OBAMA'S SPEECH, Part II

Obama addresses the issue of race in his speech. He did not so clearly address the issue of Americanism. He should have done this because Wright's comments called into doubt Obama's feelings about America, much more so than they called into doubt his feelings about whites. Very few people doubt that Obama is a sympathetic and tolerant person, in general. What does he believe is America's role in the world, though? What defines Americanism? McCain has a view about this. Does Obama?

OBAMA'S SPEECH

I've watched the first third of Obama's speech and read about twenty articles about it. It's not easy to remember another speech that has generated so much disagreement while still inspiring general respect for the speaker. There seems to be great agreement that Obama, in giving the speech, took some risks uncharacteristic of American politicians.

It's not over for Obama, of course. A prediction: Discussion will come to a head over Obama's apparent equation of Ferraro's unfair(?) comments about the role of race in Obama's rise with Wright's apparent disdain for America. Here's the passage in question:

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action, that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation — that rightly offend white and black alike.

RACE AND THE ELECTIONS

Disclaimers:

• I am no big fan of Clinton's. I think that she often makes disingenuous and/or misleading arguments.
  
• I think that Obama has run a largely reputable campaign (In fact, one of the most reputable I can remember seeing.)

Still, I have been disturbed by the recent attacks on Geraldine Ferraro which have been instigated by the Obama campaign. A Wall Street Journal article today helps to sort through, rather well I think, the times when the Clinton campaign has used racially-loaded arguments and the times when they (and their surrogates) have been unfairly accused of this.

OBAMA

Here are two excellent articles that point out the predicament in which Obama finds himself.

The first, by David Brooks, explains that campaigns cannot sell out their core message and proceeds to identify Obama's core weakness. Here's an excerpt:

In short, a candidate should never betray the core theory of his campaign, or head down a road that leads to that betrayal. Barack Obama doesn’t have an impressive record of experience or a unique policy profile. New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, and he loses everything. Every day that he looks conventional is a bad day for him.

Besides, the real softness of the campaign is not that Obama is a wimp. It’s that he has never explained how this new politics would actually produce bread-and-butter benefits to people in places like Youngstown and Altoona.

Next, Charles Krauthammer helps explain some of the psychological dynamics underlying Obama's rise. He then challenges the idea that Obama has the gumption to unite a riven polity. Here's an excerpt from this one:

The Obama campaign has sent journalists eight pages of examples of his reaching across the aisle in the Senate. I am not the only one to note, however, that these are small-bore items of almost no controversy -- more help for war veterans, reducing loose nukes in the former Soviet Union, fighting avian flu and the like. Bipartisan support for apple pie is hardly a profile in courage.

On the difficult compromises that required the political courage to challenge one's own political constituency, Obama flinched: the "Gang of 14" compromise on judicial appointments, the immigration compromise to which Obama tried to append union-backed killer amendments and, just last month, the compromise on warrantless eavesdropping that garnered 68 votes in the Senate. But not Obama's.

Who, in fact, supported all of these bipartisan deals, was a central player in two of them and brokered the even more notorious McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform? John McCain, of course.

CHINA AND THE US: PURPOSE AND FREEDOM

Increasing peace, prosperity, and democracy and the tension inherent in capitalist competition will ultimately lead to a relative increase in the preference for certainty in economic life. Such an environment will lead to a psychology in which economic cooperation is preferred first, competition second. This does not mean that corruption will cease, that people will necessarily be happier, or that the economy will necessarily be more efficient. Indeed, it may be less so. Or, the ‘new’ system may be more efficient only insofar as the expectation of reduced conflict overcompensates for diminished competitive forces by decreasing the expected risk of investment.

Karl Marx walked a thin line between being a social philosopher/scientist and a political activist. His activism is often given greatest play both by his adherents and detractors alike. If his theory of collective ownership is seen less as a prescription and more as a prediction of a shift in psychological attitudes towards the economy, his ideas become less ‘other-worldly’ as well as less prone to promoting violent confrontation. I am not advocating a gradual shift to socialism. The dynamism of capitalism is essential for promoting economic wealth and political freedom in today’s world.

Still, I do believe that a peaceful reconcilliation between China and the US would be the harbinger of a significant change in geopolitics. This does not mean that the US should surrender economic or political freedom in the hopes of pacifying China. It does mean that we ought to be conscious of what we have to learn from China and how, if China chooses to learn from us, the world might change as a result.

