Pass The Buck

In a statement on CNBC (no irony there...) Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney asserted that the true blame for the crises plaguing the United States and the remainder of the world are not those of the remainder of the world, but are directly correlated to Barack Obama.

Romney insists that it's the president's blatant disregard for what makes America go 'round which has caused so much pain here at home, and that the president's failed policies, strategies and leadership have doomed America, and by extension, the remainder of the world. Obama has, he claims, "passed the buck" in his explanations to the American people as to the reasoning behind the catastrophe that is our economy. Romney was quoted as saying that first the president blamed, "George W. Bush, then congress, then ATM machines, and now Europe." He continued on to rhetorically question when the president will ever take ownership and responsibility for his own failed policies (sovereignty, Obamacare, tax cut expirations, etc.).

While I am a fan of "passing the buck" onto someone definitely deserving of the extra stress, there is no logical explanation for Obama being the sole cause of the world's economic malaise. One man, in this case a figurehead, has no "real" power in our economy. Obama cannot magically decide whether he wants there to be more jobs or not. It's not that simple. We have a convoluted and intricate system that takes months, even years, to properly achieve and "change" anything. So while Obama's 2008 campaign slogan was certainly lofty and nearly impossible, it certainly wasn't catastrophic and damning. Obama should be able to dole out responsibility where it lies, but he should be able to accept it where it's due.

Obamacare is failure. But it's only a failure because the system which must follow its rules is corrupted and resolute. There's no reason that an insurance company or a doctor should take the "hit" of a smaller paycheck because of smaller premiums, and there's no reason why a person shouldn't be denied based on pre-existing conditions. Unless of course you come from a place of solid moral standing. Then, it's pretty obvious that Obamacare is a great idea. But we're a capitalistic society, and our foundations are infiltrated (by our own doing and initiatives) by people who make money off of the "losses" (read: misfortunes) of others. In essence, we're a shadenfreudic society.

Obamacare is a lot like communism (and boy, are the GOP pundits happy I said that). Both are, fundamentally, excellent ideas. A society run for the people and by the people is the least corrupted and corruptible society. Without the constant competition to "one-up" the guy next to you, and by eliminating those incentives, the society as a whole is more apt to work together, to actually help those around them, to be less suspicious and competitive, and to actually want to progress. However, communism in application is a total failure. There will never be a truly respected and non-corruptible proletariat. Each person in their most vulnerable state is viscerally susceptible to temptation, corruption, greed and countless other morally sinful yet capitalistically sound capacities. Every portion of Obamacare is ruled by the same principles which assume that man is infallible and correctly morally purposed; that is erroneous, dangerous and counter-intuitive, and that is why Obamacare will never work.

The world isn't ready for Obamacare and it's not ready for socialism, which is why the problems in Europe are so worrisome. Europe is a more progressive and socialist society than our own and is therefore suffering worse consequences because they're deeper in the hole of "invisible debt," which is what has been causing such an uproar (debt ceiling, debt rates, defaults on mortgages and credit card debt, etc.). Europe has caused a lot of its own problems and while its naive to think that we are not intertwined and inter-dependent, we are a separate nation which is at least partially influenced. We are not isolationists. This is primarily why Obama was correct in his "passing of the buck."

So now we come to you, Mitt. While you criticize Obama for passing the buck, you too are famous for passing the buck along during debates and for avoiding many of the questions which could finally clarify and free you from the scorn of so many who call you elitist, robotic, and out-of-touch. To be aloof is one thing, but to think that Obama can actually control all of this and is the sole perpetrator is naive, ignorant and fundamentally incorrect. One thing that you must do, Mitt, is examine your own track record, initiatives, and failures and discover that you actually share a lot in common with the president who you are so quick to chastise.

Bush may have inflated an economy that popped as he was allowed to flee (somehow with only partial blame), and Obama may have done little to try to rebuild what was destroyed, but he has a lot of extraneous factors preventing him from achieving full recovery. It is time that you, Mitt, and the rest of America embraced the fact that though we like to have a scapegoat it makes us a simple and ignorant people, far less refined and intelligent than we ought to be. It pigeonholes us into a category we so often (hypocritically and ironically) condemn. I suppose this is me vicariously passing the buck back to you, Mitt, since you may very well be our next president. If and when you do take office, do not place all the blame on your predecessor, and recognize that much will be placed on you, but you will not be the sole perpetrator either. Our world is too complicated for any man or robot to comprehend, and all we are really doing every fourth November is deciding which issues, morals and views we would like to be personified in our American figurehead.