Romney Ruins his Campaign with an Incendiary Video

It is already known as “The 47 Percent Speech,” one of those moments that mark a before-and-after in an election campaign. In this case, it’s a very serious mistake that could put an end to Mitt Romney’s chances of becoming president of the United States. His statement about the 47 percent of the United States population who, in his opinion, lives off of the government because they think that it is the government’s responsibility to take care of them — the 47 percent that he will not pay attention to because they will always vote for Barack Obama — is the perfect way to discourage voters, many of them Republicans.

This speech, which was delivered in May but has only recently come to light, can be added to a string of unfortunate mistakes, starting with the disappointing Republican convention that has left Obama with a substantial lead in the polls. There are still three TV debates ahead and therefore three good opportunities to reverse this situation. But Romney needs to undergo a transformation so dramatic that today it does not seem possible.

Romney’s “47 Percent” speech was delivered at a fundraising dinner in Boca Raton, Florida: “There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them. My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 percent to 10 percent in the center that are independent.”

Immediately after the video of the speech was posted on the website of left-wing magazine Mother Jones, Romney held a press conference to try, unsuccessfully, to stop the predictable bleeding. He said that those words were “off the cuff” and “not elegantly stated.”

It is much worse than that. To treat half the country as a bunch of losers and freeloaders who do not deserve attention is the rudest way of dividing a nation that we have seen so far in an election campaign. His opponent’s reaction could not be simpler: “We need to come together as a country. We need to work together for what’s best for the country,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday.

Romney also alludes to a 47 percent that includes many of his potential voters. Among those who Romney said are not able to assume their responsibilities are wounded soldiers and war veterans who receive pensions and allowances, retirees who receive health benefits, bright middle-class students who receive scholarships and credits, and even business owners and young entrepreneurs who receive tax cuts and other compensation to keep their businesses going. Not to mention the millions of people who, for various reasons, require government assistance to receive food.

Yesterday the main concern for Romney seemed to be why this video was out now, something that Mother Jones refuses to address. But the main question should be: Why did Romney say that? The answer necessarily points to a candidate who is making every effort to gain the trust of a party that defines the new conservatism as ruthless individualism, without leaving any space for solidarity or collective work. It’s the type of ideology — away from the compassionate conservatism of Ronald Reagan or Bush — that his running mate Paul Ryan represents better than anyone.

This video makes more patently obvious the fact that Romney says what his audience wants to hear. Only this can explain why, during that event, held in a place where the majority of the Jewish population in Florida is concentrated, Romney claimed that the Palestinians do not want peace and that he, as president, would not put pressure on Israel to negotiate with its neighbors.

And, finally exposing all his limitations, Romney also demonstrated in the same speech his lack of sensitivity toward Hispanic voters. Making evident his lousy sense of humor, the Republican candidate said that his father was born in Mexico — where the Mormon family had moved to avoid American laws against polygamy — and added that, if he had also been born there, he would have had a better chance of winning this election.

This accumulation of blunders speaks of a reckless candidate and a poorly led campaign. But just as several conservative columnists admitted, it is certainly much worse than that. His words are those of a man who lives apart from the real country. It is not that other Americans do not complain about the obstacles that their sponsored compatriots present, but those are usually rich Americans who complain while savoring a martini at a country club.