Campaigning on Government Dependency

20122502012-09-06T214135Z_1_CBRE8851O9E00_RTROPTP_3_FOOD-G20-CALL Campaigning on Government Dependency

All the pundits and self-described strategists weighing in on Mitt Romney’s 47-percent comments are missing the point. Indeed, most are so immersed in Washington’s corrupting culture that they cannot imagine a political system that creates anything other than ever-increasing government dependence. No one likes to admit it, but most career politicians want you to be dependent upon government.

Politicians of all stripes campaign on what they have done for their constituents. That’s what made earmarks so popular with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. They could fire off a press release touting a new bike path or attend a campaign event centered on the groundbreaking of a community center.

The not so subtle implication was that the politicians were the providers. Of course, they are not so much providers as redistributors. They provide the programs by which they coerce the makers to funnel money to the takers.

Nonetheless, it is all about what perceived benefits politicians could deliver to their constituents back home. The more they provide to their constituents, the more essential politicians become. And let’s face it, a career politician’s dream is to become indispensible to their constituents.

A typical politician campaigns to protect programs A, B and C, while promising new programs to do X, Y and Z in the future. Oh, that same politician also says his opponent not only opposes new programs to do X, Y and Z, but he is going to gut programs A, B and C, too.

Only when you understand that dynamic can you understand the politically perceptive nature of Romney’s comments. Not only are there those “who are dependent upon government