Guardian Unlimited, U.K.

[Click Here for More Cartoons]

Mitt Romney and Spain: Is Ours a Failing Brand? (El Pais, Spain)

"Romney could have used other examples, but he didn't; he gave the example of Spain, and everyone seemed to understand the subliminal message behind his comment. ... That Spain should be put forward as the implicit example of what a world power should not be, and that everyone understands what this elliptical reference means, should make us think ... a lot."

By Antonio Estella*

Translated By Miguel Gutierrez

October 5, 2012

Spain - El Pais - Original Article (Spanish)

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney waves to the crowd after the first U.S. presidential debate in Denver, Oct. 4. BBC NEWS VIDEO: U.S. presidential candidates put China in the spotlight, Oct. 4, 00:02:38

The only reference to a foreign country I heard in yesterday's debate between Obama and Romney - and almost the only international reference - was to Spain. For Romney, Spain is the counter-example, something that Americans should endeavor not to emulate: a country that "spends 42 percent of their total economy on government," as the United States is, according to the governor. We don't know exactly what Romney was referring to, but we can assume that what he had in mind was our country's public expenditures as a percentage of GDP, which is roughly that figure.

Why cite Spain? Clearly, the reasons are much more profound than mere statistics, if one takes into account that there are countries in which public spending is higher, like Sweden (53.1 percent of GDP), Norway (46 percent of GDP), and even the Britain (51 percent of GDP).

Posted by Worldmeets.US

So Romney could have said: "Obama is leading us into a situation like Sweden's, which spends even more than we do on government," or "Obama is leading us into a situation like the U.K.'s, which spends ..." If he had done so, would his audience have found the reference off target? U.S. debates are won and lost on such details, and I can imagine the headlines the next day: Romney Doesn't Know Where Sweden is or Romney, in Blunder, Offers Sweden as Example of How Not to Be, or, to be even more cynical, Romney Confuses Sweden with Spain.

Obviously, Romney could have used other examples, but he didn't; he gave the example of Spain, and everyone seemed to understand the subliminal message behind his comment, i.e.: not what he was saying literally, but what he was referring to without saying so directly. I watched the debate along with a number of my colleagues from Princeton University, and when he made reference to Spain, some of them signaled a message of solidarity with me: "sorry." And basically, Romney wasn't only saying that he doesn't want to spend as much "on government" as, for example, Spain. And he said nothing insulting, outrageous, or anything of the kind. If Romney had added a qualifier, such as "decadent," people might have understood. But what Romney did was quote a fact. So why the expression of solidarity from my colleagues?