How Romney Brilliantly Summed Up GOP Ideology in a Single Sentence

At the moment, the American political system is not equipped to handle climate change. But both parties aren’t the same, and Democrats have (effectively) symbolic legislation to signal their support for a cap and trade regime. The orthodox position for the Republican Party, by contrast, is complete denial. As such, the new Mitt Romney is a denialist crank:

By the way, they do not call it America warming, they call it global warming. So the idea of America spending massive amounts, trillions of dollars to somehow stop global warming is not a great idea. It loses jobs for Americans and ultimately it won’t be successful, because industries that are energy intensive will just get up and go somewhere else. So it doesn’t make any sense at all.

My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.

None of this is new; Romney has been a climate denier since last year, and if he’s elected president, he’ll continue on that path. You can hope that he’ll recover his moderate instincts, but given the GOP’s institutional hostility to reducing greenhouse emissions, there’s almost no chance it will happen.

What’s noteworthy about Romney’s statement is the first full clause—“By the way, they do not call it America warming.”

It’s a brilliant statement. Yes, it doesn’t make any sense—the globe includes America, after all—but more than anything else, it sums up the mind-state of American conservatism in the early 21st century.

For all the talk of empowering communities and getting government out of the way, the Republican Party is utterly dismissive of social responsibility. If it’s not ‘America warming’ then Romney doesn’t care, and you shouldn’t either. Never mind that America produces a substantial amount of green houses gases, and that our inaction will lead to disaster in the developing world; if it doesn’t harm us directly, then it’s not our problem.

This trickles down from the international community and into our domestic social contract. Republicans want to unleash corporations and banks to do whatever they please. Will this destroy livelihoods and harm countless people? Probably. But that’s not their problem.

Likewise, Republicans want to gut the social safety net, and end the programs that provide an economic floor to millions of Americans. When pushed on this, conservatives might hand wave about charity and individual responsibility, but they rarely make efforts to encourage private giving. The attitude, more or less, is that—whatever your material circumstances—it’s not our problem, and it’s not worth our money.

At the moment, it’s not unusual to hear conservatives express contempt for student debt relief, or anything else that could help young people with student loans. Their rationale? You took out the loans, and it’s not our problem if you can’t pay them back.

Persistent joblessness and tenuous unemployment benefits? It’s not our problem that they couldn’t find a job. Access to contraceptives? Hey, you had sex and now you have to suffer the consequences. It’s not our problem if you couldn’t afford them in the first place.

This is only a slight exaggeration. If given the White House and Congress, Republicans plan to implement a budget that would drastically cut social services for the large majority of Americans, in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent. It’s hyper-individualism—all men are islands—codified as public policy. In essence, you could say that Republican ideology has moved beyond “I’ve got mine” to the complete abdication of community responsibility. “I don’t care and it’s not my problem.”


Wait, moved beyond? That implies the first part has been left behind. Isn't it more like addition? Used to be, "I've got mine, I'll at least pretend to want things set up so that you can get yours (if you're white and straight, not too lazy, and hopefully male)". Now it's, "I've got mine. If you don't then I don't care and it's not my problem and never my fault."


You are waaayyyy too kind. It's "I've got mine, fuck you!"

Or rather, "I've got mine, so fuck you." - hey look just because Mittney is a low life psychopath that doesn't serve a legitimate basis to denounce individual sovereignty "we are all sovereigns without subjects", this sort of mentality is why I quit the Democratic Party in 1986, the rest of your article is ok and a very useful vid clip too but your piece is extremely superficial - feel free to link to my blog

I am not really too impressed by environmentalists. Tell me, which puts more carbon dioxide into the air, Mitt Romney's business of people who work in offices or a 500,000 acre forest fire like the ones environmentalists have been giving us so that they can prove to everyone that there is global warming?
More than half of the trees in Arizona have burned since 2000.

"More than half the trees in Arizona have burned since 2000" is a correct statement. But the purported cause -- "the ones environmentalists have been giving us" -- is lunacy. The reason for the fires is drought and increased human habitation leading to accidental ignition. The southwest is in a twenty year drought; Lake Mead has shrunk so far that Las Vegas is having to build a new deeper tunnel to get water as an example of another effect of it.

