by Grant Sharratt
November 6th quickly approaches, and the grumbling continues to do nothing but intensify. Through all the vitriol and rhetoric of the long campaign trail, there is a general feeling that this election is a true turning point for the nation, a point at which two very different views of America diverge. One such view is of an America where the rich continue to get richer and the middle class—upon whom this nation is built—continue to suffer under policies that benefit only the upper economic echelon. The working man, now more than ever, has the choice between the America that was just described—Mitt Romney’s America—or an America which propels the ideals of freedom, equality and justice.
The choice this November is between very different men. One man, Mitt Romney, is the quintessential bourgeois businessman, born with a silver spoon and out of touch with the average American. Romney, more than anything, cares more about the dollar figures than the people behind them. He would, at the expense of millions of Americans, strip programs that people rely upon, such as Medicare and Social Security. The President, however, sees these programs as essential, though in need of reform. Without gutting them, the President wants to make them into leaner, more effective structures upon which people may rely in the future, just as they have in the past.
The second choice on the ballot is the man who has overseen the executive branch of the federal government for almost four years, Barack Obama. Unlike Mitt Romney, the President is a man from an incredibly humble beginning, the product of what Republicans would perhaps call a “non-traditional household.” Clearly, the President understands the needs of the people, not just wealthy elites, and works diligently even now in order to bring about positive changes.
Republicans like to default to the idea that the economy has continued to suffer—perhaps more so—because of the policies of the President. If this is indeed the case, why then have we have such success in creating new jobs? Why then is the unemployment rate lower than it has been for some time? Clearly, there is more work to be done, but a vote for Mitt Romney is effectively an about-face, a return to the era of George W. Bush, the man under whose watch the economy tanked, unemployment skyrocketed and the housing market began to bottom out. Why would anyone want to return to the end of a term that created the worst recession since the Great Depression?
The President, facing gridlock in Congress, has seen more than his share of challenges. Under his administration, Osama bin Laden has been killed. America’s greatest enemy of the 21st century was killed because the President made the call to launch one of the most daring raids in this nation’s history. An oppressive regime in Libya has seen the end of its days. And now, our heroes who have fought and died for our rights are now beginning to return home to see those loved ones whom they have missed for too long. There are still challenges to be faced. There are folks who need aid, an economy that needs strengthening. Let us not, however, return to the past. A vote for the President is a vote for the future.
gsharrott@capital.edu
