MITT actually stands for "totally not presidential material." He might
have some business smarts, but if his worldview, reasoning, and
understanding of history are so out of whack, then he is probably a more
dangerous candidate than a total business-economics novice with a
better "personality" (for lack of a more descriptive term at the
moment).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/mitt-romney-palestinians_n_1718496.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
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/peter-s-goodman/mitt-romney-israel_b_1721396.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
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.
