A Musing?

A Theory of History, Pt. 1: The Role of the State

2010-03-12T01:56:00.000-05:00

The State of the GOP, or, Why The Tea Party Grew in Recent Years

2010-02-13T23:16:00.000-05:00

The bailout of Wall Street demonstrated the centrality of the government to the survival of even the paragons of the market system and accordingly challenged American faith in the correlating ideology. The business wing of the Republican Party could no longer convincingly mount traditional arguments about government non-intervention in (health care) economics and leadership of that party naturally passed to those party members least committed to intellectual integrity.

Global Networks and State Power

2010-02-08T18:51:00.002-05:00

In previous posts, I’ve considered the economic and political decentering of the nation-state, the unraveling of free-market orthodoxy in the face of the economic crisis of 2008, and my opinion that our political disarray of recent years emerged from these two factors.

You might fairly ask how I can talk about the decentering of the nation-state after a massive financial bailout and stimulus package, and in the face of major health care legislation. Not to mention the assertive international policy of the Bush years.

I’ll begin my answer by considering a characteristic that all of these phenomena share: That is, they all involve responses to the increasing ability of networked groups of non-state actors to cause disruption on a global scale.

We well understand how 9/11 depended on the ability of a non-state actor to take advantage of networking opportunities provided by new communications and transportation technologies. The neoconservative response, rightly or wrongly (and I still hold, rightly) constituted a serious response to this new reality: the reorganization of hostile societies, they argued, served as a means of policing wayward elements that the US could not control from a distance. Iraqi social patterns would benefit us if they enhanced the relative authority of the moderate, and hopefully growing, middle class: The neoconservative project ultimately depended on a very socially-oriented view of national defense. (Some, obviously, will disagree with the premise that we can alter foreign societies socially. Nonetheless, one would have difficulty disagreeing with the idea that the social constitution of foreign societies bears increasing relevance in an age of weapons of mass destruction, improved communications and transportation, etc.)

The financial crisis of 2008 bears strikingly similar traits to the “terrorism crisis of 2001” in that the networking of housing-purchase decisions across the country created a heretofore unknown interconnection between national housing values. Here again, enhanced communications technologies played a central role: Namely, they allowed financiers to organize nation-wide housing derivatives into unified products and allowed massive pools of capital, from international sources, to overwhelm traditional patterns of home financing. In finance, as in the case of international terrorism, the state confronts a vast web of transactions that it cannot successfully monitor or police. In the case of TARP, as in that of Iraq, middle class wealth and habits reveal themselves as the ballast of a volatile political economy: Specifically in the US case, the middle-class funded bailout of high-stakes financiers, after a crisis created by those same financiers as well as by uneducated homebuyers, suggests that ultimate financial stability does not derive from New York but from the well-being, and education, of the mass of American society.

The US government acted aggressively in Iraq and with regard to the financial crisis. In each case, however, the logic of the events precipitating these actions indicates that state power faces a lasting, and growing, challenge from the power of networks unattended until the moment of crisis. The nature of such networks should fascinate us even more than the loud words and deeds of a superpower.

Google vs. China, and America vs. Itself

2010-01-24T20:58:00.003-05:00

Google’s confrontation with China over the freedom of access to information may evoke feelings of both moral and commercial satisfaction for residents of the free market West: Google simultaneously stands in for our disdain for Chinese political repression and for that country’s shortsighted understanding of the economic value of free information flows.

Tom Friedman suggests that a Chinese internal struggle, between “Network China” and “Command China” defines this dispute and may indicate something about the future of that country.

However we may frame it, the conflict should evoke for us as much introspection as satisfaction: We, too, currently struggle themselves to come to terms with the concept of “economy as network”: “a world in which the focus of value creation is effective participation in knowledge flows, which are constantly being renewed.”

Those who stand at the margins of this transformation call forth libertarian slogans in order to evoke a feeling of defiant individualism. They do not understand the dynamic of an economic system that demands the nurturing of relationships and the renewal of knowledge and that suggests that individualism does not flourish in a social vacuum. The more pragmatic brand of economic individualism favored by Wall Street lost all credibility in late 2008, of course, when financiers acknowledged their own dependence on the broader American social network.

Misunderstandings about the changing nature of our economy clearly extend beyond the right-wing: Democrats evince characteristic eagerness to conflate moral and economic arguments as they address needed health and energy reform. They thereby demonstrate a lack of seriousness with regard to the limited role the American state can play in correcting an economy newly susceptible to international capital flows and increasing foreign competition: America must enhance its ability to compete internationally if it is to address its social challenges sustainably.

We, just like the Chinese, require a new relationship to government for 21st century success. The old metaphor of government as a command center, whether encouraged by old guard communist leaders or well-meaning American reformers, or whether opposed by libertarians, no longer suffices. Government at its best will act as a node that has the potential either to complement or to hinder the flourishing of both domestic and international relationships. Understanding this reality, rather than adhering to old nostrums, will give us the greater measure of moral and commercial clarity.

Quick Thought

2009-12-22T15:29:00.000-05:00

If it's unjust for women to pay more for health insurance than men, is it OK for men to pay more for life insurance than women do?

Economics, Morality, and Individualism

2009-12-21T15:11:00.001-05:00

Max Weber explored how individualism and economic growth can be mutually supportive in a climate of public morality. That morality, I would argue, can shift with the times but must remain personally comprehensible and economically productive if it is to endure.

Changing economic circumstances, in fact, demand that we reexamine the public morality that, by its very normative nature, we tend not to consider in an active and persistent manner. Such re-examination necessarily bring turmoil, for the reason, just implied, that unexamined mores proliferate best.

Rapid information flows and globalized financial networks are among the factors that most destabilize our public morality today. That nation-state is both less relevant and more vital to our economic life: Its control over a particular economic environment is less absolute, but the necessity for its support of the growing international business of its people is increasingly essential.

It will not be easy to assimilate dynamics that implicitly undermine traditional political orthodoxies and that, accordingly, act as intellectual irritants. Such is the source of the appeal of ideological entrenchment.

Our concerns for individual liberty and social welfare are valid and valuable. The success (or failure) of the task of re-imagining our politics depends on our patience and intellectual courage.

Markets and Saints

2009-11-11T14:09:00.000-05:00

Markets and Saints

November 11, 2009 by Barak Epstein

Free marketeers receive a cool reception nowadays but neither is socialism making much of a comeback, unless you count its mention on signs at Tea Parties. It’s never easy to develop a coherent economic response to a crisis when old ideologies lose relevance. Pragmatism therefore demands that we employ the best tools of our current system to address its greatest ills; a young real estate advisory and consulting nonprofit I know is a case in point.

Real Estate Advisory and Development Services (READS) raises funds through arranging real estate deals for budding charter schools as well as through writing grants, the more traditional work of a nonprofit. The president, Brian Keenan, told me, “Folks ask for reduced rates for our services, which actually are about half the rate of a for-profit. I tell them, ‘Our time is valuable. We can discuss when payment is made but we are unwilling to reduce our fee.’”

Keenan is a former banker and doesn’t fear sounding too commercial for the more delicate sentiments of the world of do-gooders. At the same time, he readily admits that he began his company because his old boss told him that he was “spending too much time helping floundering nonprofits with their real estate problems.”

Keenan’s work is emblematic of a generation of nonprofits not imbued with the anticapitalism of the 1960’s, nor evincing the noblesse oblige of late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century reformers. The triumph of capitalism is implicit.

Firms such as Keenan’s aim to harness a bit of the tremendous accumulated capital in our country in order to catalyze the full economic participation of underutilized and undertrained social sectors.

The need and the opportunity are identical: Investing in socially marginalized children creates obvious value for the country entire but less obviously does so for particular, for-profit corporations. By leveraging the goodwill of socially-concerned citizens and, simultaneously, uncovering new profit streams, entrepreneurial-minded nonprofits demonstrate the latent productivity of large segments of the population and, eventually, attract further interest and investment.

Capitalism is excellent at providing opportunities to well-equipped and motivated entrepreneurs. It is less good at developing the talents, outlook, and networks of those who remained removed from its dynamics.

The wealth of our age gives us the luxury of seeking synergies between these two goals. Those who uncover such synergies have the potential to do good and to prosper.

Why Bush and Obama are Not as Different as You Think

2009-10-15T15:34:00.001-04:00

Bush ignored the supposed inviolability of nation-states with his invasion of Iraq. Obama believes that we should “spread the wealth around” and is attempting to do so through health care reform, agitating to no end those who believe in the sacredness of individual property. How could these two phenomena be connected?

The nation-state system and the ideology of individualism are codependent in many ways. The illusion of the atomized individual sustained itself as long as global politics forced individualistic societies to bind together in the confrontation of collectivist and/or repressive regimes.

Bush correctly discerned that the system of international law not protect the country in an age of easy travel and transportable, highly destructive technology, and committed non-nation state actors. He undermined the preexisting global order in the face of a real security need.

Obama correctly discerns that, in the wake of the general acceptance of the economic power of individualism and in the absence of a viable ideological alternative (whether, as you would have it, due to Bush’s attack on radical Islam or due to its inherent nihilism), he must confront the social malaise that individualism sometimes creates. Struggle with communism, for instance, can no longer provide an individualistic halo for the reform of education, infrastructure, or social insurance.

The post-national world, emerging slowly for now, presents a new matrix for security decisions and new social challenges to individualistic democracies. Naturally, national governments are a crude tool for managing their own (again, perhaps very gradual) retreat into obsolescence. Nonetheless, it is inevitable, and at times, useful, that they attempt to do so. It is no surprise that confusion reigns in the meantime.

The End of the American Consensus

2009-09-21T12:38:00.021-04:00

We weren't told how to behave that day after 9-11, we just knew. It was right; it was the opposite of what we feel today . . . Are you ready to be the person you were that day after 9-11, on 9-12?

-Glenn Beck, 3/13/09

Wherefore 9/11 nostalgia?

What kind of nostalgia does the memory of 9-12-01 provoke? Why would it be appealing?

The memory of unity, of confronting the world as a coherent American people is clearly part of such romanticism.

The current economic recession, the fear of terrorism, and intensified political partisanship (through the Bush and, now, the Obama years) heighten the appeal of a reassuring unity.

Whence our discord?

