Oops He Did It Again

Republicans are subjecting themselves to more head banging following the news of another misstep by presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. A secretly taped video from a private reception back in May emerged showing Mr. Romney with some of his wealthier donors. In this video, Romney provides a rash cultural assessment, pigeon-holing 47% of the American population as being not only unable to take responsibility for themselves, but thinking themselves “entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.” His frustration with these self-pronounced “victims” stems in part from the fact that they don’t pay an income tax and yet they use federal funds.

Luckily for Romney, he proclaimed that this group is not going to be the target of his political campaign, “My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” While this candid assessment of nearly half of the country might cause issues for Romney, his running mate, Paul Ryan, carries similar views more openly. Mr. Ryan, according to a New York Times article, “has long argued that nearly half of the people in America are either dependent or reliant on the federal government.” This might well be the case, as responses to this latest remark continue to cite a Tax Policy Center poll , which shows that 46.4% of Americans did not pay an income tax last year.

The problem Romney runs in to was not his point (many tax-payers are frustrated) or that our welfare structure is a major issue, rather it was his delivery, which understandably offended many (47%) people. For a candidate whose main struggle has been his inability to connect with voters, this recent mess-up is yet another in a series of potentially damaging ‘gaffes’.

As quick as Romney was to defend and explain himself, Democrats were just as eager to capitalize on this latest gaffe. Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, said that he was appalled that a man who seeks to represent this country would describe nearly half of the population in such a way, “It’s hard to serve as a president for all Americans when you’ve disdainfully written off half the nation.” The strategy of the Democrats is clear: they are trying to show that Romney has no interest in representing those Americans who receive any form of aid, whether it be education Pell Grants or veteran assistance.

Perhaps most interesting, is that the most conservative areas of the country also tend to be those that account for the largest share of government aid. So those who account for an unequal share of government aid are not, as Mitt would like to think, proponents of big-government. Rather, they are members and supporters of his own party.

Urban areas tend to produce more tax revenue than their rural counterparts. Urban areas also happen to be more liberal than rural areas. That being said, the tax revenue that is being generated by “bluer” areas tends to disproportionately benefit the red areas.

Interesting.

The New York Times ran an editorial by Paul Krugman earlier this year where he pointed out this phenomenon of this conservative hypocrisy, only using the term “moochers” in place of “victims”. In turn, the blogosphere and comment boards were quick to explode with responses. One of the more spot on (albeit, blunt) replies that sums up the feelings of many liberal-leaning Americans was found on AlterNet, an independent online media outlet, which can be found here. Many are frustrated with those who choose not to help themselves and yet demonize the very resources that are helping them get by.

So how will this affect Romney’s chances of election? In the grand scheme of things, a single incident typically isn’t a game changer by itself. Nearly all campaigns have had their own moments akin to this one (remember Obama’s controversial assessment during the last election when he accused rural voters of clinging to “guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren’t like them”). Take Romney’s prior incensing statement that the Obama administration “sympathized” with and “apologized” to the rioters in the Middle East. Despite the media furore, his ratings never actually dropped. We won’t know for another couple of days, but there is a strong likelihood that these remarks will not actually determine the election.

This should not, however, be confused with the impact of his statements being benign. Even though it might not change a voter’s choice, over time this is something that can add up and really damage his brand, especially if Romney continues on this foray, as Democrats would like him to. Continued crass statements like this can cost a candidate in an era where scrutiny is ever-lurking and twenty-four hour news cycles turn a gaffe into the story of the day.