Forty-Seven Percent

I am not opposed to viral video, homespun news and citizen dispensed information traveling from point to point across our country and our world. While there is exaggeration, outright lying, distortion of information, and opinions presented as facts, there is also the opportunity to look for elements of value and truth among the information thrown out for public offering.

I welcome hearing the opinions of our present and potential leaders when they are uncluttered by carefully polished rhetoric. We have the opportunity to connect with their inner intentions and drives, understand what makes them tick and review the beliefs and values that motivate their speech and actions unadorned by political “dress-up. “

Why should it be so unacceptable for Mitt Romney to believe that 47 percent of Americans feel like victims that deserve a hand-out? If this is the political foundation from which his actions will proceed, he needs to be able to be honest and open about it. Many other people in the country feel exactly the same way. These are the voters he wants to appeal to – those who share his beliefs and will support his actions as a leader that result from those beliefs. This is the type of information we need to hear to make a good decision about how to cast our vote. Obama expressed his concerns about the percentage of the population that would choose to defend and segregate themselves rather than face the discomfort of accepting those who are different into the areas where they live their lives during his first presidential campaign. These “unguarded comments” are crucial and important and real information about people we are being asked to choose to lead us, and both revelations made huge swells in public opinion whipped up like tidal waves in a small fish bowl.  We all have our own opinions about what we think will work and what we do not want to live with in this country, and we all have the right to vote on them.

I’m all for a little more blatant honesty, not uncouth, but real, presented to us from which to make our choices.  Our current state of “political correctness” is like a disease being treated with a bland diet.  No one objects to the flavors (or lack of them) but there is nothing to sink your teeth into either. I’m for some unrehearsed rhetoric, clear choices and honest beliefs. I’m for those who have the courage to state their intentions and beliefs forthrightly for public judgment and decision when it comes time to vote.

That being said, I do have a comment or two about that forty-seven percent.

The most important of which would be to think carefully about who might be in that percentage. I have a few suggestions and I am sure you will come up with some on your own once you let the initial unexpressed assumptions wash past you. What I found is that Romney’s remark has two very distinct qualifiers in it, and the presence of one does not indicate the presence of the other.

The first is people who feel victimized.

The second is people who feel entitled to a hand out.

In all honesty, I would agree that up to 47% of the American people probably feel victimized at this point. We have been through a lot that was not entirely of our making. Lost jobs and homes, lack of health care, food and affordable education. The American Dream has suffered major blows in recent years. Large numbers of our population have been the unwarranted recipients of our recent economic struggles.

Not all of those who may feel “victimized” by various elements of our national climate also feel they are entitled to a handout.  Many are hard-working; looking for and making the most of any opportunity to re-create their dream.

Moving on to those who feel entitled to a hand-out; here I had some interesting thoughts for consideration:

1.       Farmers – for decades now we have paid them not to grow certain crops. Whole lifestyles are based upon farm subsidies.

2.       Bankers and mortgage companies– this is more recent. The banking industry now knows that we will not let them fail. This absolves them of the responsibility for making decisions for the good of the country and from bearing the consequences of self-serving, short-term profit based decisions.

3.       Some will put the Auto industry in here. Another handout, but this one has had more positive results. The American auto industry seems to be showing strength and recovery much faster than the banking and finance industries. Perhaps what was offered here was an opportunity to correct mistakes and take responsibility for their future?

4.       The very wealthy. They feel entitled to their tax breaks. These are handouts. The philosophy around tax breaks for the wealthy was that this segment of the population stimulates economic growth by creating jobs. In fact, this has not happened. The very wealthy are first and foremost committed to staying very wealthy, and are responsible for a slow market recovery (lack of willingness to invest and incur losses) and slow job rate recovery (will not hire and increase expenses.) When the economy is strong, they are a major factor in keeping it that way. They will invest and hire. When the economy is weak they are not the players to revive it. They play a defensive game.

I am stopping here, though I am sure you can add more to this list. The idea is spun and you can follow your own thread.

A final word about the poor and needy, those to whom one is supposed to readily refer when reviewing Romney’s remark. We all acknowledge there are those whose mindset is one of entitlement to handouts in this area of our population; we have been told it is so.  Many of us report to have had the first-hand experience of being behind the well-dressed person at the checkout using food stamps to buy what we consider personal “luxury” items and driving a great car at “our expense.” 

Yet particularly for our Mormon candidate, if these are the ones to whom he was referring, I have a thought, one that runs something like this: I never read anywhere in the Bible where Jesus said to give charity only to those who do not feel entitled to a handout. I do not see him rejecting supplicants or blaming them for their condition. He remarks upon a certain one’s faith or tenacity. He gives his healing to 10 lepers, remarks on the one who returns to thank, but does not condemn the nine who did not. He preached and healed so extravagantly that the rich of the day castigated him for not abiding by the “rules”. There was never any rejection by Jesus of someone who was “not worthy” to receive his gifts. There was only the importance of giving, modeled for us by his life.

There will always be those who misuse gifts. We strive to give wisely. There are no easy to follow directions on this. There is however, a very clear command to give to the poor and provide for the needy, generously. Standards and expectations apply to the rich in the Bible. They are the ones to whom qualifiers are applied. The inside of the cup is dirty, the amount given is not in proportion to the amount in store, and the public proclamation of charity is its only reward… all this is food for thought on giving where the poor and needy are concerned. I take all this to mean that God, or the essence of Love, is much more concerned with our giving, and with the unseen motivations behind the use of our wealth, than with the qualifications of those to whom we give.

These are, perhaps, guidelines for our direction as a country. If we stop to count every case, we will surely be lost in judicial array while those who are truly poor and needy are rejected along with those we have set our snares to catch as unworthy. “God with us” chose to rain on the just and the unjust alike, so that the just might have rain, and the poor might have their needs met.