Mitt Romney is back from abroad, and he’s probably never been more happy to be home in his life. His trip to Great Britain, Israel, and Poland was one embarrassing gaffe after another, and pretty much every headline he generated both here and abroad was negative. But I wonder whether his latest attempt at damage control – an op-ed published today at National Review regarding the Israeli/Palestinian issue – won’t cause him even more headaches. Because it sure seems to me as though that op-ed essentially blames Israel for the poor economic conditions in the Palestinian territories – not a view that’s likely to be popular with the right-wing crowd to which his Israel trip was designed to appeal.
Let’s unpack things a bit. One of the worst moments in Romney’s trip was when, at a fundraiser in Israel, Romney tried to explain the difference in per capita GDP between Israel and Palestine. It was bad enough that he got the numbers wildly wrong (per the AP, Romney’s estimate of about 2:1 was way off; the actual numbers are $31,000 vs. $1,500, or about 20:1). It got worse when he tried to explain why they differ.
Mitt Romney offended Palestinian leaders on Monday by suggesting that cultural differences explain why the Israelis are so much more economically successful than Palestinians, thrusting himself again into a volatile issue while on his high-profile overseas trip….
“Culture makes all the difference,” Mr. Romney said. “And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things.”
He added, “As you come here and you see the G.D.P. per capita, for instance, in Israel, which is about $21,000, and compare that with the G.D.P. per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality. And that is also between other countries that are near or next to each other. Chile and Ecuador, Mexico and the United States.”
Palestinian leaders reacted swiftly and angrily, calling Romney’s remarks “racist,” and interestingly saying that Romney’s remarks were worse than anything they hear from Israelis.
“It is a racist statement and this man doesn’t realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation,” said Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
“It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people,” Erekat added. “He also lacks knowledge about the Israelis themselves. I have not heard any Israeli official speak about cultural superiority.”
Team Romney’s initial response to the whole kerfuffle was to pretend it never happened, as Romney hilariously told Fox News that he “did not speak about the Palestinian culture or the decisions made in their economy,” even though, well, he did. So that didn’t work out too well.
Now, Romney has hit upon Plan C: admit that he was talking about culture after all, and try to explain what he actually meant. To that end, Romney has an op-ed up at National Review that attempts to do just that.
During my recent trip to Israel, I had suggested that the choices a society makes about its culture play a role in creating prosperity, and that the significant disparity between Israeli and Palestinian living standards was powerfully influenced by it. In some quarters, that comment became the subject of controversy.
But what exactly accounts for prosperity if not culture? … [O]ne feature of our culture that propels the American economy stands out above all others: freedom. The American economy is fueled by freedom. Free people and their free enterprises are what drive our economic vitality…. Economic freedom is the only force that has consistently succeeded in lifting people out of poverty. It is the only principle that has ever created sustained prosperity. It is why our economy rose to rival those of the world’s leading powers — and has long since surpassed them all.
The linkage between freedom and economic development has a universal applicability. One only has to look at the contrast between East and West Germany, and between North and South Korea for the starkest demonstrations of the meaning of freedom and the absence of freedom.
And, he continues, the reason Israel does so well is that it loves freedom too.
Israel is also a telling example. Like the United States, the state of Israel has a culture that is based upon individual freedom and the rule of law. It is a democracy that has embraced liberty, both political and economic. This embrace has created conditions that have enabled innovators and entrepreneurs to make the desert bloom. In the face of improbable odds, Israel today is a world leader in fields ranging from medicine to information technology.
But hold on a second. Romney’s thesis here is that societies that enjoy “freedom” have a “culture” that is more conducive to economic growth. If Romney is right, it would seem to follow that the Palestinian society, which has very bad economic numbers (even worse than Romney apparently realized), is not a society that enjoys “freedom.”
