Merrily Dancing Ape

I was pleased with Obama’s victory in the second debate, and pleased that he won on substance in the third debate as well. I’d like to focus on one small but telling aspect of the debate that will go overlooked by pundits.

During the third debate, Romney said this of the conflict in Afghanistan:

We’re going to be finished by 2014. And when I’m president, we’ll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014.

Factcheck.org has an interesting commentary on that remark:

That’s a change. In the past, Romney had said that announcing a specific date for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops was among Obama’s “biggest mistakes.” He later told ABC News that he also would adhere to “the same time frame the president is speaking of” for turning over responsibility to Afghan forces by the end of 2014, but qualified that by saying withdrawal depended on what military commanders tell him and on circumstances “on the ground.”

This time there were no such qualifiers. Romney said flatly: “[W]e’re going to be able to make that transition by the end of — of 2014. So our troops’ll come home at that point.”

Let’s be clear here. Over the course of this campaign, Romney has staked out three different positions on Afghanistan. First he criticized the president for setting a withdrawal date at all. Then he flipped and said he supported Obama’s timeline generally but with qualifiers. Now he shifts again and adopts Obama’s exact position without qualifiers.

What does this tell us about Mitt Romney?

It tells us that he stands for principles. Yes, principles! That’s what presidents do, and Mitt Romney is supremely presidential. Whatever principles he needs to stand for to get elected, he’ll stand for ’em. I’m not saying he isn’t earnest. He is earnest in that he earnestly wants to stand for whatever principles you care about most at the current moment.

He’s Mr. Etch-a-sketch. Every month or so he shakes off his past positions and re-draws himself anew.

This is what scares me most about Mitt Romney. It scares me even more than his ridiculous tax plan. He has been on every side of every issue. We can’t hold him to his promises because the promises he has made are either vague or contradictory. If Romney is elected, we really don’t know what the heck he’ll do.

So Romney recently said this:

If a kid makes the honor roll, I realize that he got to school on a bus, and the bus driver got him there, but I don’t give the bus driver credit for honor roll I give the kid credit for the honor roll.

At first blush this seems like a reasonable statement. I give the kid credit for making the honor roll, too. How could Obama possible want to rob credit from decent, hard-working school children for their own accomplishments? Obama is such a socialist jerk!

Behind the straw man argument, what Romney is suggesting here is that a person’s success is entirely due to her own initiative. And this is bunk.

Could the kid have made the honor roll without… how about… TEACHERS?

Or without a SCHOOL?

Or without TEXTBOOKS PAID FOR BY THE STATE?

Back to the bus driver. If the kid had no other transportation to school, then don’t you think the bus driver at least played some role in the kid’s success?

Yes, of course the kid who makes the honor roll deserves credit for her accomplishment. She was the most important factor in her achievement. She decided to work hard and apply herself. No one wishes to detract from that.

But there are great kids in Nigeria who are willing to work hard and apply themselves, but they never get the chance to make the honor roll. Their country has much worse infrastructure and a much worse education system.

Romney is making an either-or fallacy. It isn’t either individualism or collectivism. Both elements are required. The success of the individual relies upon both her individual initiative and the support she receives from her society. Her success is aided by having good schools, good teachers, and, yes, bus drivers.