US presidential candidate Mitt Romney ended a three-country world tour of Britain, Israel and Poland without appearing to have learned much from his overseas trip. Even in his attempts to water-down the impact of some of his gaffs, following an influx of negative press, he seems to have stuck to the flawed logic behind them, especially when it comes to economics.
It all started with what he thought was a simple remark regarding Britain’s hosting of the 2012 Olympic Games, when he said of the event- almost on the eve of its opening ceremony – that “there are a few things that were disconcerting.” The event has been 15 years in the planning with an expected cost of £9 billion (almost $14 billion). The timing couldn’t have been more distasteful, prompting one commentator to note that the Republican challenger “is perhaps the only politician who could start a trip that was supposed to be a charm offensive by being utterly devoid of charm and mildly offensive.”
But the irony goes beyond the lack of decorum in diplomacy, where such unconstructive criticism touched a nerve in the host country. Part of the content of the criticism – namely “the stories about the private security firm not having enough people …is not something which is encouraging” – is on its own a statement that should be held against the policies of the US presidential hopeful. Just weeks before the start of the Olympics, the private security company which had won the contract to provide guards for the event found itself unable to deliver on its obligations, prompting the British government to call on 3,500 troops and take other measures to fill the gap. One could say that at the end of the day it was the public sector (you know, ‘big government’?) that saved the day.
But does the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party recognise that? Not very likely. In fact, had he paid much attention to the Olympics opening ceremony, he would have noticed the pride that the British public – righty – have in their National Health Service, which featured prominently at the spectacular show in London. Instead he chose to heap praise on the Israeli health care system for receiving less government funding than that of the US (Israel spends 8% of its GDP in contrast to America’s 18%). Yet American health care is already in an unacceptable state, where thousands die annually for not being able to afford health insurance, how many more could suffer if Washington were to splash its spending by 10%?
I don’t think the Republican nominee particularly cares, given his apparent blame for victims for their own misfortune, as can be understood for his comments regarding Israel’s financial superiority over Palestinians: it’s all a matter of “culture” and the “hand of providence”. Not only the cause-effect relationship (which includes words like ‘occupation’, ‘restrictions’ ‘displacement’, ‘refugees’, etc.) was absent, but also a very important financial aspect was left out of the equation altogether. Namely that Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of US foreign assistance since World War II, where billions continue to be spent despite America’s current troubled fiscal situation.
In fact, just before Romney arrived in Israel, President Barack Obama had signed a law enhancing US-Israel security cooperation, which will add $70 million to the Iron Dome project. Under a Republican government which promises to be more “hawkish” towards Iran and even Russia, one can expect more military spending by the US. So if you fancy going back to the Cold War or perhaps starting a third World War or any other fanatic fantasy then Romney might just be your man. But if you believe that voting for him would help the American economy, think again.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.