We need not view China’s rise only in terms of a “balance of powers” between nation-states. If we see China move towards democracy and capitalism, we will have witnessed the near triumph of those two particular political/economic systems. Again, a more peaceful, prosperous world would tend to diminish the appeal of violence and conquest. At the point at which a critical mass of people believes that the world has ‘turned a corner’ in that respect, nationalist competition will become less appealing.

This change in perspective would amount to the US internalizing one of the finest features of China’s current national politics: a sense of common responsibility and purpose. While China’s current expression of this value is less than laudable, it is clear that such a perspective can be psychologically reassuring to people, as well as, at times, materially beneficial. Will we come to live in world that is characterized by economic and political freedom as well as by a sense of common purpose?

Some trends that should be observed as we consider how China and the US will affect each other in the years ahead:

1) China’s deepening influence on the US economic system
2) Chinese-US cooperation on global development issues
3) Chinese-US cooperation to promote international global stability
4) Will environmental and environmental health challenges in China force it to relax its controls on civil society and on economic freedom, thereby harnessing increased citizen participation in a series of stark problems that can not be solved only by central planners?
5) Most abstractly: Will the US polity mature to the extent that it can focus more wholeheartedly on long-term economic challenges? This, in my view, would be one of the fruits of the US learning from the ‘common purpose’ that the Chinese leaders (albeit authoritarian and, at times, draconian) seek to instill their society.

I don’t blame the reader if point #5 seems vaporous. I am still working to articulate the philosophical concepts related to this point, as well as their respective applications.

WEALTH, CAPITALISM, DEMOCRACY, AND INTERNATIONAL ASSERTIVENESS

My thinking about China and my reading of Alan Greenspan's new book ("The Age of Turbulence") has led me to some conjectures about democracy, capitalism, wealth, and assertive power.

I want to propose the following:

+Countries that are capitalist and wealthy tend very strongly to be democratic and internationally assertive. The converse tends to be true as well.

My reasoning:

+Capitalist countries tend to promote an ethic of individualism, which lends itself to democratic political organization and to a sensitivity to international threats. The second point is, perhaps, the more subtle one: I would argue that the 'rough and tumble' world of capitalism keeps its participants more keen to competitive challenges. This principle applies equally to business challenges and to geopolitical challenges. Essentially, this could be one explanation for the more internationally assertive stance of the UK, the US, and Australia, as opposed to France, Germany, and Japan.

+Wealth affords people the opportunity to reflect upon, and oppose, policies that are perceived to be unfair. Also, of course, wealth affords countries the opportunity to play a globally assertive role.

Some exceptions:

+Singapore and Hong Kong are both wealthy and economically free but lack political freedoms. This imbalance may be sustainable, in part, because of their small size. In short, it may be easier to control the political expression of a small, as opposed to a large, merchant society.

+India is an interesting exception. It is neither wealthy nor particularly economically free. Still, it shows some signs of appreciating the importance of confronting geopolitical challenges from less free neighbors. This may be due to (1) India's large size, which makes it both more able to play a regional/geopolitical role and more conscious of its geopolitical weight and to (2) the very fact of the existence of potentially aggressive, less free neighbors, especially Pakistan and China. We am forced to ask: Why is Japan then different from India? It is both relatively large and in the proximity of a neighbor who presents some degree of geopolitical challenge (read: China). If we argue that Japan's history (and constitution) make it especially inclined to pacifism, we are forced to question the assumption that less economic freedom is the proximate cause of Japan's (and, similarly, of Germany's) relative international quietude.


Conclusion:

There is still some more sorting to do on these issues. India is clearly an interesting case for further investigation.

I realize that I need to do some ‘fleshing out’ of my ideas about the rise of China and ‘holistic’ worldviews. A few quotes from National University of Singapore's Professor Kishore Mahbubani’s recent article in The American Interest are instructive.

It is odd: America is one of the most open societies in the world, yet when it comes to listening to the rest of the world or understanding the views of others, American instead resembles a closed society. Indian political scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta once compared India and China by saying, “India is an open society with a closed mind; China is a closed society with an open mind.” The same comparison may be made between America and China.

