I don’t like Mitt Romney the politician. However, based on his appearance before an assembly of the NAACP recently, I have some respect for the man. He showed a commitment to principle by standing before that crowd and vowing to work toward getting rid of non-essential, expensive government spending programs if he is elected president. When he included a mention of “Obamacare” as one of his targets he was booed by the audience for 15 seconds. Romney retained his composure throughout. He did not deserve to be treated this way.

Apparently, people represented by the NAACP voted nearly 95 percent for Obama in the 2008 election. (Why do allegedly colour blind societies keep such statistics?) Many politicians facing a hostile audience would try to curry favour by avoiding controversial platform planks. Romney did not do that and remained poised before an outburst which unfortunately has become typical of the lack of decorum on the part of audiences and presenters alike over the years. (To be fair, Romney was generously applauded at the end of the affair.)

The US government has a problem with the level of its spending and borrowing. It has had annual deficits for most years in the last several decades. This is not a Republican or a Democrat problem. It is a government problem. Everybody who thinks about it knows it. The only way out is to stop the excessive spending and borrowing. That seems to be what Romney is talking about. Perhaps he believes he can accomplish the task or at least set the process in motion. Surely, he is well-intentioned.

It may be too late to head off the worst consequences of America’s debt problems because restructuring has been postponed too long. Many Americans will not quietly accept the deep cuts in welfare-state services that will become necessary. If the worst of the violence and social unrest occurs during the next Executive term, the incumbent and his political party will likely be blamed for all of it. Romney would not deserve that.

©Copyright 2012 Edward Podritske