Mormonism—Romney, “You-Go-Girl”—Clinton and Presidential Politics

Romney will not get my vote. In spite of Romney’s business success, his pretty family and his well fitting hair, my ballot will not go to Mitt. Is it solely that he is a Mormon for me? No, it isn’t. When I see him, I feel as though he lacks substance. I am sure he is intelligent; however, his intelligence is muted by the disingenuous commercials with his family-side chats, and their commune-like decision about him running for President. For one, it cannot look more staged and gross. Two, they look too plastic for me to gain a sense of substance or sincerity. Romney’s family in the commercial look as though they made sure their make-up was just right prior to it.

Beyond that, yes, I have a problem with his Mormonism. I have to admit, I don’t get the religion, nor do I have an interest in being converted. One of the major tenants of Mormonism is to convert, which for me says, Romney cannot detach himself from his religion or its influences and be President. All of this is in spite of what he says about his faith’s affect on him potentially being the President. Romney saying all of that before a crowd at the George H.W. Bush Library, in front of the Seal of the President, seems all too well crafted and staged.

As for Hillary, from the other side of the spectrum, she won’t get it either, but for the same reason: disingenuousness. Hillary repeatedly looks like someone uncomfortably trying to fit into a comfy-casual politician model her handlers and Bill try to encase her. First, just bringing back the phrase, “You Go Girl” is reason enough for me to hate her; beyond that though are her and her staffers attacks on Obama. They have had nothing of substance; however, they pushed out that ‘at five he wanted to be President, so he has always wanted that.’ I don’t know that I have ever seen a group of people be more absurd. It’s not Hillary from a policy perspective, but it is her personally; I will never be able to like her.

For me, Hillary is a one-way ticket for Romney, Huckabee, or Giuliani to win President. I say that, because I feel like deep down the majority of Americans sense Hillary lacking any sincere conviction, e.g. her vote on Iraq. I could go off on this vote indefinitely, but, in short, I’ll simply state that I think she voted for that authorization, because she didn’t want to look weak on Defense strategically. One can extrapolate a million other decisions she has made from that, but I just can’t buy into her.

There it is, I don’t like either Romney or Clinton, not because of their policy stances, and so as much as I feel like they are both overly groomed and too disingenuous to be a good President. It’s just not cricket. When Obama wins Iowa, and subsequently wins New Hampshire, he’ll be both the nominee and our first African-American President.

Cheap American Labor

Having worked for a company based out of another country, while working there I thought a lot about what it involves to be an American at work. As I wrote this sentence, I googled "productivity index." If one goes to the bls.gov, they will find the productivity index for the US. Further, if one goes to an economic journal, like The Economist, they can find that information against other countries (OECD). Quite simply, the US is the standard for productivity. To be fair, it should, but is not always, be weighted for hours worked, which means that simply because we work more hours than the French does not necessarily mean we are more productive, per se.

That said, thinking about productivity and the US against other countries, I have some thoughts. First, the US is the global barometer for Productivity; we are 100/100. With that, and thinking about colleagues in other countries, I think about what a US employee of a global firm receives in vacation vs. their colleagues in the EU, or elsewhere. Certainly, there are those in the developing world that have it more difficult than we do, and that work very hard for paltry wages. Yet, when I think of the EU and the US, sometimes I think, do executives in the EU not think the same way of the US that we do of places like Sri Lanka or Malaysia?

As Americans, we are cheaper as employees. In an exempt salaried position, an American will work more hours and have less vacation. Moreover, if one wants to lay off hundreds or thousands, in the US it is not so difficult. Rather than have one's firm suffer a surplus of labor not having demand to fulfill, a US employer can simply lay-off resource to meet the demand. Of course, there are reasons for the US having a more liberal economy, allowing for such corporate prerogative, but we should see benefits, right?

I say that, because one, as I am sure many, take the position that the US without inhibitions on companies has a more thriving economy than more constrained economies. One could say that, and they could show statistics from the past to help support that; however, the US economy, against the EU's or APAC's, is not carrying the standard. Rather than our bearing both the standard for labor productivity and economic success, we are working more hours, having less vacation, and we have less to show for it.

I have nothing to personally complain about on the subject, but looking at folks all over it is hard not to question the state of affairs. Just thinking about what we have compared to what we don't have respective of quality of life (e.g. family, leisure or health), those things make me think that our culture has somewhat missed the boat.