But the events themselves (terror attack, economic recession) do not explain all of our unease. Nor does partisanship explain all of our discord.

Rather, 9/11 and the financial meltdown forced us to recognize American vulnerability in new ways and to make decisions that undermined the ideological consensus, predicated on the integrity of nation-states and of markets, that constituted the bulwark of American political life from, at least, World War II until recent years.

Let’s look at the security and economic challenges of recent years to understand how they have punctured this American consensus.

The security challenge: 9/11 demonstrated the limitations of the nation-state system: We learned that the apparently mundane political goings-on in other nation-states are of vital security interest to us even when possess no large conventional army. In other words, we have to pay attention to foreign societies, not just foreign militaries. The Bush Administration’s argument for the Iraq war, love it or hate it, proposed a response to this facet of the security challenge. At the same time, the preemptive Iraq War directly undermined Americans’ faith in the stability and relevance of the international laws undergirding the nation-state system.

The economic challenge: The TARP bailout demonstrated the limitations of our corporate sector as well as our new economic vulnerability: Ultimately, the stabilization of that sector demanded the ‘public insurance’ of our tax dollars. Also, our debt and our trade imbalance demonstrated that the economic goings-on in other nation-states are of vital interest to us. Our large international debt limited our options to respond to the financial crisis and may have contributed (read more here here and here) to it in a number of ways.

In short, events have overwhelmed the ideology that underpinned American political thinking from the end of World War II until recent years: We now have less faith in the international system of nation-states as well as less faith in free market, corporate capitalism.

This ideological disorientation causes the malaise that Glenn Beck now exploits.

The Future of Our Political Parties

2009-09-15T20:43:00.004-04:00

I predicted, after 9/11, that the political parties in the US would fundamentally reconstitute themselves. 9/11 demanded an acknowledgment of an interconnected world in which the political organization of other countries, as well as non-Americans’ perceptions of us, were to be of vital consequence.

Bush won the day because he was the only one to present a coherent argument for American engagement in a connected world: Namely, America must reshape the world in its own image.

Obama’s argument for pragmatic flexibility, paired with his symbolic internationalism, gave heft to vague calls made by John Kerry in 2004 for ‘multilateralism;’ working with, and learning from, the rest of the world was now an affirmative act of engagement rather than a retreat from American principles: We were to engage the world with a willingness to adapt. This argument, of course, resonated more strongly in the absence of the perception of immediate threats from terrorists.

The economic crisis of the past year, too, supported Obama’s argument for increased American flexibility: how could we claim to know what is best for the entire world when our cherished capitalist system was mired in such a quandary?

Finally, Obama’s careful management of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, not in accord with the speedy withdrawals originally called for during the Democratic primaries, has robbed the Republican Party, even further, of a potentially affirmative, internationalist message: that of the United States bringing democracy to the world. The GOP’s impulse to take on the world reverts, accordingly, to a shallow xenophobia and isolationism.

Bush and Obama share (and the fact of their sharing anything is surely disturbing to many) a conviction that the world is increasingly intertwined. Each built a political persona based on that idea. All those who reject contending with this emerging reality are left to make increasingly ideological claims with little empirical backing and to entertain the least reality-based members of their political tribe. It is clear which party follows these patterns today.

If Obama leads the Democrats to a principled, if much more cautious and less violent, promotion of democracy around the world, and couples it with enhanced American flexibility on a range of other international issues, the Democrats will have stolen the center for a good time to come. Few constructive messages for the GOP will therefore remain and the party will accordingly continue to wither.

The True Story of the GOP's Dissipation

2009-09-10T16:53:00.004-04:00

Rapid global development and economic/financial change undermine the relevance of strict rightists and leftists: The need to adapt quickly to new technologies and new economic realities will reward adaptable, rather than orthodox, parties and regimes.

Edward Golberg of Baruch College, in today's Friedman column diagnoses the malaise of the Republican Party accordingly:

Globalization has neutered the Republican Party, leaving it to represent not the have-nots of the recession but the have-nots of globalized America, the people who have been left behind either in reality or in their fears . . . The need to compete in a globalized world has forced the meritocracy, the multinational corporate manager, the eastern financier and the technology entrepreneur to reconsider what the Republican Party has to offer.

Health care is one example of an area where government can play a productive role in supporting economic growth and human capital development.

Government intervention is only justified in the Right's worldview when the capitalist system is under threat (e.g. during ideological struggles with the Soviets, radical Islamists, etc.). They have no ideological context for coming to terms with the pressing national-economic needs of globalization.

Some on the left have a similar problem coming to terms with globalization but the left's solutions happen to be more pertinent at the moment. And, the anti-WTO, anti-trade wing of the Democratic party has receded, for the time being.

Why Business is The New Communism

2009-09-09T12:59:00.002-04:00

Which companies have changed our lives most in recent years?

Could you argue that Google and Facebook have been at the lead?

Perhaps you've thought about how these companies don't just represent new computer tools but new philosophies of doing business: they organize information to make it accessible and trust that that will draw you into their grasp, that they will find out how to make money off of you accordingly.

What's communist about that?

The fact that these companies have an interest in engaging your creativity. That commitment, to the extent that other businesses adopt it, represents a revolution in the relationship of commercial interests to social development: people are inherently valued as knowledge producers and consumers, and the increasing intellectual efficacy of an individual is seen as an economic opportunity for business.

So what?

Many have argued, over the past several hundred years, for a social counterweight (often this role is taken by, and presumed by, government) to the narrow interests of business. Others have argued that the narrowness of business interests is a good thing, as it counterbalances overambitious intellectuals and bureaucrats, and is the stuff of gradual economic and social improvement.

The business philosophies of the Information Age undermine the supposition that broad social thinking and the profit motive tend to lead to divergent paths (though, of course, they sometimes will).

The key idea is that increased access to, and ability to contend with, information is (a) increasingly essential to our economy and, simultaneously, (b) increasingly understood by businesses as an essential avenue for growth.

I am not arguing that business will solve all of our social problems, only that the emerging business philosophy of interconnectivity can lead to enormous social good and hold government increasingly accountable to making economically effective investments in human capital.

A substantiated belief in the alignment of business interest and human development is, where it exists, a salutary development that has wide implications. That trend is where we should keep our attention in coming years, and decades.

Why is the Health Care Debate Happening Now?

2009-09-04T11:14:00.002-04:00

Because a Democrat is in the White House?

Because health care costs have skyrocketed?

Because free marketed ideologies have been discredited by the financial crisis?

Because Obama is especially charming?

The principal reason these debates are happening now is none of these things. The sea change in public opinion on health care over the past few decades is a result of the international predominance of capitalism and democracy.

Sound crazy?

During the Cold War, for instance, Americans were much more sensitive about socialist reforms. Now, a minority of Americans expresses such concerns.

At the same time, the idea of taking a huge economic risk in the midst of a focus on international political competition with, say, the Soviet Union or Islamic fundamentalists, was extremely frightening.

Finally, of course, the focus on human development has grown with the increase in the value of human capital in the global economy.

So, the global triumph of capitalism and democracy has (1) reduced ideological sensitivity, (2) shifted our focus away from international political competition, and (3) created the conditions for international economic competition, based on human capital investment, to take on increasing importance.

I'm sure you've seen this posted on your homepage:

2009-09-03T14:19:00.003-04:00

No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.

I've certainly felt an upsurge of sentiment on this score. And I doubt that that upsurge will go away.

This is not just about health care, though. There is a change of mores occurring in the US, with implications both promising and daunting.

Individual responsibility, to be sure, is not disappearing, but the idea of health care as a right will help to solidify a new meaning of the word "right."

Many others have noticed that "rights" used to imply a freedom from government interference. And that they are coming to mean an entitlement to social support.

This change comes with some risks, economic and social. New rights, however, can lead to both economic and social inefficiencies and efficiencies. We should not pretend that the two conversations are unconnected nor, alternatively, that they always point in the same direction.

Health Care: A Right or A Privilege?

2009-09-02T20:41:00.006-04:00

"I think health care is a privilege. I wouldn't call it a right." So says Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) in a recent interview.

This comment is disturbing some liberal commentators. See here and here.

And, yes, the questions raised are essential.

But liberals should pause and realize that the abundant economic wealth that surrounds them makes much more practicable the very idea of "health care as a right." The individualism/individual responsibility that DeMint advocates is an essential element in the growth of wealth that we have witnessed over the past several hundred years. Wealth matters. Individual responsibility matters.

Conservatives should equally consider how mores can evolve, and redound to society's benefit, with new economic and social circumstances. Protections help to make society more stable and help to make less privileged members more productive. Rights matter. Both socially and economically.

One lens for considering the balance between economic growth and civil rights is the historical one:

Namely, rights and protections extended in economically advantageous fashion at one point in economic development might have undermined general economic growth at an earlier time. Had Roman slaves been protected from forced dislocation, as were feudal serfs, the Roman Empire might have been economically undermined in dramatic fashion. Had feudal serfs been extended universal K-12 education as is the common citizen of our time, agricultural output of the period would likely have declined precipitously. By the same token, a commitment to the universal health in our own times may be compatible with strong (more on this adjective later) economic growth even though the costs of such a commitment would have been overwhelming in an earlier time.

Why are there More Independents this Year?

2009-09-01T19:32:00.000-04:00

Why did the numbers of independents surge this year? Because neither the Right nor the Left could provide satisfactory answers to the economic crisis: Capitalism, it seemed, could not be left to its own devices without resulting dramatic social repercussions. On the other hand, a nation bridled with great debt could not be depended on to spend its way out of crisis.

The Democrats are ignoring the debt crisis of the future by acting as if spending is the salve for all social wounds. The Republicans are ignoring the financial crisis of last year by blaming Obama for all government actions, including those initiated by Bush; instead, they choose to increase the shrillness of their rhetoric.

The economic crisis did demonstrate that government spending is sometimes necessary to ‘right the national ship.’ But our looming debt should remind us that such spending must be, in the vast majority of cases, a carefully considered economic investment.

The ideologies of the past must give way to a more pragmatic approach to spending and investment that acknowledges the tremendous, but not infinite, power of individualism to drive national growth.

Research Organizations in the Information Age

2009-09-01T08:30:00.000-04:00

How can an academic research organization engage a broader public in its work? How can it provoke the common man to buy in to its research process?

