The (Truly Dangerous) Bull In a China Shop: The American Value of Supporting Gratuitous Insults of Other Countries’ Majority Religions
After expressing sorrow about the deaths, Mr. Romney told reporters on the campaign trail that the Obama administration had tried to appease Islamic extremists who should have been condemned instead. He said a statement issued by the American Embassy in Cairo before the deaths criticizing an anti-Islamic video was “akin to an apology” and a “severe miscalculation.”
“The first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation, and apology for American values is never the right course,” Mr. Romney said, speaking at a campaign stop in Jacksonville, Fla. He added, “They clearly sent mixed messages to the world.”
— Embassy Attack Fuels Escalation in U.S. Presidential Race, Peter Baker, New York Times, today
For the last few days I’d thought that all Obama had to do to wrap up this election was run ads showing clips of Romney’s bizarre interviewon last Sunday’s Meet the Press—e.g., “Well, the specifics [of the tax plan] are these which is those principles I described are the heart of my policy.”—maybe juxtaposed with clips of Romney’s speech to the Detroit Economic Club last February in which he identified some specifics, er, principles. (Or is it principles, er, specifics? Hard to tell, with such specific principles.)
And I still think that an ad of that sort would do the trick.
But I also now think that a precise, appropriate response by Obama to Romney’s weird statement would effectively end Romney’s election chances. It is, after all, hard to imagine a more dangerous statement by a president, and therefore by a presidential candidate, than the pronouncement that America’s values—America’s values— include wanting Americans to deliberately offend the world’s Muslims.
Romney apparently believes that it’s fine to risk American lives overseas (including, presumably, members of our military) by appearing to support such pointlessly offensive provocation. Obama should point this out, even if the news media doesn’t.
But Obama also shouldn’t allow the detachment of those comments by Romney, which indicate pretty starkly that Romney doesn’t understand even the concept of diplomacy, from the implications of those comments in spheres beyond foreign policy and defense. I’ve wondered for a while now why the Obama campaign hasn’t emphasized more Romney’s persistent habit of drawing conclusions based upon erroneous fact or upon no facts at all.
The very essence of Romney’s candidacy, at least originally, was his claimed cool-headed judgment and problem-solving ability. Yet time and again he appears unable to accurately or adequately assess basic facts and understand even the most obvious implications of those facts—and of his own statements and conduct. What has been apparent to me for nearly a year now, and what this incident should now clarify for the general public, is that Romney is not prompted to action—whether in foreign policy, defense, the economy, or anything else—by anything other than immediate opportunism and his adopted ideology. And that, even worse, he seems unable even to understand the implications of what he says, what he proposes and what he does.
I don’t see how his election hopes can survive his comments of yesterday and today.
Wasn’t the provocative film in question made by an Israeli filmmaker (working in California, which is one of the moviemaking capitals of the world)?
Romney is never going to not support Israel no matter what it or it’s citizens do. My country right or wrong clearly includes Israel in Republican minds.
I don’t know what the right response to this is. The film is deliberately provocative (by design), and may well constitute hate speech by international standards.
Still, blowing up the American ambassador is clearly a totally insane response to such speech. That it happened in Libya makes you wonder whether it had anything to do with the film or was just an oddly timed reaction by anti-governmental forces to anyone recognizing Libya’s new government.
Where do you go from here? Hard to walk away from diplomatic relations with Libya. You kind of have to put American investigators in there to cooperate with Libyan security/police personnel and let the lawful process churn away until it finds out what actually happened, and attempt to find the people responsible.
Romney, like any good management consultant, has gathered up evidence of success in enterprises other than his own and decided to package them as a product to sell to the insecure –
Never give detail, because the detail will be contrary to somebody’s interest and it will make you sound like a smarty-pants. Promise “humble” foreign policy and you can start all the wars you want. Say tax cut, but never say “read my lips”.
The funny thing is, he’s his own client, and has bought his own snake oil.
The particular lesson he seems to be following now is that if you call Democrats soft on foreign policy, if you say their approach to diplomacy is to apologize for the US, you can make them seem weak. (You wouldn’t catch Dick Lugar saying these things, but the Lugar lost his primary to a idiot. Lesson learned.)