Also:

Deng Xiaoping turned to . . . ancient wisdom to craft his famous 28 characters, which prescribed seven guidelines for China to follow: (1) lengjing guancha, observe and analyze developments calmly; (2) chenzhuo yingfu, deal with changes patiently and confidently; (3) wenzhu zhenjiao, secure our own position; (4) taoguang yanghui, conceal our capabilities and avoid the limelight; (5) shanyu shouzhuo, keep a low profile; (6) juebu dangtou, never become a leader; (7) yousuo zuowei, strive for achievements.

More later . . .

“CIVICS AND SCIENCE”

This should be the mantra of democratic societies around the world. I’ll outline a series of issues to explain how these themes relate. My proposals are not only intended to be practically useful but also politically viable. The clarity of the concepts as well as their international appeal is therefore important.

I. The viability of the US economy is an issue of strategic importance for all democracies and ought to be addressed by a “national science project”.
a. The US is not likely to reclaim manufacturing jobs that have drifted overseas and needs to leverage its position as an innovative, well-connected society by emphasizing science education at all levels of society.
b. The importance of civics education in this country is not easily disputed.

II. Oil-based economies tend to lack the civil society necessary to moderate militant passions (e.g. in Saudi Arabia, Iran) and/or to moderate authoritarian tendencies (e.g. Iran, Russia, Venezuela); the West can do the world a service by developing energy alternatives that gradually free us from dependence on oil.
a. A “national science project” would help drive the sort of innovation necessary to achieve this task.
b. A recent review (see previous post) of US efforts in Iraq gives added teeth to the idea that ‘soft power’ is necessary to cement the institutional change we seek in such countries. Organizations such as Creative Associates work to spread civics education abroad. Efforts that support the development of strong, accountable local governments should be expanded.

III. The rise of China is likely to be one of the most significant geopolitical issues of this century. The environmental challenges that we face as a planet have the potential to humble all of us enough to turn potential confrontation into cooperation.
a. Exchanges between Chinese and Western science have most productively taken place in the realm of medicine. Americans are clearly seeking a more holistic view of their own medical health. Our country could drive down its health costs by developing a culture of prevention and wellness.
b. The best opportunities for civics cooperation would take place in a context in which the wisdom of Chinese holistic traditions (as manifested in medicine and in the current purposeful progress of the society) are openly acknowledged by Americans. In such a context, opportunities would be enhanced for the United States to offer guidance to China on increased public participation in government.

IV. Take a moment to think about each item above and you'll see how global environmental challenges are relevant to each.

Conclusion: Catchiness is not a luxury but a necessity in any age. This is particularly so when interest and faith in national institutions is declining (See here to be shocked into believing this last claim.). The phrase "Civics and Science" is one example of how to encapsulate a broad range of critical issue under one slogan.

The Logic (?) of the US Creed, Democratic Ideals, and Foreign Policy

I was inspired to put this together after reading a report a CNN article about the Rand Corp. review of US policy in Iraq (commissioned by the US Department of Defense). I supported the war in Iraq but feel that the strategy of our struggle against terrorism is unproductively skewed towards military tactics.

I've put together a series of interlinked statements that help to explain why I supported the war and how I think our efforts have gone awry. The arguments are political and social, as well as military [Quotes are taken from CNN quotations from the Rand Corp. report (My apologies for not looking them up myself :)].

Here goes:

