Republican Sour Grapes

According to the NY Times, Romney told his fund-raisers and big donors that he lost the election because Obama gave huge "gifts" to key constituencies.  Latinos got the 'Dream Act for kids,' the young got healthcare till their 26, young women got contraceptives. . .blah, blah, bullshit.

Give me a break.  Young women voted for Obama just because the Affordable Care Act (ACA) orders access to contraception?  What's the message there to those conservative donors, that floozies sunk Romney's campaign?

The ACA lured minority voters?  This is just a variation on the 47% comment--whining that he can't win because so many Americans don't want Romney's vision, they just want stuff from the government, which the dastardly Obama administration dispenses in exchange for votes.

Mr. Romney lost the youth vote in part because of his antipathy towards the rights of same-sex couples, the vote of many women because members of his party spouted remarkably ignorant things about rape and women's bodies, and he lost many Latinos because he pandered to nativists with talk of self-deportation.

But why didn't he spin a more positive conversation with the money? According to Pew survey data, in comparison to McCain in 2008, he gained some points with whites, men, white Catholics, and Jews.  He even gained among 18-29 year-olds, which makes his comment about losing the youth vote a little strange, but l stopped long ago expecting consistency and accuracy from him.

Latest poll reports 47% of Americans can chew gum but walk only "poorly" at the same time, the rest are awesome at it

Unless you're lobotomized you've heard of the secretly taped video Mother Jones recently released (accessible here).  Most of the press has been about his characterization of 47% of Americans as slackers, and therefore will never vote for him, the uber non-slacker.  But Ruben Navarrette (at CNN) focuses on this Romney comment:

My dad, as you probably know was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company. But he was born in Mexico... and, uh, had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this ... I mean I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino.

It's a bizarre conjecture, as if there were a single Latino voting bloc, as if Romney's whiteness has been such a detriment to his political career.  Talk about playing the victim.  Anyway, Navarrette points out that being Latino certainly didn't help Bill Richardson, and adds:

. . .if Mitt really wants to get in touch with his inner Mexican, I think he'll find that it's not all churros and chocolate or pinatas and pan dulce. You see--and you might find this hard to believe, Mitt--but there is still a lot of discrimination in this country against Latinos as whites hunker down and try to hold on to what they have in the face of changing demographics.

This response, though, would probably roll right off Romney's back given his belief that this slacker 47% of Americans see themselves as victims--that's the narrative, people who link inequality to discrimination are simply whining about being victims rather than taking individual responsibility for their position in life.

Doesn't matter that data on structural inequality are readily available.  For example, poverty rates for Black and Hispanic children (something for which these children can hardly be held responsible) are significantly higher than those of whites, respectively 34, 27, and 10% (see p. 16 in this NCES report).  Poverty is associated with physical health, and therefore with the capacity to learn. Impoverished children have lower school completion rates and have more learning disabilities, both which affect employment chances down the road.

This still doesn't matter in this narrative of victimhood where there are no structural conditions, just atomized individuals who manage well a string of circumstances, or don't.  Interestingly, though, Americans as a whole are of two minds about this.  According to a Pew survey, a sizable majority disagree with the statement "Hard work offers little guarantee of success" (see chart below)

Pew Research Center: Trends in American Values, 1987-2012

However, the lower one's income, the more likely she or he would agree that "Success if pretty much determined by forces outside our control (see chart below).  Still, over the years near half of low income people disagree with that statement.

Pew Research Center: Trends in American Values, 1987-2012

However, when asked about whether its "circumstances" or "lack of effort" that explains poverty, more Americans say the former over the latter (46 to 38%).  Predictably, answers vary significantly by gender, race/ethnicity, income education, and party identification. Women, Blacks and Hispanics, low income folks, and Democrats are more likely to attribute poverty to circumstances.  Men, whites, and Republicans are more likely to say lack of effort (chart below)

Pew Research Center: Trends in American Values, 1987-2012

Clearly, the way the question about poverty is framed shapes American responses.  And it also gives us a clue as to why Romney's 47% comment resonates with a broad spectrum of Americans, but also why it got so much criticism.  As well, when put into a simplistic either-or sort of way, we're bound to get a picture of polarization and contradictions.

