gun control
5. Climate change
can't get worse!

JimH| 2.7.12 @ 12:59PM

Yes it can... 6. minimum wage.

tendon| 2.7.12 @ 3:03PM

I agree with you guys, Bill and JimH. So why aren't writers like Crocker here writing about how there is no way that Romney can be a Mormon?

What Mormon champions these things? Or is their family values mantra thing all hokey deception in the first place?

We're being played, no?

WL| 2.7.12 @ 10:41AM

"Populism Politics" is stupid from the word go...

The fact that campaigns rightfully assume that showing a candidate doing his laundry is a symptom of how stupid people are in general.

Let's face it folks...we know Democrats are stupid...but alot of Republican voters are too.

In general, we have always lived among a bunch of idiots.

In my opinion, that is the greatest challenge of democracy itself...There will always be more stupid people that not.

Don't get me wrong, it's better than non-democratic states...but make no mistake, it makes things difficult for the rest of us and always will.

David| 2.7.12 @ 10:57AM

Santorum will provide the greatest contrast with Bam Bam.

Remember, Newt, Mitt, and Barack all hold the following positions.

They believe in man-caused global warming baloney, and the regulations and restrictions that have resulted from such thinking. Santorum does not.

They supported the Wall Street bailouts. Santorum did not.

They support and/or supported individual mandates for health insurance. Santorum never has.

They all criticized Paul Ryan's plan to get our fiscal house in order. Santorum embraced it.

Santorum is of the opinion that ILLEGAL immigrants have not broken ONE law (by crossing the border) as many claim, but that they have continually been breaking America's laws by working here, driving here, etc., and should NOT be rewarded for doing so.

Santorum cannot be accused of being a flip-flopper.

Santorum cannot be accused of telling people what they want to hear.

Santorum cannot be accused of stating his positions based on the particular audience in front of him at the time.

It is clear that Santorum has been the adult in this race. His criticisms have been on the other candidates' records and he does not distort or misrepresent their records as they do to one another.

It is also clear that he has been the true, principled, consistent conservative his entire politcal career.

tendon| 2.7.12 @ 3:00PM

I agree with you mostly, David. None of these remaining four is really so good. The initial 9 were not that good. However, my vote is for Rick Santorum.

Not that it will matter. Electioneering practices by the GOP in my state ensured that he would not be on the ballot; they ensured that Romney would be on the ballot.

One more reason -- big reason -- to consider and vote for a Santorum. The (yes, it is overused) establishment Republicans are neurotic for Romney.

Rick Santorum is far, far better man.

Laurel | 2.7.12 @ 11:56AM

Populism wouldn't rule the day, nor be needed if this country didn't wallow in moral relativism. Moral relativism has saturated our culture and infected our government so of course it's going to bleed into capitalism.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.7.12 @ 1:13PM

The real populism can be found inside the beltway where the ruling class dances every day at your expense.

When the music stops, you will never find a chair.

These side issues are merely distractions.

We're drowning here and you're describing the water.

David| 2.7.12 @ 1:47PM

More populist crap from Mitt.

Let us not forget Romney's comment in the last debate that he favors indexing the minimum wage to inflation. Young people, and especially blacks, have such high umemployment rates already. Why? Because they are already being paid an inflated min wage for doing jobs that are not worth what they are paid for them.

Thomas Sowell explains it well in his article on Townhall.com.

Mitt is no conservative!!! Vote Santorum!!!

Ben| 2.7.12 @ 2:14PM

I am looking at the two machines (washer and dryer) that both Mitt and his wife are apparently using and it is quite obvious that these low end machines are not the quality of machine that a multimillionaire would be using to do his wash. And since we are taking a forensic look at Mr Clean and his wife, what is that little box of soap that Mitt seems to be using....the kind that one would buy if they were at a laundromat and ran out of soap. This all gives new meaning to the word SPIN (as in WASHington cycles). If he isn't even honest about his wash then he should be hung out to DRY.

HH| 2.7.12 @ 2:54PM

Ben, if you can endure it, see my post below.

Romney and his wife ALLOWING themselves to be photographed in this way (They know that the cameraman is there. There might be more than one cameraman. Maybe even a guy doing video.)

