-
It’s About the Legacy, Not the House
April 16, 2013 | 43 comments
-
Understanding the Left’s Demands on What Others Own
March 13, 2013 | 205 comments
-
Football, Fairness, and Hayek
February 1, 2013 | 18 comments
-
An Elite That Still Reject Him
December 24, 2012 | 76 comments
-
Why Rice?
December 11, 2012 | 31 comments
Political Hay
Romney and Democrats’ Own Past
The modern Democratic presidency is a creation of very wealthy men. So what makes Romney wealth unacceptable?
Since when have Democrats had a problem with wealthy presidential candidates? Democrats’ two most revered presidents, FDR and Kennedy, were extraordinarily wealthy. Interestingly, the contrast between Democrats’ past history and their current attacks on Romney is never acknowledged — either by Democrats or the media.
The Obama campaign has used Romney’s wealth to caricature him. To hear them tell it, he was born Richie Rich and became Gordon Gecko. Of course, such a sketch serves many purposes — from the politics of division to the economics of redistribution. The problem is it neither fits Romney nor Democrats’ own self-cherished past.
Despite the recent resurrection of Bill Clinton — really a factor of limited choices (it’s either Clinton or Carter), the modern Democratic party rests on the twin pillars of Roosevelt and Kennedy. And those pillars’ political careers rested on great wealth.
FDR built today’s Democratic Party, and along with it the modern all-encompassing presidency. Democrats idolize both.
Roosevelt was not exactly born in a log cabin. Rather, FDR was born to wealth and privilege unimaginable to most Americans of his day or today’s. He is possibly America’s wealthiest president. Yet this did not hurt his political ascent, even during the depths of the Depression.
Obama in his acceptance speech even mentioned FDR (“the kind of bold experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one”), in order to tie the current economy to the Depression and himself to FDR. Yet while his campaign uses today’s economy to discredit Romney and his wealth, there is not a peep about the party’s plutocratic patriarch.
Did the urgency of the Depression absolve FDR, but today’s does not Romney? Perhaps the world of 80 years ago was different. Then how about that of 50 years ago?
If FDR is the substance of Democrats’ presidential ideal, Kennedy is its symbol. An author, truly gifted orator (pre-teleprompter), handsome, young, and a war hero, he embodied the spirit of his age. He looked like how America wanted to appear, and as the Democratic Party still sees itself.
Alas for Obama’s campaign, Kennedy too had a very privileged upbringing, due to the wealth of his investor father (sound familiar?). Yet this didn’t bother Democrats of his day, and apparently not those of today either.
Neither of these two Democrat icons had a hand in creating the wealth they enjoyed. Far from being self-made men, they were homemade. Contrastingly, Romney’s wealth is largely of his own creation. Assuredly, he did not start from scratch, but “the scratch” he has, he earned.
This personal private sector success, which separates Romney from FDR and Kennedy, would seemingly meet with greater approval from those so suddenly suspicious of wealth. At least that is the Horatio Alger way we used to see it. People came to America to get rich. Wealth and success were Americans’ goals, not their millstones.
Yet today, Romney’s personal success — the only thing separating his wealth from FDR’s and Kennedy’s — stokes liberal opprobrium all the more.
The reason is simple: the men and women who succeed on their own are not dependent on government. And if they do not need government, they do not need liberals who promote it.
Liberals see the successful as an implicit rebuke of their vision. So they create a counterfactual tale of the successful: that their success has come with the assistance of the rest of us, if not at our expense. It is liberals’ view that government is needed to generate widespread success and correct the imbalance that the successful create.
It is Romney’s personal success, not his wealth that antagonizes liberals so. And it is the liberal control that separates today’s Democratic Party from that of FDR and Kennedy. Romney actually has greater resonance to Democrats’ past than today’s liberals do.
About the Author
J.T. Young served in the Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004 and as a Congressional staff member from 1987 to 2000.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (34) | Leave a comment
More Articles by J.T. Young
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/25/romney-and-democrats-own-past
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The (Real) Great Divide
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Boys and Girls
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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
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
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 9.25.12 @ 7:28AM
The point most people are missing about the toxic envy and jealousy people feel toward wealthy men who do not apologize for their success, is that these mobs don't want Romney's wealth -- THEY WANT HIM NOT TO HAVE IT. My British friends used to have a wry joke about the differences between Americans and Brits. "When a Ferrari goes by, the American thinks 'I will have a car like that some day.' and the Brit thinks "We'll take those cars away from them some day.'" That's what you're dealing with here. They don't want your money. They just don't want you to have it.
