I posted the following entry today on a local journalist’s blog in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution. The roots of who President Obama and Governor Romney are in their cores, from my perspective, have a historical underlying of the past half century in America. Each candidate may, or may not, recognize this fact. Below are my perceptions in this regard for readers of “Mary Elizabeth Sings” to consider:
Words of the AJC journalist: “Right now, Romney is described as going with the flow, trying to quickly grow into this new public persona, most notably with his decision to tell personal stories on the stump.” ================================================
My response: “Style vs. Substance. Many people, I suppose because they are young or at least younger than my generation, do not understand why the 1960s ‘social revolution’ was as fervent and intense as it was. Many young people thought that too many of their elders were living out preordained, expected ‘images’ of what they should be, instead of living out who they authentically were. That falseness resulted in unhappiness personally, and within families. The young people of the 1960s questioned the values of the society in terms of perceptions related to race, sexual roles, unquestioning patriotism related to war and the killings in war. (‘Look Who’s Coming to Dinner,’ ‘The Graduate,’ ‘Coming Home’ with Jane Fonda, regarding the Vietnam War) The country became divided as witnessed in the horror of the Kent State University killings by policemen of college students who were protesting those superficial values, as they saw it, within American society. The country became divided on the Civil Rights Movement where little black school girls were murdered in Alabama. The nation has remains divided today. Evolution of consciousness takes time.
In Romney, I see a man trying to live out an acceptable image without a core of depth, and in Obama I see a man who is living out who he is authentically is. Moreover, it is the policies of Romney that are important, not his style or whether he appears ‘stiff’ of not. His policies reflect the mindset of the 1950s – an America that values ‘strength’ through toughness in its foreign policy, where there is a definite class demarcation among people based on wealth and status, where men and women have defined roles, and where kindness comes from what one ‘shows’ rather than who one ‘is.’
Obama’s policies not only lifted this nation economically from the pits of a near Depresssion, but they reflect the America that has confirmed that the social revolution of the 1960s has made America better and stronger in reality, not just in image. Obama’s values and policies also reflect belief that America has emerged the better for having been transformed by the 1960s into a nation that values authenticity, racial equality, sexual equality, leading the world through its moral authority – as George Washington had modeled for posterity – rather than through intimidation. Obama knows that real strength does not come through the projection of surface images, but of the authenticity of that internal strength that can say to his subordinates ‘Find Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice’ as his #1 foreign policy goal.
Image vs. authenticity. Style vs. Substance. Lies vs. Truth.
I support Obama for many reasons and among those reasons are the ones I have just described.”
On October 12, 2012, I posted the following analysis regarding the different kind of America that the United States would be under Governor Romney and how that relates to the Republican leaders impetus in Georgia to pass an amendment to Georgia’s Constitution to establish a state Commission for Charter School Schools. Please view the video link provided.
“Citizens are much more likely to have their voices stifled under a Romney as President than under an Obama. Check out the below video in which steelworkers’ jobs from Freeport, Illinois were outsourced to China by Romney’s company. In China, working conditions are terrible for workers who are housed in small quarters and they have no outside life. In my opinion, Mitt Romney does not respect average working class citizens and that fact has showed forth not only in his “47%” remarks caught on tape, but in how his former employees have been treated. (See the video below for Romney’s former employees perceptions.)
Journalist Chris Hayes has said that the thinking is wrong to believe that Republicans want less government and Democrats want more government. Hayes said that that is only a slogan that some of the rightwing have tried to perpetuate. He said that Republicans want government, also, but that they want it to serve their interests and the interests of the more wealthy of this nation.
If one looks closely at the proposed membership of Georgia’s Commission for Charter Schools that would be established under the Constitutional Amendment, one sees that its appointed, not elected, members would consist of members of the state’s legislature, among others, and all would be Republicans. Thus, even this state Commission of Charter Schools would have its governmental influence, which would benefit corporate interests, ultimately, in my opinion. There already exists a means for parents to establish state charter schools denied by their local Boards of Education, and that is through Georgia’s State Board of Education. The Constitutional Amendment is, therefore, unnecessary. So why have Republicans promoted it to the extent that they have? Could it be that some have vested interests in this amendment beyond the education of Georgia’s school children? You be the judge.”