Mitt Romney Is Making Sense

Lisa Schiffren is mad as hell:

Did Mitt Romney really say that the U.S. should emulate Hezbollah in using medical clinics and other health care goodies as part of a diplomatic outreach in the Third World, as World Net Daily is reporting? Did he really cite Hezbollah's welfare programs in South Lebanon as a model for U.S. aid to poor nations — what we should do to promote "freedom"? Tell me he did not.

Romney's precisely correct. Obviously, the United States government shouldn't become "like Hezbollah" but it's obvious that one way Hezbollah and Hamas have gained a lot of support is by providing helpful services to people in need. If the U.S. wants to do effective political outreach -- or wants to help democratic forces strengthen their own positions in Muslim-majority countries -- that's going to require people to roll up their sleeves and do some of that kind of work themselves. I know Francis Fukuyama says some smart things about this in his book, but I can't find anything by him on this online.

Comments

Who knew that Schiffren's real objection to Hezbollah was that they help poor people?

Posted by KCinDC | August 3, 2007 11:05 AM

Amazing that Lisa "George Bush is a hottie!" Schiffren doesn't have the deepest of insights into foreign policy.

Posted by Steve | August 3, 2007 11:10 AM

This answers the question of why Republican politicians are always saying such crazy shit. If they say one sane thing, their base explodes in rage.

Posted by JP | August 3, 2007 11:14 AM

Oh nos! Teh Islamofascists have infiltrated the Republican Party! What a terrible slip-up. Now if he wants to regain Schiffren's trust, he's going to have to quadruple Guantanamo.

Posted by jhupp | August 3, 2007 11:15 AM

Muslims will all come around to our side if we invade their countries, but not if we provide health care.

Duh.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | August 3, 2007 11:20 AM

Does Romney really want to make the trains run on time? He's just like Mussolini!

Posted by KCinDC | August 3, 2007 11:20 AM

Schiffren is correct. To win hearts and minds it's much more effective to blow up peoples brothers, fathers, and children. We should stay the course.

Posted by Curt M | August 3, 2007 11:21 AM

How daft. Clearly there's a difference between "emulating Hezbollah in using medical clinics and other health care goodies as part of a diplomatic outreach in the Third World" and emulating Hezbollah in being anti-Israeli a-holes.

Is the level of thinking so shallow that because Hezbollah is Teh Evil, they can't do anything smart? Better start dumbing yourself down to the Base's level if you want that nomination Mitt.

Posted by TheF79 | August 3, 2007 11:28 AM

Although the idea in principle is correct, it faces significant practical problems. While money shouldn't be an object, my concern is that organizations like Hizbollah possesses knowledge the intangible realities of the ground as well as people who are credible enough to do this sort of job.

It's not impossible for the US to try the same thing ,but it won't be as easy.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | August 3, 2007 11:31 AM

I don't know if Hezbollah or Hamas do so, but we could get much more serious about contraception and population control, even if that does mean working with folks who also provide abortion serices or sterilize or have something to say beside "just say no."

Posted by jerry | August 3, 2007 11:36 AM

I assume Schiffren's intention, though it was pretty inartfully put, was to object to Governor Romney's lauding Hiz'b'allah. Try the Obama/Pakistan line as an analogy: There are plenty of people who think you don't say things like "We'd hit high-level terrorist targets in Pakistan with or without consent," even though we should, in fact, hit high-level terrorist targets in Pakistan with or without consent. Similarly, there are probably plenty of people who think you don't say "We should act like Hiz'b'allah, they have great medical clinics" even if we should emulate their approach of providing medical care in the Middle East because it's not the important thing about Hiz'b'allah, lauding them sends the wrong message, etc.

That said, Romney probably said this in a context which really should have answered those criticisms.

Posted by You can Call Me Al | August 3, 2007 11:52 AM

It's simple logic, Matt.

1) Hezbollah provides health care and aid to the poor.

2) Hezbollah is bad.

Therefore: providing health care and aid to the poor is bad.

The Corner has a special training class that teaches you how to reason this way.

Posted by A.L. | August 3, 2007 11:53 AM

The crazy right operates under a strange metaphysic, wherein the mere mention of a word infects the speaker. IIRC, this is similar to Foucault's formulation of the episteme of the middle ages.

Posted by jpe | August 3, 2007 11:55 AM

The danger lies in thinking that because Romney is willing to say this sort of sensible thing once in a while, maybe he wouldn't be so bad. It's the same mistake people made with Bush in 2000. Even if it happens that the guy's heart is in the right place, he's guaranteed to surround himself with party-liners who will snuff out any sort of deviation from the orthodoxy.

Posted by Steve | August 3, 2007 11:59 AM

Does Romney support our troops in Afghanistan? He's just like Soviet Russia!

Posted by Max | August 3, 2007 12:18 PM

The notion that if you do good things for people they'll come to trust you shouldn't be such a stretch, even for flippin' right-wingers.

Even the "bad guys" get this, why is it such a hard concept to grasp for those who claim to be the "good guys?"

Posted by cpl | August 3, 2007 12:36 PM

"...my concern is that organizations like Hizbollah possesses knowledge the intangible realities of the ground as well as people who are credible enough to do this sort of job." ...NK

Nick Kaufman is correct, and the obvious solution is for the US Gov't to financially support those organizations close to the "realities of the ground": Hezbollah, Hamas, AQI, al-Qaeda.