Jack in Wi| 9.25.12 @ 8:00AM
I guess Romney wears his wealth wrong. He also made many enemies when he was in business.
TLP| 9.25.12 @ 6:32PM
I think I'm falling in Love, with this old Canuke.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 9.25.12 @ 9:04PM
"The point most people are missing about the toxic envy and jealousy people feel toward wealthy men who do not apologize for their success, is that these mobs don't want Romney's wealth -- THEY WANT HIM NOT TO HAVE IT"
I want Romney to have more wealth so he will forget about politics and stick to business.
Purp| 9.25.12 @ 8:10AM
It's not his wealth. It's his lack of empathy for those without wealth. 47%, "i like to fire people", "corporations are people", and on and on and on.
Romney is NO Ronald Reagan, and he sure is no where near the stature of Franklin Roosevelt. He's a LOSER. Just turn on any news program except the Republican News Channel (=Fox News).
Ryan| 9.25.12 @ 8:23AM
Nice way to take the 47% statement WAAAAY out of context.
Purp| 9.25.12 @ 6:58PM
How do you take an entire video, in the candidate's own words, "out of context"? hahahaha.... Polls show most Americans don't agree with you.
CJW| 9.25.12 @ 7:11PM
You laugh about Ambassador Stevens's death.
Sicko.
You KEEP blaming Ambassador Stevens for his own death.
You are a disgusting scumbag, Burp
JP| 9.25.12 @ 8:24AM
Ah, but that is the focus of Obama's remarks. And if you're looking for empathy look no further than Mitt's charitable contributions these last several years. If one takes into account how many jobs Mitt's private equity firm either created or saved (and all the additional tax revenues the actions of Bain Capital generated), as well as Mitt's charity it is a no brainer. Mitt's personal actions did more to benefit people than the sum of all of the politicians in DC (including Obama). It is much easier to be charitable with other people's money. But, as the saying goes, at some time you run out of other people's money.
Purp| 9.25.12 @ 6:59PM
Giving money to the Mormon Cult? That's charity? I don't think so - that's his payment to keep his Bishop position.
BAIN capital and Romney didn't create as many jobs as GW Bush lost the month President Obama was sworn in. Nice try. He's a LOSER.
CJW| 9.25.12 @ 7:11PM
You laugh about Ambassador Stevens's death.
Sicko.
You KEEP blaming Ambassador Stevens for his own death.
You are a disgusting scumbag, Burp
TLP| 9.25.12 @ 6:33PM
How about a little Empathy for all of us that have to put up with all of your Bullshit?
Purp| 9.25.12 @ 7:00PM
Eat it and it will go away!
CJW| 9.25.12 @ 7:12PM
You laugh about Ambassador Stevens's death.
Sicko.
You KEEP blaming Ambassador Stevens for his own death.
You are a disgusting scumbag, Burp
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 9.25.12 @ 9:08PM
Purp,
he is not even that-- Romney is merely a ghost for his father George: only Dole was worse than Mittens.
Von Mises Jr| 9.25.12 @ 9:01AM
There is also a moral component.
- FDR was screwing his secretary and was a bully threatening to pack the Supreme Court.
- Kennedy wealth was from illegal bootlegging and he was a whore master. He even passed along some for his friends and advisors.
- BJ Clinton is the new liberal hero having dithered a little fat girl, allegedly raped another to ride off into the sunset making huge speaking fees for selling influence and national secrets.
Mitt has a beautiful wife in a traditional and loving marriage. He is not known for being a totalitarian in his business dealings, but an honest and successful leader. And he lives a modest life style for a man of his means from money he earned himself (remember that he gave away his inheritance in addition to giving 15% to charity last year).
No wonder scummy liberals hate him.
Purp| 9.25.12 @ 7:01PM
Today, Mitt the Twit wants to know "Why don't they let you open windows on an airplane? " And, he wants to be Commander-in-Chief? I can see him asking "what does this button do?" and nuking New York. What a dunce.
