Romney's Wealth Problem

Try as he might, Mitt Romney just doesn't seem to be able to make the case that he connects and understands ordinary Americans. And listening to some of his statements, they just don't ring true. Honestly, does Romney have any idea of how devastating a job loss can be both to the fired employee and to their family? I would argue he doesn't have a clue since it's an experience anyone with his family wealth would never suffer: loss of one's home, inability to care for and support one's family, etc. Having been forced from a large law firm for being gay and rendered largely unemployable in Hampton Roads by comparable law firms as a result (and being too old to easily get hired by a firm outside the area), I know the devastation. Romney? He'd simply fall back on his wealth and life would go on without a ripple. The chart above shows the problem Romney faces against Obama. Also, as David Frum notes, over the last century, Americans have rarely elected the very wealthy:

Before the Civil War, the parties (and especially the Democratic-Republicans) often nominated presidential candidates wealthy in land and slaves. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, and John Tyler were some of the richest men of the young Republic. But since 1865, it has become unusual for parties to nominate very wealthy men.


In that sense, Mitt Romney is defying what seems to be a strong American current. If he wins against that current, it may be because his two severest critics, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, are not only hardly poor, but both made their money in ways that you might have thought even more ethically disturbing than Romney's: in Perry's case, a series of very cozy land deals; in Gingrich's case, by lobbying in all but name.

Yep, Romney may be wealthy, but he's not as sleazy as Newt and Rick Perry in terms of how he got his wealth.