The common man and the presidency | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    Mowing your lawn is usually a rather boring activity, but it does give you an (pretty much) uninterrupted opportunity to contemplate the great mysteries of the universe - or something. And so it was the other day as I mowed my lawn. It's something that most of us middle class taxpayers do for ourselves.(For the record, "We" middle class taxpayers say "us" middle class taxpayers.) I got to thinking about the Dem campaign and their charges that Candidate Romney is not even remotely attuned to the common man.

    After all, the common man normally mows his own lawn. Candidate Romney very likely does not mow his own lawn (Perhaps when he was a youngster - but surely not so much lately). It is something that he clearly does not have in common with the average person (i.e.. the great middle class). That clearly makes it impossible for him to relate to the travails of the common man (That's a "generic" man, in case you were wondering.) Candidate Romney's lack of understanding of the plight of the common man clearly renders him incapable of having any idea as to what the government needs to do to improve our economy, get us working again, and improving our quality of life. I suppose if he wanted to relate, he could go out and take a turn at mowing and find out what life in the real world is like. But if he did that, someone would likely be put out of work, so that wouldn't be a good thing. This lawn mowing stuff is starting to sound like a "no win" situation for Candidate Romney. If he doesn't do it, he can't relate to the masses and if he does, he will be contributing to our unemployment rate. Hmmm...

    The picture the Dems are trying to paint is that since Candidate Romney is not of the great middle class (they mow their own lawn), folks should vote for the incumbent who has clearly demonstrated his prowess in taking care of the middle class. To the extent that union leaders, movie stars, wall street bankers and traders, Corporate CEOs, and the like are representative of the middle class, he has, indeed, clearly demonstrated the capacity to "take care" of them.

    Surely his treatment of SEIU, AFL, AFSCME, Barbara Streisand, George Clooney, Jeffery Immelt and way too many $38,000 "lunch partners" to remember (there are plenty more examples), prove how well attuned the Prez has in the middle class. Yeah....Sure...

    As an aside; The lawn mowing analogy may not even apply here in Eastern North Carolina. Eastern North Carolina seems to me to present a rather unique situation. Here, as you drive up and down the road, the generic "man" you see tending the lawn and garden will frequently be of the "female persuasion", which is likely why so many of the yards around here look well kept.

    But wait.. How long do you suppose it's been since our Prez has been out there among us mowing his lawn??

    Surely not as long as Romney - but more than likely the difference is largely due to the difference in their ages. And yet, even today there is at least one other significant difference. Candidate Romney gets his lawn mowed at his own expense (i.e. with his own money). The Pres gets his lawn mowed at taxpayer expense. We very likely also pick up the tab for taking care of Ms. O's vegetable garden. Maybe if he lived in Eastern North Carolina... Naw... Hmmm...

    In any case, if not mowing your own lawn makes you unfit to be Prez, how do we justify the incumbent??

    But, are we sure we want a "common man" for president?? Well, let's see. How about a word or two about some of the "common men" (still generic even though at this point there is no need for it to be) who have occupied the white House in the last 40 or 50 years. Probably the most "common" of the lot was Jimmy Carter, followed closely by Bill Clinton (our self proclaimed "first" black president), Gerald ford (who was accused of playing college football without a helmet). Our current Prez cannot be included in this group because even though he talks a good game, his rhetoric belies a connection with the common man. In his vernacular, common men cling to their guns and bibles (in a rather dismissive and disparaging way). Clearly he does not and cannot relate with them. It isn't clear if it's the Bible or the guns that he seems to "choke" on. Maybe it's both. Or do you suppose he is simply trying to curry favor with the Marin County elite??

    The point is that "common men" who have been president have not left much of a record of accomplishment. Carter didn't seem to have it in himself to really "take on" the Iranian regime who held so many Americans captive for so long. Yes you can talk about Clinton and the balanced budgets he oversaw, but don't forget which party controlled the congress during those years and forced that on him. He did what he had to do to get reelected. The significance of Clinton's support for, and interest in, those of the female persuasion is quite another story and should probably best be left for the historians to decide. Ford's lone "claim to fame" seems to be that he pardoned Nixon. Hmmm...

    And what of our Patrician Presidents?? Dems both. That would surely include FDR who likely could not even see anyone of the middle class from his Hyde Park compound, much less relate to them. But, you must admit, he certainly knew what they "needed" and worked hard to provide it, the Supreme Court and congress not withstanding. (Does any of that sound familiar??) And how about JFK whose father, Joe Kennedy, pulled every string in the world to get his son elected. That would be the same Joe Kennedy who allegedly would not welcome Sammy Davis to the Kennedy Compound in Hyannis. And, of course our current Prez tries to act as though he is a Patrician, but hasn't succeeded in puling that off in a very convincing manner, big dollar taxpayer funded vacations for both he and his wife (sometimes together, sometimes separately) and a lot of golf not withstanding.. It's not the wealth that makes one a patrician, nor can the status be self bestowed. Likewise, it is not the belief in one's own superiority that makes someone a patrician (as our current Prez seems to believe). Rather it would seem to be their disdain for the beliefs and mores of the masses and the desire to make them over into something more amenable to their (the patricians') desires.

    By the way, did I mention that Candidate Romney inherited a bundle from his father. This would be another difference between he and the common man and the Prez. The common man got very little. The Prez seems to have inherited only chutzpah from his father and not much else. And yet another difference; The Prez seems to have retained his inheritance while Candidate Romney gave his away. The wealth that Candidate Romney possesses today, he earned for himself. He therefore clearly represents a threat to the "common man", and by extension America. Or is it that other fellow who is the threat?? You know, the one trying to remake America into a clone of Europe..

    Here are the questions begging for answers: Are we sure that we want another "common man" as President or would we prefer another Patrician?? Or alternatively, how about someone who really cares about America, is smart and has a demonstrated record of honesty and performance?? For those who believe we've already had too many "common men" and "patricians", the choice is rather straightforward.

    D'ya think??