Amazingly, Mitt Romney has decided that the controversial, insulting, and bone-headed remarks he made in Israel, which ignited passionate anger among Palestinians (and others), need to be reasserted, even more aggressively:
WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney on Tuesday night doubled down on his argument that “culture” has played a role in making certain societies more prosperous, comments that ignited a firestorm of controversy while he was in the Middle East.
Romney, upon concluding his foreign trip and arriving back in Boston, had an op-ed published in the National Review Online that was headlined, “Culture Does Matter.” The piece came about 36 hours after he angered Palestinians when he told a group of Jewish donors in Jerusalem that Israelis’ culture had helped them become more economically successful than the Palestinians.
“During my recent trip to Israel, I had suggested that the choices a society makes about its culture play a role in creating prosperity, and that the significant disparity between Israeli and Palestinian living standards was powerfully influenced by it,” Romney wrote in his op-ed. “In some quarters, that comment became the subject of controversy.”
“But what exactly accounts for prosperity if not culture?” he added.
Romney argued that having a culture that promotes freedom is what drives powerful economies.
Somehow, he sees this argument as a strength? So he's running with it? OMFG!
Please turn to Page 2
Obviously, Romney thinks that he can connect his use of the word "culture" with traditional Republican concepts of "freedom" and "opportunity". In this regard, his aides probably saw a link with the "you didn't build that theme" which they've been pushing. He's trying to claim that laissez-faire policies arise from a "culture" that endorses this "freedom".
That alone is an unsustainable argument, if he's trying to compare countries around the world. Some of the most successful and strongest economies in the world today have gotten there without following anything close to a laissez-faire philosophy. Japan? Germany? Sweden? How about the People's Republic of China? How about Kuwait? All of these economies have grown and dominated markets through a combination of capitalism and strong state intervention, well beyond anything even the most liberal Democrats would typically advocate.
But seriously, to ask the question, "what exactly accounts for prosperity if not culture?" reveals a level of ignorance of economics that is absolutely stunning in someone who is running for President supposedly on the basis of his economic acumen.
How about, um, natural resources? How about military hegemony? A legacy of colonialism and exploitation of the resources of others? Climate, environment, proximity to transport routes? Try reading, among other things, Michael Porter's "Comparative Advantage of Nations", and the entire body of research and practice that underlies comparative economic policy. Then come back and try to claim that there's any serious acceptance, among those who know what they're talking about, that "culture" is the primary driver of relative prosperity, anywhere.
Romney has now staked his claim as a completely out-of-touch, non-economist, a believer in fairy dust and fantasy. Not to mention bigotry of the most abhorrent kind. He needs to be exposed on all fronts.
1:56 PM PT: Update: Thanks for the Community Spotlight plug! Here's the top countries in the world in terms of income (GDP) per capita. You know, the ones with all the right "culture":
Qatar, Luxembourg, Singapore, Norway, Brunei, Hong Kong, United States, UAE, Switzerland, Netherlands, Austria, Kuwait, Canada, Sweden