During his trip to Israel, GOP candidate Mitt Romney compared (albeit inaccurately) Israel's and Palestine's respective economies, and then proceeded to make remarks that aroused understandable condemnation and accusations of racism.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19055643
"[I]f you could learn anything from the economic history of the world it's this: culture makes all the difference." In other words, the economic distress in the Palestinian territories is testament to their inferiority. (That Romney can lament the "horrors of history" and then employ this kind of reasoning is an irony surely lost on the governor.)
On his recent trip to Jerusalem, Romney was simply seeking cash infusions for his campaign. He is beholden to patrons such as American billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a staunch supporter of Israel's right wing who is also attempting to boost Romney's Jewish approval ratings. According to Gallup on Friday (July 27) "Obama's standing stood at 68 percent among Jews, while 25 percent favored Romney."
Despite the diplomatic, moral, and factual shortcomings of what he routinely says on the subject of Israel and the Middle East - for which he should certainly be held accountable - Romney's utterances are in general difficult to take seriously. (See my June 21 article, "Mitt Romney (the Candidate) on the Middle East" for a more developed discussion of this issue.)
He is simply following orders from his financial masters and saying what Israel's leaders like to hear. And because the Romney campaign needs to create the image of distinction between itself and Obama, the rhetoric is off the wall. This reality was on display throughout the Republican primaries; the political differences between the GOP and the Democrats are relatively minor, and because both parties have moved to the right, the Republicans choose to move rightward further still so as to differentiate themselves. We are now hearing this in Romney's alternately inaccurate, bizarre, and/or contradictory statements on the campaign trail, especially concerning foreign policy.
Even establishment intellectuals like Fareed Zakaria think Romney is off the mark on foreign policy:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2120500,00.html
Romney's pledges of devotion to the Jewish state are in themselves difficult to take seriously. It is not entirely clear how devoted he is even to the United States, much alone one of Washington's clients. One doesn't detect from the governor any deeper feelings about this country beyond it serving as a playground on which to generate and accrue vast wealth. His record at Bain Capital, tax havens, and undisclosed personal finances are cause enough for suspicion; that his plan for improving the economy involves tax cuts for the rich (and seemingly little else) is not only breathtaking but strongly indicative of his true priorities.
What he said in Jerusalem is, again, diplomatically, morally, and factually unsound. Nevertheless, his comments were part of a performance delivered for payment. Maybe he believes what he said, maybe he doesn't; there is little point in speculating. But if he doesn't believe it and this kind of rhetoric is his chosen device for getting votes and financial contributions, it doesn't say much for the candidate or the person.