Let me illustrate with a quick story about a young Latina I know.  Her early years were passed in poverty, in urban projects and shelters, surrounded by addiction.  She moved in with a foster family, already behind in school, and with some severe learning disabilities.  She did earn her high school degree and get a job in a restaurant chain, but she also had a couple of abusive boyfriends, and two children out-of-wedlock, one of whom had serious health problems.  Now in her mid-twenties, she owns a home, has a partner whom she adores, her children are doing well in school, and she is poised to become a manager.

How did she get from the potentially disastrous point A to the promising point B?  Hard work, behavior changes, and perseverance.  Instead of lamenting what she could not do (learning disabilities), she found other intellectual strengths to get her through.  She stopped going out with unemployed guys with shady backgrounds, and found a dependable, caring partner.  Despite her heavy workload, she has remained deeply engaged in her children's lives, including their schooling.  She has bravely taken on managerial roles where she works, even though the training required scared her to death, since it reawakened all that insecurity and angst she had felt for years in school.  She has learned how and where to get help and advice on managing the home and finances.  Through force of will, she has turned her life around.  That's the narrative of individual responsibility (the inverse of victimhood) that Romney touts.

But it's not the whole story, of course.  We could start with observing that the conditions she lived with in those crucial early years of her life meant she had more barriers to achievement than her white middle class schoolmates.  And while, happily, she made it over those barriers, she didn't do this on her own.  She learned and earned her high school degree with care and attention of public high school teachers.  She has enjoyed free childcare from family and friends over the years.  She got a couple of rent-free years by living with her parents.  The court assured her at least some child support.  Medicaid covered much of the expensive healthcare for the children (as well as her two difficult deliveries).  The federal earned income credit allowed her to amass money for a downpayment on a home, and HUD subsidized her mortgage. So this is the other narrative, one of structural inequality.  She started out behind, but a combination of her family's social and financial capital, and local and federal government programs, enabled her to, if not catch up, at least not be so far behind in terms of economic and social stability.

Clearly, these two versions are compatible, yet the way we are talking about inequality makes them incompatible.  Thus we end up with Romney's facile line about that 47%, and responses like that of Navarrette which become more fodder for Romney's victimhood narrative.  I don't expect the campaigns to take this conversation to a more useful place, but we can.

Romney's Foreign Policy: Don't Apologize; Be Exceptional

Mitt Romney's latest jabs at the Obama administration's foreign policy reiterate the GOP platform's aggressive notion of American exceptionalism, including an exaggerated notion of US innocence in world affairs--excluding, of course, certain US Embassy officials in Cairo.

Some cranks in Hollywood produced a movie, or at least a 14 minute trailer for a supposed movie, that depicted the prophet Muhammed in vile ways.  Other cranks, the Quran-burning Pastor Terry Jones, had the video translated into Arabic, and delivered to Egyptian audiences a few days prior to 9/11 (New York Times, NPR).  This occasioned a protest at the US Embassy in Cairo, where demonstrators managed to storm the walls and take down the US flag.  Later that day, a protest at the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, apparently became an opportunity for armed militants to attack.  The US Ambassador and three other foreign service officers died in a fire that erupted during the melee (Washington Post).  Fierce protests continue in Cairo, and have broken out in Yemen, and unrest has been reported in Morocco, Sudan, and Tunisia (BBC).

Before the initial protest in Cairo began, US Embassy officials tweeted the following:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others [these tweets have since been deleted].

According to the Washington Post's The Fact Checker, this kind of message has been a standard since the George W. Bush years.  When Embassy officials anticipate a volatile situation in the Muslim world, they typically:

1. Condemn the potential offending action. 

2. Emphasize that the United States believes in religious freedom and religious tolerance--as well as freedom of speech. 

3. Make a reference to American democracy, or at least the U.S. Constitution.

Evidently ill-informed, Mitt Romney acted as if the tweets had appeared after Egyptians had forced their way into the US Embassy.  In a late evening press release on September 11, he claimed "that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." He stayed with argument the following day, insisting the Embassy statement was "an apology for our values" (transcript of his full remarks here).

Romney received a great deal of criticism for his comments, even from Republicans, not only due to the inaccurate basis of his accusation, but because of the timing given the four deaths (NY Times).  I think, though, that it is understandable and acceptable for a presidential candidate to put in his two cents on what clearly was a significant series of events.  Romney has to demonstrate his foreign policy chops.  So how are those chops looking in this instance?