But why is that, exactly? If you ask the Palestinians, they will likely give a one-word answer: Israel – and they’re not the only ones saying it. NYT:
Mr. Romney did not speak to the deleterious impact of deep Israeli trade restrictions on the Palestinian economy, an effect widely described by international organizations including the World Bank, which recently reported that “the government of Israel’s security restrictions continue to stymie investment.”…
The Palestinians have long complained that their economy is in a chokehold from Israeli security measures. The West Bank is subject to trade restrictions imposed by the Israelis, while Gaza was subject to a near-total Israeli blockade on people and goods after Hamas took control of its government five years ago. Mr. Romney mentioned neither during his speech on Monday.
In the West Bank, according to the C.I.A. World Factbook, “Israeli closure policies continue to disrupt labor and trade flows, industrial capacity, and basic commerce, eroding the productive capacity” of the economy.
In Gaza, the C.I.A. says, Israeli-imposed border closings “have resulted in high unemployment, elevated poverty rates, and the near collapse of the private sector that had relied on export markets.” The agency added that “changes to Israeli restrictions on imports in 2010 resulted in a rebound in some economic activity, but regular exports from Gaza still are not permitted.”
So, according to the the World Bank and our CIA (as well as the Palestinians themselves), Israeli policies deprive Palestinians of the “freedom” to grow their economy. That, according to Romney’s op-ed, explains why their GDP is so low.
And here’s the wrap-up to Romney’s op-ed:
On this occasion, I am only strengthened in my conviction that the pursuit of happiness is not an American right alone. Israelis, Palestinians, Poles, Russians, Iranians, Americans, all human beings deserve to enjoy the blessings of a culture of freedom and opportunity.
By specifically arguing that Palestinians “deserve to enjoy the blessings of a culture of freedom and opportunity,” isn’t Romney directly criticizing Israeli policies over the Palestinian territories, since pretty much everyone seems to agree that those policies deprive the territories of a substantial degree of “freedom”? Isn’t he, in effect, saying that the bad economic conditions in the territories are Israel’s fault?
Is that really what he meant to say? What would Sheldon Adelson think?
jconway says
This tour really showed he is clueless about foreign affairs and did the exact opposite of the Obama tour. Obama faced tough primary and general election rivals who were significantly well versed in national security and foreign policy and had to demonstrate he could make those tough calls on the world stage too and represent us well. He did. Romney had no real foreign policy rivals in the campaign, save the brief Huntsman campaign, and really showed us that he will rely on his bickering advisers to make decisions and play it both ways on every issue in public and in rapid succession. Diplomacy is not like the pandering politics he is used to, your word is your bond and promises made to one group cannot contradict promises made to another without grave consequences.
Politically, I think Mitt has made little headway with Jewish voters. While he might have an edge with the Ultra Orthodox, they are spread out too thin to make a difference in any one competitive state. Ironically Romney might win Crown Heights and other New York wards that are usually uncompetitive for a Republican, but like the red wards in Southie, they will make no difference on the national stage. Meanwhile he has alienated many independents who are weary of a war with Iran and now see Romney would either allow Israel to attack unilaterally or would be at a true loss for what to do. Similarly many Paulite libertarians mistrust the cozy relationship with Israel and this gives them even more reason to stay home or throw their votes on Gary Johnson. Not a smart move, luckily the Olympics might overshadow the damage.
kirth says
That’s pretty much what I think of him, too.
jconway says
And definitely when it comes to MA and America
kbusch says
First, his political positions are open to negotiation just like anything else. You want a social conservative? Sure, he can do that.
Second, Bain’s role in its acquisitions was to be blunt, ruthless, and purposeful. There are definitely skills involved but they are skills unneeded in diplomacy.
bostonshepherd says
When I heard Romney say that culture matters, I took “culture” to mean something similar to “organizational culture” or ‘the corporate culture,” not something ethnic or historical like “ancient Roman culture.”
And it’s true! Arab culture, for the most part, is autocratic, politically corrupt, anti-woman, anti-gay, sometimes tribal, generally repressive and lacking many, if not all, of the stable civic and political institutions which are the foundation of economic liberty.
Sure, there are exceptions, but history mostly bears this out. Simply compare the pre- and post-Soviet era eastern European countries (I visited both), or North and South Korea. Or Israel and [insert Arab country name here.]
