July 26, 2012

"Romney book: Britain is a tiny island that makes stuff nobody wants."

That's the headline in Foreign Policy, which is getting attention (according to Memeorandum), especially after Romney supposedly said something that upset the Brits today. (Surveying the London Olympics, Romney saw "a few things that were disconcerting." The Brits are keen to mock, and the mockery is magnified here in the U.S., because American media is inclined to boost Obama whenever the opportunity arises.)

Let's look at the paragraph Foreign Policy highlighted:
England [sic/[FP's sic]] is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn't make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. And if it hadn't been separated from the continent by water, it almost certainly would have been lost to Hitler's ambitions. Yet only two lifetimes ago, Britain ruled the largest and wealthiest empire in the history of humankind. Britain controlled a quarter of the earth's land and a quarter of the earth's population.
Oh, there's where they cut it off? Well, obviously he was in the middle of making a point. But you know the rule in journalism: Taking things out of context is okay when you do it to hurt conservatives. But I happen to have my Kindle copy of Romney's book "No Apology: Believe in America," so it's easy for me to give you the context. Here are the next 4 paragraphs:

Late in the eighteenth century, after the loss of their American colonies...
Foreign Policy didn't want to remind us Americans that Britain antagonized us.
... the British set out to compensate for what had been lost, first by defeating Napoleonic France and then by expanding the reach of the crown in colonies from India to the tip of South America and from Africa to the islands of the Western Pacific. 
And all that imperialism by the British doesn't make them look too appealing.
Britain’s might was military, having built the most powerful navy the world had ever seen. But what enabled their military superiority was their industrial might. The British had pioneered the Industrial Revolution, and they enthusiastically promoted free trade, understanding the huge export potential for their products. By 1860, the nation’s economy was the biggest in the world. 
Here's the great compliment to the British, but you know there's a big but...
But maintaining leadership proved more difficult than achieving it. Whereas other nations extended the manufacturing revolution by embracing new technology and innovation, the British reversed course and tried to contain it. The country’s culture of class immobility stymied the entrepreneurialism and initiative that propel a competitive economy. 
Here's the serious critique.
From owner to laborer, the British were eager to protect the status quo. Industrialists secured subsidies for themselves and tariffs on foreigners rather than face foreign competition and technology head-on. When subsidies proved insufficient for the most unproductive businesses, the government took them over. The nation spent national resources to keep sick companies alive rather than inventing new ones and investing in those that were strong.

Britain’s economic missteps were compounded when it was forced to fight and endure the cost of two world wars. By the end of World War II, its national debt had tripled. Massive loans were required to shore up the ailing economy; they came from its former colony.
Now Foreign Policy — a respected journal? — ends its out of context squib with snark: "Its roads and houses are small? The trees probably aren't the right height either." I'm giving you the whole context that Foreign Policy didn't want to deal with. It's about the British decline into socialism. What do you say we take that seriously?

Socialism/capitalism — that's how campaign 2012 has been framed. Let's stare that issue in the face. Sorry if the Brits' feelings are hurt, but this is about us.

222 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 222 of 222
Q said...

My sister lives in England. In England, the Olympics are widesly seen as a cock-up. She tells me various stories to illustrate this point. I'm not sure why it is a "gaffe" for Romney to say what everyone in England already knows and says among themselves.

I guess it's the Washington definition of a gaffe - telling the truth.

Q said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Q said...

"socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members."



That's the definition from Encyclopedia Britannica.


You think that describes Obama or his policies



To a T.

Mr "You didn't build that, the government and the people did" is a stereotypical socialist.

Rusty said...

Christopher in MA said...
Rusty - you mean like my old friend, Arthur "No Sheds" Jackson?





I have no idea who "no sheds" is, but it's kind of an inside joke on 'Top Gear'. " It was done by a man in a shed."
The joke being that-and I know some of these guys-a lot of tinkerers have their shop in their garden shed. Apparently it's ubiquitous in England. Hence- guy in a shed.

Anonymous said...

Arthur "No Sheds" Jackson?

...which is a reference to the immortal Monty Python skit, "Arthur 'Two Sheds' Jackson."

SH said...

Andy R. said...

""socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources."

Spare us please... People who are happy to call themselves socialists when out with friends (I lived in san fran for over a decade.. been there... seen that) always trot out the public ownership bs when others call them on it. It is not even an actual requirement. Marxism, yes. Socialism, no.

Jose_K said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lORySBilNy0&feature=youtu.be

HT said...

Thank you Ripic.

Feeling especially patriotic for England (no sic) these days, missing my English mama, very much.

I guess I'd rather see everything laid out on TV or something, can't be bothered by Romney's views on English culture, not to read them anyway. Sure, give me the whole thing - I'll watch 5-7 minutes of it, but I won't read more than two sentences, and it won't have any effect on me what anyone anywhere says about it. Who cares, seriously, who cares.

There was a pretty top notch PBS program on Queen Victoria recently that talked about the London expo, inventions, and expansion into India and how the British men there loved having sex with Indian women, but then the wives back home heard about it (or something) and they hopped to it and got themselves over there, and that changed a lot (apparently). Very very good program. Talked a lot about Queen Victoria's husband, the prince.

furious_a said...

Romney was out to make a point about how you can have the world by the tail and still lose it all ...

In fairness to the Brits, they did exhaust themselves, liquidating the Empire in the process,in their existential struggle against Nazi Germany. First bled white by the first World War, then having their colonies and home cities torched by the Second, there simply wasn't the capital or will left for colonial administration.

