Meet Romney

First, the quote: “And in Russia, once-promising advances toward a free and open society have faltered.” Of course, you already knew this, so now let’s meet the interlocutor, United States presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Strictly speaking, as Russians, we are used to that type of rhetoric. Still, when a Mormon–or a “former” Mormon–announces that Russia remains the “number one geopolitical foe” of the United States, many of us are at a loss as to whether he is simply misinformed or if he is using a super-effective election technique.

The candidate’s latest Asian and European adventures indicate to us that what we’re dealing with is not disjunction but, rather, conjunction–not only in the formal logical and mathematical sense, but especially in the American sense. That is to say that Romney is exactly what he seems, and this really is his electoral-political technique.

First, let’s discuss what Romney seems to be. Let’s set aside, for a moment, the possible resentment of his “number one foes,” the Russians who were snubbed in the course of Romney’s visit. Since visits to Russia are always a gamble, Romney and his team chose to visit Palestine–or, more precisely, a place on the map known since May 14, 1948, as the state of Israel.

Romney’s obligatory pre-election pilgrimage was marked by the delivery of two absolutely sensational statements. First, Romney asserted that the capital of the state of Israel is Jerusalem. Again, it’s anyone’s guess whether he was simply a poor geography student or if he was making another political statement.

However, when he so frankly chalked the difference in the gross domestic product per capita between Israelis and Palestinians up to the basic superiority of “Jewish culture,” he also highlighted the true meaning of the phrase “double-edged sword.”

Palestinians clearly regarded Romney’s revelation as racism in its purest form, but by no means were all Israelis complimented by their overseas guest’s words. Hebrew University of Jerusalem political scientist Avraham Diskin expressed his bewilderment. “When I heard the association between Jews and money, it really caused me some uncomfortable feeling, I must say, because that was what was said by anti-Semites all over the years,” he said.

At a later press conference in Warsaw, journalists tried to engage Romney about his words in Israel. However, instead of actually speaking to the candidate, they were rebuked by his press secretary, who told reporters to “kiss my ass!” Rather than translating this particular phrase into Russian, I will leave it to readers to demonstrate their own English language skills. It is possible that I am mistaken about the meaning of this phrase; perhaps my English is not nearly as good as I think it is?

Now that we have explored Romney’s appearance, let us turn to the question of who he actually is. In my opinion, there is no mystery or Machiavellian personality here. In contrast with the Democrats, who are truly gifted in promoting characters with outstanding acting abilities (with the notable exception of Jimmy Carter), American Republicans since the Reagan era have only nominated hard-liners on the presidential ticket.

Though Ronald himself was an accomplished Hollywood actor, he did not mince his words when he called the Motherland the “Evil Empire.” Since then, both Bushes and 2008 election loser McCain presented themselves as reincarnations of that cowboy-turned-politician.

The most fascinating thing about America is that half of its population has had–and will always have–this mindset when it comes to international affairs. This attitude wants to show “those Russians,” “those Iranians” or whoever needs to be put under America’s thumb at the instant.

History is ironic. Half a century ago, Khrushchev beat his shoes on the table at the United Nations and promised to teach the capitalist world a lesson with the words, “we will bury you.” Today, the roles have been reversed. The potential future American president now wants to bury us.

Indeed, as Ecclesiastes once wrote, “Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas.” (Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.)