Romney and Hezbollah and healthcare … oh my

The hyper-conservative World Net Daily has caused a bit of a stir on the right today with this report.

Republican presidential candidate Gov. Mitt Romney has cited the social welfare network of the Lebanese Hezbollah terror group as a role model the U.S. should copy to help promote “goodness” and “freedom” around the world.

Sections of Hezbollah’s social welfare network, including schools and camps, are routinely used by the terror group to indoctrinate students in anti-Israel propaganda, instruct in military tactics and promote Shiite Islamic beliefs, including the waging of a final, apocalyptic world battle against “evil.”

The former Massachusetts governor this weekend was asked during a campaign stop in Iowa whether he would renew President Bush’s $50 million campaign to combat AIDS in Africa.

Romney said he would and then proceeded to explain the U.S. should aspire to implement the kind of social action network carried out in recent years by Hezbollah.

This isn’t going over well among some conservatives. National Review’s Lisa Schiffren said it is “really horrifying to think that a man of Mr. Romney’s intelligence would make the a [sic] serious diplomatic mistake of citing a radical terrorist group as a model for U.S. policy. This is where being a techno-guy, without any real foreign policy experience, (or ear) begins to matter.” Schiffren called on Romney to retract his comments “clearly and loudly.”

There’s two parts to this. One, did Romney say what WND reported? And two, is Romney right? The answer is yes, to both.

WND didn’t misquote Romney. C&L has the entire clip, which is worth watching, showing the question and the answer in its entirety. Asked specifically about “global health diplomacy,” Romney, with some enthusiasm, told an Iowa crowd last weekend:

“Did you notice in Lebanon, what Hezbollah did? Lebanon became a democracy some time ago and while their government was getting underway, Hezbollah went into southern Lebanon and provided health clinics to some of the people there, and schools. And they built their support there by having done so.

“That kind of diplomacy is something that would help America become stronger around the world and help people understand that our interest is an interest towards modernity and goodness and freedom for all people in the world. And so, I want to see America carry out that kind of health diplomacy.”

It was, oddly enough, a pretty good answer. Hezbollah curried favor in Lebanon by offering key services. Lo and behold, it worked. Romney’s point was that the U.S. could help win “hearts and minds” through supporting services like this in the region.

Now, if a Democrat had said this, it wouldn’t have gone unnoticed for a whole week. The headlines would be everywhere: “Dem calls on U.S. to follow Hezbollah’s example.” It’d be a political nightmare, substance be damned. But Romney said it, and it’s just now becoming an issue.

It’s tempting to go for the cheap shot here, and do to Romney what conservatives have done to Obama this week, but the truth is Romney’s answer was entirely sensible. As Yglesias explained:

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.

WND and National Review obviously don’t see it this way. Given the right’s general approach to these issues, I suspect we’ll see plenty of “Romney (Hearts) Hezbollah” pieces popping up in 3… 2… 1….

US thinks the only way to win hearts and minds is by providing enough weapons to opposing groups to fight our common enemy. Hell, we don’t even supply free clinics and health services to our own people.

  • It’s important to remember that it was Mitt Romney who said this entirely reasonable thing. Mitt Romney, who said many reasonable things in his quest to become the governor of MA, but who actually who had no interest in governing.

    If he actually stood for anything, I might take it seriously, but he doesn’t, and I don’t. If it doesn’t work for him, watch him turn on a dime and say the exact opposite with a straight face.

  • I wonder what is worse politically, taking an idea from Hezbollah, or taking it from a Democratic icon.

    Because the idea that practical, hands-on efforts to improve ordinary lives through education, healthcare and development is neither new nor invented by the ‘terrists’. In fact, a certain former President of some renown in Massachusetts created a successful US government program for just that purpose. Nearly 50 YEARS AGO!!

    Perhaps next time Mitt talks about this subject, perhaps he could suggest that this is an American idea, not one he got from evildoing terrist Arabs. Unless taking it from JFK would be seen as worse. With his base, I can’t tell.

    (For me, one of the hardest things about this political era is fighting over sensible things that I thought were established 40 or 50 years ago. Friggin’ GOP reactionary dinosaurs.)

  • This simple, juvenile mindset – that people/groups/ideas/things are 100% good or evil, no in-between, no “bad but nonetheless with some good ideas” – has been the root of much of the needless damage done by BushCo.

    Dumbya’s Iraq team did not evaluate what went well or poorly in the military/nation building intervention in the Baltics, even though many useful examples existed there. Why? Because they couldn’t even look at something associated with *shudder* Bill Clinton.

    It is simply a fact that Hezbollah has had some success winning hearts and minds, or at least appearing to (maybe its all just fear). If we want to win hearts and minds in the Middle East, it would be foolish not to look and see how the other side did it. Damning all ideas because we don’t like their source is just pathetically small-minded. Which is a fairly apt descriptor of this administration.

  • I suppose the National Review would prescribe Capital Gains tax cuts instead of health diplomacy.

  • I’ve got an old book of essays on Vietnam published in 1965, and it said this is the exact kind of thing guerrilla often groups do: They show that they can provide the basic services that the “legitimate” government cannot or will not do. And by doing so, they become the legitmate government. For as much as we pretended that the North Vietnamese used terror and violence to make villages side with them, it was false (though such tactics were also used). The truth was that they out-performed the government. That’s how this kind of thing works and why we could never win that war.

    Conservatives were denying this truth forty years ago and they still deny it. They want to think that violence is the only solution, and they’ll attack anyone who claims otherwise. But the truth is that people just want good government, no matter who provides it to them.

  • One question I’d have for Romney: Would his presidential platform include universal free health care for all U.S. residents as he wants to finance in other lands?

    Would the other Republican presidential aspirants include universal single-payer “improved Medicare for all” health care for all American residents as proposed in the current, pending legislation, H.R. 676–The U .S. National Health Insurance Act, introduced by Democratic Congressman John Conyers, Jr., (D-Michigan), at the beginning of this year, as part of their presidential platforms? If not, I wouldn’t consider that they have their potential constituents’ real needs in mind!!

  • Comments are closed.