Is Romney 47% asshole?
Probably not, though there is a case to be made.
Perhaps the plainest evidence yet is the infamous “47 percent” comment: “My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Making that comment *would* have been a major asshole move if it were made in public. He’d be publicly asking for the job of representing everyone and yet feeling somehow entitled to disregard almost half of them, on the dubious grounds that even retirees and the disabled refuse to take responsibility for their lives. Even the working poor arguably now take *too much responsibility* for their lives, while the rest of us have a lot done for us. (E.g., chlorine is added to our water on our behalf. See here and especially this marvelous book, albeit re the developing world poor.)
But the remarks weren’t publicly made. In which case there are roughly two options, depending on whether or not the remarks were sincere. Perhaps they weren’t sincere. He was mainly assuring conservative donors by echoing what he thought was their view, as part of a larger comment on his electoral strategy. Or maybe the remarks were sincere. His is then sincerely mistaken (I would say) but still not necessarily an asshole. He can simply be wrong about the plight of others and how much they take responsibility for their lives. He could even entertain self-serving stereotypes of the poor without that flowing, in a largely defensive way, from an entrenched and unfounded sense of entitlement.
My guess is that he’s in for some mix of these two options. He partly but not entirely believes what he said, but gave a simplified version to please would-be donors (as all politicians do). (Much as explained here.) So are the remarks telling evidence that he’s an asshole, or even a half-asshole? Nope.
Better evidence is Romney’s considerable shifts in views and his failure to present credible detail for his major proposals. Perhaps he’s shamelessly “pivoted” beyond what campaigning politicians are entitled to, and just misleading people about matters of great importance (consider, e.g., his abuse of what counts as a tax “study” in those grand promises of deficit-neutral tax cuts for all (see here and here, and also here on why there’s little to no economic evidence for growth-effects, by a Regan and Bush Admin official.)
One problem here is that you can be a massive bullshitter (in Frankfurt’s sense of speaking without regard for the truth) without being an asshole. Speaker and hearer both will realize that truth is not at issue, so the issue is not wrongful deception. Bullshitting does damage the assumed value of truth, which is being sidelined, but it is a tricky question whether paying insufficient respect for that value can make one into an asshole all by itself. A lot depends on the social context one is bullshitting in.
Certainly *political campaigning* carries some obligation to tell the truth. But our politics is now so deep in bullshit that I’m not sure where the line between good campaigning and asshole politicking is. I’m sure there is such a line, and I’d say Romney is crossing it brazenly. But I’m not confident enough about where the line is to feel sure in saying that he’s transgressed it far enough to count as a proper political asshole.
I say this while temporarily ignoring my own political views. If I factor them in, his politicking can’t be justified in the name of the greater good, and so the case that he’s being a political asshole is stronger. For those of you who do share his larger political vision, you can say *either* that his bullshitting is justified by the greater good it does *or* that it is unjustified but forgiveable given the huge stakes (e.g. getting a liberal out of office, keeping taxes on the rich low, etc.)
He doesn’t seem like an asshole otherwise, in his personal life, by the way. So is Romney a political asshole? Maybe. But it would only be in part (I’m not sure about the percentage), and in any case not in any clear-cut way.