Academics need to ask focused questions about which they can gain some insight from the hidden analysts in the general public. Discussion boards that allow for ratings, such as the Obama online discussion about health care, provide for the rise to prominence of the strongest ideas and critiques. Researchers can learn from these and can create a sense of investment by demonstrating that they are doing so.

Ultimately, grants will be written so that data is shared with the public even as analysis is ongoing. If someone else can do a better analysis of ‘my’ data, so much the better for society. If someone can correct my errors before I write up my work, so much the better for me.

The Philosophy of Preschool

2009-08-31T08:00:00.000-04:00

I’m working at an organization that researches the academic efficacy of preschool programs. Sound like an idea that is bizarre or overly intense?

It might sound less so if you consider ‘play’ as a pre-academic activity.

More people appreciate the intellectual and social aspects of play for children of all ages, nowadays. Interestingly, this infuses the ‘playing years’ with additional intellectual import.

Could growing national interest in pre-K programs reflect a broader understanding of how children learn or is it just a neurotic attempt to twist our young ones into academic machines?

The Truth

2009-06-10T10:27:00.001-04:00

Tm Friedman:

While the Lebanese deserve 95 percent of the credit for this election, 5 percent goes to two U.S. presidents. As more than one Lebanese whispered to me: Without George Bush standing up to the Syrians in 2005 — and forcing them to get out of Lebanon after the Hariri killing — this free election would not have happened. Mr. Bush helped create the space. Power matters. Mr. Obama helped stir the hope. Words also matter.

Food for Thought

2009-03-25T09:44:00.001-04:00

From an article by Carlos Lozada:

With all the despair over the American economy's disappearing jobs and plummeting growth, here's mind bender for you: There is no U.S. economy. The national economy, as we traditionally think of it, is a myth. A fake. Over.

So contend Bruce Katz, Mark Muro and Jennifer Bradley in the latest issue of the journal "Democracy." The United States is not a single unified economy, they say, nor even a breakdown of 50 state economies. Instead, the country's 100 largest metropolitan regions are the real drivers of economic activity, generating two-thirds of the nation's jobs and three-quarters of its output. The sooner we reorient federal economic policies to support this "MetroNation," the quicker we can fix the mess we're in.

Israeli Politics

2009-03-21T23:14:00.002-04:00

Check out my new blogpost on a site associated with Haaretz:

Many of you will know the back alleys near Kikar Tzion in Jerusalem: dusty, cobbled-stoned roads, labyrinthine alleys, and rusty railings greet you there. I entered my apartment by passing under a stone archway, turning right, jumping over a gate, climbing stairs, jiggling a difficult lock, and passing through my roommate’s room. My job was no less idiosyncratic and, fittingly, the open courtyard where I dug dirt and carried tiles was within sight of my apartment. My co-workers were Palestinian tiling experts and Ukrainian leathernecks in their fifties.

Reasons to Worry

2009-03-12T10:10:00.002-04:00

David Smick in the Washington Post:

Pity Barack Obama's economic advisers. The blogs are now demanding their scalps, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and his colleagues face a nasty dilemma: There are no solutions to the banking crisis without extraordinary political and financial risks. Thus, they have adopted a three-pronged approach, delay, delay, delay, in the hope that somebody comes up with a breakthrough.

David Ignatius in the Post:

We're still in the Neville Chamberlain phase when it comes to the economic crisis. The government is talking about sacrifice and solutions, but it hasn't yet made the tough decisions that will put the economy back together.

Letter to NYT: A Theoretical Basis for Moderate Political Thought

2009-03-06T15:53:00.001-05:00

Dear Editor:

David Brooks (“A Moderate Manifesto,” 3/3/09) offers an appealing vision of a capitalism aware of its social underpinnings, and of a humanism aware of the decentralization required for economic growth. He could go further by explaining the global context that justifies his thinking.

Increasing global competition belies the idea that government can desist from making the social investments necessary to build new generations of engineers, entrepreneurs, and technicians. It also, however, reminds us of the perils of chasing capital away from our shores. The central challenge that faces us today is that of balancing these two aims.

Many Democrats and Republicans prefer to live in a simpler world in which, respectively, state action is the fundamental palliative, or the fundamental poison. The requisite wake-up call can come from a cold-eyed gaze at the growing power of international markets. A depression might make us do just that.

Sincerely,
Barak Epstein

Letter to WSJ: Protectionism, Globalization, and the Recession

2009-03-06T15:50:00.001-05:00

To Whom It May Concern:

New economic realities demand new agreements and regulatory regimes and Jeffrey E. Garten (“The Dangers of Turning Inward, 3/1/09) is correct to identify the source of our current economic woes in an unbalanced global financial system that included an Asian savings glut, distorted currency exchange rates and, consequently, as we know well, inflated asset prices in developed countries.

Professor Garten proposes some lucid solutions to these problems but cannot do much to identify the political force that will call for careful international regulation and social investment. This is no fault of his own. Republican nativist and Democratic labor protectionist sentiment are well-entrenched and a sufficient reorganization of international institutions would necessitate compromises in national sovereignty that neither political party could support.

Garten hopes that “short-lived recession” would teach the body politic enough about the new global order to make possible needed reforms. Count me among those who think that the learning curve will be too steep for that.

Sincerely,
Barak Epstein

Reflections on the Israeli Election

2009-03-02T20:43:00.000-05:00

Many of you will know the back alleys near Kikar Tzion in Jerusalem: dusty, cobbled-stoned roads, labyrinthine alleys, and rusty railings greet you there. I entered my apartment by passing under a stone archway, turning right, jumping over a gate, climbing stairs, jiggling a difficult lock, and passing through my roommate’s room. My job was no less (darkly mysterious) and, fittingly, the open courtyard where I dug dirt and carried tiles was within sight of my apartment. My co-workers were Palestinian tiling experts and Ukrainian leathernecks in their fifties. (Continue reading.)

International, International, International

2009-01-29T14:49:00.004-05:00

The most fundamental aspect of the current crisis is its international nature. Essentially, huge seas of capital are sloshing around the world and creating great instability in the process. Trust in financial markets is hurt by the general instability and the particular abuses.

Carefully designed international regulations could increase transparency and accountability without squelching capital movement dramatically. The problem is that, when one country imposes such controls, capital can move to another country with great speed. International coordination is clearly desirable. Unfortunately, there is not enough trust for that either.

Robert Samuelson identifies the three layers of the crisis (consumer, finance, and international trade) that must be solved simultaneously. The current US government responses focus on the first two problems. On the third, there is little intelligent government response. In fact, we are likely to see increased protectionism, such as through the "Buy America" steel provision in the recent stimulus package.

The Obama interest in infrastructure development is a good first step towards addressing the need to be internationally competitive but we will not have addressed the challenges, and opportunities, of our economic moment until we look more seriously at international financial and economic structures.

Clear and Principled

2009-01-27T01:04:00.001-05:00

Obama to Al-Arabiya:

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task.

I have to say that I am excited and hopeful about Obama's pending visit to, and speech in, a Muslim capital.

Dear Dr. Krugman

2009-01-25T18:52:00.004-05:00

I may not be a Nobel Laureate but I think that I can explain Obama's speech to Paul Krugman.

Krugman writes:

Thus, in his speech Mr. Obama attributed the economic crisis in part to “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age” — but I have no idea what he meant. This is, first and foremost, a crisis brought on by a runaway financial industry. And if we failed to rein in that industry, it wasn’t because Americans “collectively” refused to make hard choices; the American public had no idea what was going on, and the people who did know what was going on mostly thought deregulation was a great idea.

Obama's perspective entails:
1) holding the purchasers of subprime mortgages to account for their decision-making
2) at the same time, implying that such debacles of overleveraging are bound to happen in an unequal society, i.e. the poor are likely to overspend to try to keep up, at least, with the middle class
3) supporting the poor in their ambitions by developing new opportunities for them make economic contributions
4) recognizing that such 'opportunity development' is especially crucial when economic structures change (viz. globalization, the decline of American industry, the growth of the information economy)

It's a complex view that makes room for both individual responsibility and acknowledgment of social tendencies. Or, like others, I have simply divined in Obama's spacious words the perspective that I, myself, hold.

Prediction: Cuban Regime Will Fall Within Two Years

2009-01-25T18:37:00.004-05:00

The Cuban regime has relied upon the sense of defiance of American imperialism to support its claims to political leadership. The American system can no longer look so convincingly monolithic to average Cubans. Won't the appeal of grasping the power that American voters have, to buck the establishment (whether it be the Clintons or the former WASP elite, be quite appealing to the Cuban people?

Are Castro's admittedly thoughtful words a strong enough brew to hold the Cuban system together, especially in the event of his apparently pending passing?

Castro:

Nobody can doubt the sincerity of Obama's words when he says he will make his country into a model of freedom, respect for human rights in the world and for the independence of other nations. . .

[But,] despite all the tests he has been put through, Obama has not faced the most important of all.

What will he do when the immense power he has grasped soon proves to be totally useless in overcoming the intractable, opposing contradictions of the (capitalist) system?

The final question may be interesting but I doubt that it will be sufficient to stir the Cuban people to defiance of the United States.

Hegel, Democrats, Republicans, Obama(, and the Financial Crisis)

2009-01-23T12:05:00.005-05:00

Hegel wrote of a the distinction between the business/manufacturing class (somewhat arcanely referred to as the 'reflective class') and the 'universal' class, constituted of civil servants and others whose professional work demands a broad social perspective.

It is not too difficult to argue, I think, that the Democrats are led by the 'universal class' and the Republicans have tended to be led by Hegel's 'reflective class,' which I will refer to as the 'creative class.'

The crisis in Republican leadership is a result of the fact that the new leading creators tend to have an increasingly universal perspective. This is due to the increasing importance of human capital, which puts the onus upon industry leaders to be more aware of the social investments necessary for their continued prosperity. The future course of the Republican party is unclear so long as Democrats are able to seize the ground where 'universal' meets 'creative.' Obama does this intuitively.

Also: The government purchase of large parts of the economy is a recognition of the increasing importance of addressing universal concerns (i.e. social stability) in the face of pulsating flows of international capital. This is a further manifestation of the same phenomenon as that described above.