Posted by bob mcmanus | August 3, 2007 12:36 PM

Just to add to what Nick Kaufman said, there are many reasons why this is remarkably difficult to do. Nick mentioned local knowledge. Here are some more:

1. We are foreign. If the local organizations feel we are competing, they can claim foreign domination.

2. It is easier when the services are provided in furtherance of a specific agenda (political power in the case of H3ezbollah, conversion in the case of missionaries, etc.) We would not have such a simple agenda, so the program is in danger of being hijacked by people with an agenda -- anti birth control, population control (see Jerry above) etc.

3. It is easier when you are a vicious terrorist organization which thinks nothing of killing people. (That makes it harder for your employees to goof off or embezzle.)

Look at the trouble we have had in Iraq providing basic services. Now the keystone cops have been running things in Iraq, but what is so hard about establishing medical clinics? Obvious some have been set up but I think it is fair to say Hezbollah has done a better job providing medical care in Lebanon than we have in Iraq.

Posted by David Margolies | August 3, 2007 12:45 PM

I do find it questionable whether we ought to be engaging in such things as propaganda. Granted, it is extremely effective propaganda. My sister witnessed Cuban doctors coming to a Central American village and giving routine checkups, and people there were positively in awe of Cuba. But I mean, don't we already support stuff like Doctors Without Borders, just in a more selfless way? We don't brand it with our name and put it under control of the State Department or anything like that. We (try to) send it where it's most needed, not where it's most politically advantageous. Also of course it's a little weird to send tons of medical care elsewhere when so many people don't get it in our own country, but that's a different issue.

Posted by Mike | August 3, 2007 12:45 PM

Romney would have (correctly) referenced Brigham Young as the source for this kind of policy, but he figured Hezbollah was better known nowadays.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | August 3, 2007 12:45 PM

In other words, Romney is saying that the US should adopt the foreign policy of the LDS Church, but he can't say that because then the Republican base would really worry.

Posted by Steve H. | August 3, 2007 12:48 PM

Ha ha ha ha ha. You guys crack me up.

1) A little clue. If your own physicans aid groups told you in 1995 that 600,000 Iraqi children have DIED from waterborne disease because you bombed their water treatment plants and then blocked the import of water purification chemicals,

then it's kinda ridiculous to ask those doctors to exert "effective political outreach" to the PARENTS of those children. Especially when your Secretary of State says on national TV that the death of those children was "worth it."
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

2) If your OWN DOCTORS tell you in 2004 that close to 500,000 Iraqi infants are on the verge of DIEING from malnutrition -- 20 MONTHS after you occupy the country -- then it's kinda ridiculous to ask those Doctors to hug the Parents and sing Kumbaya.

3) I mean, what kind of sick fucks are you?

Posted by Don Williams | August 3, 2007 1:14 PM

Don Williams: Holier than Thou since 2005.

Srsly, Don-boy, I'm all for hating on America, the shittiest Empire since Portugal, but hating on MY commenters (myself included) is like walking into a Special Ed class and complaining about standardized test scores. It's just not fair. You're on another level dude, up in the rarefied air of Al and HeiGou and Petey, where you can make the most insane position seem reasonable by simply changing the whole frame of reference.

That said, nothing with our brand on it should be welcomed again by anyone ever, especially if handed to them by a shit-eating grinner like "President" Romney.

Posted by Gregorio | August 3, 2007 2:11 PM

The U.S. military has been doing the sort of thing Romney suggests for years, much of the time outside war zones where it gets no press. When I was in the Army Reserve, every month Soldiers Magazine would have an article about a reserve medical unit running an immunization clinic for kids, or an engineering unit building a school or something in Latin America.

More recently, Gen. Abizaid, when he was Centcom commander, tried to step this sort of thing up in the Middle East, having troops dig wells in Yemen, etc. He was a big advocate of this. I haven't seen an assessment of the effectiveness of his initiatives though.

Some members of the U.S. military have also worked through American NGOs to do this sort of thing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Horn of Africa, for example, by equiping a medical clinic for Iraqis in Baghdad.

Posted by Fred | August 3, 2007 3:35 PM

Matt, while you are right that it is important that the U.S. promote services to disgruntled postcolonials in order to lessen the resentment that feeds anti-Americanism and worse, the point that Romney was making about Hezbollah was specifically, I suspect, about a NON-STATE actor taking on this role. The GOP, and Romney above all, believes in replacing the welfare state with faith-based services, a la Hezbollah. And this is precisely wrong and at odds with what Frank Fukuyama suggests. Hezbollah, let's be clear, does not "provide social services to Lebanese citizens"; rather, it provides social services to members of its Shi'ite flock. If you want social services, you have to subscribe to their religious balderdash, or at any rate put up with being lectured -- much, one might observe pointedly with respect to Mitt, as one must put up with listening to Mormon hogwash if one wants to get "social services" from the LDS.

In other words, this comment all relates back to the domestic agenda of the Christian Right, which is to roll back the welfare state so as to force the poor into the arms of churches to get their support and services. Mitt's just extending the logic globally.

As always, remember that the slogan that defines the Bush-era GOP is "Think local, act global." It's the obverse of cosmopolitanism.

Posted by Nils Gilman | August 3, 2007 5:26 PM