The pseudonym "Philo Vaihinger" has been abandoned. All posts have been and are written by me, Joseph Auclair.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

The tired, old Anglo-Saxonism of the “real American" conservatives


Lots of bickering about these reports.

Coinciding with Mitt Romney's arrival in London for a six day foreign trip, The Telegraph reported two Romney advisers, later characterized as members of "the foreign policy advisory team," said President Obama could not fully understand the "Anglo-Saxon heritage" between the U.S. and Britain.

"We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he [Romney] feels that the special relationship is special," a second Romney adviser told the newspaper. "The White House didn't fully appreciate the shared history we have."

Had Alan Dershowitz been in the White House this piece of snooty conservative Anglo-Saxonism, directly descended from old-time Nativism and altogether routine for American conservatives like Gingrich, Buchanan, and endless others many of whom are not even WASPS, would have been equally offensive and the left would be screaming about anti-Semitism.

Had Mario Lemieux been in the White House they might have been yelling about the common American Francophobia that insists French Fries be called “Freedom Fries” and lies that solidly Germanic English words like “shit” and “cunt” are filthy French that one has to ask pardon for.

Had it been a Kennedy every Irishman in the country – except the Republicans – would be yelling “Don’t even go there you stinking Limey bastard!” and writing checks to the IRA.

As it is, Barack Obama is there and liberal bloggers are yelling about racism.

But it is what it is, the traditional and obtuse Anglo-Saxonism of America that got us into the two greatest of European wars, both of which were none of our affair.

You know.

Like the man said.

"The wogs begin at Calais."

Yes, yes.

I know Romney didn't say it.

But still, this is just way too characteristic of contemporary conservatism not to rejoice in the flap.

Even though the White House seems to be insisting on taking these remarks as some sort of clumsy, out-of-bounds (Why?) effort to point out differences between the two candidates and even the two parties on matters of foreign affairs.

"Differences end at the water's edge?"

Ballocks.

No comments:

Post a Comment