I once worked as a waitress in a posh private members-only restaurant and club in London. Its clientele were celebrities and media moguls. What was said and done in the club remained in the club, and the rich and famous were willing to pay a lot of money to socialize and make deals without fear of paparazzi and publicity. In fact, cameras or any recording devices were prohibited.

The club was the embodiment of the upstairs-downstairs British class hierarchy. As a server, I was not allowed to enter through the front door, but had to enter from the back steps in the alley. I could not walk around the club in my day clothes, only in my uniform. The goal was to not have an identity because my only role was to serve. I was paid poorly, but that was okay. I was young and having a blast in London, and I knew that I was going back to graduate school.

Unlike the British with their rigid class system, there isn’t a hierarchy in the United States, or so we’re told. We are a classless nation founded on freedom, individualism, and meritocracy. Anyone who is willing to work hard can rise socially and economically; we are not defined by the circumstances of our birth, but by our work ethic and willingness to take responsibility for our own destinies.

These ideas are the very ones presidential candidate Mitt Romney and the Grand Old Party (GOP) have consistently promoted. Any criticisms about institutional inequality or about how certain policies have favored the rich and powerful are dismissed as inciting "class warfare." But when Mother Jones released a secretly recorded video of Romney speaking to a group of GOP donors at a lavish $50,000-a-plate fundraiser about how 47 percent of American households pay no taxes, I could only think about the disconnect between the people Romney was describing and the waitstaff who were serving them.

Some in the media have suggested that this is the "real" Romney because of the passion and animation in his voice. This is a familiar world to him, and he jokes and banters with his audience with an ease I have not seen at larger campaign events. His donors cheer when he tells them he did not inherit his wealth, but earned it. (Never mind that he is the son of a governor and was sent to an elite prep school and then to elite universities.) He describes Obama supporters as "victims" who believe they are entitled to "healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it." But setting aside for a moment the inaccuracies of his 47 percent figure, did he not consider that the people he was dismissing as victims might be serving him and his guests their dinner? That they might work just as hard as he does, but may not earn enough to pay federal income tax?

Fact checkers have noted that while it is true that approximately 47 percent of households do not pay income tax, what is inaccurate is that they pay no taxes. Some are seniors who have paid taxes in the past and are now receiving Social Security and Medicare support for their prior contributions. About two-thirds pay some form of tax such as payroll, state, or sales tax, but pay no income tax because their household income level is low.

Furthermore, when did healthcare, food, and housing transform from basic human rights to entitlements? According to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

What happened to our sense of collective responsibility? What happened to ensuring that our neighbors and fellow citizens have access to the basic necessities of life and extending support when they need help making ends meet?

The visual of the video captures the inequities that Romney seems to be blind to. He is standing in front of wealthy donors. The camera is positioned on Romney’s left and at a distance, on the margins of this lavish party. The camera is sitting on what looks like a bar, suggesting that whoever is filming is a part of the wait staff or at least not a guest. From this particular vantage point, the scene captures the divide between the rich and the poor in our society: The rich have turned their backs on the working class such that they don’t even realize they are there. Or, that the working class might be resistant. Or, that they might have a camera.