SomervilleTom says
I see. So you and Mitt Romney apparently share the view that the suffering and crushing poverty of the Palestinians is their own fault, because of their Arab “culture”. It has nothing to do with pervasive oppression they suffer at the hands of the Israeli occupiers, nor the economic sanctions Israel imposes, or anything like that.
Your description of Arab culture (“autocratic, politically corrupt, anti-woman, anti-gay, sometimes tribal, generally repressive and lacking many, if not all, of the stable civic and political institutions which are the foundation of economic liberty”) sounds pretty much like the GOP vision for America. We saw all of those “Arab” characteristics you cite on proud display during the primary season. The GOP and Tea Party have spent four years doing everything in their power to destroy and destablize the “civic and political institutions which are the foundation of economic liberty”.
I agree that Mr. Romney spoke the truth about his attitudes. We apparently differ on implications of those attitudes.
bostonshepherd says
I’m generalizing, of course, but can you pick out some Arab states which are not autocratic, politically corrupt, anti-woman, anti-gay, sometimes tribal, generally repressive and lacking many, if not all, of the stable civic and political institutions which are the foundation of economic liberty?
My general hypothesis, applied to other states, is irrefutably true. Given the fact that Arab culture also exhibits these attributes, why would it not be true?
SomervilleTom says
As both mark-bail and I pointed out, the characteristics that you describe are shared by a great many societies the world over — including significant portions of America’s right wing. Since many of those societies are quite prosperous (most are far better off than the Palestinian peoples), your list doesn’t explain the symptoms, nor does it clarify why “Arab” is an appropriate modifier.
The Palestinian people suffer because they have been oppressed by the Israelis (and, to a lesser extent, by the other Arab nations in the region). Americans used the same sort of rationale to explain away American society’s role in oppressing and impoverishing black Americans — “black culture” was at fault, with a list of awful things that allegedly came along with being black.
Black Americans suffered because white America enslaved them for centuries. Palestinians suffer now because Israel oppresses them.
Stop the oppression, give the Palestinians a chance to get on their feet, then talk to me about “Arab culture”.
Mark L. Bail says
China!
It’s “autocratic, politically corrupt, anti-woman, anti-gay, generally repressive and lacking many, if not all, of the stable civic and political institutions which are the foundation of economic liberty.
I don’t know about the tribalism. Hmm… Maybe our worst geopolitical enemy? Russia!? Hungary? Bulgaria? Uzbekistan?
I’d say Iran, but they’re Persians, not Arabs.
Mark L. Bail says
plan for America:
“autocratic, politically corrupt, anti-woman, anti-gay, sometimes tribal, generally repressive and lacking many, if not all, of the stable civic and political institutions which are the foundation of economic liberty.”
That’s after Obama eliminates the golf courses.
SomervilleTom says
Funny how we each have such a similar reaction to bostonshepherd’s attempted sketch of “Arab culture”.
David says
It’s that it seems to be an argument against the current policy of Israel with respect to the Palestinian territories. What do you think about that? Do you think that, given Romney’s argument, the Israelis should relax their grip on the territories?
Mark L. Bail says
or BostonShepherd, but yes, I’d like to see Israel relax its grip on the territories.
But it’s not going to happen any time soon. Internal politics dictate foreign policy and the Israeli right-wing has constipated the process and it’s impossible to go or get off the pot. That’s not to say that the Palestinians aren’t at least half of the mess, but they aren’t our allies and we don’t spend billions on them in aid.
Actually, you could think of the right wing in general as constipating progress across the Western world.
SomervilleTom says
My eleventh grade math teacher, Mr. Hill, would occasionally suggest that some of his more rambunctious students suffered from this embarassing malady.
It seems to have spread to the entire right wing.
whosmindingdemint says
a general theory about all Jews, too?
bostonshepherd says
You take culture to mean ethnicity. In responding to Romney’s remarks, I took it to mean something else, like “entrepreneurial culture.”
