One's sense of entitlement "arrives" early in life.
This is why so many people (Mittens, in particular) see nothing at all wrong in the way they see the world.
It's not great wealth that imbues the sense of entitlement (See FDR,JFK). It's the way the elders who hold the wealth, teach the young ones about it.
Mittens was raised Mormon, so of course tithing was taught to him, but tithing to the faith. Giving to your own faith (because it's required and you expect to be "paid back later"
, is not the same as just being a generous person .
I doubt seriously, that young Mittens ever was "deprived" of much, and of course even after tithing, there was plenty to go around.
By the time he was in his teens, he knew full-well that Viet Nam was not in HIS future. He had a "Get-Out-of-Nam Card" in his pocket. He had his 30-month-long trip to France. He got the great education (no loans for Mittens). He found himself a cute blonde "gal".
His was an INDIVIDUAL mission..(extremely rare). Why was this important? Here's why. The young men who go on their mission are ENCOURAGED/REQUIRED to "watch & report" on each other's actions. A solitary missionary like young Mittens (who proclaimed to be not all that "into" his faith back then) was free to roam about the continent for 30 months, often having positions created for him. He apparently converted few if any, and seemed to have plenty of free time.
This was all happening for him at the same time as the draft back home gobbled up his same-aged, yet lesser "quality" fellow citizens.
When his "gal" seemed to cool towards him while he was "away", his Daddy stepped in to "mentor" her & make her a Mormon-worthy-of young Mittens. It's telling that they were married within weeks of his triumphant return from .........France.
He's just another in a long line of entitled second-genners raised by wealthy families. He has no frame of reference, so he sees no problem in living the way he does, even if his wealth is accumulated at the expense of others he has no reason to care about.
He cannot change, because deep down he sees no NEED to change. He's always been entitled, his kids are entitled, his wife is entitled. The need-to-lead is baked into the cake for him because he's only continuing the mission his father started. His daddy was a governor, so HE became a governor. His Daddy ran for president, so HE runs for president. He's entitled to it and he's determined to BE president.
= new reply since forum marked as read
As a lifelong Michigander, I liked George Romney, as did many of our brethren. He was an entirely competent governor and that was how he gained so much bipartisan support. (Michigan has a history of competent Republican governors, Romney and Millikan are legends here.) We all knew that George was a Mormon, but that was never an issue.
He had a strong support base here for the nomination in 68. Then, he went to Viet Nam and the scales fell from his eyes. He lost any chance for the Republican nomination when he made the dreaded "brainwashed" speech and came out against the war. The press excoriated him; other Republicans ridiculed him; Democrats did, too. His chances as the great 1968 dark horse candidate ended post haste.
We all know the results. RFK is shot by Sirhan, effectively killing Dem chances. MLK is gunned down, too, that year. Nixon is the one who benefits from all this. (Please no conspiracy theories! Sometimes -- no, often -- history is messy.)
But I am rambling here.
