Mitt Romney, Business Is For Profit, Job Creation and Revolution As A Specific Type Of Speech

This current debate about Mitt Romney being best suited to be President of the United States because he is an adroit businessman, therefore has this qualitative supposition on job creation has---as of most debates based on Intellectual-Liberalism, wandered far off into the nether plains of American mental labor and as typical of such is mired in the aw shucks Rockwellianism of American Politics.  Meaning it is a sleight of hand in the employ of opportunity and Speculative-value.

First of all the correct purpose-definition of business is for profit.  Easily translated to mean to make money.  No one goes into business with the model or idea pushing employment maximation or job creation.  Employment and job creation as a business corollary is only a means, a tool to maximize profits meaning a businessperson employs people because he/she needs more hands on deck to enable profit realization.

The executive leadership of the Presidency on the other hand is based on an entirely different set of imperatives and it contends with dynamically complex variables that are specifically at odds with the simple business model of for profit specifity.  There is an inherent antagonism in business, which is between managment (ownership) and labor (workers).  An antagonism that cannot be permitted to exist    in a nation, state or society because revolutions and Civil Wars will move into existence.

So if Mitt Romney's claim to the Presidency is based on the antagonism dialectic between managment and labor then the question being posed and presented to the nation is:  Are we ready to reacquaint ourselves with the logic of revolution as a specific type of  speech?

By Apropos