Before I
go on, I have to acknowledge the fact that I am 16 years old. I cannot vote in
today's election. But that has not stopped me from doing research on the
2012 candidates and solidifying my preference, something of which we are all capable. I may not have a vote in the 2012 Election, but that does not mean by
any stretch that I do not have a voice. I have a voice, and it will be used to
advocate as long as I see fit.
That
being said, there are several things I want to be represented in a President.
I want someone who stands for the true, diverse image of the American people. I firmly believe nothing should be denied
of a human being simply because of his or her sexual orientation, and I don’t fancy
having someone internationally representing my country that does not believe in this fairness. Both of these points speak to my views on equal opportunity. I
believe in giving each American citizen proper health, proper education, and
ultimately, the ability to do amazing things if he or she so pleases; and I
understand that those struggling have a face. They have a story. There is no
single category under which to place those who are less fortunate in one way or another. The only
fair generalization to be made is that they all deserve help. And finally, as
an point encompassing all of the above, I want to present the United States to
the world as collected, compassionate, and constant; and frankly, I cannot
understand why any American would want the world to see his or her country as
anything less.
And it
is because of all of the above points that I am eager to support Barack Obama. At the start of the campaign, I only favored
Obama because he represented nearly everything I seek in a President and have
enjoyed for his first term. But as the election drew closer, I found a new
reason to support him: Mitt Romney represents everything I do not want in a
President. If he were to be our leader, he would show the world the elements of
America in which I do not take pride. I do not want to be associated with his
temperament, his ethics, or politics (rather, lack of such.) And these are the
instances that solidified that opinion.
It is clear that he defines America as white
and affluent.
In a
“secret” video released from a private fundraising event, Romney acknowledges
his father George’s time living in Mexico with his parents, Mitt’s grandparents.
“…Had [my father] been born of Mexican parents, I’d have a better
shot at winning this ... But he was unfortunately born to
Americans living in Mexico. He lived there for a number of years. I mean, I say
that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino.”
Although
I could initiate the useless argument regarding him “joking” about other races
having a better chance in politics, what really got me was “Americans living in
Mexico.” He began the statement with “Latino” – a race. Naturally he would
acknowledge his family’s race as Caucasian, right? In his mind, that’s exactly
what he did. “Americans.” Because he associates the Caucasian race and the term
“Americans,” like many others do, when they should not. At least 20% of our population today is not white. In the 21st century, there is no reason to associate America
with one race, subconsciously or otherwise.
He categorizes 100% the “47%” of Americans who
seek government assistance as one big, lazy, freeloading entity.
In the same video, Romney speaks about the 47% of the American population who will be
supporting Obama.
“All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are
dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that
government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are
entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That’s an
entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for
this president no matter what... My job is not to worry about those people.
I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for
their lives.”
I have a
problem with this, first of all, because he has decided that every single person seeking government
assistance is lazy and dependent on government because he or she simply does not
feel like working. People like that definitely exist, but can you possibly believe
that every American on welfare is on welfare because they want to be? Of
course. In Romney’s mind, and the minds of many others, there is no struggle.
There is the money to pay for a car to travel to and from a job. There is the
money for the day care to watch the small children while their parent works.
This money exists no matter what, naturally! Anyone who receives
money from the government is using it to freeload, not to complete any of the
practical tasks necessary to his or her pathway to success!
My other
problem with this is that he has decided it is his job “not to worry about
those people.” First of all, as President, it IS your job to care about “those
people," and you should probably label them as constituents while you’re at
it. In what America is it acceptable for a leader to disregard “47%” of the
citizens he is supposed to be leading? Interesting how those worried about
Obama somehow becoming a dictator will vote for Romney and completely ignore
the fact that he is eager to disregard half of America’s population, in turn
disregarding their wants and their voices as Americans. What does a dictator
do, again?
He has rigorously taken action against the rights
of same-sex parents.
