Don’t Mind the Gaffe
Amusing as it was to see David Cameron give Mitt Romney (and poor Salt Lake City) the back of his hand, Romney’s offending remark about the British government’s preparations for the Olympic Games was fairly inoffensive — a problem not so much of what he said as of where he said it and when. (OK, perhaps it was also a problem of who was saying it, since, coming from Romney, mild worries about London’s readiness for the Olympics were bound to be taken as yet another reminder of his heroic rescue of the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, a feat he often talks about as if it were his strongest qualification for the presidency.) Anyway, the remark was at most a gaffe; it deserves to be forgotten soon, and almost certainly will be.
Romney’s comment, in a prepared speech, about the cultural superiority of Israelis to Palestinians was not a gaffe. It was the honest expression of the candidate’s worldview, according to which one may measure the health of a whole people’s culture by their GDP: healthy cultures produce lots of wealth, while poverty is evidence of cultural inanition. Or as Romney put it: “Culture makes all the difference.”
This rule about the wealth of nations is an extension of Romney’s more familiar ideas about the wealth of individuals, according to which a person of good character will produce lots of wealth, as long as the government doesn’t get in the way.
Many people have already pointed out that the Palestinian economy is hobbled by severe trade restriction imposed by Israel. Of course the Palestinians themselves have been quick to point this out, but if you are disinclined to take their word for it, you can ask the Central Intelligence Agency. As the New York Times reported last week, the CIA’s World Factbook states that “Israeli closure policies continue to disrupt labor and trade flows, industrial capacity, and basic commerce, eroding the productive capacity” of the Palestinian economy.
The Romney camp has complained that the Associated Press “grossly mischaracterized” the candidate’s remarks. This suggests — but stops short of actually asserting — that Romney never spoke the words that got him into so much trouble. The speech, say Romney’s handlers, was not as bad as the media are making it sound. You see, their candidate was not singling out the Palestinians; he applied the same perverse metric to other poor countries. Here’s what he said:
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.
Surely it’s a bad sign that the Romney team thinks the last sentence in this passage makes it less offensive, or more credible. The thought here seems to be that you can control for the importance of geographical difference by comparing only countries that are “near or next to each other”: since Mexico borders on the United States, for example, it can have no excuse for being so much poorer. History has passed its unanswerable judgment on Mexican culture: Not good enough, or at least not as good (despite leftover pockets of Mormon virtue?).
Romney might say his pet theory is simply a prescription for success. To me, it sounds like another blasé rationalization of inequality and — especially in the case of the Palestinians — injustice. And obviously that’s how Romney’s advisors were afraid it would sound to many Americans. Hence their pathetic attempt to cast doubt on the the accuracy of the AP story.
The Boston Globe points out that the statement about “culture” in Jerusalem has a history in Romney’s beliefs – apparently he believes tha muliculturalism is a fraud and “we” have a superior culture.
“Earlier this week when Romney was in Jerusalem, he triggered a firestorm when he told a group of Jewish donors that Israel was more economically vibrant than the Palestinians in part because of their culture. The comment outraged Palestinian leaders, who called it racist.
The Globe on Friday reported on Romney’s views, and how they have been informed by David Landes’s book, “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations.” Romney has been quoting from the book since 2005, using it frequently to explain his economic and social world view.
“The multiculturalism movement must be unmasked for the fraud that it is,” Romney wrote in his 2010 book, “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.” “There are superior cultures, and ours is one of them. As David Landes observed, ‘Culture makes all the difference.’ ”
Romney has cited another book, Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” using it as a point of contrast with the book written by Landes. Diamond’s book argues that societies have grown more as a function of their access to natural resources, while Landes emphasizes their human characteristics.
Diamond wrote an opinion article Thursday in The New York Times under the headline “Romney Hasn’t Done His Homework.” He wrote that Romney had “misrepresented my views” and “oversimplified the issue.”
Diamond also argued that Romney’s summary that “culture makes all the difference” is “dangerously out of date.” He said culture does play a role in determining relative levels of economic success, yet it is far from the only, or even the driving, factor”
Also, the Globe pointed out that Romney’s father pointed out the success of his Mormon family, who moved to Mexico, as compared to the native Mexicans:
“Still, Romney’s philosophy echoes a view expressed by his role model: his father, George, whose grandfather moved to Mexico and established a prosperous Mormon colony through what the family characterized as hard work. After they were forced to flee back to the United States, George Romney reflected on the tensions between Mexicans and Americans, once forced to live side by side.