How We Will Really Get to Know Obama

2009-01-22T10:07:00.003-05:00

John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei present a series of excellent questions about Obama:

The stirring rhetoric witnessed on the campaign trail and in Tuesday’s inaugural address is laced with spacious language — flexible enough to support conflicting conclusions about what he really believes.
Only decisions, not words, can clarify what Obama stands for. Those are coming soon enough.

Until then, here are the questions still left hanging as the Obama administration begins:

DOES HE REALLY THINK AFGHANISTAN IS WINNABLE? . . .

DO DEFICITS MATTER? . . .

HOW FAST IS TOO FAST IN IRAQ? . . .

[and more about surveillance, unions, Darfur, and the Left . . .]

Vacation Notice

2008-12-29T16:32:00.001-05:00

A Musing? is on vacation. See you soon!

The Information Age Revolution is a Bigger Deal than You Thought

2008-12-24T21:33:00.005-05:00

The internet is revolutionizing economic production and human relations. I'm not sure that there has ever been one machine that has so clearly revolutionized both of these phenomena simultaneously.

That concurrence of phenomena is revolutionary in extraordinary ways. Information technology is therefore transforming not only how we view work and how we view relationships but also how we view the relationship between the two.

The relationship between work and human relationships is one of the central questions of history. Namely, how is productive activity helped or hindered by the impulse to connect with other human beings?

Information technology is beginning to make us optimistic about the economic potential inherent in cooperative, creative relationship. That optimism is politically profound in that it calls into question the paradigm of human society that focuses on the role of the ruler vis-á-vis the ruled.

It is no coincidence that this reevaluation is happening at a time at which we can finally imagine that it is possible to care for the basic needs of all of humanity. Rather, that fact, the fact of plenty, affords us the comfort and confidence to re-imagine social relationships. At the same time, of course, information technology is partly responsible for the explosion of wealth that makes such a reality imaginable.

This revolution in social relationships has the potential to call forth an age of prosperity and peace that has been beyond our hopes. This is partly because information technology so clearly demands the mindset of cooperative thinking and so clearly highlights the potential inherent in the development of human capital.

Marx postulated that an age of cooperative production would be ushered in by the rise of the proletariat, the working classes. He did not, however, spend a great deal of time outlining the process by which the masses could prepare themselves to lead and organize society. His focus was on cooperation but not on the creative potential that has to be nourished to make cooperation worthwhile and productive. It is no surprise that Russia was never able to organize a society based on worker's empowerment: The workers were not sophisticated enough to run society. Inevitably, elites took over. Such elite control was inevitably, too, subject to corruption.

The rise of the paradigm of cooperative, creative production is at least as important as which class rules society. Information technology has highlighted, even to hardened capitalists and self-promoting entrepreneurs, the importance of developing human capital. This fact should not be dismissed with cynicism. Rather, it points to the forces of this age and should be seized upon accordingly.

Sovereign Wealth Funds

2008-12-10T00:09:00.003-05:00

Sovereign Wealth Funds represent an attempt by states to benefit from markets but also have the potential to inject political considerations into macroeconomics. Is this inherently a bad thing? Free trade orthodoxy might say so. But, where is the bright line that distinguishes the familiar economic collective of individuals (i.e. the corporation) from the economic collective we call the state? In other words, will the time come at which free citizens endorse increased activity of such funds in the name of economic well-being? Will future citizens of the world look back and have difficulty understanding the distinction between capitalism and socialism?

What Do Financial Markets Tell Us about Ourselves?

2008-12-04T21:57:00.005-05:00

Financial markets are like the mirror of mankind, revealing every hour of every working day the way we value ourselves and the resources of the world around us.

It is not the fault of the mirror if it reflects our blemishes as clearly as our beauty.

(Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money)

What do you think the financial crisis is telling us?

Foreign Policy Prediction

2008-12-03T22:20:00.006-05:00

Obama's cool veneer on foreign policy issues still hasn't been matched by a convincing agenda: "Be gentler and wiser." does not a strategy make, even when paired with a great deal of detailed knowledge.

I have enough confidence in Obama to believe that he is capable of coming around to a progressive, but realistic strategy. The question is: How much pain will intervene? Furthermore, foreign policy difficulties could be the specter that haunts the Obama administration: It all depends on Obama's learning curve and the pace of world events.

My prediction is that Obama will eventually come around to a global stabilization policy that rests on stronger concerted action between democracies. He could certainly accomplish this, if he wished to, while maintaining the least combative stance possible towards authoritarian regimes.

My instincts tell me that Obama's conciliatory nature, and Democratic biases, will lead him to favor gentle diplomacy with rogue regimes. I suspect that this will bear some fruit but that it will also encourage some destabilization: some nations will be encouraged by Obama's caution. The logic of democratic convergence will eventually make itself clear and Obama will be capable of discerning as much. Will it be too late for him? I hope and suspect not but cannot rule out the possibility.

Community Organizing in Government

2008-12-02T20:48:00.004-05:00

Obama's background as a community organizer is showing itself in his governing style. Today, for instance, (1) I received an e-mail from the Obama camp with a video responding to the prolific community discussion on health care found on the change.gov website. The e-mail talked about the importance of transparency and engagement and still refers to Obama, at times, as "Barack." Very heimish (warm, friendly). (2) Additionally, Obama took the opportunity of his meeting today with the National Governor's Association to ask for their feedback about how to spend stimulus money:

The meeting with the governors was "unprecedented," said Gov. Edward Rendell (D) of Pennsylvania, in that it was the first time a transition team for an incoming administration reached out to state governors to ask their help in crafting a national agenda. Forty-three of 50 states are facing serious deficits.

It looks like we have our first "information age" president.

The Nation-State and Global Integration

2008-12-02T13:41:00.003-05:00

A few questions about strains on the power and efficacy of the nation-state:

(a) Does the global financial crisis call for international management of, say, currency exchange rates?

(b) Do globalization and the near-global triumph of capitalism undermine the greatest incentive (namely, international competition, respectively, among capitalist powers and between capitalist and non-capitalist powers) for leading capitalists to attend to the well-being of those who are not succeeding?

(c) Do global warming and other environmental strains demand an internationally-coordinated response that cannot entirely be managed by one nation-state?

My answer to all of these questions is 'yes' and points to the growing importance of international cooperation to solve many of our most pressing problems. I am not arguing that states are not strong. Neither am I am arguing necessarily for inter-governmental cooperation to solve these problems (although, such will sometimes be vital). Rather, I am arguing that a global perspective is becoming of greater importance. In due time, I believe that such a perspective will become the dominant paradigm, superseding the nation-state paradigm.

It is no coincidence that this pattern of integration presents itself as we find ourselves in a world in which everyone can be lifted out of poverty and in which universal education can be imagined. These goals can be achieved because (a) the global economy is sufficiently integrated to distribute basic goods, services, and skills to those in need of them, (b) globalization and the near-triumph of capitalism have led to a global economy in which human capital is of ever-greater economic value, and (c) environmental challenges force us to focus on how we can develop wealth without solely relying on materials. The best answers to this question are the development of technology and of human capital.

Emerging Independent Judiciary in Iraq

2008-11-30T10:28:00.000-05:00

Briefly:

Here’s a story you don’t see very often. Iraq’s highest court told the Iraqi Parliament last Monday that it had no right to strip one of its members of immunity so he could be prosecuted for an alleged crime: visiting Israel for a seminar on counterterrorism. The Iraqi justices said the Sunni lawmaker, Mithal al-Alusi, had committed no crime and told the Parliament to back off.

Impressed by Obama

2008-11-28T10:37:00.004-05:00

Obama's strategy thus far, on three major issues, can be characterized as "focus, continue, and engage." The broad outlines are perfectly elegant.

Specifically:

+focus on the economy: little explanation is needed here. Obama has managed to include many major advisors in his administration: Geithner at Treasury, Summers at the National Economic Council, Goolsbee and Volcker on a special recovery taskforce.

+continue with the late second-term Bush approach to foreign policy: The caution here is reassuring to me and seems that it will be generally endured by those further to the left on such issues.

+engage on health care: Obama has chosen to extend internet democracy first to the discussion about health care. This is wise because (a) he can thus engage activists, and perhaps even temper their expectations as they are forced to wrestle with real world issues, even while he postpones immmediate action and (b) he may actually be able to glean a few good ideas as discussants will be able to sift the 'wheat from the chaff' through a participant-run ratings system.

Very impressed.

An Ironic Aspect of the Economic Crisis

2008-11-28T10:35:00.002-05:00

One of the perceived causes of the crisis is that Americans do not save enough. Interestingly, many stimulus packages are designed to work only if Americans spend the money that they save.

American Competitiveness

2008-11-28T10:33:00.001-05:00

Brooks on Michael Porter, of Harvard Business School, and his suggested response to the economic crisis:

Porter wrote that the U.S. economy has historically benefited from several great assets: an unparalleled environment for entrepreneurialism, a tremendous infrastructure for scientific research, the world’s best universities, a strong commitment to competition and free markets, decentralized regional economies, and efficient capital markets.

But, Porter continued, these advantages are starting to erode. The U.S. has an inadequate rate of reinvestment in science and technology. America’s confidence in free markets is waning. Lack of regulatory oversight has undermined capital markets. Universities have not sufficiently increased graduation rates. American workers do not have a credible safety net. Regulations and litigation have inflated the cost of business. Most important, there is no long-term economic strategy to organize responses to these problems.

Condolences

2008-11-28T10:30:00.004-05:00

My condolences to the people of India, a vibrant and justifiably confident democracy. Of course, it is sad again to see fellow Jews targeted in a disconcertingly familiar episode.

Obama and Russia

2008-11-26T11:19:00.001-05:00

I agree.

Obama enters office signaling that he will continue the policies of President Bush's late second term in Iraq and Afghanistan, and key architects of those policies, starting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, will likely keep their jobs. That would leave Russia as the unexpected laboratory for Obama to shape his own foreign policy.

GM, New Deal, Etc.

2008-11-24T18:44:00.003-05:00

My apologies for my short-term hiatus.

This clip from "This Week with George Stephanpolous" presents interesting discussion about the role of the government vis-a-vis GM and infrastructure projects. The most intriguing idea, though perhaps not presented in the most substantive way possible during this particular interview, is David Brooks discussion of the importance of supporting social networks in the era of an economy dependent on human capital.