However, whether it will be picked up by the Obama campaign depends not on whether either of us is appalled at the stream of lies and shallow insults that constitute the whole substance of Romney’s campaign. It depends on what will win votes in Florida, above all, and then Ohio and Virgina and you know the list. Indignation is a winner only when if gets you the votes you need.
J.G.,
Since similar demonstrations have happened in other countries, and the video was available in Arabic over the internet, I think it’s a fair bet that the Benghazi attack was in response to the video.
What to think? There is a long history of using violence to provoke more violence. In modern times, the FLN in Algeria showed the way. I’d bet some clever fellow who’d never show his face at one of these crude affairs arranged the thing to provoke an excessive response from either the new government or the US, maybe both. That would turn public opinion away from whoever it is that over-reacts, and sets the stage for civil strife and government change. Just a guess.
L. Goodwin, I’m pretty sure that suggesting that an American “value” is support for gratuitous insults about the majority religion of a large section of the world is not an appropriate response. One thing I should have mentioned specifically in my post is that Romney’s statement is false that the American Embassy in Cairo made its statement—the statement that Romney criticized—after the Libyan attach occurred and in partial response to it. The embassy’s statements were made before the Libyan attack, or at least before the news broke about that attack. Which is one reason why I mentioned Romney’s utter carelessness regarding actual facts.
It does appear now that the Libyan attack, unlike the Egyptian one, was planned by some group in order to take advantage of the anger about the film, rather than as a spontaneous protest or reaction. But it’s surely unlikely that it was the Libyan government itself that is responsible, given that the U.S. helped them defeat Gadhafi.
“But I also now think that a precise, appropriate response by Obama to Romney’s weird statement would effectively end Romney’s election chances. It is, after all, hard to imagine a more dangerous statement by a president, and therefore by a presidential candidate, than the pronouncement that America’s values—America’s values— include wanting Americans to deliberately offend the world’s Muslims.”
Well, I can hear the Christian Coalition cheering in the background. Romney is appealing to the Republican base. How well will that play in swing states, though?
Go read the comments at redstate.com and you will find that his supporters do not see things the way left leaning folk do.
Liberals love free speech as long as it is politically correct.
So let’s censor anything that might insult Islamists, ok?
Geez.
Beverly
he can survive.. it’s all in the spin, and the willing suspension of dispbelief
but if i were obama’s supporters i would emphasize that Romney was shooting off his mouth without knowing the facts. always something you want in a president.
Censor, rustbelt? Censor? I missed the news report that said that the Egyptian embassy—or was it the Dept. of Justice?—was issuing an arrest warrant against the person who made that movie.
Or maybe you’re not using the word “censor” in its legal sense. Maybe you just think that the First Amendment’s speech clause guarantees that the government will condone or adopt your speech—your political views. I guess that would include the speech of, say, neo-Nazis and other extremists of the right or of the left.
No, rustbelt, the Egyptian embassy, the State Dept. and the Obama administration didn’t censor the speech of the maker of the film. They just said that they condemn the speech—figuratively, rusty, not literally.
“Liberals love free speech as long as it is politically correct.
So let’s censor anything that might insult Islamists, ok?”
Please go troll somewhere else. This thread is for grown-ups.
Coming to this late, but it appears the majority of pundits and mainstream Republicans–if there is such a thing anymore–found Romney’s statements last night and again this morning way, way over the line. It is hard to spin the smirk on his face when 4 Americans are dead. Obama has hit back with the nice phrase that Romney shoots first and aims later. That may not affect the teabaggers and the remnants of Dumbya’s neocon cabal, but the remaining undecided voters are by nature undecided and I can not see them putting this nation’s nuclear arsenal in the hands of someone who shoots first and aims later. I suspect that Romney got the idea from Larry Kudlow who was whining about Obama’s weakness in foreign policy last night and was outraged that after the American flag was burned in Egypt the embassy suggested that maybe the movie was not a good thing. There is a guy who should be retired–he does not even try anymore. He should be on FOX not an NBC affiliate. Finally, there is some suspicion that an organization may have been behind the Libya attack and used the movie as an excuse. Oh and the guy who was supposed to have made the movie does not exist, is almost certainly not Jewish and may or may not have solicited funds from Jews. Stay tuned
Rusty
I am worried about you a bit.
As others have pointed out there was no censorship.