“I was kicked out of Mexico when I was 5 years old because the Mexicans were envious of the fact that my people — who, when they went down there, were just as poor as the Mexicans they moved among — went to work with irrigation and dams and other things and became prosperous,” George Romney wrote in his autobiography. “The Mexicans thought if they could just take it away from the Mormon settlers, it would be paradise. It just didn’t work that way, of course.”
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/08/02/mitt-romney-view-culture-boosting-israelis-over-palestinians-puts-idea-into-campaign/XjJztGDmUtI34DFcWRunIK/story.html
After reading the quotes from George Romney, i checked when he emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. according to Wikipedia (not a primary source) it was 1910. If that’s correct, it was the same year that he Mexican Revolution broke out
“Seems as if George Romney was commenting on the nationwide revolution rather than some local issue specfically aimed at the Mormon landowners by their immediate neighbors.
Reminds me of the French revolution with aristocrats complaining about losing their properties.
Here’s a quick summary of what the mexican Revolution of 1910 was all about:
“Wealth, political power and access to education were concentrated among a handful of families, overwhelmingly of European descent, known as hacendados, who controlled vast swaths of the country by virtue of their huge estates (one family, the Terrazas, had one estate in Sonora alone that comprised more than one million acres). Most people in Mexico were landless, laboring on the vast estates or in the mines for little more than slave wages. Foreign companies, mostly from the United Kingdom, France and the U.S., also exercised power in Mexico.
Díaz changed land reform efforts that were begun under previous leaders. His new “reforms” virtually undid all the work by leaders such as Juárez. No peasant or farmer could claim the land he occupied without formal legal title. Helpless and angry small farmers and landless peasants saw no hope for themselves and their families under a Diaz regime, and came to the conclusion that a change of leadership would be the only route that offered any hope for themselves and their country. Such famous figures in Mexican history as Francisco I. Madero, Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata would launch a rebellion against Díaz, all of which eventually coalesced into what became known as the Mexican Revolution. More than 95% of Mexico’s land was owned by less than 5% of the population. This vastly unequal distribution of land—and, therefore, wealth—had plagued Mexico for many years, to the anger and dismay of the working classes, as this corrupt system allowed the rich to get richer while ensuring that the poor remained poor, or got even poorer. Workers on the vast “haciendas” were often treated like slaves, being beaten for the slightest infraction—real or imagined—and murders of workers by their “masters” was not uncommon.
Another way to ensure that farmers and workers were kept under the thumb of the wealthy classes was to make sure that any debt incurred was passed down from generation to generation, thereby ensuring that it would never be paid off and the farmers would be kept in perpetual debt bondage.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution
As many sources have now pointed out Palestinians, who have found homes in other parts of the Middle East and been allowed to work, have done quite well. My one brief visit to Israel and very briefly the West Bank gave me the impression that Israelis and Palestinians are both energetic and congenial “salesmen/women”; one has access to resources and education, the other does not. Romney also has David Landes wrong!
Gaffes and not Gaffes: The London snafu may be as Matt writes not all that significant, except…. a president who offers criticisms abroad even minor ones will pay a price in media and diplomatic hysteria. Imagine if Obama had criticized Olympics planning!!!
For another view, check out Richard Landes’s op-ed piece in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL titled “Romney Is Right on Culture and the Wealth of Nations.”
Incidentally, after his speech in Israel, Mitt Romney subsequently published an op-ed piece in the NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE titled “Culture Does Matter.”
Steve Chapman has an interesting take. Headline: “Culture doesn’t make the difference”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0802-chapman-20120802,0,1398019.column
Culture, ie human behavior across a population, obviously has an impact on ‘success’; it even helps define success.
After Mitt Romney got himself into a controversy over his speech in Israel, he subsequently posted an op-ed piece at the National Review Online titled “Culture Does Matter” (July 31, 2012).
It is quite clear that the title of Romney’s op-ed piece means that culture matters for economic prosperity.
Is President Obama likely to say, “No, culture does not matter for economic prosperity”? I doubt if he will.
In the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, I want to give Romney credit for not saying in his op-ed piece that only culture matters. By not saying this, he leaves the door open for people such as Jared Diamond to highlight non-cultural factors such as biological and geographic features that can also contribute to economic prosperity. However, Romney may not have been this careful in his remarks in Israel recently.
In his op-ed piece, Romney emphasizes certain key cultural factors as extremely important: political freedom and economic freedom. In short, Romney’s thesis in his op-ed piece is that political freedom and economic freedom are key factors in contributing to economic prosperity.
