Path to Prosperity
There
has been much talk and speculation of a new political cartoon on
Facebook that basically underlies the difference between the democratic
and republican views: Who is
responsible for the economic success in America; Each for their own or
each for each other? The cartoon portrays a man talking to a little girl
whose parents are both proud democrats. The
man asks the girl if she wants to be a democrat when she is older and
the girl says yes, as she wants to be like her parents. The man then
asks her, “How would you help a poor person? Would you go get a job and
give all of your money to them?” The
little girl thought for a moment and said, “No, I would help them find a
job so they can make their own money.” The man then says, “Welcome to
the republican party.” As this cartoon was obviously distributed from
the conservative wing, both parties have communicated their views on who
should be responsible for a successful America.
Michelle Obama argued that we are responsible for helping each other grow. It is our responsibility to help others prosper once we have succeeded. She took a very personal and emotional stance in the democratic convention which helped her outline the theme of her speech. She reflected on Obama’s character who constantly wants to help others and that’s why he is president. She spoke of sad struggles that her and Obama have both endured in attempt to relate their high status to the average American. The
point of her speech was to make everyone understand that we all need
each other to grow and she made it clear that we cannot reach success
unless we all help each other.
On the other hand, Mitt Romney’s message was the very opposite. He
spoke of individual entrepreneurs who work on their own and start small
businesses because we are Americans and we are hard workers. He spoke of how bad our nation is under Obama’s policies because we are not better off than we were four years ago. Romney’s
speech was a backdrop to American history, especially the immigrants
who traveled here for freedom and worked as hard as they could to make
any penny they could. He wants each person to get an education and to work hard on their own so our nation can become more innovative. As an American, we have the responsibility to get an education and a job on our own to make the economy prosperous. We are not to rely on others for help because you can’t help someone else if you can’t help yourself...but is this what American's want to hear?
It was extremely interesting to me that each side of the fence took completely different approaches to their communication tactics. Michelle was much more civil then Romney because she didn't even mention Romney's name once. She wanted all of the attention on Obama. Romney not only mentioned Obama but he took many shots at his political policies. These
are two completely different candidates with different strengths and
they both seem to have lacked solid facts in their speeches. If anything, I felt that Romney was the most informative of his plan for our country because he gave many facts. He
actually laid out a 5 step plan that he has for our country including
the addition of new jobs by just using our own oil resources. I felt like Obama’s speech lacked detail to how he wants to build our economy in the next 4 years. We know what he has done but the viewers want to hear his promises again. Both
candidates need to push their economic plans onto the public because I
really believe that it is the number one concern in America at this
point. Come Novemeber, we will find out what message the American's wanted to hear.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/30/transcript-mitt-romney-speech-at-rnc/
://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/politics/michelle-obama-speech/index.html
2 Comments:
To me, the problem with the cartoon lies in the fact that it portrays “richer” people as having to give ALL of their money to those who are poorer. Yes, it would be ideal for everyone to be able to hold a job and make their own money, but that is not the reality, even in America. Full time workers making minimum wage still struggle to afford the basic needs, especially if they have children. I won’t even get into what happens if these people, by no fault of their own, have a high cost medical emergency. The truth is that, even though those who make enough money do have to pay taxes, it is not amount that leaves them with nothing. As individuals, we cannot control how one person from a wealthy family background can afford much better education (and thus job offers) than someone who is a first-generation college student from a blue-collar family background. Both of these individuals are hard workers, but some people just have an easier start, without argument. On the surface, it doesn’t seem fair for someone who works hard to give their money to those who don’t, but that idea completely ignores the complexity of the issue. How are we to define ‘hard work’? Is a single mother on food-stamps who works two jobs just to pay for food and her child’s schooling “lazier” than a housewife in a penthouse whose children are cared for by nannies? Looking just at status and wealth alone is terrible way to decide who is ‘lazy’ and who is not, as many believe that poverty stems from one’s willingness to work or not. There is a wide range of cases and situations, but we must consider the different ways in which wealth is acquired. America is a great country, but our economy leaves too large of a gap between rich and poor, with many people being stuck in their circumstances regardless of work ethic.
The question of to what extent the government should take care of citizens is one of the central issues of this campaign, along with the condition of the economy. The nominees have very different views on the former and have communicated them throughout the campaign.
Post a Comment
<< Home