Tuesday, October 2, 2012

THE CRITICAL FIRST DEBATE!

The Mitt Romney  Business Philosophy & Questions President Obama Must Confront!



As a history major, I have been conducting research on the Internet as well as dusting off my yellow-paged copy of one of the best treatise on the Populist and Progressive movement whose origins lie immediately after the Civil War. 

The title is "Rendezvous with Destiny" by Eric F. Goldman published in 1953. Although some may view his perception and interpretation of events may seem outdated, to the contrary it speaks to Americans today as a handbook detailing the history, struggle and the start of a Progressive Movement in this country that brought change to America in the sense that the have-nots and working class finally had to be recognized as the "We" as in "We the People."

Professor Goldman goes to great lengths not only document the history throughout the time period he finds most important, but makes every attempt to present all of the arguments that began and evolved. 

Upon the conclusion of the Civil War Goldman strongly suggests that the War was not fought for the freedom of the slaves, but the North's Capitals of Industry quest to weaken both the political and economic strength in South. Essentially the North coveted natural resources in the South and their advantage in "free markets" with the advantage in Labor. The South had slaves.

Many of the captains of industry such as J.P. Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, the Rockefellers and George Pullman amassed great fortunes by taking advantage of an immigrant force willing to work at impoverished wages that served to the advantage these moguls as they had accumulated 'monopolies" in their respective fields. 

The elite capitalists embraced Darwin's theory and saw a new opportunity to "explain" the justification of their vast fortunes. Their "truth" of this new Social Darwinism is that it came down to the "survival of the fittest." 



Darwin's theories presented a great new "spin" for the Radical Republicans of the time. They espoused a New Social Darwinism that served to explain differences in rich and poor. From an economic standpoint, this new movement came to serve their interests and those of the wealthy Industrialists who controlled them. Bribes, graft and corruption in government ran rampant from the Ulysses Grant administration up to about 1900.  

The Charles Darwin we learned of focused his research and came to a conclusion (universally praised) that throughout the animal species there existed, first evolutionary process (progress) and with progression of each species, the animal world is in fact one where "the survival of the fittest" is one that pertains to the animal kingdom and not applied to Man.     
They also took full advantage of churches of the Christian faith that "actively supported" a "truth" that man is either "born" into this elitist class and if not, they must accept their lowly status as dishwashers, laborers, etc. 
From Church Pulpits pastors drove home this concept repetitively with their edict that if the common working American did not, the Kingdom of Heaven is out of reach. Men and Women are seen as either "born" into rich families or not. If they were not members of the wealthiest families, the odds are, almost nil they could achieve any meaningful advancement of themselves and their families.

This may explain the foundation of Mitt Romney and his basic philosophy of life, your position, the need for have-nots and the existence of the 47 per cent. It also sheds light on what Radical and now Tea Party Republicans view today. Mitt Romney is cut from this 100 year plus approach to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. His version is that only the elite are entitled to these rights. 


This First Debate

As the debate takes place, I would love to see President Obama callout Mr. Romney in how his current business philosophy and his view of the 47% is similar or different than the Carpetbaggers and the how the wealthy would stop at notyhing to hold a monopoly in their field.(Matty Maroun)

 
How do Mr. Romney’s personal or religious views espouse the elitist notion that you were born to be rich or to be poor or how it may differ? How does a concept that “the poor is not of the wealthy man's doing, nor does he need take responsibility? Is this truly the decision and fate set by Almighty God?

Finally, recent reports in the Wall Street Journal describe how as CEO of Bain Capital, Mr. Romney invested "millions" in a Chinese factory where workers of the ages 14 - 25 for the most part were actually forced labor. They are compelled to work 10 - 11 hours per day, must reside within "campus" in filthy dorm rooms, infestation of rats, rotten and substandard food and under barbed wire and guards. The workers make about $1 per hour. They are to work Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays or face severe penalty even as China has enacted laws to end forced overtime. Chinese officials describe the barbed wire fences as necessary to "keep out, other workers from storming into the plant for want of these jobs. The company, by the way makes electric circuit boards and parts for Amazon, HP, Proctor-Silex and Motorola to name a few.

There is one last item. The above description of the Chinese factory was made after a tour of the plant prior to the millions invested by Bain. The description of the plant and working conditions is one made by Mitt Romney. Bain did not take any step or raise a voice as to the working conditions. Had they done so, reporters feel improvements would have been made. The holdings of this company were shifted to another investment firm prior to Bain selling off their shares at huge profits and then later re-investing in the new fund created.