Blog entries are in chronological order:
January 2 - St. Thomas Aquinas
The New Year has started with 10 inches of new snow, adding to snow from previous storms, meaning we have snow often three feet deep inthe back yard, and walls of snow around the driveway. It is beautiful, especially here in the Maine woods. Snow and winter go together, I can't imagine living somewhere without this -- it's really beautiful.
Alas, the latest storm meant that only two of eight students could make it to my winter term class, Italian Culture and Politics. It's really a course that uses Italian history and famous Italians to explore the development of the West. Already we've looked extensively at the Roman Republic, it's political organization, and how it went from being a Republic to an empire. This led to a student discussion of whether or not we're like Rome, and how some lessons can be learned by looking at that past. Then we talked about the Roman Empire, the rise of the early Christian church, the theology of Augustine's neo-Platonism, Constantine's reforms, and ultimately the fall of the empire.
Rome to me is when the "West" began. While Rome borrowed from Greece, and Greek ideas were brought into Christianity from Augustine and later Aquinas, I see Greece as a kind of pre-cursor to the West. The same is true about Israel, and the Jewish faith. Hebrew thought certainly helped shape what the West would become, but as with Greek thought, it was mediated by Christianity, and its role in Rome. And, of course, shortly after the West began, it went into a long slumber. During the so-called "dark ages," society changed only very slowly, humanism was banished from "high culture," and the church dominated with tradition and the power of faith. Greats like St. Benedict, St. Francis, and later St. Thomas Aquinas all focused on trying to live the pure, spiritual life, and avoid the temptations and shallowness of the material world.
The Christian church was very influenced by Platonic thought originally, and thus was idealist and that fit with the monastic orders and the retreat from life that took place. It also was in line with St. Francis’ poverty – the world is nothing, the spirit (ideas) are everything. Why would you want wealth when you can’t take it with you? What good is transient fame or glory when at some point all that we do will be forgotten? If God wants you to feed the poor and serve his will in this horrid world of pain and suffering, is that not the path to true happiness?
This could have continued a long time. While Europe was entrenched in such thought, the Islamic world was more vibrant. It was advanced, cosmopolitan, and had recovered knowledge of ancient Greece and Eastern thought. Muslim philosophers were at the forefront of trying to use this information, and sought to mesh rationalism with Islam. The rationalists – led by scholars like Averroes and Avicenna – argued that the Koran was primarily a set of principles, but that reason could fit in much of what is not said in the Koran, and is better than just tradition to determine how to interpret the Koran. For awhile, it looked like the rationalists had the upper hand, but attacks from outside helped bring an authoritarian conservative government to the Muslim Caliphate.
The result was that the Ottoman Empire, when taking over in the 14th century, give power to a conservative, traditional ulama (learned religious clerics) who thought that the Islamic world should stay put, or better, try to be like Medina in 622. The failure of the rationalists to redefine the Islamic world meant that it went from being far ahead of Europe in science, philosophy, military and economy to falling behind Europe and becoming unable to embrace modern change. The current problems with Islamic extremism stem from that failure. If you looked at the world in 1200, it would have appeared the Islamic world was more likely to make the change, the Christian world was steeped in tradition and spiritual mysticism. Yet it didn’t. St. Thomas Aquinas symbolizes the time frame when Italy and the West chose the path of rationalism, which, though ultimately undoing much of what Christianity had taught, put the West on a path that would lead it to dominate the world by the 19th Century.
St. Thomas Aquinas: Aquinas is a product of something new in Europe. In 1060 the first modern University opened in Bologna Italy, and soon in Paris, Oxford and other centers universities sprang up. This was designed to train professionals, their creation marked the opening act in what would, in time, bring the renaissance and ultimately modernism to the West. Aquinas was a Dominican, from the Kingdom of Sicily. He got his degrees at the University of Naples, then the University of Paris. He wrote massive amounts in his 49 year life (he died March 7, 1274), and taught in Paris and Naples. He learned Aristotle from the works of Averroes (Ibn-Rushd), Avicenna (Ibn-Sin) and other Muslim philosophers who had discovered and were not only spreading knowledge of Aristotle but expanding and creatively developing his philosophy.
Aquinas accepted the idea of logic from Aristotle. Like Aristotle, Aquinas said we know the world through our senses, and we can explore and learn about the world. However, we learn spirituality through our soul. Unlike Augustine and the mysticism of the Middle Ages, the world was not seen as a place to stay aloof from, focusing on matters of the spirit rather than base matters of the flesh. Rather, Aquinas argued that God gave humans reason as a gift to use to understand the world and how God would have people act in the world. Just as Aristotle's realism countered Plato's idealism, Aquinas' acceptance of Aristotle undid much of the neo-platonist world view of the Middle ages.
There was a battle in the Catholic church over the teachings of Aristotle. Many wanted to label Aquinas a heretic, and have his teachings banned. Others said he was simply playing rhetorical games to mesh reason and faith, trying to hold two positions at the same time and be everything to everyone. The battle was won by Aquinas and the rationalists (albeit after his death) both due to the intellectual strength of his arguments, and also to the political power of the Dominicans. Although Thomist thought would evolve, overall the entry of Aristotle into the Christian tradition altered the theology and set the stage for further developments.
