In defense of Romney’s “gift” remarks
At least two important points are being missed in the discussion of Romney’s remarks. First, there’s a double standard at work. When reporters suggest that donors to Republican causes are motivated by self-interested desire to keep their taxes low and their businesses unhampered by environmental or labor regulations, that’s groundbreaking investigative journalism. (See, for example, The New Yorker magazine’s Jane Mayer on Charles and David Koch.) Yet when Romney suggests that Democratic voters might have been motivated by self-interest, his comments are condemned.
The second missed point is that Romney is hardly the first to suggest that voters might be swayed by the government benefits they are receiving. There’s an entire field of economics, known as public choice theory, devoted to the idea that, as the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics summarizes it, “people are guided chiefly by their own self-interests and…as such, voters ‘vote their pocketbooks,’ supporting candidates and ballot propositions they think will make them personally better off…Public choice, in other words, simply transfers the rational actor model of economic theory to the realm of politics.” …
The idea that voters might consider what’s in it for themselves, in other words, isn’t some screwball sour-grapes idea dreamt up by Mitt Romney as an excuse for his defeat. Rather, it’s been part of mainstream social science for decades.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I know a police officer who is approaching retirement and is conservative, or right wing if you will, as they come. He voted for Obama because he somehow thought Romney “would take away his state pension benefits.”
AcidReflux on November 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM
Everyone knows this…including the people who are giving Romney a hard time. It is just silly to make an issue of it.
Terrye on November 20, 2012 at 5:18 PM
Remember Obama pushing for forgiving kids of their college loans?
The expansion of food stamps to FORTY FIVE MILLION in the last four years?
The USDA in the last six months advertising on MAJOR radio outlets (WABC NYC for example) on information to get said foodstamps?
The DREAM act that he pushed in the months leading up to the election?
Hey, Bobby Jindal, facts are calling you. Might want to pick up.
blatantblue on November 20, 2012 at 5:18 PM
It won’t be Romney that takes away his pension, it will be the reality of economic collapse.
I had a friend who recently was employed by the SSA and voted for Obama because he was afraid Romney would cut his job. I laughed at him and told him social security will probably be entirely gone in less than ten years.
Doomberg on November 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM
Has anyone else been seeing the ads for “Assurance Wireless” products from the Feds (compliments of Virgin mobile) over the last two years?
I mean what the hell, people!!!!
blatantblue on November 20, 2012 at 5:21 PM
Who’s that leftwing whacko who wrote “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” The entire premise was that people are stoooopid for voting AGAINST their self-interest.
So Romney points out that most of the electorate chose to vote in the way that most benefits them, and suddenly the libs are scandalized?
Just came to me…Thomas Frank. So now Mr. Frank and the libs don’t think the moochers are smart? Or are they just mad that Mitt called them out and made them look dumb and easy to bribe?
Meredith on November 20, 2012 at 5:27 PM
It’s just one of those things you avoid saying out loud.
And if Romney believes it now, did he believe it when he said “47%” while being secretly recorded during the campaign?
portlandon on November 20, 2012 at 5:28 PM
Ahh, but you are all missing the Twist in what passes for liberal logic. Obama’s not giving gifts. Gifts may or may not be deserved. Whatever Obama bestows is a benefit in the name of fairness. You see, the poor and not so poor alike deserve these benefits, because they are poor or disadvantaged in some way. In the Liberal mind, it is more noble to be poor than it is to be rich. In order to get rich, you must have exploited others, so by remaining poor, these beneficiaries are better than those selfish rich people. Therefore, in the name of Social Justice, we must redistribute.
trubble on November 20, 2012 at 5:39 PM
The main ones condemning Romney’s gift remarks are RINOs running to the left for the 2016 primary. Haven’t seen too many conservatives criticize the moochers/gift hypothesis, seeing as it’s pretty standard conservative doctrine that Rush etc. have used to describe the election.
sauldalinsky on November 20, 2012 at 5:39 PM
This is my clue; if the left start’s whining about how unfair and mean spirited an observation is, you know it’s right on the money.
Just my two cents.
Tacitus on November 20, 2012 at 5:40 PM
It might not be new thought, but it is stupid for him to say it.
astonerii on November 20, 2012 at 5:50 PM
Sorry, but Reagan started it with his “Are you better off now…” That’s all about self-interest. And ideally the answer is Yes because a thriving economy has created better opportunities for your business or the business where you’re employed. But just as easily it can be answered Yes because of the “gifts” government has bestowed on you.
bobs1196 on November 20, 2012 at 6:01 PM
I think there is a double standard here, but not the one the author is referring to. All voters vote according to their policy preferences and all politicians emphasize policy positions they believe will attract voters to vote for them. When Romney campaigned in coal country, he emphasized his support for the coal industry. When Romney spoke to wealthy donors, he emphasized his support for low capital gains taxes and the carried interest loophole. When he spoke to veterans or military audiences, he promised large increases in defense spending. When he spoke to seniors, he promised never to cut their Medicare or Social Security benefits, and so on. Romney’s “gift” remarks were criticized not just because they reinforced his image as a hearless one-percenter, but because he was characterizing liberal policy preferences as “gifts” as though they were somehow different in kind from the types of promises he made to his supporters.
cam2 on November 20, 2012 at 6:09 PM
Romney spoke a simple truth. Republicans have got to stop being afraid to speak and accept the truth.
Pork-Chop on November 20, 2012 at 6:23 PM
Gifts = free stuff.
Better believe they voted for it.
Wonder how much longer it’s going to be free, now that he’s been reelected.
Eren on November 20, 2012 at 7:14 PM
Cannot be said enough!
I like the show “Red Eye”, find Howard Stern to be entertaining in general, and am more than willing to make any and all sorts of off-color/offensive comments, but, I understand the concept of, ‘there’s a time and place…’, and am careful to not be crude nor blunt when it’s counterproductive to be. Why more people on our side don’t seem to understand this is problematic.
Anti-Control on November 20, 2012 at 7:58 PM