Conceding Authority, Part 2

I think it is now my official policy to add "part 1" retroactively to any post that turns out to have a part 2.  Because I wrote part 1 of this post months ago and now I feel stupid for not following up with it like I intended to.  The issue, as I recall, was Romney's concession speech, which contained a couple problematic "Democrats may have won . . . but I'm right." kind of speech in parts.  Specifically:

We look to our teachers and professors, we count on you not just to teach, but to inspire our children with a passion for learning and discovery. We look to our pastors and priests and rabbis and counselors of all kinds to testify of the enduring principles upon which our society is built: honesty, charity, integrity and family. We look to our parents, for in the final analysis everything depends on the success of our homes. We look to job creators of all kinds. We’re counting on you to invest, to hire, to step forward. And we look to Democrats and Republicans in government at all levels to put the people before the politics.

In the first part, I was more concerned with the initial half of the paragraph, today I just want to add a few comments to the last 4 sentences.

1).  "We look to our parents, for in the final analysis everything depends on the success of our homes."

Well, kinda.  Hannah Arendt is thought to have once said, "Every year civilization is invaded by millions of barbarians; they are called children."  Which is true, of course.  Kids don't exit the womb understanding sharing, restraint and how to talk to people they don't necessarily like and make up after feelings get hurt, their very patient parents teach it to them, and try to model it for them, and hope some of it sticks once they get out into a world filled with adults furiously rationalizing away their own lack of sharing, restraint, friendliness and forgiveness.

I guess we all know that.  My specific complaint is the kind of dog whistle assumptions inherent in this kind of statement coming from a republican.  They've been saying for many years now that the most stable families are a man, a woman and a couple kids and NOTHING ELSE and keep hammering that point home like liberals just HATE the idea of the nuclear family.  Like we aren't all cognizant of the benefits of good parenting and that has SOME effect on how children turn out as adults.  What we've also observed, however, is the messed up kids that grow up with a mother and father and then go kill people for no reason.  Or the perfectly good kids raised by a single mother, or a single father, or grandparents, or gay parents or any human being with a good head on their shoulders.  We've also noticed that most kids leave the nest with some damage, their parents being human and having failed them in some manner, and that it's the job of every new adult to take responsibility for their own behavior and work past childhood trauma.  Whether that child had a textbook nuclear family is kind of incidental to this process.

And of course, what really grates about this kind of message is why they bring it up at all in the context of a political campaign.  They're saying, "Nuclear families are the most important thing . . . . and that's why gay people can't get married."  If families were the most important thing, if liberty were the most important thing to republicans, they would recognize that citizens end up forming all sorts of families, are free to do so, and that the important thing is encouraging the importance of families, all types of families, and making sure they have stable, safe, thriving communities to raise their children in.  The insistence on the nuclear family as the only workable prototype has much more to do fundamentalist christianity, authoritarianism and, in Mitt's case, mormon patriarchy where everyone listens to dad and then mom.  What is important about a family:  the love, support and stability or the specific, arbitrary rules on how to form them as delivered by men in suits and women with big hair?

2).  "We look to job creators of all kinds. We’re counting on you to invest, to hire, to step forward. "

Again, kinda.  The idea of the mythical job creator has really gotten out of hand recently.  The republican version of job creation is:  Give money to the already rich, kiss their ring, and then watch as they rain jobs down to a grateful populace.  This is when they're not describing the wealthy as the hardest working Americans who got where they are by a drive to succeed, an eye for needed goods/services and not listening to naysayers.  I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure job creation is sparked by demand for a product or service, which requires businessmen and entrepreneurs who want to make money providing this service for more people AND a middle class that can afford to pay for it.  Jobs are created because the demand and opportunity is there, and someone has the resources to increase capacity accordingly.  A .2% addition in tax breaks to their 2 million dollar stockpile and a feeling of being loved and cherished by an adoring proletariat just isn't the deciding factor. 
 Remember, these are the people in suits telling you seriously that they are the only adults in the room.  The ones telling you their feelings must be soothed and no regulations must be given because parents just don't understand.  This whole "pity the job creators" routine rests on the notion that they are currently maligned or unfairly restrained, and if we'd just not tax them or regulate them they'd bring about a glorious capitalist paradise out of the goodness of their hearts.  The fact that these regulations and taxes exist for fairly sound historical and social reasons and the paucity of examples where rich people just created jobs for the hell of it doesn't seem to enter into it. 
There was probably a case to make for the unfair burdens of the wealthy when extreme wealth was taxed at 75 or 90%.  But I find it hard to swallow, in the year of our lord 2012, after the very rich have been getting very richer for 30+ years as regulations and and tax rates have fallen away, that they are the members of society most deserving our pity.  That, if the nation "must sacrifice" and tighten our belts in order to be financially sound, the people who have gained so much from the support and participation of the rest of us should be exempt.  If they were interested in being leaders worth a little respect and praise, they would lead by example and sacrifice first, or, at the very fucking least, be willing to join the rest of us in shouldering the load in tough times.  Instead, they run for their fainting couches at the merest hint that they might own anyone or any country anything in return for their good fortune.  I am not impressed by people who call themselves "job creators" but seem to mean "small gods."

3).  "And we look to Democrats and Republicans in government at all levels to put the people before the politics."

I don't have much to add to this one.  As jokes go, it was pretty funny.