Lots of people have already unpacked the philosophical and logical problems with Mitt Romney’s belief that 47 percent of the country is basically free-loading off of everyone else (and voting Democratic). I’m struck, however, by how the moocher theory was presaged during the primaries in the difference between how Romney and Rick Santorum talked about the moral problems inherent in the welfare state. Tim Carney was the first to notice it back in January:
You see the nuance? Romney is knocking welfare queens. Santorum worries that government is harming the working class. In both accounts, government is the enemy, but the co-conspirators in Romney’s account are the victims in Santorum’s.
Carney’s insight was exactly correct. The problem isn’t (just) in looking at the country and seeing “makers” and “takers”—it’s in locating the motivating forces behind the dichotomy. Santorum believed that government is to blame and that, in its effort to expand and pass out goodies it has undermined the dignity and autonomy of the people it has sought to benefit. The Santorum view was that the moral case for reducing the size of government is partly about helping people trapped into dependency recover their freedom and ability to prosper.
Stay informed.Stay ahead.
Join Washington Examiner for unlimited access to the news, analysis, and commentary that matter most.
Already a member? Log in
