There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the American
electoral system leaves much to be desired. But like everything else, when
something has been so resilient as to have lasted more than two centuries, it
must be recognized as having something ingenious about it. And what is
ingenious about the American system is the entire political system of which the
electoral portion is but a manifestation of one of its features.
The American system is designed to give the people a means
by which to govern themselves, something they do by electing representatives
that do the actual governing ... but only with their consent. For this to
happen, they mount electoral campaigns during which time the candidates go on
tours and meet with groups of electors to discuss their views regarding the
issues of the day, and the way that they intend to govern if elected. The
effect of all this is that the electors begin to favor one candidate over the
other, thus make a financial contribution to help him or help her get elected.
The interaction between electors and candidates forms a bond
between the two, which serves the nation well especially during times of crises
when trust between them becomes essential for making the hard decisions that
are expected to affect the nation for a long time to come. This is why the way
that the interaction unfolds speaks volume about itself, thus becomes the most
eloquent expression of its own nature. This means, you can tell how a candidate
will handle himself or herself in office by the way they behave during the
electoral campaign.
This brings us to Mitt Romney who ran to be President of the
United States
for the electoral year 2012 and lost to the incumbent Barack Obama who was
re-elected. What Romney did during the campaign was without precedent, and will
most likely never happen again unless America goes mad, and the electorate
begins to view itself not as a nation to be reckoned with but a funny little
joke that pulls a fast one on itself every four years with a rehearsal
in-between at every mid-term. What Romney did was to go to Israel , a foreign country, where he campaigned
for the presidency of America
by praising his foreign hosts while insulting their chosen enemy of the day. It
was a loathsome performance for which he was given a million dollar
contribution.
What was he trying to do? Forge a bond with the rapists of
motherland Palestine ?
Establish a relationship of trust with the butchers of Gaza ? Participate in making decisions on how
to steal more water from the defenseless people of Palestine ? Congratulate the killers of
Palestinian children whose internal organs they harvest and sell to the highest
bidder?
And now, instead of feeling shame and go hide somewhere,
that same loser, Mitt Romney, returns to the public scene at the start of the
2014 mid-term campaign to do no less than attack Barack Obama, the man that
succeeded where he failed. Why did he return? Perhaps not to run for something
himself but to lend a hand to someone of his ilk. And this is something he does
by writing articles, among other things. The latest he wrote came – not
surprisingly – under the title: “The Price of Failed Leadership” and the
subtitle: “The President's failure to act when action was possible has
diminished respect for the U.S.
and made troubles worse.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on March
18, 2014.
Romney begins the article by asking the question: “Why are
there no good choices?” He means to say no choices for America whose
hands, he claims, are tied. He lists the real and imagined hot spots of the
world the way that he sees them, such as Crimea, North Korea, Syria, Egypt,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia ... and he blames all that went wrong with them on
“our leader's terrible timing.” By that he means that Obama should have
foreseen the events that happened in those places before they happened, and
should have taken a stand at the most “propitious points” to influence outcomes
that would have been different from what did, in fact, happen.
He gives examples as to what would have happened if Obama
had done one thing instead of another, but this is the sort of bad jokes that
people do not even laugh at because they propose situations and outcomes that
cannot be verified. Talk is cheap, like they say, and idle speculation is even
cheaper. What we can do, instead, is look over the history of America 's interventions since the Second World
War, and see if there is a chance the same history might have repeated itself
had America
taken the trouble to intervene as suggested by Romney.
Well, there was a war in Korea
long ago; that same Korea
which Romney whines about now. How did that one turn out, Mitt? There was an
intervention in Cuba 's Bay of Pigs about which we must ask: How did that one
turn out, Mitt? There was the overthrow of an elected government in Iran which
influenced a chain of events that Romney whines about till now. How did that
one turn out, Mitt? There was a war in Vietnam that Romney dares not
mention but we must ask: How did that one turn out, Mitt? There was an
intervention in Lebanon
by some 240 marines; how did that one turn out, Mitt? There was an intervention
in Somalia ,
complete with Black Hawk helicopters and dead American bodies dragged in the
streets – about which we must ask: How did that one turn out, Mitt? There was a
war in Iraq
that begs the question: How did that one turn out, Mitt? There was a war in Afghanistan
asking: How did it turn out for me, Mitt? And there was an intervention in Libya with a Benghazi to boot, asking: And what about me?
Did I turn out as well as I should, Mitt?