SomervilleTom says
Oh, you mean Israeli’s are entrepreneurial and Palestinians are not?
Sorry, but it’s just racist.
bostonshepherd says
Maybe you put down your eyeglasses with the everything-is-racist lens for a second. My choice of words was meant to be illustrative of the “culture” word choice, not a label applicable to specific Middle Eastern ethnic groups.
Culture, as in “the Wall Street culture.” Is that easier for you?
And if I say the Massachusetts Dept. of Transportation does not have “an entrepreneurial culture,” is that racist, too?
oceandreams says
If his point was solely to appeal to the right-wing base, then sure, say what he thinks will advance himself politically. But if the point was to show he is ready to be president and be a leader on the world stage, well, perhaps it would have been useful to show a modicum of diplomatic skill.
bostonshepherd says
In the Progressive vernacular, I think it means something very different from what most likely voters saw in Romney’s trip. (Yes, stupid of him to criticize security arrangements in London.)
oceandreams says
needlessly insulting people in public, especially when you’re trying to get a job that would hopefully involve helping to broker peace or at least reduce tensions in the region. Diplomatic skill means understanding that how you phrase something matters. Why not simply praise the Israelis for their success? If you want to talk culture, praise Israelis for their focus on higher education (I don’t think in Israel it’s considered elitist to want kids to go to college), entrepreneurial culture, whatever.
Diplomatic skill means ability to negotiate between people with differing viewpoints. Seriously, what is the gain for insulting the Palestinians besides trying to suck up to Jewish voters? Did he really think that a public insult like that is going to cause them to say, “Wow, that guy is right! We have a terrible culture and we have to change!” If he really believes that changing Palestinian culture is a key to helping them advance, I would think a skilled diplomat and head of state would have something more useful to offer than simply bashing them while they’re not present at an event in order to curry favor with his hosts.
bostonshepherd says
but I think when the stated objective of the PA and Gaza-controlling Hamas is the destruction of the state of Israel, national survival overwhelms all other issues. I think ceasing the rocket attacks from Gaza is a good place to start.
When Hamas and the PA and the PLO all unequivocally and plainly recognize Israel’s right to exist, maybe then Israel can “relax their grip.”
Wouldn’t supporting the claims of the Palestinians mean the end of the state of Israel? If yes, then I’m against “relaxation.”
goldsteingonewild says
David, let’s stipulate the gaffes. For the undecided voters who care about foreign policy gaffes, weak trip. Not sure how many those are.
The election comes down to a few states. Up to 10.
More specifically, to the undecided 8 to 10% of the voters in those states. Ie, 2% of voters.
Florida is one of those states. Deadlock in polls. Obama can win without FL (he leads in Ohio, Mich). Romney cannot.
Now take the extra $10 to $50 million Romney gets from Sheldon Adelson for the trip, combined with the hard-line approach. All $XX million spent on Florida ads attacking Obama on economy.
Add to the headlines of “Palestinians are very angry with Romney…” Of the 2% of voters who matter in this country, there’s a decent chunk of Jewish Florida voters who voted both for Bush and Obama. They like that headline. A lot.
My guess is the gaffes costs him little in any of the 10 swing states, and the headlines+$$$ may help him squeeze out another 1% in a tight tight race for 29 Florida electoral votes.
Mark L. Bail says
would tend to help Romney with a certain American Jewish demographic. The question is the size of that aging demographic. Younger American Jews, as Peter Beinart and Daniel Gordis note, are less attached to Israel and less likely to fall for the right-wing junk.
The gaffes, however, contribute to an overall portrait of Romney as what, clueless, vacant? A lot of stuff that he can’t escape is piling up. I heard on NPR that someone did a poll. 90% of voters felt they knew enough about Obama to decide whether to vote for him or not. 69% of voters felt they knew enough about Romney. That’s 30% of voters who still need to know more. If they are gathering info about him. From a campaign point of view, these gaffes are bad.
What’s worse is the fact that Fehrnstrom’s strategy of keeping his candidates from the press has pissed off the press. That’s not a good sign either.