Now, is President Obama likely to argue the antithetical position – that political freedom and economic freedom are not key factors in contributing to economic prosperity? I doubt if he will.
So if Mitt Romney and President Obama do not disagree about the importance of these two key factors, what kind of a political debate, if any, are we going to get between these two presidential candidates in 2012?
In his op-ed piece, Romney also says, “The linkage between freedom and economic development has universal applicability.”
Hmm. At the present time, China seems to be experiencing economic development but without political freedom.
But would President Obama say “No, freedom is not linked to economic development”? I doubt if he will.
In plain English, in his op-ed piece, Romney in effect endorsing key factors that are as American as apple pie. As a result, President Obama is not likely to be drawn into debating these two key factors with Romney, because such a debate would probably be political suicide for President Obama or any other American politician who gets drawn into such a debate.
I can’t decide what makes Romney look worse — the fact that he said what he said, or the fact that he later complained, when criticized, that he was being taken out of context, when for a change the context was exactly what his critics wanted to talk about. (That NRO piece is lousy cover, as Alex Pareene points out.)
Romney’s whining response on Fox, as reported at the end of that NBC News piece, is hilarious. If being asked for further comment about something he said on the campaign trail is a “distraction,” then his definition of “distraction” is maybe just a little bit self-servingly narrow. (If he spoke to reporters in venues other than Fox he might be challenged on that point.)
Isn’t the important question “Should economic prosperity be our primary cultural value?”
Jim McK, you’re right. And the answer to your question ought to be an unequivocal NO.
One of David Landes great examples has stuck in my mind: the “invention” of eye glasses. The ability to grind and polish glass (as I recall carried out by the Dutch) allowed Italian (weavers? painters?) to continue working long after their weakening eyesight prohibited close work. So…the creativity, imagination, hard work of the Dutch contributed to the economic well-being of Italian artisans and to artistic culture generally. I may have the factoids here mixed up, but the point is clear: there is no economic advance without culture, but culture is only one factor and I think that was Landes’s over-all thesis.
Well, of course. It all depends on what you mean by “culture” – skills or habits that anyone can choose to adopt or not (like being willing to show up for work regularly) – or racial, religious or societal values that are inherent in certain ethnic groups
That discussion has gone on for quite a while, running from Max Weber’s eary 1900′s “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” up to Sam Huntington (another Harvard professor)’s early 2000′s pitch about the need to preserve the Anglo-Protestant culture of America by keeping out Mexicans and other Latinos.
Huntington wrote:
For me, that article by Huntington, George Romney’s comparison of Mormons and indigenous Mexicans, and Mitt Romney’s comparison of Israeli’s and Palestinians all have an odor of racial or religious prejudice that makes me turn away.
Weber, to his credit, didn’t argue that accumulating personal wealth was a good in itself, but pointed out that Calvinism, with its double-predestinarianism, provided a moral framework for capitalism.
In his speech Romney also mentioned the hand of providence as one possible factor along with culture as an explanation of Israel’s economic prosperity. I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of that remark. I would have thought the Left would be outraged at that suggestion.
BTW, I like Landes’s observation re Max Weber’s famous thesis about the relative incompatibility of Catholicism and capitalism:
“Roman Catholics did not know whether to accept it as praise or denounce it as criticism.”
Bruce –
You’re right — culture, defined as you have defined it, does matter. The question about the Palestininians is: who is *responsible* for their lack of economic activity? The Israelis have stymied their activity. so they are responsible. And that tells us more about the Israelis (or the majority who voted in the government) than it does about the Palestinians.
Richard Landes (son of David and author of the WSJ op-ed) is a medieval historian, not an economist.
I would rely more on Daron Acemoglu (economics professor at MIT) and James Robinson (government professor at Harvard). They wrote the book “Why Nations Fail” and say:
I’m not up on this, though maybe someone else is and can enlighten us. Where do the scholars stand on Max Weber and his famous thesis these days? My sense is that soon after he published, some Catholic scholars seeking to take him down pointed to the flourishing capitalism of the medieval Italian city states, especially in the north: Florence, Milan, Venice, etc. etc. All those guys, particularly the Medici, who invented modern western banking, double entry book keeping and so forth. Somewhat later, when capitalism was taken by the Left to be a Bad Thing, another group of Catholic scholars was only too happy to blame it on all those Calvinists: good riddance to them and to their inhuman economic system. And in more recent years David Landes has brought Weber back to life, it seems.
