Vote for Romney? Please Don't! (Vote for Obama.)

I understand the logical decision to vote for the person who is making promises about specific actions in your favor.  If you want a president who thinks like a CEO or COO of a large company, I understand, especially if you share that perspective.  Nevertheless, I hope you will also consider each man’s underlying impetus and its role in making decisions for this country.  (Besides, presidents are not able to keep all of their campaign promises.)  You might see my point of view as silly or naïve, and, of course, you may ignore the remainder of this diatribe.  I am appealing to your heart, I guess.

Not only does he view the world from the perspective of a man in the top echelon of big business (seemingly without any affinity for those persons outside of his realm of personal experience--not necessarily an egregious flaw, by the way, until he runs for office), Romney seems to equate running a country to running a business.  That fact bothers me, because this country and a business do not and should not share the same purposes.  A company (a publicly-traded corporation, anyway) seeks profit above all else:  it must, because its board of directors has a legal fiduciary duty to its shareholders.  Every other concern is secondary, including employee welfare, civic duty to its community, loyalty to its state or country of origin, prevention of harm caused by its goods or services, etc.  I have no problem with our president having the goal of a prosperous country, but I do have a problem with a president who thinks that capitalism means ignoring every other concern.  This country cannot possibly be run like a business anyway, because our law allows its board of directors (Congress, senate and house) to be influenced by interests (lobbyists, financial campaign supporters) that may conflict with the main responsibility of striving to benefit its shareholders (citizens).  (In the corporate world, such influence would be considered an illegal kickback or a bribe.)  Citizens without money have no voice in our government, and companies (which, by the way, are not citizens, no matter what the U.S. Supreme Court might say) with money can persuade our hired politicians to pass laws that work for them and not for individual citizens.  We sure don't need a president who thinks that (1) preferential treatment for business is always a good thing or (2) the wellbeing of this country's real citizens (humans, as individuals rather than as incorporated collectives striving for financial gain) is merely an ancillary or subordinate concern to "running" the country.  (Romney’s pretense that his opinions are for the benefit of “the people” is disingenuous, especially considering his professional history in the private sector.  There are plenty of intelligent economists who have debunked the notion that money at the "top," including corporate affluence, benefits everyone.  The basic human instinct of self-preservation (i.e., greed) prevents "trickle-down.")