Reckless: Not just Romney, but his staff, are to blame for leaping to a conclusion without all information.  They are just too anxious to knock any sheen off of the President's foreign policy record, hence the recklessness.  The question for voters is whether or not this trait would continue should he manage to win the election.

Parochial: At one point in his Wednesday press conference, Romney said:

We have confidence in our cause in America.  We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our Constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our Constitution, because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.

How is pontificating about our rightness, and how we are the fount of freedom for the world, going to contribute to resolving this crisis?  At this point, Romney should have actually talked about foreign policy.  For example, how do we beef up security for our foreign service staffs in countries where many are already unhappy with the presence of US troops?  What might be some effective ways to address the grievances that fomented the protests?  What do we do about deliberately provocative material, produced by Americans, that might be considered the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater in places like Egypt? What about the challenge of strengthening relations with countries under economic strain and undergoing rocky political transitions?

Arrogant: This "Obama-is-apologizing" rap depends on an absolutist position that anything short of total condemnation of actions against the US is a symptom of weakness.  Any talk of trying to understand those hostile to the US is a sign of appeasement.  This position requires a willful myopic vision of US actions abroad, and of consequences of those actions. It's linked to the Romney campaign's commitment to American exceptionalism, the belief that US is uniquely great in human history, and therefore duty-bound to lead the world. A version of this came out in a Romney campaign spokesman's assertion that "President Obama's failure to assert leadership throughout the Arab Spring set the stage for Tuesday's assault." Note how the statement elides any connection between the violent protests and the American-produced film, or the broader context of US actions in the region (apart from Obama's supposed inaction).  The statement also assumes that the US government could have managed disparate anti-regime movements, all unfolding at different rates and under different circumstances.  It requires a powerful sense of self-importance to think the US capable of such management (while I am criticizing the ideological basis for Romney's "apology" argument, The Fact Checker piece dismisses it based on evidence that the Embassy tweets were SOP, and Politifact does so it based on an rhetorical analysis of the tweets).

Because it occurred during a campaign, this political dust-up over the attacks on US embassies can't accurately predict a Romney foreign policy.  Given the polarized electorate, Romney is going to lurch to extreme positions in his foreign policy pronouncements, ones he might not really take were he President.  And if he gets into the White House, just as happened with President Obama, he will find out hard it is to realize platform goals, even if really believes in them.  Still, this exceptionalism in Romney's foreign policy is, at best for me, disheartening.  We're still recovering from eight years of that vision under George W. Bush.  

Republicans at play in the fields of the Lord

Jon Stewart showed a clip of Fox News commentators ripping into Democrats for not mentioning God in their platform ("EXTREME MAKEOVER: Democrats lose 'God' from platform").  The clip ended with Bill O'Reilly saying, apparently mystified, "How there can be an entire section on faith if you don't mention God? What do we have faith in?" Stewart replied, "Uhh, I have faith in a God that's not so insecure he doesn't freak out if you don't mention his name enough."

I agree with the Stewart's sentiment, and have long wondered about the God of orthodox Christians who seems to be a petty, insecure old man who insists his believers constantly stroke his ego.  I'm reminded of the well-known passage from Luke--the "seek, and you will find" one--where Jesus says

"Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he?  If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?" (Luke 11:11-13, NASB).

I realize this passage is about the nature of God's grace, but I see it also as a way to conceptualize God. If one exists, if God is perfect, beyond our ken, then the best we imperfect people can do is imagine the best kind of character for God.  And for me, that character wouldn't be someone lolling about up there in heaven worried about whether we used its name in a curse, whether we mention its name enough in public, whether we're working hard enough to make others use God-talk in the public square.

However, I still have enough of my Lutheran upbringing in me to think that Stewart missed the point in his rejoinder to O'Reilly. In orthodox Christianity (as with orthodox Judaism and Islam), believers are to acknowledge the presence of God, and God's authorship of the world and their lives.  And they are to confess it.  A consequence of this could be a healthy humility and a source of inspiration to be better vehicles of compassion and justice.  Humans are not sole masters of their fates; their gifts and successes are not just the result of their own efforts; their foibles and failures are evidence of inherent imperfection and a dependence on grace, or undeserved love (". . .all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23).

