Romney’s rushed statement Tuesday night calling the Obama administration’s response to the violence “disgraceful” was a new low in a campaign already scraping bottom. And Romney’s subsequent decision to double down on the attack, even as Americans mourned the first killing of an ambassador since 1979 and officials began investigating what now looks like a well-planned terrorist attack . . . well, I guess this whole performance says a lot about what kind of man Romney is.
That paragraph appears about 1/2way through Eugene Robinson's
Friday Washington Post column.
Robinson begins by reminding us that Ronald Reagan was viewed by many was weak on Middle East policy - remember the Marine Barracks in Beirut in October 1983?
The key part of Robinson's critique is the danger words have in international relations. As he puts it,
But international affairs are different. For one thing, there is general consensus that at times of crisis, the United States must speak with one voice.
A bit later he adds
More important is the fact that words spoken in the heat of international crisis can have life-or-death impact.
As is often the case with this Pulitzer Prize winner, the column is worth pondering in its entirety. I am going to urge you to read the entire piece.
But first, please continue below the fold for just a bit.
The real value of a political commentator is that s/he helps us understand more fully, that s/he explains and places into context, perhaps a context we might not otherwise have considered.
There is no doubt that the media as a whole has largely been horrified by Romney's recent performance. For many, it his cemented concerns raised by some of Romney's previous missteps in foreign relations. Robinson reviews some of those missteps, just as he also recapitulates the many flip-flops and excessive statements made by the Republican nominee about domestic policies.
But Robinson does more. He set up the conclusion of this column by examining Romney's rhetoric in pandering to the right-wing supporters of Israel (and here it is worth remembering that the biggest financing of the Romney effort now is probably the same man who sustained Gingrich in the primaries, Sheldon Adelson, and remember that he s NOT representative of American Jewry as a whole on Middle East and Israeli issues).
So here is the conclusion of Robinson's excellent column, immediately after he has reminded us of Romney's prpensity for "tough-sounding" and bellicose language:
Romney’s belief, apparently, is that such language sounds tough — that the harder he thumps his chest, the stronger he seems. You have to wonder whether he could ever summon the prudence and wisdom to pull back, as Reagan did, when circumstances indicate. You have to wonder whether he realizes that his shoot-from-the-lip attacks, far from projecting strength, sound frantic and weak.
You have to wonder whether he knows there are moments when the guiding principle has to be “America first.” Not “me first.”
And that conclusion hits a theme we are starting see increasingly in the media - that what Romney is doing is very much focused on his ego. It is the same point made by Joe Scarborough. It is a meme that is reinforced by Romney's refusal to release his taxes, or to specify his policy.
He is selfish. What he cares about is himself, his own ambition.
And that, as much as any missteps he may make, as much as his propensity for foot-in-mouth statements, as much as his awkwardness and lack of genuineness, is why the American electorate is turning away from him.