(1) Every society depends, for cohesion, on a common sense of mission.
(2) The US creed “that all men are created equal” is one of the central elements to this nation’s sense of mission.
(3) This creed ultimately requires us to respect all people around the world both in terms of (a) the value of the lives and (b) their desire for self-government (Again, these requirement relate back to item #1 and are therefore pragmatic, as much as idealistic requirements.)
(4) The paradox of international politics flows from the fact that there exist authoritarian regimes and movements that can undermine societies that adhere to the ideal of “human equality”; it is not always apparent how to stop these regimes without the use of force. The use of force against these regimes contradicts item #3, the requirement that we respect the dignity of every human life (Namely, when civilians are killed in Afghanistan by US forces, our own faith in our national creed is affected.)
(5) In order to both (a) uphold our international commitments and (b) maintain our national faith in our creed, we must never allow violence to be the dominant aspect of our foreign policy.
(6) Over-reliance on violence also erodes our international relationships and exhausts our forces (which are ultimately supported by the morale and treasure of the nation entire).
(7) The attempt to implant democracy in the Middle East is an important element of the effort to spread democracy around the world. This importance is related to (a) the terrorism that has flowed from that region and (b) yes, the importance of oil to the stability of the geopolitical system.
(8) A recent report from the Rand Corp., commissioned by the US Department of Defense, highlights some ways in which we are over-relying on hard power, as opposed to soft power, in our struggle against terrorism. The report focuses on ways in which the US military is overstretching itself and ways in which we are overlooking the possibility of international cooperation to further our goals (see #6).
(9) The report also emphasizes that "Foreign forces cannot substitute for effective local governments, and they can even weaken their legitimacy," However, "when it comes to building these and other civil capabilities abroad, the United States is alarmingly weak." Therefore, "the federal government will need a dramatic increase in civilian capabilities [and] new organizational arrangements . . ." Such an effort would both (a) support the US military (see items #6 and 8) and would (b) help to spread the creed of the US around the world. Such an effort would also help to resolve the paradox contained in item #4, as it would allow us to promote democracy abroad with less reliance on the use of force.

I recently wrote the article below and am planning to submit it to the Obama HQ in NYC and to my new blog on the Obama website. If Obama embraces the perspective outlined in the article below (not necessarily through my doing, of course), I will embrace his candidacy.

From One Bara(c)k to Another
by Barak Epstein

Barack Obama has gotten off his game lately. His understandable compulsion to respond to the Clinton attacks is jeopardizing his popular image. How can Obama defuse the Clinton claim to sage leadership without playing into the ‘drama of personalities’ that Hillary and Bill have set up for him?

Fundamental economic and geopolitical realities play into Obama’s potential to be a transformative president. Globalization and the emergence of the information age increase the value of collaboration, understanding of global cultures, openness, and authenticity. Obama rode these trends into the national limelight. Now he needs to demonstrate that his political mastery of the Age of Globalization marches hand in hand with his cultural mastery of that same Age.

The pending energy revolution significantly links cultural and political trends of globalization. No other issue offers the opportunity to tap so deeply and simultaneously into the cultural thirst for a sustainable global economy and the economic needs (1) to begin to free us from oil and (2) to retrain Americans for an era in which cheap labor abounds in the rest of the world. Specifically, Obama should spread the gospel of a national science project that can help retrain America’s workers and provide ‘green collar’ jobs while addressing the challenge of climate change.

Amazingly, Obama can also ride the issue of globalization to a more confident and more coherent foreign policy stance. Thus far, Obama’s general expression of openness with regard to foreign policy scarily mirrors John Kerry’s 2004 fuzzy talk about ‘multilateralism’. Of course, an energy revolution would serve the goal of drying up some of the funds authoritarian regimes that impede the continuing spread of democracy and/or promote terrorism. Obama should take all of this a step further to emphasize the new opportunities for cooperation that globalization brings. Specifically, he should express the need to create a League of Democracies that works across continental boundaries to establish a world order that reflects America’s highest ideals as well as its national interests. This concept is symbolic of a foreign policy that is collaborative, as so many Democrats desire, but that is also proactive and truly American. The logic of such a policy has the potential to revolutionize the foreign policy of the Democratic Party.

For Obama to be as transformative as Reagan, his ideas will have to come across as clearly as his good character does. The key to articulating these ideas lies in the very cultural and economic trends that make Obama’s style so inherently appealing. Obama’s style is not entirely convincing as long as he plays the game of ideas according to rules that the Clintons set in the 90’s. Obama is playing a new game but has not announced the new rules yet.

AWAY . . .

I'll be away until mid-January (on my honeymoon!).

I'll be excited to return to your comments.

Some possible upcoming topics:

+more on Friedman's "national science project"

+discussion of possible energy alternatives, including raising some questions about corn-based ethanol (and the distortion of this political discussion caused by Iowa's early caucuses)

+???

A "NATIONAL SCIENCE PROJECT" 

OK, I'm on a Thomas Friedman kick . . .

Here he addresses how a "national science project" with regard to energy independence/alternative would be a powerful response to a number of national issues (energy, education, globalization, terrorism).  Another article of his humorously addresses many of these same issues in the context of a mock Iranian "National Intelligence Estimate" of the United States.

