http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
I seriously think that you or I would have more foreign policy credibility and competence. I can't imagine what he'll pull on his final leg of his foreign tour, "dumb Polack" jokes? And the sad part is his campaign chose the UK, Israel, and Poland precisely because they are totally uncontroversial pro-America (and pro-GOP values) states - low-hanging fruit for Romney to build up his foreign policy chops. Or maybe it was just an overseas donation tour overshadowed by the Olympics?
For him to make those Israeli-Palestinian comments without historical context (and context is not exactly one of his strong points) is lower than grade school. It's the opposite of the "Guns, Germs, and Steel" argument by Diamond, who did extensive research to disprove the telologists who suggested that Eurasians came to dominate the globe simply because they are superior races/cultures (in actuality, they had massive geographical and environmental advantages, i.e. luck). Romney totally doesn't get the thesis of the book, even though he cited it to support his bizarre claim (I doubt he read it, and I really doubt Diamond is going to vote for him). Diamond does refer to culture, but only in a later and less important chapter. He basically wrote that geniuses and visionaries are about evenly distributed among peoples, societies, and eras. But effective cultures have institutions and norms in place to allow those great people to reach their full potential (which obviously helps their societies), while other cultures squander such human capital for various reasons. Diamond didn't even talk about wealth gaps or median incomes. But when a culture is under foreign occupation, obviously that's a different story and it's hard for the Einsteins and Pasteurs to fulfill their destinies. Like I said before, would Romney be Romney if he grew up in inner-city Detroit instead of his parents' suburban palace?
You can't just look at the end result from a particular set of circumstances, then make an overall value judgment. Phelps did not with the 200 fly recently - does that mean he's not a very good swimmer? If the Israelis were poor, persecuted, and plagued by inept government, embargo, air strikes, infighting, and being used as a proxy war pawn for 60 years, and the Palestinians got massive Western support and diplomatic cover, their histories would be quite different. It's pretty sad that a presidential candidate doesn't already get this. Actually it's kind of an interesting reflection on our times that Obama and Romney are even presidential candidates. The fact that America would seriously consider, and even elect, a person of Obama's background is a credit to our open-mindedness and tolerance today (as well as major Bush and DC fatigue). We're not post-racial and harmonious, but it's at least improving in some ways. And the fact that the GOP would nominate a guy like Romney (plus he has a decent chance to win) is a travesty, and may be an indication of our economic desperation and Washington dysfunction. Also contributing to that is of course backlash from all the groups that feel threatened by Obama's rise. These two men would have been inconceivable as candidates just 10 years ago, for better and worse.
-------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
To simpleton conservatives, the narrative is just so much cleaner and palatable if you try to explain the inequalities in the world as purely based on merit and just consequences. Of course poor minorities are doing worse because they are lazy, and of course WASP and Jewish people are rich and powerful because they are just superior people with superior culture and a superior god. Obama's disruptive, compelling narrative is obviously incompatible, which is maybe why they hate him so much. Race is part of that, but I think it's also about a sense of order of the world - their traditional unjust order. Some people realize that there are many causes of inequality, and several are due to foul play, so we may want to enact reforms to try to ameliorate those problems - but of course the establishment forces will push back and cry socialism and treason. Inequality is inevitable, and maybe it can be beneficial. I forget the actual source, but someone on the right recently went so far as to say that a big wealth gap is good and motivating because it gives the poor a "role model" in the super rich, to aspire to and emulate. Maybe that is what US capitalism is, but it is not a recipe for a healthy society. Inequality may have its benefits, but it should not be achieved through cheating and injustice. I think we learned that in kindergarten (and I know it is part of the Church of LDS teachings). But if these "winners" are just so genetically and culturally superior, and destined for greatness anyway, then why the need to cheat your way to the top and keep others down? Though for Romney types, I guess the ends justify the means and he won't "apologize" for his success. How about Saddam and Escobar - they were among the richest people in the world for a time. They don't have to apologize either? Romney made his TV rounds and accused Obama and the Dems of being envious of people like him, and therefore wanting to tarnish his business reputation. When a football player injures his opponent with a dirty play and the referee issues a penalty, I don't think he's doing it out of envy or vendetta (well, maybe for everyone but James Harrison). For the good of the game (and the safety of the players), there has to be some order, respect, and standards of conduct. But people like Mitt just can't understand that it's not always about him.
The Republican nominee must feel perpetual temptation to stimulate white discomfort with Obama while subtly celebrating white superiority -- a message that surely appeals to a core segment of voters.
Obama's rise (which inspired and emboldened some marginalized groups: minorities, immigrants, and the youth), plus the recession and erosion of the American Dream for many whites, has really upset some Americans out there. They feel like the "wrong people" are getting ahead. They're right, but they should be targeting their ire at other folks. The Tea Party tended to attack greedy, corrupt business at first, but then when the movement got corporatized and backed by the Kochs and such, then of course it's the federal gov. and unions at the heart of all those problems - those poor Fortune 500 firms are just like Blue Collar Joe, under Obama's jackboot. And for all their hating on "welfare moms" and "nanny government", isn't it comically hypocritical that some conservatives whites have a sense of entitlement that only they are allowed to succeed in America?
This ties back to Romney's Israel-Palestine comments. He believes it's the system and culture that make societies succeed or fail. If so, then why do he and conservatives want to gut the modern US system that, despite its warts, has created unprecedented prosperity for millions, as well as huge technological and intellectual advances since WWII? Why does he espouse policies that will make it harder for more Americans to realize their potentials (I know he doesn't feel that way, but sorry it's still voodoo economics)? Culture and system are the key, yet Romney wants to make it tougher for regular people to afford college, wants to make it harder for average people to access critical social services that will enhance their productivity and contributions to society, and such. I really hope Obama, the Dems, and the press call him out on this blatant contradiction.
No comments:
Post a Comment