A Dollop of Buyer's Remorse

2008-11-14T13:58:00.002-05:00

I'm not feeling too happy about Obama's advocacy of a GM bailout, especially since it's one of his first economic moves. I don't like the trends it symbolizes.

From newser.com (which reports on Krauthammer and Brooks):

American prosperity relies on creative destruction—the failure of nonviable companies and their replacement by defter rivals. The government endeavors to protect the worker in periods of transition, writes David Brooks in the New York Times, but not the firms themselves. That’s why the auto-industry bailout is a bad idea: Extending the life of the Big Three means preserving their unworkable business models.

The financial bailout ensured that the system itself continued to function, Brooks writes, but “a federal cash infusion will not infuse wisdom into management” at GM, Chrysler and Ford. Charles Krauthammer, in the Washington Post, agrees, writing that the Detroit bailout underlines philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats: “In this crisis, we agree to suspend the invisible hand of Adam Smith— but not in order to be crushed by the heavy hand of government.

Provocative, but Worth Considering

2008-11-02T15:29:00.001-05:00

Thomas Sowell writes:

Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else.

Anyone who has actually had to take responsibility for consequences by running any kind of enterprise-- whether economic or academic, or even just managing a sports team-- is likely at some point to be chastened by either the setbacks brought on by his own mistakes or by seeing his successes followed by negative consequences that he never anticipated.

The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama's trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges-- very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in real world.

The signs of Barack Obama's self-centered immaturity are painfully obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into him, and by the media who just want the symbolism and the ideology that Obama represents.

The triumphal tour of world capitals and photo-op meetings with world leaders by someone who, after all, was still merely a candidate, is just one sign of this self-centered immaturity.

"This is our time!" he proclaimed. And "I will change the world." But ultimately this election is not about him, but about the fate of this nation, at a time of both domestic and international peril, with a major financial crisis still unresolved and a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon.

For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of "spreading the wealth," is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries.

A Watershed Moment for Gay Marriage?

2008-11-02T14:48:00.002-05:00

The Republican mayor of San Diego, a relatively conservative city, breaks down in this poignant video as he endorses the legalization of gay marriage.

The aesthetics are powerful: Mayor Sanders presents as a genuine, straightforward man who has deep love and concern for gay San Diegans. I think that the symbolism of the man, his city, and his party will help to catalyze a significant change in the political context on this issue over the next few years.

If you'd like to support the mayor, for whom this process has been difficult, you can contact him here.

The Media and Obama

2008-10-31T12:08:00.002-04:00

Victor Davis Hanson:

Imagine the reaction of the New York Times or the Washington Post had John McCain renounced his promise to participate in public campaign financing, proceeded instead to amass $600 million and outraise the publicly financed Barack Obama four-to-one, and begun airing special 30-minute unanswered infomercials during the last week of the campaign.

I don't agree with all of the points in this article (especially the section about Palin) but do find compelling the sections about the media's treatment of campaign finance and Obama's associations.

Scariest Palin Clip Yet

2008-10-29T23:44:00.002-04:00

Palin recently mocked fruit fly research at an autism conference, even though such research has provided indispensable genetic knowledge and insights into autism itself.

Kagan on Europe: A Spicy Interview

2008-10-28T08:42:00.006-04:00

Here are excerpts from a spicy interview with Robert Kagan in Der Spiegel. I particularly enjoyed the incisiveness of his critiques of European political blindnesses.

First:

Kagan: Correct. And, in that respect, ever since the surge, the additional troops we sent, there have been great successes…

SPIEGEL: …which are undeniable, though not necessarily sustainable. And this results primarily from the fact that the US government is paying bribes to tens of thousands of Sunni fighters to turn their backs on al-Qaida and no longer attack US troops.

Kagan: The money is really not the main issue. The issue is the entire new US military strategy, which establishes security and dramatically improves the lives of people. The New York Times recently reported that the overwhelming majority of al-Qaida terrorists have abandoned Iraq as a safe haven and that they are joining their fellow insurgents in Afghanistan.

SPIEGEL: The terrorists are undoubtedly concentrated in Afghanistan and in the border region with Pakistan, and some are certainly going to those places from Iraq. But this is not an entirely new development. The war against terrorism should have been waged in Afghanistan rather than Iraq, as Obama has said.

Kagan: You cannot acknowledge our successes in Iraq because Europeans can never admit that Bush is doing something right.

And:

SPIEGEL: An overwhelming majority of Europeans want to see Barack Obama become president…

Kagan: Yes, of the United States, although they would never elect someone like that in their own countries. But I understand the Europeans. I too believe that Obama would be an exciting choice, given America’s history. But also a risky one. He has no foreign policy experience compared with McCain, who has been to Europe dozens of times and is intimately familiar with world problems.

End of an Era: Free Market Orthodoxy Is No Longer Ascendant

2008-10-27T00:01:00.002-04:00

Agree or not, the following exchange signals the end of a 28-year era of American politics in which free market orthodoxy defined the terms of domestic debate:

“You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”

Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

The Election: Summing It Up

2008-10-23T20:21:00.002-04:00

I wish that I could say it this well.

Leon Wieseltier:

McCain feels with his heart, but he thinks with his base. And when he picked Sarah Palin, he told the United States of America to go fuck itself. I used to think of my dilemma this way: Obama's conception of America is better than he is, McCain's conception of America is worse than he is. But McCain is looking more and more like his America, which is Bush's America: a country of capitalists and Christians. I do not know how to explain what has become of him. . .

Obama is a smart man. He is a decent man. He is an undangerous man, in the manner of all pragmatists and opportunists. He reveres reason, though he often confuses it with conversation. His domestic goals are good, though the titans of American finance, the greedy geniuses of Wall Street, may have made many of those goals fantastic. He will see to it that some liberalism survives at the Supreme Court. This leaves only the rest of the world. What a time for a novice! I dread the prospect of Obama's West Wing education in foreign policy: even when he spoke well about these matters in the debates, it all sounded so new to him, so light. He must not mistake the global adulation of his person with the end of anti-Americanism. And he must not mistake his hope for the world with his analysis of the world. But OK, then: Obama, and another anxious visit to the ballot box, with--in the stinging words of Du Bois--"a hope not hopeless but unhopeful."

GEOPOLITICS, FINANCE, AND EDUCATION

2008-10-22T22:21:00.002-04:00

In the upcoming weeks, world leaders will meet to begin to consider a new financial architecture for the world.

If they fail to found a cooperative framework, the threat of protectionism, economic decline, and the associated political challenges (which would not be small, and could be frightening) will be our biggest challenges.

If they succeed (as I suspect that they will), we will have taken a noticeable step to a more integrated world in which conflict between large nations becomes somewhat less likely. Challenges would still remain in that regard, to be sure, not least the endurance of petrodictatorships. Still, new issues will, after such a success, begin to come to the fore. I believe that one of the boldest dividing lines in a more stable (I take small group terrorism into account here.), integrated world will be the divide between the information technologically-able and the informational technologically-challenged. The would increase the importance of education, relative to international relations, as a defining issue for geopolitical stability.

What do you think?

"Spread the Wealth Around"

2008-10-16T20:56:00.004-04:00

A propos of Obama's comment to a voter that he intends to 'spread the wealth around,' I would suggest that that comment will not prove as incendiary as it may have in an earlier age. For the time being (at least) the federal bailout has broken the US taboo of respect for individual responsibility. In a financial climate that reminds us of our interdependence, the concept that helping those in modest circumstances may be (even financially) beneficial to us all (expressed by Obama, though not as widely reported as his less politic, and less rigorous, statement, above) is not as seditious as it once might have seemed.

Conservatives and Liberals, Culture and Politics, US and Iraq

2008-10-16T13:33:00.002-04:00

An excerpt from a note I recently wrote to Dr. Jonathan Haidt, author of "What Makes People Vote Republican?":

Your article on on "What Makes People Vote Republican?" should be read at every dinner party here on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. I quoted you extensively on my blog and, in conjunction with the Palin selection, much discussion was stimulated.

An interesting connection might be drawn between (simply put), on the one hand, the liberal focus on politics and conservative focus on culture and, on the other hand, the neoconservative (at least) focus on reforming Iraqi political arrangements and the liberal tendency to focus on, so to speak, "the long, careful evolution of culture that prepares the ground for democracy." I would argue that conservative sensitivity to cultural development leads to the supposition that cultural arrangements are the crowning achievement of political development, and that the inverted (no connotation intended here) liberal relationship to culture and politics, leads to the opposite conclusion.

Intimations of a New Global Order

2008-10-16T12:43:00.004-04:00

David Ignatius:

The new interventionism isn't so much socialist as it is Confucian -- a belief that a public-private partnership of the wise ones will get us out of the mess. And if it's any consolation, the Chinese are becoming more like us, even as we are becoming more like them. . . .

One hopeful sign last week was that the Chinese were moving toward private ownership, even as America and Europe were moving away from it. The Chinese government announced a new rural policy aimed at allowing millions of farmers to own the land they have been working. This would create a huge new reserve of private wealth in China, which could power domestic spending and growth. [Read more.]

A focal point of this new order, which I will explain further later, will be the development of the economic potential of the mass of producers. The innovation will be that such focus will be justified in terms of the promotion of prosperity, not just through appeals to social justice.

A few suggested conversation topics:
What positive effects can you imagine coming out of the crisis?
Can democratic institutions respond to crisis with coherence?
What aspect of the financial crisis would you focus on if you were Paulson?

Iceland and China

2008-10-12T12:10:00.005-04:00

. . . the government of Iceland is presiding over a massive default by all the country's major banks. This troubling development points not only to an even more painful recession than anticipated, but also to the urgent need for international coordination to avoid something worse: all-out financial warfare.

. . . Iceland's promise to guarantee domestic depositors while reneging on guarantees to foreigners may be just a first step. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's decision last week to sue Iceland over this issue may escalate the crisis. The use of counterterrorist legislation to take over Icelandic bank assets and operations in the United Kingdom also has a potentially dramatic symbolic effect. (Peter Boone and Simon Johnson, "The Next World War? It Could Be Financial." The Washington Post, 10/12/08.)