Yet another issue I'd like to highlight: It's become more difficult for talented scientists to come to the United States, post 9-11.  This has potential strategic significance for our entire country.

Amazingly, Friedman's national science project idea has implications for national infrastructure, economic innovation, labor, terrorism, the strength of the democratic world, the environment, and education.  I'll be excited to write/research more about this when I return from my honeymoon(!)

INNOVATION-BASED ECONOMIES

My writing on the intellectual stultification that can occur in oil-based economies and on the potential economic benefits of an American "Green Revolution" (see the Thomas Friedman link in the previous post) overlap in at least one way: They both point to the relevance of an "innovation-based" economy.

I've touched on the importance of an innovation-based economy in terms of its potential to promote democracy.  Friedman (in another article) addresses the importance of a culture of innovation for securing American prosperity as global economic competition intensifies.

TREE HUGGERS, HAWKS, (and LABORERS?)

The Set America Free Coalition aims to create links between environmentalists and security hawks interested in reducing American dependence on foreign oil (I would argue that domestically-produced oil would not be much better, environmentally or in terms of national security.).  Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (first referred to me by my brother, Jeremy) addresses some similar issues.

Thomas Friedman focuses on another aspect of the drive for alternative energies/energy efficiency:  potential benefits to the American labor force of environmental reforms.

How can we better develop coalitions between all of these communities and interest groups?

OIL and DEMOCRACY

Hmmm....  Let's think about the areas around the world that have presented the greatest challenges to a democratic world order in recent months . . .

My list would include Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.

What do they have in common?  All collect oil/gas revenues that pad economic growth even while repressing the innovation and citizen activism that underpin most dynamic and successful societies.

OIL and TERRORISM

The same trends apply to many Middle Eastern societies that are hotbeds for terrorism.  The resultant (1) lack of a strong civil society and of (2) a moderate middle class precludes those societies from presenting an organized response to disruptive, extremist elements.

THE PRESIDENCY

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a Bush-hater.  I support his vision of a global march to democracy and I think that he's been unfairly lambasted by many over the past seven years.

The lowest points for me, however, during the Bush presidency has involved the issue of checks and balances:

+I was willing to live with a panel that could secretly approve wiretaps of suspected terrorists; I cannot live with Bush's willingness to circumvent even that process.

+I was willing to live with the politically-motivated firing of US attorneys; I cannot accept Bush's defense of his prevaricating then-Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales) and the apparent willingness of the Bush administration to use a clause in the Patriot Act to subvert the traditional requirement of Congressional approval of US attorneys.

Venezuela and Russia have seen have seen dramatic challenges to their democratic institutions in recent weeks.  US democracy is much more mature and stable; still, we should therefore be reminded that institutions (e.g. Congress, the Justice Department) depend on citizen awareness and support for their strength and independence.

PORK

The engineering problems related to Hurricane Katrina and the Minneapolis Bridge Collapse caused me to pay closer attention to how infrastructure funds are distributed through Congress.  My sense has grown that the process is far from rational.  Congressional seniority and home state protectionism play too big a role in this process.

I'd like to share a couple of websites that show how the internet can open doors for citizens to follow their representatives' fiscal decision-making.  The Sunlight Foundation reports on legislative and business-related activities of members of Congress, and provides many useful links.  USAspending.gov is a governmental site that was started up in response to the "Transparency" Act of 2006.

The Great Oil Slick: Implications for Democracy, Terrorism, and the Environment

A recent John McCain article in Foreign Affairs magazine articulates some of the connections between energy policy, foreign affairs, and the environment:

"The transfer of American wealth to the Middle East through continued oil purchases helps sustain the conditions under which extremism breeds, and the burning of oil and other fossil fuels spurs global warming, a gathering danger to our planet." (Read the relevant section of the article at the bottom of the linked page.)

Future postings on this site will address (1) the links between oil-based economies, authoritarianism, and terrorism and (2) will include thoughts about how to promote ties between the environmental movement, pro-democracy movements, and national security hawks, with regard to these issues.

OIL, PORK, and the PRESIDENCY 

I am concerned about the future of the United States economy and body politic. The following topics will be addressed

+dependence on foreign oil

+pork: Congress' addiction to budgetary earmarks and unjustified subsidies

+the presidency: threats to the system of checks and balances by overweening assertion of Executive power