David says
I’m not so sure about that. Yes, Jewish voters in FL may be, on average, older and more conservative than elsewhere. But I don’t think they’re racists, and what Romney said is, indeed, pretty close to overtly racist. No American Jews want attacks on Israel to start up again, and the possibility of a president who is so utterly clueless that he throws out racist comments without even realizing it, thereby effectively making it impossible for the US to act as any kind of broker, should scare even the conservatives.
goldsteingonewild says
That was the headline from the Miami Herald.
Show that headline to the Florida folks who voted Obama and voted Bush, I wonder what the result is.
You know, here’s a business idea. How to settle political bar bets, like these.
You get polling services willing to do micro-polls. 10 people in a particular demo. $50. MOE is huge, but still fun. Loser pays.
dont-get-cute says
I think there are far more swing women voters than jewish voters who will respond to the muslims-are-regressive-misogynists dog whistle. Mitt needs to make up for being pro-life (cough) so denouncing the Muslim culture is a way to get yuppie feminists to support him in spite of his claims to be pro-life. They will say “he has to say that he’s pro-life to get elected” but we know he’s really anti-Islam and for feminism.
farnkoff says
An unapologetic, born-on-third base aristocrat who wants to raise taxes on the middle class to protect his people in the international 1%. If we elect Romney we deserve the long national nightmare that will likely ensue. I’d like to think that Americans could not be that stupid. I mean, he hardly even pretends to want to help the average American. It’s crazy that he’s polling in the 40’s.
It’s not the end of the world if Brown gets reelected. But a Romney victory would be a true disaster.
SomervilleTom says
I like that line …
Mitt Romney was born on third base and thinks he hit triple.
John Tehan says
…is that the red states almost universally have lower per capita incomes than blue states. Romney is saying that the culture in the red states, the states supporting him in this election, is poorer than in blue states. Red state voters should be outraged!
danfromwaltham says
Not something to be proud of.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-debt-capita-fiscal-year-2010
John Tehan says
Nice attempt at changing the subject, but that’s not germane to this discussion.
HR's Kevin says
What exactly is “state debt per capita” anyway? Don’t states have to balance their budgets? Who cares how much they borrow if they aren’t running deficits.
danfromwaltham says
The top 10 states with the highest debt per person, eight are rock Blue, one Red, and the other is NM.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/states-debt-combined-may-exceed-4-trillion_n_1029162.html#s430050&title=1_Connecticut
whosmindingdemint says
I did read your post and it was a waste of time, but not undeserving of further comment:
You never made the straw man distinction that you are now making.
Furthermore, you – and Mittens – haven’t considered events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Syria et al as efforts of self-liberation by arab peoples (that will have different results in different states because “arab culture” is not monolithic.) Nor have you considered our hand in perpetuating the “autocratic, politically corrupt, anti-woman, anti-gay, sometimes tribal, [always] repressive arab states by installing, for example, the Shah and Saddam Hussein. Your ‘theory of culture” is no more valid than Samuel Huntington’s or Hanns Johst – and its racist.
Why not just say, “Whenever I hear of culture… I release the safety catch of my Browning!” and be done with it.
bostonshepherd says
Romney’s point, and mine, is that for economic advancement to occur, it requires a set of societal, institutional and governmental pre-conditions — personal liberty, voting rights, private property rights, rule of law, a patent office, capital markets, etc., down to the registry of deeds and traffic signals.
Little or none of this exists in many Arab states, but it does in Israel. (China’s somewhere in the middle.) This is Romney’s obvious point. All progressives hear is racism.
I’m sure there are brilliant and motivated entrepreneurs in Gaza and the West Bank with the ambition to create the next killer iPhone app, but it’s hard to innovate with Hamas lobbing rockets and the PA busy with intifada. Call it “a culture of conflict.”