The main reason that the trees in the Arizona mountains haven't been cut for three or four decades is that the people who live there don't WANT them cut. It's not like the Paulite Arizona government has limited logging because they're worried about "the environment". They're worried about the votes of rich Phoenix folks who have uber-cabins in the woods up there.

I think you are giving WAAAAYYYY too much power to "the environmentalists". Much as those of us on the "looney left" might like it, they aren't God.

The yarnel fire that killed 19 hot shots was started by a lightning strike. Yes many fires in Arizona have been started by humans. Maybe we should all stay in the house so we dont liter expel CO2 or use fossil fuels. We should be more careful for sure. The natural course of a forest is to burn occasionally. We humans don't like that so we suppress fires allowing growth of thick low lying fuel which causes very large hot uncontrollable fires. The forest service has known this for years. Clearing these fuels is not appealing to some. I'm sure there is pressure to not clear the low lying smaller trees. So we get these huge hot fires that destroy the older growth trees, property and kill or sons who've acquired jobs as hot shots. These men could work at timber companies, coal mines, (copper mines are next on obama s agenda), power plants, etc. all of which are not "green" jobs. When what should we do? Be herded in to pens and be fed by the government . Then we won't offend the tree huggers and the horned owl.

I was working in a sawmill at the time the Democratic Party decided to shut down the lumber industry in the United States. The county where I lived in Montana now has a higher percentage of people on social security than any other county in the country. The forests there are just waiting for a lightning strike or a cigarette butt to start a fire that will burn everything. There was a 500,000 acre fire further south in western Montana in the 1990's.
When there was logging, northwestern Montana was called the asbestos forest. With every timber sale came what was called KV work, which was getting rid of brush and fire hazard in the forest. These huge forest fires are planned. They are there to prove there is global warming. They are part of a political agenda.

What a paranoid statement, "planned by Democrats to prove global warming" my foot. Global warming has been proven, is OBVIOUS to anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by --oh, whoever the hell the timber industry uses to inculcate their crowd. Sound paranoid? See?

Yes, global warming exists and nobody has to prove it. However, ignore it at your own and everyone else's risk! Vote third party to avoid further decline of the human race!

Please enlighten me. How exactly, has global warming been proven?

The Republican mind can only be dealt with in the following manner:

I'm with Mitt...I will wait till it gets warmer...after all, no warming in the past 15 years - looks to me like this is just another scare. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

Perhaps you're not aware of these statistics then...? Just play with the variables to get a veritable fire of red dots over your map of the US.

I knew Romney personally back in the 1970's. Democrats have him all wrong. Here is what Mitt really believes about global warming. Malachi 4:1 The day will come that will burn like an oven.
Mitt was just too polite to say what he really believes.

What's "extraordinary" about global warming? As fossil fuels are burned, oil particles (smoke) are released into the atmosphere. These oil particles act like a magnifying glass, intensifying the sun's heat. The more carbon particles in the air, the slower heat can dissipate. More and more heat is trapped as people (globally) drive more, creating more pollution. It's neither mysterious nor overly complicated.

This is to the one percent. You will not live forever HA ha

"Likewise, Republicans want to gut the social safety net, and end the programs that provide an economic floor to millions of Americans. " Seriously? It was Bill Clinton who took a machete to basic poverty relief, ending general assistance aid, then wiping out AFDC, and took the first steps toward dismantling Social Security, targeting disabled workers. "Progressive" media virtually wrote poverty out of the story. Since the 1980s, the bulk of our manufacturing jobs has been shipped out. Not everyone can work, due to health or circumstances, and there aren't jobs for all who need one. Call for job creation? Been doing that for years. You can't buy a loaf of bread with promises of eventual jobs. You can't get a job without a home address, phone, bus fare. Democrats have proved to be poison for those not as well off as middle class. There were hopes that President Obama could launch a discussion about US poverty, but that didn't happen. Lib media now calls for (solidly anti-poor) H. Clinton to run for president, waving the Bourgeoisie Banner. But Republicans are responsible for gutting the safety net?

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)