POTUS 2012: Data vs. Critical Theory

There's an aspect of Mitt Romney's background about which I'd forgotten; if I'd have remembered it earlier, I'd have opposed his nomination far less strenuously.  A massive opportunity exists for Mitt Romney if he can use the same skill set with Barack Obama that he used with new hires twenty years ago.

Mitt Romney's background, prior to becoming Governor of Massachusetts, was turning around failing companies and organizations.  When Mitt Romney ran for President in 2008, I read Hugh Hewitt's A Mormon in the White House.  Hewitt's second chapter, titled "Bain Washed" not "Brain Washed" details Romney's business career.  As Romney told Hewitt, his approach to solving tough problems was to:

"let people sit at the table and let them bring in different viewpoints and arguments and then support them with reviewable data that could be confirmed." (58-59)

 In contrast with Mitt Romney's data based background, Barack Obama is steeped in something called critical theory.  While critical theory is often presented as something high-falutin', at its core it's nihilstic bullcrap.  Critical theory is the tactic the left has used on numerous topics these past five years: like George W. Bush and Iraq, Health Care and the Tea Party, and the Debt Ceiling.

The short version of critical theory is that its practitioners relentlessly criticize their opponents without presenting an alternative.  Critical theory is against everything and for nothing.  The purpose of critical theory is to demoralize your opposition while disguising your intentions.  This video, from PJTV, outlines the history of critical theory:

Mitt Romney's background with data makes him uniquely suited to confront critical theory.  The weakness of critical theory comes when you demand your opponent present their alternative, backed up with data.  Romney told Hewitt his approach was:

"the approach of gathering people who represent different viewpoints and then insisting they argue but with data and analysis allows people to reach consensus and points out where self-interest is driving a particular argument rather than mutual interest." (58) Emphasis Mine

 Hewitt summarizes Romney's approach by saying that "[T]he 'Bain way' presumes a common interest in success. (58)"  It's also a unique tool to highlight Barack Obama's refusal to argue in good faith AND the media's corrupt complicity.  Consider the following examples:

• Does a corrupt trillion dollar 'stimulus' that was written years earlier, and has failed to meet its own standards, represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does shredding 1000 years of bankruptcy law to give the Auto Companies to the Unions while lying about their performance represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does Obama's corrupt Health Care Law represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does special interest banking legislation that fails to address the underlying causes of the housing crisis represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does abandoning national interests in Iraq while simultaneously launching a treasonous war in Libya without Congressional authorization and helping the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of the region represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does creations a national clusterf**k in Afghanistan while classlessly taking credit for the actions of the Navy Seals in the bin Laden raid represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does ignoring a growing alliance between Gog and Persia Russia and Iran, while forcing Israel to indefensible borders, represent national or parochial interests?!? :)

(Author's note: And I didn't even mention the border)

If Mitt Romney can force Barack Obama, and his buddies in the media, to argue with data instead of critical theory, Romney will win BIG.  The basic math is so obvious a fourth grader can understand it if it's presented with data.  Barack Obama cannot discuss his plans with data because, if he did, he's be lucky to win 30%.  Many Americans instinctively understand how terrible Barack Obama has been; if Mitt Romney can educate them about the facts while demanding that Obama and the Media argue with data, the contrast will speak for itself.