But the problem for me is that I just don't see much of this humility or inspiration in the GOP's platform.  I just see god-talk for the sake of demonstrating the party's piety, and a specious argument that to vote for the Republicans is a vote for a party that will do the Lord's work.

Fox News' Gretchen Carlson said God was named 12 times in the GOP platform, but I could find only ten. Still, that's enough to suggest that the GOP wants to make it clear to its adherents that religious belief, and therefore God, undergirds its policy positions--and the United States, if under proper leadership.

Though the US Constitution does not mention God, the platform's preamble links the Constitution to its religious vision of politics. The Constitution is "the greatest political document ever written," it is "sacred," and in the same breath, we must "reaffirm that our rights come from God."  It's no surprise that David Barton, the faux historian who has manufactured an idealized Christian origin of the United States, participated in writing the platform.

The platform repeats that affirmation seven more times:

•We offer our Republican vision of a free people using their God-given talents. . .

•We are the party of the Constitution, the solemn compact which confirms our God-given individual rights. . .

•The primary role of government is to protect the God-given, inalienable, inherent rights of its citizens. . .

•We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen's God-given right of self-defense.

•In assessing the various sources of potential energy, Republicans advocate an all-of-the-above diversified approach, taking advantage of all our American God-given resources.

•As the pioneer of conservation over a century ago, the Republican Party believes in the moral obligation of the people to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country. . .

•A young person’s ability to achieve in school must be based on his or her God-given talent and motivation, not an address, zip code, or economic status.

The platform mentions God twice more, a pledge to protect the Pledge of Allegiance's "under God" from "activist judges," and a salutation ("May God continue to shed his grace. . .").  But religion comes out in other ways besides the number of times God is mentioned.  In the section We the People: a Restoration of Constitutional Government there is the unsurprising declaration about protecting marriage--between one man and one woman--from an "activist judiciary." The platform also defines the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as the GOP's "sacred contract" (the word "sacred" appears six times in the platform).  And there is the expected hostility to abortion.

Republicans are also in a spiritual battle. "Liberal elites" are trying "to drive religious beliefs--and religious believers--out of the public square."  The "current Administration" is conducting a "war on religion," with its rules forcing most health care plans, even those at Catholic non-profits, to provide contraceptives to women free of charge (The NY Times succinctly sums up this issue here).  But it is not only President Obama leading this "war."  It's those people forcing counties to remove the Ten Commandments from their courthouse lawns, who oppose public prayer in schools, who lead "hate campaigns" against businesses and organizations like the Boy Scouts for their anti-gay positions.  

Apparently, it's Americans' God-given right to compel all to accommodate their religious imprimatur on the public square; it is their God-given liberty to discriminate against the GLBT community.

The platform finishes with declarations on foreign policy, which the GOP titled American Exceptionalism, "the conviction that our country holds a unique place and role in human history." What this really means, given the religiosity elsewhere in the document, is that the US plays a providential role in the world.  That is, our country does God's work, but, and this is a big "but," only if American voters make the right choice. "Providence has put us at the fork in the road, and we must answer the question [actually, two]: If not us, who? If not now, when?  That is the choice facing the American people this November. . ."

This exceptionalism is an old, old conception dating back to those Puritans who thought they might be the new "chosen people," building the "city on the hill."  Reagan famously made a similar claim, and since Reagan is in the GOP's pantheon of minor deities, it's not surprising that its platform would make it a central point in their presentation to the American people.

The stark, scary choice is also nothing new, but I guess I'm still surprised by such an overt religious framing.  It reminds me of a county commission race in Indiana where I used to live.  During the debate between the candidates, one person answered the question "Why are you running?" with "I believe Jesus wants me to run." My mouth dropped open, and I looked around to catch the reactions of others.  I saw lots of heads nodding 'yes.'  Guess I had missed the divine memo, and, by the way, the guy won, handily.

I suppose this GOP platform is such a memo letting me know that the Republicans are doing the Lord's work and the Democrats are, well, doing hellish stuff.

So, why I think the GOP platform is arrogant for claiming a role as providential agent, those Christians who support the platform likely think I am an agent of evil (perhaps an unwitting one) given that I am an agnostic who opposes many of the GOP policy positions that further the work of God.  That conversation, were I to have one, is dead on arrival.

