Responsibility versus Irresponsibility

Reading about the childhoods of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is an excursion into stark opposites. The places they fit in their families of origin were so different that it would be a miracle if they turned out to deal with life the same way.

And, of course, they did not. Romney was deeply loved by parents who were always there for him. Besides the financial advantages he received, his was a secure upbringing. There were never any doubts that if he ran into trouble both his mother and father would be there to help out.

Obama, in contrast, was the next best thing to an orphan. Not only did his biological father abandon him when he was a month old, but his mother did almost the same several years later—leaving him to be raised by maternal grandparents.

As might be supposed, Barack resented this neglect. But mindful of his need not to alienate people who might abandon him, he kept a diplomatic silence. Only rarely did he express his bitterness at being what he described as “a supporting player” in the drama of his mother’s life.

Naturally, these disparities influenced the approach these two men took to life. Mitt became an extremely responsible person. Frequently volunteering to take on important tasks, he dedicated himself to fulfilling his obligations—which he habitually did with grace.

Whether this was guarding the symbol of the Stanford football team from their rivals at Berkley during his freshman year at college or taking over leadership of his Mormon mission in France when the official leader was injured in an automobile accident, he got the job done and done well.

This attitude later extended to his graduate studies, his wife and children, employment as a mid-level executive at Bain and Co., founder of Bain Capital, saving the winter Olympics, and governing the state of Massachusetts. In no case did he shirk his responsibilities.

Barack’s life course has been diametrically different. It is a study in temporary attachments and an unwillingness to make lasting commitments. Having been left behind by the people upon whom he should have been able to depend, he has subsequently become proficient in leaving others.

Like Mitt, Obama went to several colleges, but unlike Mitt he never took accountable positions at any of these. Instead he was an observer, whose energies turned inward. Next he abandoned several girlfriends, opted out of an editorial post he loathed, and took a community-organizing job he knew would be temporary.

When Barack finally did commit to Chicago, each step he took was calculated to advance his political career. The responsibilities he accepted (with the probable exception of his children) were essentially in service to what he desired, not what others needed.

This same attitude has been on display in politics. This, after all, was a man who specialized in voting “present” when he was in the Illinois legislature. There were to be no fingerprints on measures that might later get him in trouble. Then, after he made it to the U.S. senate, he assiduously avoided legislative initiatives.

Once he became president, the pattern continued. Thus, he farmed out his stimulus bill, Obamacare, and Dodd/Frank to be cobbled together by others. Nor did he put forward a budget that addressed the deficit or entitlements. He would not be responsible for unexpected bumps along the way.

By now observers, whose eyes are open, are aware that our president is a man of many excuses. According to him, it is always someone else’s fault when things go wrong; never his. The responsibility belongs to Bush, the Japanese Tsunami, the European financial crisis, Republican obstructionism, etc. etc. etc.

If the past means anything, if people tend to repeat long established precedents, we can be confident about what the future holds for each man. One will surely continue to be responsible and the other irresponsible. Only it is now up to us to choose between them.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University