The fact that both of them know that this MOMENT IN TIME is being photographed for us flyover landscape rubes to see, this fact alone speaks to the mighty arrogance of a man. Any man.

Romney is not worthy of us.

Ditto for the one who will become the new First Lady. She knows what she is doing here, and she goes right along.

Yes, this is at a probably medium range hotel in, most likely, Iowa. This is the hotel guest laundry room.

And the joke is compounded on us: There's probably nothing inside the machines.

Ron| 2.7.12 @ 2:35PM

Ben,

That picture (i.e. photo opportunity) was probably taken at a hotel laundry or public laundry on the debate trail.

I have washed my clothes when traveling, and the little box is what you pay for out of the dispenser at most hotels, or from the front desk. Guest washers and dryers are cheap, and the ones the hotel staff uses to do linens (such as bedding) are industrial size and not usually available to guests.

HH| 2.7.12 @ 2:49PM

Actually to the dweeb dork who wrote this piece:

I DO CARE if my candidate knows how to do the laundry.

Because, you see, we normal folk do laundry.

And dishes.

And cook for ourselves (7 days a week, month in, month out)

When's the last time you treated your wife to a 5-star restaurant meal? Answer: 19 years ago before having our first child. Now? That money has to (HAS TO!) go to their college or professional education funding.

Or to try to pay even a smidgen more to get the mortgage monkey off our backs.

Or to put into the emergency fund because there's going to be a new round of large layoffs in the company in year 2012. Yes, prior to July.

Mister Crocker, you're bananas. A crock perhaps? (Okay, I know, you get called that a lot)

See, if the Mitt Romneys of this world know what it is to do the laundry (and, yes, get those stains out because I just don't have easy pocket change $55.00 to purchase a new shirt, blouse, kids track suit, or pants -- not for me or anyone in the family), if Mittens knows what it is do do home chores:

1. Then he knows I don't have 8 hours per weekend between now and March 28th (my self-imposed deadline) to devote EXCLUSIVELY to 2011 taxes, filing, checking, the math, nonsensical forms, strange wording in the text, the changes, the smart 'new!' money moves.....
2. He knows the look of utter defeat a man has when going over just grocery and heating/electricity/water/sewage/garage removal bills.
3. He might know of how we now must be Olympic class wrestlers with the credit card company, the local banks we use, and even a few mutual fund companies when they err. Strange how often they err now these days, is it not?
4. He might know how terribly expensive phoning remains. Cell phone plans? Would he even know one if he saw one? I'm sure you could tell Romney that his cell phone coverage for him and the wifey is just $12,900 per annum and he'd not even blink.
5. He might know how the average family's home, work, school, at college IT budget has skyrocketed (and just for basic, essential computing requirements)

Do you get it? Or should I go on? I could go on, you know. On and on and on.

Life is not supposed to be an easy path or nothing but peaches and strawberries.

But -- just maybe -- if Romney did his own laundry, folding, ironing, hanging up (and mothballs in the storage area) -- just maybe he'd understand my ephiphany 5 years ago:

My own national, state and local/city/county leadership actively works to stick it to us at every turn.

Does he get that? Does he know it to be true?

It is true.

You can do everything right, I mean everything. And still be behind the eight ball for the last 40 years of your life.

THAT is America today.

Don't worry. Romney doesn't know how to do the laundry. (How many of us have a man with a $3,800 priced Nikon snapping a shot of us and the missus pouring in that travel-sized Tide box in the hotel laundry room? A staged shot? Say in ain't so.) Romney does not do self-checkout at the grocery. Romney has never been to Groupon.com. He's not a Sam's Club member or if he is an attache shops there for him. Romney doesnt' have to tell his sibling on the other coast, "Sorry, not this year. Next year, next year we'll be there -- promise!"

The arrogance of these fools (like Romney) is ever-present, ever-evident. They are as detached from us as Louis XIV was from his "folk."

And that is why the burden of government that strangles life (and joy -- forget about pursuing happiness) will go on and on. He does not know what it is to have his wife make and mend clothes for their children or grandchildren.