It is one of the constant complaints of the right that when the left complains about something they say that the left is trying to “censor” them. This suggests a certain difficulty with reality or the meaning of words.
I happen not to like Romney a lot. and if i like obama any better it may be just because he is a better liar. i certainly don’t like his policies. But there is such a thing as “diplomacy.” And Romney seems to be showing that not only will he tell any lie that might help him get elected, he puts his political pose ahead of any national interest.
it is not in our national interest to provoke arab anger. not even to provoke terrorist arab anger. we can do a lot more with soft words and getting rid of the damn big stick.
at least, a big stick is far more useful when you “carry” it than it is when you use it…. frequently and stupidly.
rusty said: “So let’s censor anything that might insult Islamists, ok?”
I think the subprime court said free speech did not include yelling fire in a crowded theater. The video had that effect. Americans are dead.’
Deal with it.
save_the_rustbelt: “Liberals love free speech as long as it is politically correct.
“So let’s censor anything that might insult Islamists, ok?”
Who is talking about censorship?
Only some Moslems. Not the Obama administration.
As for Foot In Mouth Disease, well, self-censorship might be good for that.
Well as one wag on Twitter put it yesterday, Mitty Mitt has created the perfect moment to release his tax returns. At this point why not?
Well, Sarah of Palin has re-framed the phrase to now read: “walk softly and grow a big dick.” To which I’d note, Romney’s must be pretty large. He’s always stepping on it.
Well said nanute. I still find it hard to believe that Obama is the favorite to win a second term despite over 8% unemployment for something like 40 months, but then you look at his opponent and realize why. I suspect that even Karl Rove in private moments would concede that Mitt is a “deeply flawed candidate”
LOL.
You are all so misguided, no, ignorant. Here’s something for you– a prediction:
President Romney.
Landslide.
Remember I told you this.
The only question remaining is: What flavor was your Kool-Aid, grape or lime?
You are all so misguided, no, ignorant.
Really? Seriously?
President Romney.
Landslide.
Buhahahahaha!
Anonymous
going to be a bit hard to remember you told us so when you don’t have a name.
Well, now, let’s remember that the cynical and dishonest equivalence of “criticism = censorship” on the right grows from the same root and claims that Christians are being persecuted in the US. So Christians are being persecuted in a country in which roughly 85% of the population claim to follow some Christian faith or other, with perhaps a bit more than 85% of our national lawmakers claiming some form of Christian faith and a majority of elected officials, law enforcement officials and military officers across the country claiming to follow some form of Christian faith.
In other words, any lie is a good lie, as long as it has the desired effect. The real meaning of the lie is apparently that any effort to prevent Christian leaders doing whatever they damn well please in the name of god is persecution.
kharris
well, quite true. if you want to force kids to say prayer in school, and someone tries to stop you, they are persecuting you.
same, of course, with public display of christmas themes that show Christ instead of Santa Claus….
though I think the “liberals” are damned stupid to object to that. in the first place it doesn’t hurt anybody. in the second place “christian themes” may be the only “liberal” belief system that has any chance of succeeding… unless of course your idea of “liberal” is “why don’t we do it in the road?”
Well maybe if 8 year olds could exercise the right to tell the praying teacher to stuff her prayer.
But seriously, didn’t you hear that I stole Christmas? Again, and again, and again.
This is all so very odd.
Anna
i don’t think it’s odd. i think its human. i was made to suffer a little because i was already old when i went to a school where prayer was mandatory and i am so pig headed i decided prayer in school was unChristian.
but Creches fer chrissake. you’ve got to have a problem to have a problem with that.
What’s human about the objections to the objections is that people “love” Christmas… it has deep meaning to them. and whatever you think about its meaning, you are not going to just take it away from them without them putting up a fight.
god, i can remember when it was liberals (like me) who complained about taking christ out of christmas (replacing it with “sales.”)
it’s probably already way to late, but i suggest that liberals find a way to get along with christians.. they are potentially the only force great enough in this country to counter the anti-christians and get us back to practicing… or attempting to practice: love your neighbor.
even pretending to practice is some help.
it strikes me that while us here are pretty good at understanding the importance of not gratuitously insulting the religious sensibilities of the arab world, we have not yet begun to understand the importance of not insulting the religious sensibilities of american voters.