There's a reason that the gestures by the US government have not sufficed to reassure financial markets: the US is no longer the unquestioned command and control center of the global economy. We have to take the imaginative leap that integrates rising developing nations into our paradigm of economic management.

Peter Boone and Simon Johnson, in today's Washington Post, point to the depth of the financial crisis in bracing detail but, unsurprisingly, fall back on nostrums about the power of the "the world's leading financial powers -- at a minimum, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany" to reassure markets. Am I naive, or does US to China (between $1.5 and $2 trillion, I believe) qualify China as an important financier? How can anyone be sure that the Chinese, given their own fragile politics, will support any plan that comes from the West in a time of financial crisis?

"Crisis Marks Out a New Political Order" -- by Phillip Stevens

2008-10-09T23:04:00.002-04:00

. . . from the Financial Times.

A Broader Perspective on the Financial Crisis

2008-10-08T12:31:00.004-04:00

The response to this financial crisis will be both economic and geopolitical. The Great Depression called into question the stark laissez-faire approach of the industrial revolution and its aftermath. The US stepped into global leadership after World War II by leading the construction of a global financial system that has done a very good job at promoting stability and growth.

The change that we are facing now is not essentially about investment banks, mortgage lenders, or homebuyers. Rather, it reflects the transition of the global economy to an era in which the US cannot be the only hub at the center of the wheel.

C. Fred Bergsten and Arvind Subramanian, in today's Washington Post, help to explain how this process underlies the more obvious signs of crisis.

Beyond the short term, countries will need to develop a cooperative framework to prevent and resolve such crises, most urgently within Europe. There is inherent tension as finance becomes global but its regulation remains national. The current crisis originated in the United States but was importantly affected by massive savings surpluses in some countries and the resulting surfeit of liquidity, which drove down interest rates and encouraged irresponsible lending here. Those international imbalances were in turn partly caused by misaligned exchange rates. Global oversight of both financial regulation and currencies can no longer be neglected.

One way to understand this is that China, most importantly, has artificially increased its capital reserves by preventing its currency from appreciating to its correct market value. China sells more exports than it otherwise would, and buys fewer imports than it otherwise would. Ultimately, the Chinese money does make it back to the US, but in the form of payments for Treasury Bills (This is due to a Chinese concern about inflation as well as a concern that excess capital would lead to social unrest and/or uncontrollable wealth flows that could weaken Communist Party control.).

Simply put, it seems to me that the net consequence is that cash comes to the US Treasury rather than to, among others, US producers. The cash in the Treasury was then ultimately lent out at low interest rates, creating investment opportunities in a society in which wages were not appreciated significantly (because of, among other reasons, the fact that American products were not easily sold to countries that have maintained a high exchange rate of local currency to dollars).

The predicament in which consumers cannot afford appreciating assets in reminiscent of the pre-Depression years in which consumers could not afford proliferating production. The similar increase in consumer credit is an unsurprising result.

Essentially, a change in global financial architecture is needed, not only for the reasons mentioned by the authors, above, but also so that the US can benefit most fully from concentrating on the development of its human capital, the long-term sine qua non for economic growth and political stability.

Concerns about political stability should not be minimized. The inherent tensions between communities constituting a democratic society are generously lubricated by growing wealth. The sense of chaos that can percolate through a society in the absence of such a scenario lends itself to exploitation by authoritarian-minded regimes. I do not think that the US is on the brink of such a scenario but the 20th century taught us well that farflung events can have a dramatic impact on our society.

Irresponsibility in Government

2008-10-01T21:04:00.003-04:00

There are many criticisms that can be made about the consequences to the market of a federal bailout (see George Will today, for instance) but I am certainly willing to take the lead of Paulson, Warren Buffett, etc.

Nonetheless, I do not credit most House Republicans with being thoughtful free marketeers. The sequence of events over the last week suggests that many had trouble understanding the crisis and that political calculation was predominant aspect of their thinking, despite the serious crisis. Michael Gerson points out, additionally, the many Democrats made similar calculations and that Pelosi's prevote speech was exceptionally poorly considered.

All in all, I agree with Gerson's estimation that the current political crisis in more frightening than the economic crisis:

America is left with one portion of one branch of government that does not seem to work. House Democrats seem temperamentally incapable of building genuine consensus on issues that matter. Many House Republicans seem so alienated from the mainstream policy consensus that they inhabit a different world. One wonders if any emergency short of an invasion of American territory would unite them. Even then, Pelosi would probably blame the conflict on cowboy diplomacy, House Republicans would talk of the natural fruits of McGovernism, and the vote on declaring war would be close.

Though some compromise may eventually be passed, it is now clear that American political elites have lost the ability to quickly respond to a national challenge by imposing their collective will. What once seemed like politics as usual now seems more like the crisis of the Articles of Confederation -- a weak government populated by small men. And this must be more frightening to a world dependent on American stability than any bank failure.

Cincinnatus

2008-09-24T12:00:00.006-04:00

Perhaps you know the Roman legend of Cincinnatus, the farmer-cum-dictator, who led his country in war and then returned, peaceably to the plow afterwards.

Our modern day Cincinnates (if you will) are Bernanke and Paulson who, though not dictators, are to be expected to control large amounts of capital with great financial consequence. The stark image of these two men crafting policy of great import, with limited outside involvement, reminds me of a section of Friedman's book: "China for a Day." In that section, Friedman daydreams about the potentialities of American creativity that would be unleashed if our government, fractured and unfocused as it is, could call for the bold changes in energy policy that China regularly has, at least, begun to do.

The scenario laid out by David Brooks (see below) could have been predicted by Aristotle, who diagnosed the weaknesses of democracy. Will our Cincinnatus, and their associated class of financial mandarins, go their way quietly when their work is done?

Two predictions:

1) Strong financial authority, provided to elites of that system, will supersede some of the authority of our populist leaders, caught up in the politics of fundraising and reelection. It will also lead to the responsible investing in America's energy, infrastructure, and human capital that is so vital right now.

2) Centralization inevitably leads to abuses of power. Expect, in say, ten years' time, a movement to arise to confront the smugness of a self-satisfied financial elite that, if all goes well, will have saved the country from a host of economic pitfalls.

Finally, the Brooks quote:

And lo and behold, a new center and a new establishment is emerging.

The Paulson rescue plan is one chapter. But there will be others. Over the next few years, the U.S. will have to climb out from under mountainous piles of debt. Many predict a long, gray recession. The country will not turn to free-market supply-siders. Nor will it turn to left-wing populists. It will turn to the safe heads from the investment banks. . . .

The government will be much more active in economic management (pleasing a certain sort of establishment Democrat). Government activism will provide support to corporations, banks and business and will be used to shore up the stable conditions they need to thrive (pleasing a certain sort of establishment Republican). Tax revenues from business activities will pay for progressive but business-friendly causes — investments in green technology, health care reform, infrastructure spending, education reform and scientific research.

Life of Mind, Life of Body

2008-09-23T00:20:00.001-04:00

A poetic selection from a Victor Davis Hanson article that draws the conclusion (incorrectly, I think) that Palin is qualified for the presidency:

While civilization advances on the shoulders of the educated, it is carried along by the legs of the muscular classes. And the latter are not there by some magical IQ test or a natural filtering process that separates the wheat from the chaff, but rather by either birth, or, as often, by their preference for action and the physical world.

Carbon Tax

2008-09-22T23:25:00.002-04:00

I am for a carbon tax.

I just completed Tom Friedman's "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" and I am convinced that (1) society has to pay for the externalities (an economic term related to costs effected by, but not calculated into, a transaction or activity) due to carbon emissions, (2) that a predictable market for alternative energy development is necessary for high investment therein, (3) that countries that move ahead rapidly with the development of cleaner energy will be at an advantage in the future, and (4) that the US is behind many other industrialized nations in this race.

The Financial Crisis and Isolationism

2008-09-21T14:17:00.004-04:00

A friend today said to me, "Maybe we should be willing to spend extra money to buy American-made products. The Chinese are going to fund our new government intervention in the economy but we should be taking care of ourselves."

I think that this sentiment is exactly misleading. Our weaknesses are tied, in part, to our failure to recognize that we need to market ourselves to the world. Turning inward would be a temporary salve but would actually be the harbinger of gradual economic and political decline.

Class in America

2008-09-17T23:15:00.010-04:00

The issue of why class politics, as such, have not taken a strong hold on the United States is much debated by socialists, Marxists, etc.

Here are two theories with which I'm familiar:

+ The vast resources (through the land itself and, later, through global power) of the country have helped to temper class resentments.

+The racial divide has prevented a strong unification of the working class.

Its interesting to note that the United States has long (since, at least, the late 19th century) had a relatively large proportion of "tertiary workers." This categories those who are neither owners of capital nor "professionals" nor factory laborers but who work, for instance, in "offices, shops, and services" (Hobsbawm, "The Age of Empire," p.115. New York: Vintage, 1989.)

Historically, such tertiary workers tend to be less class conscious than, say, factory workers and certain segments thereof tend to be open to cultural appeals for purity and righteousness.

A certain segment of the labor movement (Change to Win, since 2005) under the leadership of the Service Employees International Union has, in recent years, refocused efforts to organize the type of service workers that, in various forms, characterize American labor history. They have had some success but the jury is still out on whether a strong labor movement can be built from that millieu.

What's your point of view? What's the future of America's working and service classes?

Palin and Culture, Pt. III

2008-09-17T23:15:00.004-04:00

From Jonathan Haidt, who appears to be very interested in helping Democrats garner more electoral success:

. . . the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer.

From Lee Siegel in the Wall Street Journal, via my brother, Jeremy:

As a result of all this intellectual tumult, one stark distinction stands out among the differences between contemporary liberals and conservatives (the real differences, not the manufactured ones). Liberals always think that there is something broken in politics. Conservatives always think that there is something wrong with the culture.

These conflicting urgencies have given the conservatives mostly the upper hand for over a quarter of a century. Since culture is more immediate to us than the abstract policies and principles of politics -- and seemingly more dependable than politics' often fluid expediencies -- a politics of culture is going to be more successful than mere politics. For many people, the idea that Republican politics are wholly responsible for the country's ills is hard to accept. You can't feel politics. Rather, such people blame a culture of selfishness and irresponsibility for the deepening malaise (the word that sank President Carter among liberals who thought they smelled a Christian conservative in progressive clothing). You experience selfishness and irresponsibility in the flesh every day.

