I hate anecdotal evidence. It’s my single greatest annoyance.
This goes for those who cherry-pick comments, magnify innocuous
incidents, quote out of context, or pretend a single statement made
on the campaign trail really amounts to anything more. It drives me
bonkers.
I recognize that electoral politics exists on a squirming coil
of sound-bite substantiation. But this most recent flap over
Romney’s Anglophilia really exhausted my patience. (For the record,
he’s got nothing on my father who was birthed in tweed, and hoisted
me across the pond so often as child that I could navigate the
streets of London better than Philadelphia, the city of my birth.
If you’re reading this, Dad, it was always a pleasure.)
For those of you who missed it, the story
goes something like this (and with a tip of the hat to Charles
M. Blow at the New York Times):
A couple days back, a reporter from the Daily Telegraph
cited an anonymous adviser from Romney’s foreign policy staff who
said the following:
“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and [Mitt Romney] feels
that the special relationship is special. The White House didn’t
fully appreciate the shared history we have.”
Cue shock and indignation, right? The paper suggested the
comments might prompt accusations of racial insensitivity. But
before we leap to conclusions about the political leanings of this
particular broadsheet, remember that the Telegraph is
Britain’s flagship conservative daily.
Well, this is nonsense. Or bollocks, as the case may be. I won’t
waste your time dignifying the ridiculous stretch between an
unnamed adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity, and the
linguistic contortion necessary to stretch this into a vague
cultural smear on the president. But Romney’s visit suggests that
he appreciates this most “special relationship.” Better than Obama?
Well, it’s too soon to say, and it would be irresponsible to sum up
our nations’ trans-Atlantic connection based on a
bust of Churchill. But he’s off to a better start than he’s
getting credit for, at the moment.
Over at the American Conservative, Daniel Larison
asks, “Who cares?” He hints that a “national security and
interest filter” sieves better decisions than a “values continuum”
(with thanks to Aaron David Miller for providing the
copy). Usually, I’d agree. On those terms alone, the
relationship between Great Britain and the United States exceeds
values.
However, ideas matter. Concepts matter. History matters. In the
discipline of International Relations, there is a school of thought
known as constructivism.
Without launching into the nitty-gritty of Habermasian
communicative action theorists and Foucauldian geneaologists,
I’ll sum up the constructivists as follows: scholars in this camp
argue that foreign affairs are bounded historically and socially.
Ideas and language matter. All institutions are social
constructions. As such, a state’s international posture is shaped
by its social, cultural and historical identity.
So we can make jokes about Romney sticking to his guns on the
“No Apology” diplomacy tour, or tease Obama for begging forgiveness
for the Revolutionary War on his next visit to Buckingham Palace.
Better yet, we can recognize and admit what the Romney campaign
has. Namely, Anglophilia matters when it comes to our relationship
with Great Britain. To paraphrase Alexander
Wendt, grand Poo-Bah (an allusion to Gilbert and Sullivan
seemed apt) of modern constructivism — the structure of human
association is formed by shared ideas. Not material forces. In this
case, he’s right.
And Larison’s correct to question “why should it matter who has
the stronger personal or emotional attachment to another country?”
But it’s important to remember that there’s a “construction” to our
relationship that binds our identities and interests. The
relationship between Britain and America transcends that “national
security filter.” And kudos to the Romney camp for having the
stones to admit it.
