Romney-Obama: Dispute About Capitalism
Yesterday, during the Republican primaries in Texas, Mitt Romney was registered as a presidential nominee (he will be formally approved in Florida by the end of August). This election will be very interesting because both presidential candidates will be drawing a road map for further developments of capitalism.
Romney was not in Texas at the time [of the registration]—he was campaigning in Nevada and Colorado. The primaries are not over yet, even though the benchmark of 1,144 votes was cleared. Just because Romney became a presidential candidate, it doesn't mean that all of his problems have disappeared. He was under serious pressure from the other three candidates. Romney is a candidate with alternatives, and nothing ends with this election. In addition, it is now necessary for him to choose the right candidate for vice president and raise the final pre-election funds.
It is only natural that he has to now redirect his campaign from self-promotion toward the fight against Obama. He even had to change his position regarding these issues on the go. For example, he told many stories when he fought for the nomination against Rick Perry that displeased Latinos from Nevada and Colorado (the Latino population in those states is very high). Now he is urged to reconsider his position because Hispanic voters prefer Obama over Romney by a margin of 61 percent to 27 percent. In short, the first part of the campaign is over and it is difficult to transition into the next phase smoothly. Therefore, this competition will be very interesting from a technological and, of course, competitive point of view. In general, there are good reasons to follow it.
Moreover, it is interesting not only in terms of foreign policy (although in this particular case it is not a very interesting topic), where there will be little defined about relations with Russia, but in its almost theoretical theme. The theme could be called: “Which direction capitalism should take?” Capitalism, in this case, is extremely basic or economic.
Romney articulated everything in a concise way. He was in Colorado, the coal state, where he repeated that Obama's problem is that his administration is hostile to business, including the energy sector. (He said this in the state that produces raw materials, but will repeat it everywhere.) In addition, Obama's statements about topics like "green energy" contradicted all traditional forms of energy production. Understandably, there was a quick response from Obama, saying that he loves gas, oil, atomic energy, and everything else that can burn. Also, Obama said that he wants to decrease the U.S. dependency on foreign energy sources, and thus provide jobs for American people.
Here is the main point of Romney's campaign. According to his version, the Obama administration is hostile to business (both large and medium) and prefers to take care of public sector employees instead of private companies. "Government sees small business and big business as the enemy. We are not the enemy," said Romney. "Some of these liberals say they like a strong economy, but then they act like they don't like business, and the economy is nothing but the collection of all our businesses together." In short, Obama is undermining the foundations for the United States' existence (the spirit of free enterprise, etc).
However, there is complete mutual agreement on one topic: the other side fully recognizes that this issue is very important. Of course, they have another interpretation: Obama's side is stating that Romney was born into big business, and so he is more interested in profits than in the future of jobs for the American people. The main issue of the presidential debate regarding the development of capitalism, then, is whose version of the future prosperity of capitalism will be presented more pragmatically.
There was still another interesting tactical moment. The marked improvement in the U.S. economy is, clearly, not very convenient for Romney. That's why he has to dodge it like a stand-up comic. Yesterday in Colorado, he portrayed a scene from life in the Obama administration, which asks voters: "Well, things are getting a little better, aren’t they?” — ‘Yes,’ mumble voters. “And the answer is yes, things are getting a little better in a lot of places in this country. But it’s not thanks to his policies,” — resents Romney — “it’s in spite of his policies!" In general, this is not a very comfortable position.
Going back to the election, it is clear that Romney's support is based on white men and military veterans. Besides Latinos, he still has a problem with women; losing their votes to Obama by a margin of 51 percent to 44 percent. Latinos and women are considered the two key categories of voters. The winner of the capitalism debate, however, will not be as important as the actual conversation between both candidates and their followers.
Romney was not in Texas at the time [of the registration]—he was campaigning in Nevada and Colorado. The primaries are not over yet, even though the benchmark of 1,144 votes was cleared. Just because Romney became a presidential candidate, it doesn't mean that all of his problems have disappeared. He was under serious pressure from the other three candidates. Romney is a candidate with alternatives, and nothing ends with this election. In addition, it is now necessary for him to choose the right candidate for vice president and raise the final pre-election funds.
It is only natural that he has to now redirect his campaign from self-promotion toward the fight against Obama. He even had to change his position regarding these issues on the go. For example, he told many stories when he fought for the nomination against Rick Perry that displeased Latinos from Nevada and Colorado (the Latino population in those states is very high). Now he is urged to reconsider his position because Hispanic voters prefer Obama over Romney by a margin of 61 percent to 27 percent. In short, the first part of the campaign is over and it is difficult to transition into the next phase smoothly. Therefore, this competition will be very interesting from a technological and, of course, competitive point of view. In general, there are good reasons to follow it.
Moreover, it is interesting not only in terms of foreign policy (although in this particular case it is not a very interesting topic), where there will be little defined about relations with Russia, but in its almost theoretical theme. The theme could be called: “Which direction capitalism should take?” Capitalism, in this case, is extremely basic or economic.
Romney articulated everything in a concise way. He was in Colorado, the coal state, where he repeated that Obama's problem is that his administration is hostile to business, including the energy sector. (He said this in the state that produces raw materials, but will repeat it everywhere.) In addition, Obama's statements about topics like "green energy" contradicted all traditional forms of energy production. Understandably, there was a quick response from Obama, saying that he loves gas, oil, atomic energy, and everything else that can burn. Also, Obama said that he wants to decrease the U.S. dependency on foreign energy sources, and thus provide jobs for American people.
Here is the main point of Romney's campaign. According to his version, the Obama administration is hostile to business (both large and medium) and prefers to take care of public sector employees instead of private companies. "Government sees small business and big business as the enemy. We are not the enemy," said Romney. "Some of these liberals say they like a strong economy, but then they act like they don't like business, and the economy is nothing but the collection of all our businesses together." In short, Obama is undermining the foundations for the United States' existence (the spirit of free enterprise, etc).
However, there is complete mutual agreement on one topic: the other side fully recognizes that this issue is very important. Of course, they have another interpretation: Obama's side is stating that Romney was born into big business, and so he is more interested in profits than in the future of jobs for the American people. The main issue of the presidential debate regarding the development of capitalism, then, is whose version of the future prosperity of capitalism will be presented more pragmatically.
There was still another interesting tactical moment. The marked improvement in the U.S. economy is, clearly, not very convenient for Romney. That's why he has to dodge it like a stand-up comic. Yesterday in Colorado, he portrayed a scene from life in the Obama administration, which asks voters: "Well, things are getting a little better, aren’t they?” — ‘Yes,’ mumble voters. “And the answer is yes, things are getting a little better in a lot of places in this country. But it’s not thanks to his policies,” — resents Romney — “it’s in spite of his policies!" In general, this is not a very comfortable position.
Going back to the election, it is clear that Romney's support is based on white men and military veterans. Besides Latinos, he still has a problem with women; losing their votes to Obama by a margin of 51 percent to 44 percent. Latinos and women are considered the two key categories of voters. The winner of the capitalism debate, however, will not be as important as the actual conversation between both candidates and their followers.