A shout out . . .

2008-09-17T23:15:00.001-04:00

. . . to my Amusers ("readers") in Georgia, Kentucky, and North Carolina. You're my first in those states.

"Green and Flat"

2008-09-17T09:07:00.002-04:00

Could renewable energy somehow connect to the integration of the global poor into the global economy?

Friedman argues, in "Hot, Flat, and Crowded," that, just as developing countries, lacking infrastructure, leapfrogged over the age of landline telephony directly into cellphone usage, so, too, do they need to leapfrog (at least in large measure) the age of centrally organized 'dirty' power into decentralized solar, wind, etc. power. He writes of a rural Indian village that powers internet-based employment with solar power. Interestingly, he notes, some town residents had lived in the city but returned, in spite of somewhat lower salaries, so that they could enjoy the openness of the countryside, the culture and family ties of their youth, etc.

Palin and the Cultural Divide

2008-09-16T10:26:00.002-04:00

My Palin post has generated the first inklings of "A Musing?" debate so allow me to harness that horse . . .

A few thoughts on the cultural divide that has been highlighted by reactions to Palin (If this issue interests you, do not miss the Haidt piece discussed below.):

+I believe that the 60's student movement brought many important issues to the fore. I do also believe that it announced the 'divorce' of the elite student from the "ho-hum conventions of American life" (as many of the students saw it) and accordingly helped to lay the groundwork for the deep misunderstandings that we read about today.

+The elites, in my opinion, were taking advantage of their class privileges and have become accordingly self-involved. Judith Warner, in the New York Times:

[University of Virginia associate professor of moral psychology Jonathan] Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning. Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view. “Liberals feel contempt for the conservative moral view, and that is very, very angering. Republicans are good at exploiting that anger,” he told me in a phone interview.

+Haidt writes a highly fascinating piece on "The Edge" website, called "What Makes People Vote Repulican?" It is only a few pages long and is one of the best analyses of political-cultural connections in America that I have ever read.

+Despite my disapproval of Palin as a candidate, I think that it is important that we recognize that non-Ivy league, non-Davos summit folks can be excellent leaders. Truman, for instance, never attended college.

Environment: Scary Thoughts (mostly)

2008-09-16T09:32:00.008-04:00

1) I'm listening to Tom Friedman's Hot, Flat, and Crowded and found the following scenario quite sobering (I hope that I'm getting it right.):

+Palm oil was once seen as a promising biofuel.
+It now seems that the cutting down of forests that include palm releases more carbon dioxide than is saved by using palm oil fuels.

2) In the category of hope, you might want to check out Google's "RE
3) One cute mnemonic from the Friedman book: Fuels from "hell" come from below ground (hence the mnemonic), tend to be non-renewable, and tend to pollute the environment (coal, oil, gas, etc.). Fuels from "heaven" come from above-ground, and tend to be renewable and clean (solar, wind).

4) I'll digress into some word games because I've noticed how adept Friedman is at making up cute mnemonics. I assume that he puts great stock in the importance of catchy phrases.

Here's my (perhaps, awkward) attempt: An interesting, non-political note: During a geological debate in the 19th century, some (who emphasized the power of the oceans) were called Neptunists (named after the Roman ocean god, Neptune) and some (who emphasized the power of internal earth processes) were called Plutonists (after Pluto, the Roman god of the underworld).

We could call the sources of fuel that Friedman mentions "plutonic" and "jovial" (after Jove, the god of the heavens). Which type of fuel would make you feel better about the future?

FInance and Mortgages

2008-09-16T09:32:00.004-04:00

Anyone out there who can help me to gain a deeper understanding of the current economic situation? I get the basics so probably need someone who works in a related field.

The Blog

2008-09-16T09:32:00.002-04:00

I'm making an effort to make at least one post a day, even if short. I'm starting to feel some traction from readers, after the first nine-ten months on the 'job.'

PALIN

2008-09-15T18:13:00.003-04:00

I'm not sure which bothers me more, the idea of Palin as president or the condescension towards her from intellectual elites.

I found Palin quite unimpressive in the ABC interview, social views aside. Still, I am deeply bothered by the "Americans are stupid for not seeing that Obama is better for their interests." trope that I hear on the Upper West Side. Here's a letter that I wrote to the NYT and WaPo editors on Palin and the liberals. I call it "Palin Payback":

Dear Sir:

Sadly, the popularity of an inexperienced and unprepared Gov. Sarah Palin is payback for the inveterate condescension of coastal liberals for their countrymen in the heartland. I have often wondered how the same sect of people that calls on America to show understanding and compassion for Anti-Americanism around the world can scarce be counted on to show a similar approach towards fellow, thinking citizens whose beliefs on religion, gun ownership, etc., are different from their own. A Palin victory would be poetic, even if not just.

My Views on The Presidential Campaign: An Update

2008-09-08T16:50:00.003-04:00

A few developments have moved me into the Obama camp, for now. The most important is my discomfort with the image of Palin as Commander-in-Chief (see third point, below):

+I like the Biden pick. He has much of the international vision and gravitas that Obama lacks. He also is grounded in the mundane political issues that Obama does not clearly address.

+I like Obama's move to the center on NAFTA.

+I like Palin's grit and am glad that she is in the race. Her mere presence challenges Obama to prove that he is a real reformer. Furthermore, she challenges the cultural elitism of the Democrats (Read this excellent article on the topic.) that disturbs me so greatly (They can't help but respond intelligently to the crowds that are enthused by her style and personality.). Certainly, I find her equivocation on evolution and global warming to be troublesome, but she is not likely to be the one who sets the agenda on this front unless . . . McCain dies in office. In short, Palin's social views and her relative ignorance of international issues make her a huge risk, in my mind, should she have to step in as president. The risk of choosing Obama, whose awareness of foreign affairs, though not extraordinarily deep, is extraordinarily deeper than Palin's, is much less.

The Invasion of Iraq: A Response to Sir David

2008-09-08T16:45:00.002-04:00

I supported the invasion of Iraq and am aware of the resolutions that preceded it. Still, I would argue that the US has accepted an international cost in executing a war of choice that was not supported by the public opinion of the democratic world.

The effectiveness of the US to act as an international policeman is necessarily supported by the good opinion of fellow liberal democracies.

Russia's Antidemocratic Alliance

2008-09-08T16:30:00.005-04:00

In the latest, tit-for-tat move between the US and Russia, Russia has announced that it may hold joint naval exercises with Venezuela. This is a clear (though unacknowledged) move to send a message to the US regarding its current naval activities in the Black Sea.

How many similar, anti-US regimes of consequence can the Russians reach out to? One potential step for Russian escalation of their defiance of US hegemony would be to strengthen Russia's ties to Iran. This would cause concern for Russia, though, as it fears Iran's nuclear ambitions and Islamic radicalism. Russia itself has Islamic minority nationalist movements that it sometimes struggles to control.

Fortunately for the West, Russia's connection to Venezuela does not have strong ideological underpinnings. Venezuela, ironically, is now the more 'socialist' of the two countries (Russia's is a brand of state capitalism.) and its brand of demagogic populism is likely to unnerve Russia's more austere leadership.

Another interesting development for the West is that Russia appealed for, but did not receive, support for its Georgia moves, from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, whose only other weighty member is China. The Chinese, suspicious of all foreign interventions and protective of the perception of their neutrality, recognize at the same time that the future of their economic system (and of the Communist Party, whose legitimacy rests on economic growth) is tied up with the globalized market system as supported by the United States and the West. Is it possible that a resurgent Russia could, once again, push China closer to the more stable and predictable Western powers?

IRAQ AND GEORGIA

2008-08-15T20:15:00.001-04:00

What do these invasions teach us about the state of our geopolitical system?

When the US invaded Iraq, it certainly contravened international legal norms that provided for aggression only when an enemy presented an immediate threat. This is a norm that the US helped to enshrine in the post-World War II legal order. We have witnessed, since the fall of the Soviet Union, a strengthening of the social and economic order promulgated by, and beneficial to, the US: democracy and free markets. The process of the US invasion of Iraq and its aftermath involves a negation of the legal order of the era of Pax Americana but an affirmation of the era’s social and economic order. In short, the US undermined the international legal system while strengthening the international social system.

Russia’s invasion of Georgia, however, represents a challenge both to the international legal order and to the socioeconomic order of US-led globalization. In Iraq, we ultimately seem to be witnessing the triumph of the liberal economic and political order. The ability, or inability, of that socioeconomic order to prevail in Georgia is of great symbolic significance over the next few years.

The US invasion of Iraq was, if you will, a wager in which the socioeconomic order of international democracy was chosen over the international norm of national sovereignty. It is not surprising that US disregard for the latter is costing us right now. Still, we would be foolish to be entranced by that fact and to overlook the greater stakes that underpinned the initial wager. The pace of the march of political and economic freedom around the world is at stake.

GEORGIA ON MY MIND, or WHY THE INVASION MATTERS SO MUCH

2008-08-15T13:42:00.004-04:00

International aggression and ethnic separatism are important elements of this crisis but they do not lend it its singularity. Russia, an important global power, is announcing its refusal to align itself to a US-led global system that tends to support economic and political freedom.

Paul Krugman explains (though perhaps a bit too defnitively for my tastes):

[T]he war in Georgia [marks] the end of the Pax Americana — the era in which the United States more or less maintained a monopoly on the use of military force. And that raises some real questions about the future of globalization.

Some have asked, “Didn’t the American-created global order suffer a greater defeat with the invasion of Iraq?” or “How is the Russian support of South Ossetian independence different from the US support of Kosovar independence?”

The US invasion of Iraq does have consequences for the stability of the international system. It does make it harder for the US to assert the importance of respecting national sovereignty. But, it did not alter the fundamental fact that the US economy, society, and culture tend to see their interests aligned with politically and economically free societies ruled by law. No one is surprised that, following the increasing democratic stability in Iraq, the US is getting ready to leave. No one is surprised that the US is helping to support a free society in Kosovo. Russia cannot be expected to act similarly.

GEORGIA AND RUSSIA

2008-08-12T01:23:00.003-04:00

Here are McCain and Obama's statements on Georgia.