I’m with you 100% on the counter-productive hand the US has had in supporting repressive and autocratic Middle Eastern tyrants. all in the service of “stability”; so you must be very proud of G.W.Bush for toppling the Afghan Taliban and Saddam Hussein, and upset with this administration’s ineffectiveness at, and in some cases, abandonment of regime change and democratic self-liberation (see: Syria, Iran’s Green Movement.)
whosmindingdemint says
is not the same kind of debt we hear about with the federal government. The Massachusetts debt referred to is long-term debt for capital improvements, bonds to pay for such things as road or bridge repair, to erect new buildings at the University of Massachusetts or to expand courthouses. That’s not the same as piling up yearly deficits to support operating expenses the way the federal government is. In fact, like most states, Massachusetts requires balanced budgets.
Which means the red states are far less interested in maintaining and improving the quality of life for their residents.
whosmindingdemint says
but whatever it is, its racist.
I wonder, when the Nazi’s sealed the Warsaw ghetto did they then decide that the conditions within the ghetto were the result of a lack of “entreprenaurial culture?”
Or apartheid South Africa: the townships just lack culture?
Perhaps Bain viewed every company it took over as having a cultural defecit?
By these standards Wall Street is high culture, while Main Street is autocratic, politically corrupt, anti-woman, anti-gay, sometimes tribal, generally repressive and lacking many, if not all, of the stable civic and political institutions which are the foundation of economic liberty.
Give it up shepherd. It was a brainless analogy: admit it.
bostonshepherd says
“I cannot grasp what he’s talking about, ‘but whatever it is, it’s racist.’ ” Why are progressives so intolerant? Criticism = racism?
Given your absurd and disconnected Warsaw, South African, and Wall Street comments, let me guess the foundation of your worldview: if only Israel were to adopt its 1967 borders, perhaps allow right of return, Gaza and the West Bank would flourish. Israel is 100% to blame for their respective woes. In the absence of Israel, Palestine would be a democracy and become the Switzerland of Middle East.
whosmindingdemint says
for many reason, including being attacked by rockets. To make the claim that they lack an entrprenaurial culture and ignore the reality of what is happening there is to foster a lie rooted in racism. The straw man remark referenced your attempt to parse Romney’s remark as if we “misunderstood” what he was saying. We all heard him just fine.
According to Bush, we invaded Iraq because they had WMD’s, and I notice he also tip-toed arounf Iran, like he did North Korea and none of this is the point.
Any time you want to talk about the Wall Street “culture” I’m game.
bostonshepherd says
but I must commend myself on my prescience. It’s like I read your mind.
First, the “entrepreneurial culture” was meant to explain the context in which “culture” was taken, at least by me. Same with “Wall Street” culture. They were meant to be illustrative.
WMD’s? You mean the ones the Brits are helping the Iraqis dispose of?
Wall Street culture. I’ll bet you $100 we’re mostly in agreement.
Mr. Lynne says
… there somewhere. Israel standing on Palistine’s neck and admonishing their inability to get up on their culture.
whosmindingdemint says
Congratulations, we found defunct weaponry that couldn’t even be used, but it did qualify as WMD’s which probably explains why Bush isn’t behind bars right now.
On June 21, 2006 the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released key points from a classified report from the National Ground Intelligence Center on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. The report stated that “Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.” However, all are thought to be pre-Gulf War munitions.[114]
These munitions meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, according to the commander of the National Ground Intelligence Center. “These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes … they do constitute weapons of mass destruction,” Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, though agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said.
I’m not that hard to read. Fortunately, the facts tend to be on my side so I don’t have to twist myself into a pretzel convincing people who know better that shit tastes just like ice cream.
Make that a $10,000 wager and you’re on!
bostonshepherd says
“…and yes … they do constitute weapons of mass destruction,” or is it just me? Where is this citation?
whosmindingdemint says
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918
You are suggesting that we invaded Iraq, knowing full well that Hussein and al-queda had no relationship, knowing that their WMD program ended in the 1990’s, sacrificed 4000 american troops plus coalition forces, plus countless iraqi civilians, that we painted a picture of an imminent threat and described fictional manufacturing plants and delivery systems to find…this? Incredulous.
Tell it to the war widows.