Thoughts on 2012 Presidential Election

Thoughts on 2012 Presidential Election

by Harry E. Berndt

After two years of interminable campaigning and voter abuse, the presidential election is less than two weeks away. As a serious voter, I watched in wonderment as unqualified candidate after unqualified candidate demanded my attention. These People were obviously so inept that they should never have been taken seriously. Yet, people sent them money to further their campaigns and self-styled pundits held straight faced discussions about their qualifications and chances for election. Many millions of dollars went into the coffers of media, who were delighted to permit this fleecing of the voters.

Finally, the cast of characters is reduced to just two major contenders who continue this charade of democracy; one man or woman and one vote. The cost of the election is now beyond millions and into billions and the electorate knows little more than was known at the start of the campaign. Those who pay for the candidates determine what information is provided and skew it to benefit their interests. Both candidates are supported by huge amounts of PAC money and the public does not know the identity of the PAC donors. That the process of PAC advertising is dishonest and misleading is an accepted fact, and still we speak of the election as democracy in action.

The Obama claim for re-election rests on his first term accomplishments - or lack of. It is a matter of public record and one can agree or disagree with what has been accomplished, and have at least the basis for voting. But, how can Romney be evaluated? The information on Romney is cloudy and incomplete, often obviously in error or purposely distorted. A vote for Romney is either based on faith or on disappointment or dislike of Obama. Although a former governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s professional or business background is as a private equity manager. In his capacity as a private equity manager he cannot legitimately claim the mantle of job creator. His only responsibility was to provide profits for his investors, for which he was amply rewarded. In his quest for profits, he and other equity managers, find it necessary to reduce manpower requirements in order to garner profits for their share-holders and personal gain for themselves. For example, the historic airline TWA no longer exists. A private equity manager, Carl Icahn, sold it off leaving employees high and dry, and walked away with a reported $190 million.

Milton Friedman, in his major work Capitalism and Freedom, stated that social responsibility is “a fundamentally subversive doctrine in a free society”, and that there is only one social responsibility of business – “to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud”.  The equity manager, to be successful, must embrace that philosophy of business more than managers in any other part of the business community. He is not a factory manager producing goods, but a financier whose sole purpose is the manipulation of resources to produce profits. If he finds it necessary to significantly reduce the number of employees, or necessary to close a plant in a town dependent on the plant for survival, he has an obligation to his investors to take that action. He is not a job creator.

I have thought a lot about this election; after all, it has been nagging me for the past two years. My vote will go to Obama, because I have concluded that his interests are those shared by working people and by women and families. I may not agree, and in fact have not agreed, with all of his policies, but the basic thrust of his administration matches the goals I would wish for in my government. When I think of Romney and the policies he seems to reflect, I think of the three orders of men discussed in The Wealth of Nations. The third order was that of employers and dealers. Adam Smith states, “The interest of the dealers in any particular branch of trade or manufacturers is always different from, and even opposite to, that of the public.”[Sic]  "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.". Mitt Romney identifies himself as a member of this third order of men, so he will not get my vote.

Word count: 818

Harry E. Berndt, Ph.D.

150 Parsons Ave.

St. Louis, Mo 63119

Phone: 31`4-962-1749

Email: hberndt1926@sbcglobal.net