THE MEANING OF THE INFORMATION AGE

2008-08-05T20:12:00.004-04:00

This is my most extensive political theory work to date. It may be a bit rough around the edges but I hope that you will find it interesting. I am hoping that it will impress but even more so, that you will be inspired to offer me criticism and guidance.

2008-08-05T16:19:00.006-04:00

THE SADR MILITIA ANNOUNCES THAT IT WILL DISARM

From Pete Wehner:

What we are witnessing unfold in Iraq will one day be written about in history books, and not just military history books. To have taken a situation critics said was a mistake of historic proportions–the worst foreign policy debacle since the founding of the Republic–and to transform it into a victory, which is what is well under way, is among the more dramatic and important moments in American history. These have been exhausting years for our nation, ones during which tremendous errors in judgment were made. But they have been memorable and proud ones as well. And now, we can say with increasing confidence, they have been successful ones.

I supported the war and was hesitant and nervous about the surge. I respect the position of war opponents. Still, are there any such opponents out there who will celebrate these salutary developments in Iraq?

2008-08-05T13:08:00.003-04:00

"Obama, the postmodernist"

by Jonah Goldberg

I don't entirely agree with the tone and the perspective but I think that the main thrust of the argument is quite correct and is worth consideration before you cast your vote. Any postmodernists out there who care to offer their two cents?

2008-07-30T19:07:00.003-04:00

"Are America’s Elites Post-American?" and Other Implied Questions of a Rambling Monologue

I admit that I'm throwing these thoughts at you, dear reader. Much can be more tightly defined and/or more broadly spun out. I'd love your feedback: What message do you discern from these expatiations?

The confrontation of non-democratic powers reinforces our belief that we need to dynamic, flexible, and largely unconstrained by governmental regulation. The self-interested reason that elites sometimes support social programs is that they believe in the strengthening of the nation-state, in this context.

The intermingling of elites, however, has undermined the sense that the future of elites is tied to the common person. At the same time, the common American supports the status quo because of a belief in the need to confront regimes that are less free, and potentially aggressive.

Peaceful accommodation among elites may eventually lead to the perception that aggressive confrontation is not strongly needed and the common person may decide that it is worthwhile to secure health and educational benefits for himself.

Trade agreements are one step in the direction of events such as these unfolding. More significant, however, would be (1) the democratization of China and (2a) the democratization of important parts of the Middle East or (2b) a dramatic decrease in our reliance on oil (NB: 2a and 2b do not both need to happen for the belief in a stable, wealthy world to take root much more firmly.). Such an occurrence (which would likely take decades to solidify itself) would convince common folks that the need to band behind their elite leadership is not so strong as it had earlier seemed.

Obama is an interesting phenomenon because he senses the potential for such a secure, wealthy world order to emerge. He simultaneously seems to support the passions of common folks to secure their part of an international system that does not fully consider them. This is a common liberal stance in American today. Obama is so successful because he presents it with so little acrimony. The image is understandably appealing.

The shortcoming is that, so long as challenges to the democratic world order are not taken seriously, the risks remain of (1) an ebb in the tide of democratic expansion and/or (2) a crisis in the relationship between Obama and American middle in the event of future challenges to that order.

2008-07-29T14:02:00.003-04:00

Brooks on Education and Technology

David Brooks makes the following point today:

In periods when educational progress outpaces this change, inequality narrows. The market is flooded with skilled workers, so their wages rise modestly. In periods, like the current one, when educational progress lags behind technological change, inequality widens. The relatively few skilled workers command higher prices, while the many unskilled ones have little bargaining power.

I find this point convincing at first glance. It begs the question: How do we promote educational investment at a time at which we are hypnotized (often very justifiably) by technological development? Do we fear sacrificing the latter for the former?

Brooks also argues, however, that the principal reason for America's role as a 20th century superpower was "a ferocious belief that people have the power to transform their own lives gave Americans an unparalleled commitment to education, hard work and economic freedom." I am inclined to think that the aforementioned is just one aspect of a propitious brew that included prolific natural resources and an ambitious (that is, not just educationally/intellectually ambitious) and entrepreneurial populace, inter alia.

2008-07-25T00:19:00.003-04:00

A EUROPEAN'S TAKE ON OBAMA AND AMERICA

"Eventually, We'll All Hate Obama[,] Too"

Despite the provocative title, this piece is not meant to bash Obama. Rather, the purpose is to highligh some fundamental divisions between American and European perspectives that are likely to challenge any future administration.

2008-07-23T15:07:00.002-04:00

OBAMA ON TERROR

From today's Washington Post:

Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves.

What's going on here? Obama's stances are based on electoral politicas and are delimited by the moral stances of the left regarding the initial justice of the two respective wars. The left is generally uninterested in a geopoltical analysis of the current security needs of Afghanistan or Iraq. The justice, or injustice of the inception of each war is enough to guide the general strategic thinking from certain quarters.

I respect the moral judgments of many who proclaim the legitimacy of the Afghanistan war over the Iraq wars. There are many sounds reasons uppon which to base such an argument. Such judgments do not an indefinite policy make. I am reminded of a favorite Max Weber quotation that states, regarding political action, "it is not true that good can follow only from good and evil only from evil, but that often the opposite is true. Anyone who fails to see this is, indeed, a political infant."

2008-07-22T01:49:00.002-04:00

ALEXANDER THE GREAT

I'm reading the classic source on Alexander the Great's campaigns, "Anabasis Alexandri" by the first century Greek historian known as Arrian. The account, with a military focus but many key personal elements, is sometimes riveting, sometimes dry but quite reflective and highly articulate. At the very least, it impresses one with the richness of first century literature.

Here's a scenario to chew on:

+Alexander and his troops are on the march, somewhat isolated, in Asia.
+Alexander uncovers a plot against him.
+One of the participants in the plot is the son of one of Alexander's generals.
+Alexander has the son killed.
+Alexander has the father killed, possibly because he does not want to risk the father's wrath against himself.

What would you have done if you were to have been Alexander?

2008-07-22T01:46:00.003-04:00

OBAMA AND ISRAEL

This is my first post about Israel but I think that Nathan Diament frames very well the major questions of Israelis and Jews, writ large, on the eve of Obama's visit to Israel.

2008-07-22T00:40:00.004-04:00

OBAMA THE CULTURAL PHENOMENON

Shelby Steele brilliantly analyzes the Obama candidacy today.

To sum up Steele's most salient points:

1) The most salutary effects of an Obama election are cultural in that his cultural stance would allow us to move beyond a large part of the politically correct conversation on race. The caveat is that a failed Obama presidency would not accomplish this. Obama's rhetoric, I would add, implicitly acknowledges this truth. Jonathan Stein in Mother Jones shares this related thought that substantiates the idea that Obama is well aware of this aspect of his candidacy:

"Obama's rhetoric makes an undeniable suggestion: that his election, not an eight-year administration that shttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifuccessfully implements his vision for America, would represent a moment in America of the grandest, most transformative kind. And that's a bit much."

2) Obama's amorphous politics perfectly suit his being such a cultural phenomenon. His lack of hard political commitments is his charm, in this context.

3) As long as Obama makes the election about cultural attitudes and makes political differences seem unimportant, McCain will epitomize "retrogression" and the election will be about "the establishment of his own patriotism, trustworthiness and gravitas."

2008-07-16T01:52:00.002-04:00

WHAT I LOVE ABOUT AMERICAN POWER

Please consider reading this if you are queasy about American power in the world (Friedman today on Zimbabwe).

2008-07-14T02:23:00.000-04:00

"WHAT IF CANDIDATES PANDERED TO ECONOMISTS?"

by Gregory Mankiw

2008-07-10T20:23:00.003-04:00

WATER, WATER, EVERYWHERE

It strikes me lately how promising a subject of public health research is the topic of water. Algae blooms off the coast of China, pollution in the Yellow River, contaminants (medications, pesticides, etc.) in our our drinking water, etc., etc. This is an issue in the developing world as well as the developed world.

2008-07-10T20:21:00.002-04:00

Joint Medical Program at Cal and UC-San Francisco

This program involves a heavy amount of case study, as opposed to rote learning alone, and leaves participants with an MPH and an MD. I've had some excellent conversations with professors here about this and am very excited to learn more.

2008-07-10T20:19:00.002-04:00

OBESITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS

I've come across some interesting studies about the possiblity that environmental contaminants may make obesity and/or diabetes more common. Fascinating.

2008-07-10T16:45:00.002-04:00

CHINA, PUBLIC HEALTH, SAN FRANCISCO AIR

Read this New Republic piece to see how they all intersect.

2008-06-30T12:55:00.005-04:00

FOREIGN AID AND FOREIGN POLICY

+ Sam Ruteikara argues that American attitudes about sex, in so far as they influence foreign aid policy, have undermined the Ugandan effort to fight AIDS. This is not the traditional critique (that pro-abstinence policymakers undermine condom distribution, sex education, etc.). Rather, Ruteikara argues that an American bias towards accepting casual sex has undermined Uganda's efforts to discourage the same.

+Gregory Scoblete suggests that we consider Obama and McCain's foreign policy in terms of their particularist and universalist tendencies, respectively. More specifically, how generalizable do they each believe American values to be? These positions do not easily correlate with the hawk vs. dove paradigm.

2008-06-26T16:45:00.003-04:00

TWO BOOKS I'VE BEEN READING

+I'm enjoying Mo Yan's Life and Death are Wearing Me Out, a magical realist and cutely funny depiction of post-revolutionary China.

+I also recently began Margaret MacMillan's Nixon and Mao, which discusses their 1972 meeting and its political, historical, etc. background.

2008-06-26T16:39:00.003-04:00

"ECONOMIC TRANSITION AND HEALTH TRANSITION . . ."

I've been reading about China's health care system and came across a study that raises some provocative questions about how economic transition (that is, systemic change in an economy, as opposed to economic growth, per se) affects public health. The paper suggests that China's gradual economic transition (as compared to that of Russia) has led to better health outcomes.

2008-06-23T02:56:00.003-04:00

CHANGE, WROUGHT WITH CARE

+Read George Will on "libertarian paternalism" and the surprising power of the default (not on your computer but in government policy).

+Evan Thomas wonders what Obama really thinks about the expectations that he is creating.