He has no concept.

Well, alas, I shouldn't get all uptight about this. No. I have no reason for ire. Why? Because Brandon Crocker says it is okay that Romney does not do his own laundry.

Brandon Croker is not astute enough to write a 9 paragraph article on 1. Why this photo was taken. 2. Who took it. and 3. Why we can view it.

Grzmlyk| 2.7.12 @ 3:25PM

So let me ask you, HH - were any of your fears about Romney put to rest by seeing this picture of him standing at a washing machine? No? Then guess what? You agree with the author's premise that pandering with populist pabulum is the cheapest form of retail politics there is.

Or are you saying you're going to vote for the candidate whose laundry skills are such that his whites are whiter than the other guy's? Never mind if our man doesn't understand that monetizing the debt is inflationary - I've seen him fold a clean sweatshirt and THAT'S enough for me.

Populism is to the body politic what ghetto trailer parks are to suburbia. That's the point of this article.

Believe me, I relate to your frustation. You are right on the money. But I should think you'd agree that crass symbolism like this picture is no substitute for substance.

HH| 2.7.12 @ 4:19PM

The author wrote, "I really don't spend much time considering if the multi-millionaire former venture capitalist and governor is more "in touch" with the average American than is the multi-millionaire consultant and former congressman, or how either one of them stacks up in this regard with the multi-millionaire Harvard-educated lawyer who has never attempted to make a living outside of government."

See, I do care. And, no, I don't care for Romney, Gingrich, or Obama (or Biden) or the host of others that we Americans confine to the very tiny realm of possibilities for high office.

I want a man to lead the country who has a real grasp of how one is always playing catch-up, always beating one's head against the wall trying to get local and state government to fix its $550.00 error in property tax assessment. I want a man who understands that even the small postal rate increases just days ago impacts many small businesses in a big way.

I am not sure if this author gets that.

Maybe I am at odd with Webster's understanding of this word "populism." Oh well. Forget that word. I want a leader of our nation who understands that there is no moment of this life now where one is not having to be a:

1. Self-schooled top-notch, very savvy personal and family financial planner.
2. Expert on credit cards, banking, fees, online banking, and the many ways we can be scammed and ripped off through online and credit card thieves.
3. I'm tired of needing to spend 3 or more dedicated months of solid planning to purchase a 4-5 year old used car to help save $3,000.00 Do I want to save that money? Yes. But why must the task for savings/prudent purchasing of items require a masters-like degree to achieve some savings on all over$2000 purchases?
4. A tax expert. Make a few false errors in your 30's, 40's and 50's and you can be messed over with no chance to recover. (Nobody hires a man who is 64 anymore. So one has to get it right -- right now. There are no second chances.)
5. Fighting the costs of higher education.
6. An expert on pharmaceuticals and how to save literally thousands of dollars per year for what seniors often need on medications.
7. A medical management finance expert for everything from the OB/Gyn care to pediatrics, to teen, to adults, all dental, and to seniors care. Unless one is a true expert in these areas, you'll blow the family budget nearly ever year.
8. One's only free-time reading is consumed with Consumers' Reports and like-type web sites to try to dodge the next minefield of needless expenses.

None of these candidates understand this.

And none of them understand that the above represents the shackles of slavery. We're all just slaves. The only option is to stay single, never marry, never have children, don't adopt, and shy away from aiding one's parents or other relatives. And that is not just defeatism, it is an ugly way to live.

So I want them, those who run for president, VP, governor, mayors to know all of this intimately.

Then they might do something about it. (if they experience this never-ending pain in their own lives)

No, I did not derive from reading the article that the author thinks this important.

Grzmlyk| 2.7.12 @ 5:09PM

Again, your point is a good one. I'd like to see that too. But the truth is, most people who run for president are not all that in touch with regular-guy America. Even Rick Santorum started to rake in big bucks in the private sector after he got whupped in his senate race.

You may be right about the article - my take on it is that, among a lot of guys who are more-or-less equally sequestered from the viscissitudes of everyday living, what the author wants is someone who is ideologically true, managerially competent and can help move this country back into the realm of functional .

