In Bureaucracy, History, Politics on December 11, 2012 at 12:02 am

History seems to have repeated itself.

Joachim C. Fest, author of Hitler (1973), writes of the surprise that awaited Allied soldiers occupying Nazi Germany in 1945:

“Almost without transition, virtually from one moment to the next, Nazism vanished after the death of Hitler and the surrender. It was as if National Socialism had been nothing but the motion, the state of intoxication and the catastrophe it had caused….

“Hitler’s propaganda specialists had talked constantly of invincible Alpine redoubts, nests of resistance, and swelling werewolf units, and had predicted a war beyond the war. But there was no sign of this.

“Once again it became plain that National Socialism, like Fascism in general, was dependent to the core on superior force, arrogance, triumph, and by its nature had no resources in the moment of defeat.”

The same appears to have happened with the would-be dictators of the Republican Party.

Consider what happened on Election Night, 2012.

According to NBC reporter Garrett Haake:

“From the moment Mitt Romney stepped off stage Tuesday night, having just delivered a brief concession speech he wrote only that evening, the massive infrastructure surrounding his campaign quickly began to disassemble itself.

“Aides taking cabs home late that night got rude awakenings when they found the credit cards linked to the campaign no longer worked.”

More than 2,000 years ago, the ancient historian, Plutarch, in his biography of Alexander the Great, made this timeless observation about human character:

“And the most glorious exploits do not always furnish us with the clearest discoveries of virtue or vice in men. Sometimes a matter of less moment, an expression or a jest, informs us better of their characters and inclinations, than the most famous sieges, the greatest armaments, or the bloodiest battles whatsoever.”

What better way to prove the truth of Romney’s feelings toward “the help”–and the “47%” who comprise much of it?

Clearly, sometime before Election Night, arrangements had been made to cancel those credit cards.

And why not?  No matter the outcome of the election, those who had sacrificed so much of their time and energy would now be completely useless to Romney.

If he won, he would be going off to the White House without them.

And if he lost, they would mean no more to him than all those other “little people” he had so contemptuously dismissed throughout the campaign.

Romney was not only rich (with an estimated fortune of at least $250 million) he had made it clear that the rich were the only group he truly cared about.

This was, after all, the candidate who made statements like:

  • “I have friends who are owners of NASCAR Teams.”
  • “Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs.”
  • “Corporations are people, my friend.”
  • “Forty-seven percent are dependent upon government.”
  • “I like being able to fire people.”

So when the curtain finally dropped on Romney’s six-year quest to become Plutocrat-in-Chief, there was no reason for him to do anything but exit quickly and let his loyal followers fend for themselves.

In giving his concession speech, Romney paid tribute to those who had sacrificed so much on his behalf:

“To the team across the country — the volunteers, the fundraisers, the donors, the surrogates — I don’t believe that there’s ever been an effort in our party that can compare with what you have done over these past year. Thank you so very much.”

Then it was Exit, Stage Right (there is no Stage Left for a right-wing Republican) and time to let the chips fall where they may for those needing to return home.

Romney’s concession speech was widely regarded as generous in tone.  But it didn’t take long for him to revert to true form–the form best-revealed by his infamous “47%” remarks secretly tape recorded at campaign donors speech:

“Well, there are 47% of the people who will vote for the President no matter what….Who are dependent upon government, who believe that–that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they’re entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it.

“But that’s–it’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this President no matter what….

These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income taxes. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.”

Explaining his loss during a telephone town hall to hundreds of clearly disappointed donors, Romney said:

“The Obama campaign was following the old playbook of giving a lot of stuff to groups that they hoped they could get to vote for them and be motivated to go out to the polls, specifically the African American community, the Hispanic community and young people.”

In short: We were robbed.

So long as Republican candidates continue to hold to Romney’s “We Love the Rich” mantra, such “robberies” will continue.

To the betterment of the Nation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: