Romney is bad because he has only one core value, and that is the constant accumulation of capital by the rich; everything else he says is simply a strategy to meet that value. He essentially has no core, as he's demonstrating today. That Romney would flub foreign policy is no surprise - the uber-capitalists understand quite well that even the very notion of "nation" is simply a residual feudal construction that is sometimes useful, but ultimately unnecessary. This is what distinguishes Romney from the Bush crew, who were at their core old school Imperialists. Romney is one step in capitalist development past even that: he literally doesn't give a shit about the nation state as a construction; it's irrelevant to him.
So, yes, we really never have had a candidacy like this before, because we've never had a candidate who is so purely a radical capitalist - without morals, without center, without values - just purely and one-dimensionally about capital accumulation and purely in the service of the capitalist class. In the past, the very act of having to mask such a position was generative. If one hid it behind foreign policy exceptionalism, one tended to actually think and function like an old Imperialist. If one masked it (as Palin did) behind a kind of weird nativism, one tended to think and act in a nativist way. For Romney, any masking of his inner core is so thin that it never actually forms into an ideology; it's why he's all over the place, and why he seems so insincere all the time.
= new reply since forum marked as read