CJW| 9.25.12 @ 7:12PM
You laugh about Ambassador Stevens's death.
Sicko.
You KEEP blaming Ambassador Stevens for his own death.
You are a disgusting scumbag, Burp
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 9.25.12 @ 9:11PM
"Mitt has a beautiful wife in a traditional and loving marriage"
I agree-- run HER for president, not her husband whatshisface.
Who Knows?| 9.25.12 @ 10:48AM
Blinded by the Light!
Just about the only relevant fact from this oh-so-pedestrian “analysis” of the eternally returning hypocrisy of the Democratic Party is that it’s been 80 years since FDR began his socialistic tear, and over 50 since JFK his own fabled career.
People change, and most key, they die, and new ones are born. So, it’s NOT the wealth of FDR or JFK that matters.
The institutions the true believers on the left create, sustain and WORK FOR, have done their dirty duty---drip, drip, drip, day after day---in putting the training wheels on the newbies. What, after all, is SCHOOL for, except to teach what matters—to THEM. And, you thought movies were JUST for entertainment!
One chooses. Each apparently separate person ONLY does that. Whether habitually, or consciously, with thought or not, we each rock and roll through our awake days moving, and having our Being, as decision makers.
It’s SUCH a paradox!
There is only the One, than which there is NO other.
Just as a fish is not aware of the water in which it moves, each ONE of us humans live and move in the Only One Who is It All. Separation is Absolutely an illusion.
Reflections, though, do SEEM to catch our eyes.
“Just do it!”
“It”?
One.
TLP| 9.25.12 @ 6:36PM
I never know what the Fck you're talking about.
But, I will defend, to the death, your right to fry my Brain every day.
MarshallH| 9.25.12 @ 11:20AM
Neither Romney's "personal success" nor "his wealth" "antagonizes" liberals like you state. His wealth isn't unacceptable; it's Mitt Romney himself that's unacceptable. No matter how you want to spin it, he is out of touch with the majority of American citizens. Whether it's his changing of his view on important topics to appease others, his uppity or better than you attitude that he gives off to people who aren't as successful financially, how he addressed recent foreign affair issues unprofessionally...I could go on and on but the point is people can see through him. He just isn't trustworthy and doesn't have best interest of the country as whole in his plans.
PolishKnight| 9.25.12 @ 1:37PM
BS. I remember that liberals gushed over McCain when they voted for him in the primaries because he was "moderate" (and not a CRAZY extremist!) and liked GHB's breaking his no-new-taxes pledge. Didn't matter. The second they were both official candidates, they became blood dripping vampires again in their eyes. I also recall the hatchet job they tried to do on Reagan (and even continue to mutter under their breath) that he was a simpleton crazy monster who wouldn't be remembered.
Anyways, back to the topic. You can criticize Romney (and there's a lot to criticize) but his ideology is pretty understandable. Let's review Obama: He was raised by loving, white grandparents after his African father abandoned him. Whom does he love? You got it! Ideological leftists commute out of their inner cities and avoid their illiterate electorate. They bash "greed" and lavish their welfare recipients with entitlements. They define racism as the notion that whites are people. They demand "equality" for women via treating women as helpless victims. Does that make any sense?
Bottom line: If Romney can get jobs going again and lower gasoline back to 2 bucks a gallon, he's got my vote!
DRA2012| 9.26.12 @ 11:32PM
Please, do you think OBAMA is in so much better touch? He who had a Kenyan government official for a father, and an Indonesian Government official for a step-father? He whose wealthy grandparents enrolled him in an exclusive private school, and then had his eight years of Ivy-League schooling paid for by wealthy Muslims? He whose wife has 23 assistants on government payroll and has burnt $10Million of taxpayer's money on her vacations? He who has doubled the number of combat fatalities by interfering with the rules-of-engagement? No, I certainly hope the rest of the country doesn't feel they're in touch with such a grifter.
As for the rest of the libel you have committed against Governor Romney, When you start telling the truth about his record, rather than just repeat the talking points from the "Journolist", perhaps people will start paying attention to you. I'm not going to waste any more time refuting the rest of your points, as anyone who has done ANY research on his record, will know them to be untrue.