It's a little Quixotic to compare which candidate in the modern world is more in touch with this or that kitchen-table issue (or, to your point, ANY kitchen table issues). Even Reagan was a relatively wealthy man, a movie star, former president of SAG, high-profile corporate spokesperson and governor of California. Not exactly a guy who's going to be brown-bagging it because he's gotta pay for his kids' orthodonture.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice, but really, since who, Harry Truman? America really hasn't had a regular guy as its nominee from either party. Lots of 'em start out that way, but, by the time they've gotten enough critical mass even to mount a presidential campaign, they are generally long-since removed from the hoi polloi.

If you haven't spent a couple of decades in politics, you are a son or daughter of privilege - or, like Romney, Michael Bloomberg and countless others, a "self-made" millionaire. Or, like Ike, a towering war hero.

Again, I have no quarrel with your desire for a more real person. I just don't think it happens in any country. Or, if it does, it's the exception that proves the rule.

PattyMor| 2.7.12 @ 3:02PM

Let's face it, the shot was staged. Neither Mrs. nor Mr. Romney do the laundry. I'm sure "the help" does it or they sent it out. In trying to like "one of us", it just makes them phonies, cardboard cutouts, or plastic; like Barbie & Ken.

Its no different than Mrs. Obama shopping at Target, where conveniently, there were photographers.

Grzmlyk| 2.7.12 @ 3:04PM

What this article illustrates - as if we need further illumination - is that both Romney and Gingrich are cynical and unprincipled politicians.

Any pol who takes up the mantle of populism is playing lowest-common-denominator politics.

Just what we need to save this country, eh? Not an effort encourage America to live up to its ideals, but to dumb down the issues so that they fit into the basest of unthinking tribal instincts.

And one of these incredibly uninspiring, uninspired jackasses is going to be the GOP standard bearer?

We are screwed.

Garfield| 2.7.12 @ 3:37PM

Actually, Gingrich's baggage isn't as heavy as what Romney and Santorum would like people to believe.

What Romney deliberately neglects to mention is that a few years after the "ethics investigation," Newt Gingrich was cleared by the IRS, whom essentially said that there was nothing there to begin with.

In other words Mitt Romney is essentially saying we should give Nancy Pelosi credibility that she quite frankly doesn't deserve.

Grzmlyk| 2.7.12 @ 4:17PM

Well I don't care what Nancy Pelosi says about Newt or anyone else. I do know that Newt is a back-door statist who has wobbled about as much as it's possile on matters of ideological importance (isn't his false charge of "right wing social engineering" regarding Paul Ryan's plan enough to make you realize Newt is out for nobody except Newt?).

I learned everything I need to know about Newt Gingrich when he sat on that couch with Pelosi and bemoaned Global Warming, putting his imprimatur on the entire concept of a planet-wide redistribution of the wealth under the guise of caring for the planet.

He says it was a mistake. No, it was a cynical calculation that turned around and bit him on the ass.

Newt is a fool. And a scumbag. And immature. And a liar. And a narcissist. And not half as smart as he thinks he is. Sure, he's glib. But he's also got less wisdom than your average college sophomore from what I can see.

I don't trust him as far as I can throw Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

And no, that doesn't mean I love Romney. I dislike BOTH of them equally.

And yes, I will vote for either one of them over Obama - not that it matters one iota.

David| 2.7.12 @ 4:37PM

Vote Santorum.

MaryT| 2.7.12 @ 6:56PM

Brandon Crocker, thank you for your so true comments..Politicians should take heed and do right as they govern..thank you again.

POST American| 2.7.12 @ 11:25PM

---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

"And once again, as the campaign
approaches --the REAL issues disappear."

---the FUKISHIMA cover up
-----the John Wheeler murder cover up
------'Fast & Furious'
-------'Banker Bailouts'
---------MORE 'QEs'
------------Fractional Reserve USURY
---------------ultra rich TAX FREE foundations
-----------------the CFR RED China TREASON OP

-------------------------EUGENICS-----------------------

Just --some-- of those issues.

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|37 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|25 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|23 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|42 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|6 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|15 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|16 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator