Why You Shouldn't Vote Romney

 “Oh, I’m not voting for Obama, I’m going to vote for Romney. No, I don’t agree with Romney’s social policies, but at the same time his economic plans are more considered. Obama’s just not working for us right now.” 

No, this isn't the GOP's new logo

That’s right, dear readers, election time is almost upon us! I can guarantee that you’ve heard some variation of the above quote recently – everyone is thinking that Romney’s economics are stronger, so he’ll be the best bet to bring the US out of its slump. 

Well, let me tell you exactly why voting GOP of November 6th is a bad idea. Yes, I know I‘m a British person living in the UK, so I’m not exactly the authority on the issues in the US, but I can still have a look at the policies of the candidates involved. That’s where it all gets a bit worrying, you see. 

In my eyes, Obama is the sensible choice. He’s a centrist candidate (actually by British standards he’s a bit right wing, despite the amount of people calling him a liberal), he’s mostly got a good head for international relations, and he’s a charming man. All in all, he’s a pretty decent candidate. Maybe that's just what we see of him over here, but still.

Romney on the other hand… Well, Romney’s a different story. He’s much more right wing than his main opposition, he’s got an amazing knack for putting his foot in his mouth when he speaks, and when on a trip to show off his skills at interacting with ally countries – a must when you’re in charge of one of the more powerful countries on earth – he managed to irritate, offend, and downright insult every single country he went to. Every. Single. Country. Plus a few more besides, because hey! It’s not like Israel needed to minimise tensions with its border countries, right? 

If you need a little more encouragement to get to my point of view, this is a man that, when he was younger, pinned down a “presumed homosexual” boy with some of his friends and cut off his hair because it was long and bleached blond. He attacked him because he didn’t like his hairstyle. This was a story backed up by no less than five separate witnesses, who gave their statements independently. Romney first said that he didn’t remember the incident, and then issued a suitably vague and insulting “boys will be boys” statement. 

What about recently, though; has Romney gained some tact when dealing with people? He is, after all, a politician now, instead of an unruly student. Can he blame his youth now? 

At the ripe old age of 65, he certainly isn’t very youthful at all. His ability to bulldoze through everyone else’s feelings without a care remains, though. In fact, he seems to be getting better at it, considering some more recent comments. 

Take, for example, his recent “47% of Americans don’t pay income tax and are completely dependent on the government” failure. Now, who exactly are these 47%? Are they, like Romney later says, really thinking they’re "entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it"? 

"I just don't understand why 47% of these peasants
are annoyed by what I say" 

Well, not as such. You see, the vast majority of people that don’t pay income taxes actually aren’t just money grabbers intent on stealing your hard-earned money. The 47% is, in fact, made up of such demographics as the elderly (who have no income, and therefore pay no income tax), those in the military (not paying income tax is, as I heard one man in the army say, “one of the perks, in exchange for being shot at almost every day”), those who work but have an income of less than $20,000 a year (well done, Mr Romney, I’m sure a lot of those are employed by one of your businesses or business partners), and even babies (I don’t think I need to explain why they don’t pay income tax, right?). So to attempt to sell his policies to investors, Romney tried to make a scapegoat of the people paying no income tax. Well done, Romney. 

But surely the policies of his party count more than his personal opinions, right? Well, that may be true (it’s a bit of a difficult one to call), but then you actually have to look at the policies of the Republican party. 

So I read (most of) their manifesto. 

For those of you who think that the GOP has the better economic policy, take a look at this quote: 

“The public must never again be left holding the bag for Wall Street giants, which is why we decry the current Administration’s record of over-regulation and selective intervention, which has already frozen investment and job creation and threatens to make financial institutions the coddled wards of government.” 

Ok, so basically that means that they think taking your eyes off of an institution that has effectively bankrupted your nation (and by extension a fair bit of the world) is a good idea. More than a good idea, they think it is the right idea! I’m sorry, I know that America is still hung up on their “separation of the state and businesses” deal, but not regulating the banks was kind of what made America’s economy (if we take the extremely simplified, watered down explanation of the current economic crisis) crash in the first place. 

Then I can pick out the next paragraph (I never have to go too far to find problems with Republicans, see), and quote this: 

Despite improvements as a result of Republican nominations to the judiciary, some judges in the federal courts remain far afield from their constitutional limitations. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. Judicial activism which includes reliance on foreign law or unratified treaties undermines American law. The sole solution, apart from impeachment, is the appointment of constitutionalist jurists, who will interpret the law as it was originally intended rather than make it. That is both a presidential responsibility, in selecting judicial candidates, and a senatorial responsibility, in confirming them. We urge Republican Senators to do all in their power to prevent the elevation of additional leftist ideologues to the courts, particularly in the waning days of the current Administration. In addition to appointing activist judges, the current Administration has included an activist and highly partisan Department of Justice. With a Republican Administration, the Department will stop suing States for exercising those powers reserved to the States, will stop abusing its preclearance authority to block photo-ID voting laws, and will fulfil its responsibility to defend all federal laws in court, including the Defense of Marriage Act. 

Let’s look at the whole paragraph, first. I know it hurts, just try to read it all. Now, tell me what you see. I see the GOP complaining about the limitations of judges to protect DOMA. The manifesto is subtle, really. There’s nothing in the platform that mentions homosexuality explicitly, but don’t think for a second that they don’t reference them at all. 

That’s the choice here. Obviously the Republicans are keeping their homophobic cards close to their metaphorical chest, but judging from the outcry after Obama, among other things, came out in favour of marriage equality, revoked the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and signed a bill to say that same sex couples should have the same hospital visitation rights as their straight counterparts, the Republicans would rather all that were reversed. 

So in the end, the choice seemingly comes down to economic or social policies. Romney has the better economic plan, and Obama has (whether you look at his track record or the Democratic platform) the better social plan. 

But then you need to look closer and see that, while the Republicans are a lot more conservative than the Democrats, the Democrats have a similarly decent plan on how to combat the deficit – if only in ways other than reducing the tax for millionaires (those poor, poor millionaires). 

Regardless, if you vote Romney, I don’t really care if you “don’t agree with his views on homosexuality”. It’s like voting in a racist candidate and saying that, while you don’t agree with the racism, you like his ideas on where your tax goes. It still means that you support a racist candidate, and saying that you don’t agree with him doesn’t mean you’re not supporting a homophobic party. 

That’s why, when your voting day comes around, I’m asking you to consider not voting Romney, even if you prefer his economics. The progress that has been made in law for QUILTBAG Americans over the last four years should not be ignored, and ultimately I think we can all see which of the two main parties would continue on this path.

The views expressed in this article reflect those of the author and do not necessarily match those of  the other authors on the blog. Each author has the right to freely express their opinions. Freedom Requires Wings has no agenda and does not endorse any political candidates.