When I was in graduate school many decades ago, the Weber thesis was under attack, and I’m afraid that’s where I turned my interests in other directions. Particularly since I was taught by others that in any case the Chinese had invented many of these things while the Ancient Britons were still painting themselves with woad and the French idea of an advanced state was what the Merovingians gave them.
But it seems to me that the connection between culture and economic success (whether you consider such success to be a valid measure or not) is a perfectly honest one, and no one objects when American Jews or Asian Americans are pointed out as being particularly successful because of aspects of their cultures. Romney’s real stupidity was to compare apples to oranges: successful Israelis who are in control of their own lives and unsuccessful Palestinians who are not allowed by the Occupation to be in control of theirs.
A further note on culture and economic success: China, for millenia, has sought to maintain control of the economy by keeping down the merchant and entrepreneurial classes, justifying it by Confucianism. Perhaps they were quicker on the uptake, and saw clearly what the slow westerners lacked the wit to understand: that money is dangerous because it can lead to political power and threaten the State. And whenever Chinese escaped such controls (by migrating to Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. etc., they became capitalists flourishing like the green bay tree.
Mao’s communists also managed successfully to quash the Chinese entrepreneurial spirit, but since the old man’s death, the controls have come off: as long as you publicly proclaim your allegiance to the “Communist” party of China, you can do what you want. Hence we see the emergence of a kind of capitalism that owes nothing to Calvinism, or indeed to the West, and that makes the Belmonts, the Morgans, the Rockefellers, and the other leaders of the Gilded Age look like bleeding-heart pinko socialists.
The question about the Palestinians is: who is *responsible* for their lack of economic activity? The Israelis have stymied their activity. so they are responsible.
Ann,
We are all responsible for our behavior. While the Israelis may share responsibility, they cannot be solely responsible. The Palestinians bear some responsibility for their behavior.
Has anybody found a link to the complete text of Mitt Romney’s speech in Israel?
I’ve only seen a few select sentences quoted from it. All the quotes I’ve seen are brief. It would be helpful to be able to read them in the context of his speech as a whole.
In one account I read, the author of the article quoted certain mistaken economic statistics about the Israeli and the Palestinians that Romney had allegedly presented. The author then proceeded to present the correct economic statistics.
In different media accounts that I’ve read about Mitt Romney’s speech in Israel, I’ve read that he discussed two books in particular: (1) David Landes’s book THE WEALTH AND POVERTY OF NATIONS (rev. ed. 1999) and (2) Jared Diamond’s book GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL (rev. ed.), both of which Romney discusses in his memoir NO APOLOGY: BELIEVE IN AMERICA (rev. ed. 2011).
So here is a question I have: Has anybody seen a discussion of Romney’s speech in Israel in which the author of the discussion also examines what Romney says about these two books in his book?
Because Mitt Romney is presumably running against President Obama, has President Obama commented on Romney’s speech in Israel?
I have not seen any reports that Obama has commented on Romney’s speech in Israel. If he has commented, I’d be interested in reading his comments.
Thanks to everyone for their comments (and links).
Nick Clifford writes:
These are good points, but I would add one more: Romney’s theory about the relationship between economic success and culture is not a neutral sociological observation. Taking it for granted that maximum economic growth is not only a good thing but the best and most important thing, he judges the worth of a culture by whether it’s conducive to economic growth. In other words, the part of the above paragraph in parentheses is not parenthetical; it is at the heart of Romney’s politics.
As Helen Thomas correctly reminded us – israelis are made up of predominantly european [and american] settlers.Palestinians are, as Newt Gingrich reminded us -arabs .So yes arab culture has ceased to thrive -economically and otherwise. Of course colonialism, western backed dictators,fundamentalism has been a factor.Romney’s statement might be accurate -it’s also hateful.The fact that”palestinians” have been in struggle against what they experience as an injustice imposed on them by the israelis, and the fact that the rest of the arab world is in turmoil struggling to topple the dictators [many of whom we backed] and still living with the legacy of colonial imposed political divisions are realities that Romney is aware of .Yet he chose to speak as if israelis and “palestinians” are just people in two countries living side by side but for”cultural” reasons israelis like to work hard and palestinians don’t.If he believed that-that would be bigotted enough-but of course it’s worse then that;it was not only a choice to speak as if there were no reality on the ground of occupation and struggle against occupation but also an expression of racism against arabs.The historical factors that lead to where a people are today are of no significance to him or to any racist.It was no gaffe-he was asserting his belief that he sides with the israelis and the political- historical narrative of palestinians or arabs is of no inrerest to him.It’s all cultural[that's just the way those people are!] If he later walked it back a little by bringing in the poverty in mexico-that was simply so he could refute being called an anti arab racist .Of course he is and he wants his fellow racists to know he is but had a needed cover for when he’d be called out.