That and the loss of face in Asia when the natives saw their colonial overlords overwhelmed and marched into captivity by the Japanese. Tough to keep the wogs in line after THAT, eh what?

Sigivald said...

I saw "England is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn't make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. And if it hadn't been separated from the continent by water, it almost certainly would have been lost to Hitler's ambitions." going around as a Stupid Facebook Picture Meme.

The problem with using that as an attack on Romney is twofold:

First, every damned word of it is true (with a little wiggle room on the roads/houses thing); Britain is small. It doesn't have superhighways and big houses. It isn't an export powerhouse. And while it was undoubtedly valiant in fighting the Nazis, it would have been overwhelmed by sheer numbers if not for the Channel.

Second, none of it is obvious mean-spirited or insulting; without the picture providing context (which of course it did not), one could easily imagine it going next (as our hostess proves it doesn't - but her provided context also doesn't hurt Romney) into a paean to the strength of the British spirit in Fighting Hitlerism despite the disadvantages of being a small island, and how Britain punches above its weight in the world while not being a manufacturing power, etc.

Romney didn't do that - but he also didn't do anything Really Stupid either.

The people who tried to spin it as a negative without any context were trying way too hard.

gk1 said...

I thought the same thing reading the "gaffes" Romney supposedly did in England. The press is trying waaaay too hard to ding Romney because their precious, jug eared jesus is already bleeding from the nose 3 minutes into round 1. And unlike 99% of the politicians opining on the Olympics, he's actually had experience running one, so I am inclinded to give him the benefit of the doubt.

BobSF_94117 said...

It isn't an export powerhouse.

You don't know what you're talking about. Besides being the world's financial capital, leader in international architectural design, leader in international construction companies, the UK is second only to France in fashion and to Germany in industrial design. It has the largest oil industry in the world, LARGER THAN THE U.S. OIL INDUSTRY. It has thriving pharma and aerospace industries.

It's the freakin' 8th largest economy in the world.

If you can't crack a book (other than one full of nonsense from Romney, at least crack a wiki!

They have a

gk1 said...

Hey BobSF, do they speak "austrian" there? That's what a gaffe looks like

BobSF_94117 said...

gk1,

I prefer politicians who make occasional gaffes to just plain old ignorant ones.

gk1 said...

Of course you do bob, of course you do.

Known Unknown said...

The current #1 export of Great Britain is awkward pauses.

True story.

Known Unknown said...

They have a

The suspense is killing me.

OBloodyHell said...

>>> Ann, do you think Obama is a socialist? Do you think he wants to turn America into a socialist country?

Does a bear defecate in the forest?

I mean, does this question REALLY even need to be asked?

His mother was a lifelong communist, his maternal grandparents were lifelong communists, his mentors were all communists and socialists.

Granted, that's not proof, but it's hardly like there's ANYTHING he's said or done in his 50+ years of life to suggest his own development ran counter to those influences. I do mean ANYTHING.

It's much more the opposite question: Do you have a valid reason to believe he's NOT a socialist?

OBloodyHell said...

>>> I don't think he has a hidden agenda. I think he's a good person who means well and is fairly vague/pragmatic, but right now, we're being presented with a choice, and if this is the choice, Americans should and will pick capitalism.

I disagree with you on this one, Ms. Althouse -- I think he's a firm believer in the whole Cloward-Piven thing, for much the same reasons mentioned above, his upraising. And C-P assumes dis ingenuousness as a matter of course. It's one of the reasons they find such common ground with Islam, with their policy of lying to push their religion.

Postmodern Leftism has at its heart the intention of destroying the entire cultural heritage of the West, with its origins in Greek thought and ideology. If you examine closely all of its trappings, you see that they endlessly target all the ideas and underpinnings upon which our modern culture is based, from the ideas of Absolute Truth to reason and rhetorical processes. It intends to do no less than raze Western Civ the ground and to hell with the consequences.

Trust it, or proponents of it, at your dire peril.

GrapeApe said...

Miss Ann-
I must strongly disagree with your assessment that Obama is a good person. He has no sympathy for anyone other than people like him and I am disappointed that you do not see this.
He has not one clue about how business functions. His view is how to slice up a static pie instead of how to make the pie grow. I think you understand this. He is an ignorant man who should never have been entrusted with our highest office.

Kirk Parker said...

Fen,

Manchester's bio of Churchill is indeed great, but Guns, Germs, and Steel? Bah humbug! Just So Stories are cute when written by Kipling in the form of children's stories; not nearly so much when posing as serious works.

AlphaLiberal said...

This web site came up in a search result so I thought I'd check back in. And, wow, Ann. Just wow.

Althouse:
"I don't think he has a hidden agenda. I think he's a good person who means well and is fairly vague/pragmatic, but right now, we're being presented with a choice, and if this is the choice, Americans should and will pick capitalism."

OK. Here's the thing. You don't know what socialism is, Ann. You think a little bit of regulation here and there, slightly higher taxes on the rich amount to socialism? It's not. It's capitalism, with regulation. Markets, corporations, trade, all that still exist.

See, Ann, you are confusing laissez faire capitalism for.. capitalism. And lightly regulated capitalism for socialism.

I'm not real surprised to hear the thicker element of the right wing saying this, but you are a teacher. A professor. And you're teaching outright ignorance and lies.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 222 of 222   Newer› Newest»