Individualism vs. Socialism

The 2012 Elections can be summed up in a very simple way: Individualism vs. Socialism.

What type of country do you want to see run? What type of society do you want us to become? Do you want to see this nation run in a socialism manner which appeals to broad spectrum of helping the community as a whole? Or do you prefer the individualist approach which emphasizes almost total pure freedom while abiding by the “every man for himself” rule? Are you for the United part or for the States part? Not in recent history has there been an election with two such different candidates heading for the White House.




On the challenger side we have Mitt Romney. Despite everything the opposition has said about him, Romney isn’t a tyrannical douchebag that we’ve been painting him out to be. The truth is remove all the hatred and you’ll find a man that was born and raised with a golden spoon in his mouth. How can you hate him for this? The road to success was paved for him so well, there’s no need to hate him for that. He does not know what it’s like to worry about money. If anything, our issue is his lying about his success at Bain. He comes off as almost embarrassed of his success over the years fighting and defeating the system of taxes and jobs.

Guess what, Bain was at its prime with Mitt during the late 90s, a time period in which unemployment was never an issue and neither was the economy. Businesses like these didn't have the negative tone that they carry today, because back then we didn't care (Unless you were one of the victims). Guess what, he is doing what we all would love to do, find loopholes involving taxes. Guess what, if the economy was like in the mid 2000s before the massive crash his past would not be such a hothead issue. Mitt Romney is an individualist, one that fights and claws his way to the top and is willing to bring down people in the process.

We can yell all we want, but American society has developed into that kind of lifestyle with the education system getting shackled and the job market being extremely competitive. Under Romney, all the major federal campaigns would be threatened, and power would be transferred more to the individual—and I mean people as well as businesses. Success won’t be taxed as much under Romney, as the rich will be looked at in the same level as the middle and lower class. The federal government would be more a facilitator instead of a helper as I can guarantee you the states will gain a little more power to run themselves in the manner they deem fit.

While that would economically kill stupid states like Arizona and well, Arizona, I am sure they are one patch of land that would love to gain some power back after losing some of the Immigration laws to the government.



And on the current champion side, we have Obama. Mr. Obama, a man whose sole and main purpose is to redistribute the power so that the US doesn’t look like an hourglass financially. He has (in a subtle manner) attacked the upper class for not trying to contribute to the collective attempted saving of the nation. His ideals are very much socialist, but I am not saying it in the negative tone. Obama wants to help those who are less fortunate and wants everyone to chime in to help the suffering and the underprivileged—whether you like it or not. Health Care, Immigration, and raising Taxes have been three hot button issues that have infuriated some and have helped others during Obama’s run.

He is looking out for everyone, not just one or a few. While it looks like Obama is hunting down the more lucrative businesses and people in the nation, what really is happening is that he knows how ugly the outlook is and is going through sources that have the stability to contribute extra and remain afloat. This could explain the financial cutbacks on Iraq, Afghanistan, NASA, among other things. But it is fun to see the power of Big Business when the White House has trouble supporting Obama’s views, decisions, and aspirations.

So what is the point of me pointing this out?

Very simple.

Despite the barrage of attacking ads, despite the biting cynicism amongst the two parties, neither of the two candidates are actually bad. Romney is a business-savvy man with a successful background (even mirroring some of Obama’s ideas including Health Care) and can actually use some of these skills to help the United States pull out of the red. Barack Obama is a man of his word, and is one of our most down-to-earth presidents in history. Obama has excellent worldwide appeal while at the same time scare the crap out of terrorist groups with his swift yet quiet approach to just assassinating the guilty out in the Wild Wild Middle East.

Both people have their strengths. But neither of them can truly achieve anything if the fighting continues. Both people have good ideas, have good ideals, have potential in saving this nation. What we need is time, patience, and lastly a willingness to work together. Obama accomplished less than what he desired because Senate and the House can’t agree on anything---everyone is fighting over small and large issues. Instead of finding a common ground we remain attacking each other with no basis, no proof, and an unnecessary layer of hatred. The sheer fact that it took us years (AFTER Bush’s two terms) to begin to compensate the brave men that saved lives in Ground Zero during 9/11 is purely ludicrous. And what’s worse is the battling in the White House and around the nation will not go away for quite a period of time.

So this leaves us with the 2012 Election and what it would mean if either party wins. If Mitt Romney wins, expect a much more individualist approach—expect rules and regulations to reflect your personal growth as opposed to growth of your neighbor and the neighborhood. If Obama wins expect more of the same universal approaches he has committed in the past, expect him to fight for the stability of the entire neighborhood, even if it means a few neighbors losing a little. It all boils down to who you are:

Individualist? Or Socialist?