Thomas Farrell, this has what it says is “Romney’s full passage, as provided by his campaign”
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/romney-israel-palestine-gdp-culture.php
Thanks, John Hayes.
On the other hand, Romney is not if favor of the kibbutznik source of Israeli culture. His ideal seems to be the individual entrepreneur:
“America’s economic engine is fueled by individuals working hard, Mitt Romney said Tuesday, not by a government-run cooperative akin to a kibbutz.
“It’s individuals and their entrepreneurship which have driven America,” Romney said at a fund-raising event at Maggiano’s Little Italy in Chicago. “What America is not [is?] a collective where we all work in a kibbutz or we all [share?] in some little entity, instead it’s individuals pursuing their dreams and building successful enterprises which employ others and they become inspired as they see what has happened in the place they work and go off and start their own enterprises.”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/07/america-not-a-kibbutz-says-romney/
Interesting that he associates cooperation with “some little entity.” Apparently only individuals working alone can build something big. The way Romney talks, you’d think most people eventually start “successful enterprises” and only work for someone else at the beginning of their careers. Everyone who is willing to work hard and put a little money aside will one day become a millionaire like Romney; you just have to wait your turn. This is Tony Robbins territory.
Back last Spring, his advice was to borrow money from your parents:
Everyone who is willing to work hard and put a little money aside will one day become a millionaire like Romney; you just have to wait your turn.
Taking it for granted that maximum economic growth is not only a good thing but the best and most important thing
Matthew, I think both of these comments contain more of your view of Romney than what he actually has said. First, he does not imply and I sincerely doubt he believes, that everyone should be an entrepreneur. After all, he specifically says that they employ others. Further, as he well knows from Bain, not all ventures succeed. And second, he makes substantial charitable contributions and is a committed morman, so he obviously does not think maximum economic growth is the ‘best and most important thing’
“Back last Spring, his advice was to borrow money from your parents”
FWIW, I’ve read that this practice, or something similar (borrowing from older more established members of the extended family, or from within a tight-knit ethnic community), is a key reason for the success of a number of immigrant groups who have prospered in the US by starting small businesses – Italians, Greeks and Chinese are three of the ethnic groups I recall. The social/cultural expectation is that, if the business succeeds, there will be younger siblings or cousins or another generation coming along, at which point today’s borrower becomes tomorrow’s lender.
I do know of one or two Mormon business owners who borrowed money from their parents to start their businesses.
rose-ellen caminer – a response to your invective
Fr. John Courtney Murray once remarked that “civilization is formed by men locked together in argument.” There is no sharper dagger penetrating the heart of civil discourse than the accusation of bigotry and discrimination. If we are to remain civil, we must be prepared to challenge the accusation of discrimination.
Rose-Ellen, I think that you can make your comments more readable by inserting the following symbols whenever you want to start a new paragraph:
["less than" sign] p ["greater than" sign]
Matthew Boudway: Has Mitt Romney’s book NO APOLOGY: BELIEVE IN AMERICA: THE CASE FOR AMERICAN GREATNESS (2010; rev. ed. 2011) been reviewed or otherwise examined in detail in COMMONWEAL?
Jim Pauwels, i guess that to somone who offered to make a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry, it sounds perfectly plausible that your parents will have $20,000 to lend to you.
That obliviousness to the lives of poor people is one of the things that worries me about Romney.
Mr. Farrell,
To answer your question: No, we reserve our review section for real books, not ghost-written campaign propaganda. But we have given a good deal of attention to many of the arguments gathered in “No Apology,” and as the election approaches we’ll be giving Romney’s platform all the attention it deserves.
Bruce,
You write, “First, he does not imply and I sincerely doubt he believes, that everyone should be an entrepreneur. After all, he specifically says that they employ others.” After all? There’s no contradiction here. Everyone should be an entrepreneur, starting as an employee (employed by some other entrepreneur) before becoming an employer himself. Just step up to capitalism’s great escalator to universal affluence.
You write that Romney “makes substantial charitable contributions and is a committed morman, so he obviously does not think maximum economic growth is the ‘best and most important thing.’” So: if someone gives lots of money away (while keeping much more), this proves that he or she doesn’t regard maximum economic growth as the nation’s main priority. Someone give this man a medal for the long jump.