Brilliant insight buried deep within the comments on the Sydney Morning Herald [View all]

[XemaSab]

It's an interesting concept that Romney has put forward - no representation without taxation. It's a corollary of the principle of "no taxation without representation" which galvanised the Americans into revolution against Britain in the 18th Century. Of course, neither concept is capable of being squared by any definition of citizenship that starts from the relatiohships people form in their communities. Taxation is a political choice which is made within a given community, on the basis (well or badly drawn) of what is appropriate at the time.

Mitt Romney is a plutocrat and is the candidate of the plutocratic faction of the Republican Party. As such, his concept of politics is likely to be closer to that of the corporation, which operates on the principle of "one dollar, one vote". People who have millions of dollars therefore have (or should have) millions of votes. It is therefore enjoyable to see him getting into strife precisely for this core belief of his.

The problem is that Barack Obama is also a Wall St candidate. He has a different strategic assessment of the way forward for US capitalism, because he wants to bring the bulk of the US people with him as he works out how to deal with the rise of China. Because he's running capitalism, though, he inevitably disappoints his supporters. If you're doing the bidding of Wall St, as both Democrats and Republicans do, you will never be able to deliver "Change you can believe in".

There is nobody to vote for in the US elections. It's clear, though, that Mitt Romney deserves to be voted AGAINST.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/altered-states/leaked-videos-force-romney-to-play-more-defence-20120919-265ac.html#ixzz26tZ2QGYo