But I'm guessing there are a lot of others, hostile to Obama from the beginning, or now disenchanted, who simply ignore the religious aspect of the GOP position.  They just want Obama out of the White House. Or they prefer Republican economic and social policies.  I know platforms are wish lists that are never even partially realized, but I hope these voters think about the whole package they will hand us should Mitt Romney win.

The Romney Doctrine: National Greatness Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry

GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney,
with the Veterans of Foreign Wars
(Justin Sullivan, Getty)

GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars last Tuesday (July 24th) and I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Romney got worked up over what is really very little to work with: cuts in defense spending and White House leaks regarding covert operations.

But first he started with the standard chest thumping: "I am an unapologetic believer in the greatness of America. . ."  Nope.  We cannot have a complicated perspective on the role of the US in the world.  It can't be that just maybe, our country has been a force for both good and ill.  Gotta simplify.  Recognizing complexity robs us of, well, the ability to say things like "I'm an unapologetic believer. . ."  We've got to stay as far away as we can from those terrible days of the Church hearings in the 1970s that exposed covert operations ending nascent democracies in Iran and Guatemala, attempts to assassinate Castro among others, all that crap that made us feel bad about ourselves and led to President Carter's quirky human rights emphasis, and his infamous malaise.  And we can't do the introspective thing because even as we lecture other countries on human rights and democracy we are again engaged in widespread covert operations and assassinations, though the latter we can now do with drones (never mind the civilians we take out along with the bad guys).

But this is under Obama's watch, and he has continued with many key aspects of President Bush's "war on terror" (for example, Bush-era detainment, torture, and targeted killing policies).  So what's Romney to do?  The Obama administration has shown a tough side in its foreign policy, and Romney can't do the usual Republican move of calling Democrats wimps in world affairs.  In 2004, VP Cheney warned Americans that a vote for Kerry would likely mean another 9/11. Romney didn't play such a dire fear card, but told the audience that impending cuts in defense would mean the US would no longer be the strongest nation on the earth.  A vote for Obama means, somehow, a quick slide into a second rate power, no matter that we currently outspend the next twelve countries combined on our military.  A vote for Obama means national insecurity.  It's an old, very old, and tired line.  But I suppose it works--if you can forget that these defense cuts had bipartisan support-- because it will get a rise out of those who think the response to a foreign policy challenge is, if you can't safely ignore it, then shoot it (e.g. not just an anti-illicit drug policy but a war on drugs; not just an immigration policy, but militarize the border).

The other just really awful problem with the Obama administration according to Romney is the leakage, apparently out of the White House.  Yes, like such leaks are unprecedented, as if no administration until now has tried to make political hay out of foreign policy achievements--but this is about pushing the fear button again, because, Romney asserted, by divulging aspects of covert operations, these leaks put our soldiers at risk now and in the future.  It's a "national security crisis," it's "contemptible," it "betrays our national interest."

It seems a little desperate to imply that Obama has been treasonous, but Romney had to do something to tarnish the covert op that gave Obama a boost in popularity, the assassination of Osama bin Laden.  So Romney kvetched about a high profile extra-judicial killing, not because our hands are bloodied, not because it's part of a much larger campaign of dubious legality and utility, inflicting more "collateral damage" than we care to realize, but because details of the operation got out.  It's not like I think Romney should high-five Obama for taking bin Laden out.  But it would be good to see him pull at his finely crafted hair, anxious about the murky moral landscape we're in now, or have been in for some time.  I'd like to see more of all of us do that.

Aftermath of drone strike in Buner, Pakistan, 2009
(from Council on Foreign Relations website)

I know.  It's a presidential campaign, and candidates must exude confidence rather than anxiety.  Thus Romney declared "This century must be an American Century."  It is our "destiny."  But this secular providentialism is also very old, and tired.  Why not invoke the spirit of his GOP ancestor, Lincoln, and warn against self-righteousness, announce his own version of ". . .with malice toward none, with charity for all. . ?"  But I don't expect it, not from Obama either.  Instead, we'll probably get an echo of the plaintive words of another more recent Republican president: "Why do they hate us?"


The National Review has provided a transcript of the entire speech here.