Mutt Romney

The crassness of Mitt Romney continues to amaze Europeans. (It also amazes some Americans, but a surprising proportion of their electorate seems to think that he might be a serious contender for President.) Before his European and Middle East trip the idea that he might win in November was scary enough. Now, it looks like a nightmare or — as Maureen Dowd said in the NYT, “more like Munch’s ‘The Scream'”.

The strangest thing of all about Romney is that, as the saying goes, “there’s no there there”.

There’s a political joke doing the rounds in the US.

A liberal, a conservative and a Tea Party fanatic come into a bar.

Q: What does the barman say?

A: “Hi Mitt!”

Or, as Dowd puts it,

Wherever he went, whatever situation he was in, he remained frozen in himself. It was reminiscent of the stinging review of an Oscar Wilde lecture by Ambrose Bierce, who wrote that Wilde was a “gawky gowk” who “wanders about posing as a statue of himself.”

Dowd quotes a remark by Stuart Stevens [Romney’s Press spokesman] observation that “it’s easy to imagine Romney in the White House”. “I can visualize him right now”, says Dowd, “lapidary and frozen, in the Rose Garden. A statue of himself”.

Romney was annoying and gaffe-prone in London, but that was small beer compared to his irresponsibility in Israel where he effectively egged on the Israelis to launch an attack on Iran and made some unbelievably stupid comparisons between the innovativeness of Israeli high-tech industry and the alleged backwardness of the Palestinians. “As you come here”, he said at a $25,000-a-head fundraising dinner in Jerusalem,

and you see the GDP per capita for instance in Israel which is about $21,000 and you compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice a dramatic, stark difference in economic vitality.

He then went on to cite what he sees as the unique factor in this contrast. ”Culture makes all the difference” he said, a phrase that was immediately — and understandably — interpreted as racist, and not just by Palestinians.

As usual, Romney got his facts wrong. According to the World Bank, Israel’s per-capita GDP was about $31,000 in 2011, while the West Bank and Gaza’s was just over $1,500. And he conveniently ignored the fact that the West Bank and Gaza are territories which are effectively being throttled by Israel.

Romney’s observations about the differences between Israeli and Palestinian economic success emanate from a crass (mis)reading of Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel: A short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years. In an excruciating dissection of Romney’s errors in yesterday’s NYT, Professor Diamond writes:

It is not true that my book ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’, as Mr Romney described it in a speech in Jerusalem, “basically says the physical characteristics of the land account for the difference in the success of the people that live there. There is iron ore on the land and so forth”. That is so different from what my book actually says that I have to doubt whether Mr Romney read it.

But, says Diamond, “that’s not the worst part”.

Even scholars who emphasize social rather than geographic explanations — like the Harvard economist David S. Landes, whose book Wealth And Poverty Of Nations was mentioned favorably by Mr Romney — would find Mr Romney’s statement that “culture makes all the difference” dangerously out of date.

Ouch!

Gore Vidal

Gore Vidal is dead at 86. Lots of obituaries online (see Arts & Letters Daily for a characteristically thorough round-up). I particularly liked Andrew Sullivan’s reflections. Sullivan disliked many aspects of Gore, especially his contempt for the gay movement. But…

I must say that his extreme hostility to the American Empire – sustained relentlessly through the decades – looks much less repellent to me than it did before Bush-Cheney. He ruined his case by exaggeration, and absurd moral equivalence. But he was surely onto something from the perspective of the 21st Century. And his willingness to court public outrage and disdain in defense of his ideas is a model for a public intellectual, it seems to me. As a historical novelist of the Roman past, he was superb – even peerless. No one can or would dispute his profound erudition. And his astonishing memoir, Palimpsest, is better than any writer has any business aiming for.

But he also, it seems to me, let his passions outweigh his reason more than a thinker as gifted as he was should. This emotionally turbulent quality seemed to me to be related to his woundedness as a brilliant scion forced by his homosexuality into a marginalization he learned to adorn with enormous style. He never, perhaps understandably, learned to let go of resentment. But this very rebelliousness was, in some ways, the flipside of a deep and romantic patriotism. You can never be that angry if you have never been that naive.

I agree about Palimpsest, which is a truly astonishing memoir.

One thing that the NYT Obit got right about Vidal is that success never mellowed him. He was a cantankerous old bugger right to the end.

Quote of the day

“Computing has changed from being something you go to a computer to do to something that the computer comes with you to do. It’s a subtle change, but world-altering for PC makers.”

Astute observation by Charles Arthur in today’s Observer.

Darkness visible

There’s something terribly depressing about the hand-wringing commentary in US media that follows every small-town massacre. I suppose liberals have to go through the motions, because not to do so would be tantamount to tacitly condoning the craziness of US laws. So I started on Roger Ebert’s NYT OpEd piece with a sinking heart. But the closing paragraphs brought me up short. Here they are:

This would be an excellent time for our political parties to join together in calling for restrictions on the sale and possession of deadly weapons. That is unlikely, because the issue has become so closely linked to paranoid fantasies about a federal takeover of personal liberties that many politicians feel they cannot afford to advocate gun control.

Immediately after a shooting last month in the food court of the Eaton Centre mall in Toronto, a young woman named Jessica Ghawi posted a blog entry. Three minutes before a gunman opened fire, she had been seated at the exact place he fired from.

“I was shown how fragile life was,” she wrote. “I saw the terror on bystanders’ faces. I saw the victims of a senseless crime. I saw lives change. I was reminded that we don’t know when or where our time on Earth will end. When or where we will breathe our last breath.”

This same woman was one of the fatalities at the midnight screening in Aurora. The circle of madness is closing.

Aphorisms

I’ve always loved aphorisms, and some of my favourite books are collections of them — like the volume edited by WH Auden and Louis Kronenberger many years ago. But I see from the Susan Sontag’s journals and notebooks that she took a more sardonic view of them. “Aphorisms”, she writes, “are rogue ideas”.

Aphorism is aristocratic thinking: this is all the aristocrat is willing to tell you; he thinks you should get it fast, without spelling out all the details. Aphoristic thinking constructs thinking as an obstacle race: the reader is expected to get it fast, and move on. An aphorism is not an argument; it is too well-bred for that.

To write aphorisms is to assume a mask – a mask of scorn, of superiority. Which, in one great tradition, conceals (shapes) the aphorist’s secret pursuit of spiritual salvation. The paradoxes of salvation. We know at the end, when the aphorist’s amoral, light point-of-view self-destructs.

Sigh. Maybe she’s right.

If Romney wins…

Good column by Will Hutton about the kind of capitalism that Romney represents.

Bain Capital is part of the problem, not the solution. The private equity recipe has ripped the heart out of innovative US while leaving its banks encumbered by massive non-performing debts. The business model is now broken and the US has to start to ask questions about whether the Bain type of allegedly individualist capitalism really delivers growth and jobs. As the answer is: no, what does?