We have known from the start that Romney does not support gays. Fine, that's old news. The issue, however, is that it recently emerged that as governor of Massachusetts, he consistently demeaned the rights of families with same-sex parents. When gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in 2003, the next logical step was to make birth certificates of children born to same-sex couples accurate by officially relabeling the box for "Father" as "Father or Second Parent." The Registry of Vital Records & Statistics needed to keep accurate records of children and their parents, and if the child did not have a traditional "Father," the old birth certificate template would not serve its purpose. Romney "rejected the Registry of Vital Records plan and insisted that his top legal staff individually review the circumstances of every birth to same-sex parents. Only after winning approval from Romney’s lawyers could hospital officials and town clerks across the state be permitted to cross out by hand the word “father’’ on individual birth certificates, and then write in 'second parent,' in ink." I say Romney's action was rigorous and consistent because "the practice of requiring high-level legal review continued for the rest of Romney’s term, despite a warning from a Department of Public Health lawyer who said such a system placed the children of same-sex parents at an unfair disadvantage."
If we want to argue constitutionality about Obama's policies, why don't we look at the way Romney follows rules? Peggy Weisenberg, the deputy general counsel of the Registry department, told Mark Nielsen of Romney's general counsel that "crossouts and handwritten alterations constituted 'violations of existing statutes' and harmed 'the integrity of the vital record-keeping system' ... The changes also would impair law enforcement and security efforts in a post-9/11 world, she said, and children with altered certificates would be likely to 'encounter [difficulties] later in life . . . as they try to register for school, or apply for a passport or a driver’s license, or enlist in the military, or register to vote.'"
So what's the point? Romney's need to campaign against same-sex parents accomplished nothing. It broke rules, it made things inconvenient for the office, and it gave those children a disadvantage in the world. What I see here is a man who will be blinded by his hatred enough to continue inconveniencing and disrespecting everyone around him. We need someone as President who is open-minded, who compromises, and who understands how to differentiate his own interests from those of the constituents.
His platform is inconsistent.
People don't gain nicknames like "Flip Flop Mitt" for no reason. Obama may have changed his views on gay marriage since 1996, but he has admitted that he "struggles with" the issue, and then finally came out in support of gay rights. That is why we call his changing views an "evolution." Mitt, however, jumps from one end of the spectrum to another based on his present company. He has done this on nearly every issue: abortion, women's health, budget and economy, civil rights, education, foreign policy, you name it. If we cannot count on our leader to keep his own platform at least somewhat consistent, how can we count on him to cater to the people's interests, or to keep any national stance as something tangible?
And finally, he responds horribly when he is challenged.
In an Iowa radio interview, Romney defends his Mormon religion. I'm not sure why we use the word "defense" because that implies that there was an original opposition from the interviewer, Jan Mikelson, who is not agreeing or disagreeing and looks like he was simply trying to continue the dialogue.
Politicians like to interrupt each other. As we saw in the Presidential Debate, Romney continually interrupted not only Obama but the moderator as well. No one likes to be interrupted, but he does not respond well to it. Each time, in several different settings, he demands that the interruptor let him finish instead of responding calmly.
What I see here is a very hot-headed man with few interpersonal skills. What I see here is a man who has directly disrespected fellow citizens. If he does that to his constituents, what will he do to foreign leaders and their citizens? I surely do not want to see him interrupting Prime Minister David Cameron and then insisting that he "let him finish." I surely do not want the world to see America as the entitled nation that talks over everyone else.
Romney does not fit any of my ideal criteria for President of the United States. He defines America as affluent and Caucasian and will continue to illustrate the "traditional American" image that is no longer accurate in 2012. He is eager to disregard half of America's population, and has made it clear that he does not care about them. He inconveniences those around him by catering to his own views and interests. He is inconsistent. He changes his views based on who he is speaking to, and he is hot-headed.
I am a 16-year-old United States citizen and I do not want Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, or South America to see Mitt Romney as America. I want a figurehead that represents the American values of which I am proud. If the American image is one of exclusivity, apathy, inconsistency and disrespect, I no longer wish to be associated with it.