Dave Williams| 9.25.12 @ 12:32PM
I don't give a rat's rear end if my President is "in touch" with me or not; for Pete's sake, he's not my therapist! I want someone who's competent to protect us from foreign enemies and keep the economy functioning. Obama no, Romney yes!
Who Knows?| 9.25.12 @ 2:05PM
Talk about “noise”.
Or a “bump in the road”.
Or “You didn’t build that”.
It is a sure sign of sheer decadence that polls are the topic du jour. It’s time to do a poll of how many MSM stories are about polls.
Tokyo Rose, in WWII, broadcast sweet English words to weaken the morale of soldiers. Now, the MSM is trying to do the same thing to the freedom loving voters of America.
They are all poll cats! Appalling!
Skin them, alive---that’s my recommendation.
Republican spokesmen must go ape shit! That is, it’s way past the time to be polite, when in a debate, and just answer biased questions talking points.
Newt Gingrich hinted at the way to go. If I were ever on a show with a Chris Matthews type, as soon as I could get a word in, I’d just ask him, with the most incredulous look I could pull off, “Do you really believe all the crap you say?”
Look at HIM like he’s an insane asylum escapee!
Or, even be polite, and ask, “Do you realize that you are bringing about the suicide of America?”
Yes---make it about the questioner. Expose them.
TLP| 9.25.12 @ 4:20PM
Does it matter what the Polls are?
Come November we get our Chance to take his Fckng Head Off - so to speak - at the Ballot Box.
Look around, where you live. How much is Gas? How much is Heating Oil, now that Winter is right around the Corner?
How much to Feed and Clothe your Family? And, are you always One Paycheck Away from losing everything?
How many Stores have left the Mall? How many Stores have left Main Street? How many Companies have fled this Sinking Ship?
American Airlines just sent out ELEVEN THOUSAND Layoff Warnings.
The EPA has announced the Closure of up to THREE HUNDRED Coal Fired Electrical Generation Plants.
GM is building New Plants IN CHINA.
The Fed is turning our Dollar into Weimar Republic Duetchemarks. Suicides are the latest thing going Off the Charts, along with Food Stamps, Foreclosures, Homelessness, and People living in Poverty.
Add to that, the fact that we have an Ocean of Oil right under our feet, and with it, a Million Jobs, or more, just waiting for Mitt Romney to end The Muslim's Crusade against Energy Independence, and Good Paying Jobs.
That's my Poll.
And, it's the only one anyone need pay attention to.
SIC SEMPER TYRANNUS!
At the Ballot Box, come November.
Pablo| 9.25.12 @ 6:55PM
The problems you cite are all serious problems. My question is, what on earth makes you think Romney will do anything to mitigate those problems? Those problems arose during both Dem and Repub administrations. It appears that the ultra-rich in this country don't see those as problems.
Just say it: you're voting for Romney because the letter "R" appears after his name. Stop trying to make it about policy differences because it just makes you look disingenuous.
Pablo| 9.25.12 @ 6:53PM
This article is wildly off the mark regarding why voters reject Romney but not FDR or Kennedy or even Teddy Roosevelt.
In the above cases, those ultra-rich men were actually traitors to their ultra-rich cause. FDR passed the new deal and pushed forward other legislation aimed at helping the common man. He railed against the “economic royalists,” raised taxes on the wealthy, and gave average working people the right to form unions. Teddy Roosevelt railed against the “malefactors of great wealth,” and he busted up the oil and railroad trusts.
Romney, on the other hand, is here on behalf of his ultra-rich peers, to pass policy that benefits them at the expense of regular people. The reason why people like Romney pay 14% taxes whereas the rest of us pay closer to 20% is that Romney and his ilk are politically powerful enough to write laws that benefit them, whereas the rest of us are not. Romney seeks the presidency so as to increase this benefit. That's why non-republicans don't like him.
My question is, for those of you who are not ultra-rich, what on earth do you see in Romney? And I believe I know the answer. In Romney, you see a member of your tribe. It matters little what policies he would actually pursue. The letter R following his name is the single criteria you all look for in a candidate. It's only afterwards that you try and justify that choice in other ways, such as through this silly article.
Any questions?
Cameron| 9.28.12 @ 1:16PM
Everybody needs to read this!!