Mitt Romney's oyster

Just as Fareed Zakaria ends his public letter to Mitt Romney, "you can call this new century whatever you like, but it won’t change reality," we should note that though Zakaria's preceding logic does indeed devastate Romney's, that won't change his advertised, neoconservative irreality.

By and large, you have ridiculed [President Obama's] approach to foreign policy, arguing that you would instead expand the military, act unilaterally and talk unapologetically [writes Zakaria]. That might appeal to Republican primary voters, but chest-thumping triumphalism won’t help you secure America’s interests or ideals in a world populated by powerful new players.

This, more likely than not, Romney already knows. I'd bet dollars to dingbats that he no more believes in the hormonal Kristolesque vision of tentacled American power than does Dennis Kucinich. Yet, there's the bloodthirsty base with which Romney must reckon. Let them eat raw meat. What does Mitt care? I mean, it's not like the man has any actual principles worth defending, and certainly none worth losing a Republican primary over.

To wit, as Peter Beinart observed in early January:

At the New Hampshire debate ... Mitt Romney denounc[ed] Barack Obama’s efforts to cut the defense budget (without, of course, suggesting how he’d reduce the deficit without touching defense and homeland security, which together constitute more than half of all discretionary spending).

Yeah? Your point, Peter, being? Romney and his triumphalist base positively revel in this sort of irreality. In fact, the farther removed from elementary logic, the more powerful is Romney's appeal. This gelatinous panderer could promise to double, triple, quadruple defense spending, cut taxes, balance the budget, and increase Medicare benefits for card-carrying tea partiers only -- and scarcely one of the latter would pause to protest that perhaps it doesn't add up.

For you see, Messrs. Zakaria and Beinart, the world is but Mitt Romney's oyster, whose shell is but right wingers' own little insane asylum.

Comments

[ren]

Sadly, I fear that it's more than the tea partiers who may be mathematically challenged. I recall the election of 1984 wherein Reagan ran on essentially the platform you suggest: the Gipper would increase military spending, cut taxes and balance the budget. And I recall a speech by Mondale imploring Americans to face the reality that getting our fiscal house in order would necessitate shared sacrifice. Electoral results: Reagan 525 to Mondale's 13.

[Boo]

I agree with ren. Asking a majority of Americans to grapple with the truth is impossible. Beleiving in irreality doesn't lead to electoral defeat here. Facts, we don't need no stinking facts.