Hi, Sister. As you know, I am not a Romney supporter. And, yes, I do consider him every bit as bad as Obama. He’s Mussolini to Obama’s Stalin, imho.
He is a statist crony corporatist, and that makes him a national socialist in my book.
Nor am I. But it looks very likely he will be the nominee all the same.
MY candidate was Rick Perry, on the basis of his successful executive experience and his respect for the Tenth Amendment. Then he was gone. So I tuned into Newt next — and then tuned out when it appeared that the guy may be a tad "unhinged." Then I turned to Santorum. But I don't think he has a prayer of winning the nomination owing to poor organization and a dearth of cash.
It's been a very depressing primary season. I can't wait for it to be over.
At the end of the day, Romney may be the last man standing. At which point, for me, the question then becomes: Which is the lesser of two evils — Obama or Romney?
You say Romney and Obama are indistinguishable in that they are equally evil. There is not a shade of difference between them. I really have no answer for that, except to say I do perceive differences between them.
But I did come across an interesting quote today, in National Review, from Brad Todd, "a Tennessean Republican strategist":
This election is about putting out the fire, not whether we have a perfect fireman or not.[From: "Romney's Hidden Strength," by Jim Geraghty, NR, April 2, 2012]
To you it may look as if I am caving to the "spirit of the age" in saying I agree with Todd's insight. And that's one way to look at it.
But the way I look at it is, we really do need to "put out the fire" before the nation self-immolates. And that means that Obama and his coterie must go. To me, this is Job One.
It seems "the spirit of the age" — the anti-Christ — is precisely what informs this administration's plans and policies.
Thus Obama must go. Once again, I am disappointed that "my" candidate did not prevail in the nomination contest. I had to hold my nose to vote for McCain. I guess I'll be holding my nose this time out, too....
For me, the bottom-line is: Anybody but Obama. And I am not going to "sit this one out."
JMHO FWIW.
Thanks for writing, dear brother in Christ!
Interesting analogy, dear brother in Christ.
Yet note the difference between Mussolini and Stalin. Though both were social Darwinists when it came to their view of man, their ideas about state organization were quite different.
Stalin "nationalized" all private capital in Russia, expropriating all the wealth of the Russian people, and canceling out any possible notion of "private ownership" of anything in Russia. All means of production were conveyed to the Soviet state as direct owner, "on behalf" of the Russian people.
Mussolini, on the other hand, did not outright confiscate private capital. He figured such could be safely left in private hands, because through state regulation, he had all the benefit of effectively running private enterprises without any of the responsibilities attending direct ownership of those entities. You just "regulate them" in a manner that serves "state interests."
BTW, arguably, Bill Clinton employed Mussolini's model to a surprising extent during his presidency. And it seems Obama is following it, too — the regulatory explosion under his presidency is unprecedented. He is effectively "legislating" out of his executive departments: Congress passes a statute, but then typically it leaves the rules of its implementation up to the executive departments. That fact leaves a lot of wiggle room for ideological judgments as to how a law is to be implemented, without consulting Congress.
What is government regulation, other than making independent decision makers comply with state edicts, on the theory that "government always knows what is best?"
Anyhoot, I think your comparison of Romney with Mussolini may not be entirely apt (FWIW). I do not believe that Romney is a racist or social Darwinist; I no not see him promoting Left Progressive ideology. I do not see him as promoting wealth transfers based on class. I believe he champions free enterprise, personal initiative, and personal responsibility, not state capitalism/corporatist state models of economic activity.
As a highly successful businessman and venture capitalist, he is very likely skeptical of "top heavy," "top-down" organizational structures in general, wherein all power and authority flows from the top. The most efficient and productive business firms do not deploy this model.
In short, his executive experience and demonstrated skill as a business analyst suggest to me that Romney might actually prove to be pretty good at "draining the federal swamp" which is bureaucratic Washington — read: pretty good at deregulation.
Whatever the case, if elected, Romney would not be "the King." Unlike Obama (who seemingly is one, in his own mind at least), and I very strongly doubt he would act like one. But even if he did, if we conservatives elect conservatives to take back the Senate, and preserve or even extend the GOP majority in the House, even a "King Romney" would be facing serious political headwinds to Congressional enactment of any type of corporatist-state proposal from the Executive.
From where I sit now, I just don't see that happening.