For Augustine, the material world had been suspect; at best it was a symbol of God’s love, there to teach us and help us turn inward to God. This was similar to Plato’s notion of the contemplative philosophical life as the ideal. Aristotle’s emphasis on naturalism and pragmatism/realism would, through Aquinas, invigorate a drive for knowledge and progress. This marked the high middle ages, and started a transition which, in the next three hundred years, would bring about the renaissance, with its rediscovery of classics and start of new quests for science and knowledge, the reformation, and ultimately starting around 1600, modernism. One only has to wonder how the world would have been different if Averroes and Avicenna had managed to transform Islam a couple centuries earlier.
January 3 - Politics in a Brave New World
As 2007 ended I noted that we will need some major rethinking of how we live in the modern world if we are going to deal with the challenges of the next century. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the old notions about politics, power, and sovereignty just aren't going to cut it in the upcoming era. Furthermore, we also have to be guided by values and ideas from the past as well as concern for the future. Ultimately a change of thinking has to be cultural and thus, unfortunately, it usually takes a crisis before all but the poets and visionaries see the need to approach the world differently. The first step, however, is to think seriously about the issues in play.
Today are the Iowa caucuses, and American politics is perhaps one of the first areas to look to see a dysfunctional system. Due to the scrutiny of the media, the emphasis on sensationalist journalism, and the rise of things such as You Tube, job one for most candidates is to avoid saying anything embarrassing, or anything that might be taken as an offense. That means to be scripted with bland safe phrases. You have to show you're serious so you need to put out a whole bunch of plans and position statements (health care plan, etc.), with the knowledge that after the election these will be worthless -- anything that gets done will involve compromise and negotiation. And, because the campaign is more marketing than debate, more packaging than real, the tone becomes personal. The right attacks the left who attacks the right "liberals are destroying America" vs. "Bush lied, people died."
Meanwhile, follow the money. Where do these candidates get their funds? Who are their advisors? What are they really supporting? Look closely, and it's disturbing. The cost of campaigns has skyrocketed so much that the only truly viable candidates are those who get the support of big money. The same people who give generously to Hillary Clinton would have no qualms about giving to Rudy Guiliani. And big money is especially powerful in Congress, where laws are actually made. The Democrats made hay on GOP earmarks and favors to big money, promising major ethical changes if elected in 2006. One year has passed, and most of those changes haven't been made, and it appears the Democrats aren't behaving much differently than the Republicans.
In short, we're not really engaged in politics, we're talking about marketing products. There is little real, intense debate, and scripting of candidates prevents us from knowing who they really are. We choose a brand name and either hope we're right or, if we're of the psychology to want to pick sides, we join the fight attacking the other side and defending "our" side in a manner that sacrifices critical thought. It's the Yankees vs. Red Sox, as much sport as public deliberation.
Now, you might say that while the means are different, politics has always been nasty and at times even more angry/personal. But there is a difference: in the past, the reach of government was limited. Now the state not only has extensive influence over every aspect of life, but its economic policies to win votes has led to massive government debt world wide, built on a credit system that is already buckling. Essentially politics by marketing creates a rather inflexible set of policies that require debt and eschew sacrifice. People not only cannot be expected to pay more, but they refuse to receive less. Marketing, as it is about being elected and not governing, ignores the fundamental dilemmas this causes, and puts us on a course to a crisis if something isn't done.
The American public seem to realize this. The sudden bounce in the polls (we'll see tonight if it comes through) for McCain and Huckabee (who I predicted as the GOP nominee one year ago) and Obama reflect a sense by people that these politicians are a bit different, a bit real. People want a real person to believe in, not a product to purchase. But that's in the abstract -- good marketing can make people think that a person is sincere. Still, the system draws people to power who are willing to sacrifice their lives for power. As Plato argued, those who want power should be the last ones to get it; our system virtually requires you want it badly -- average folk wouldn't be willing to do what it takes to get the top.
How do we handle this? Alas, the problem is easier to identify than solve, and it's part of a larger problem involving mass society and the increased centralization of wealth, brought to a new level by globalization. Either it will spiral to crisis at which point people will earn for a leader to regain prestige and stability -- our Republic will decline, and then yearn for, and perhaps find, a Caesar who can bring order -- at the price of freedom. That kind of choice, however, would bring only short term economic gain, and ultimately opens the door for more corruption and even tyranny. Or we can choose to decentralize power, and move away from an intensely strong federal government, where traditional checks and balances seem weaker than ever. The only real solution I see is to break up the centralization of power by the federal government, and devolve more power to states and communities. That's unlikely to happen, however, since so many issues cross borders and seem to demand a unified approach, and those with power tend not to want to devolve it. But circumstances may not allow us to just keep muddling along the current path.
January 8 - The Mood of the Country
This last year I was amused by all the speculation about the election, and the claims Hillary was the inevitable Democratic candidate, and would probably go against Guiliani. McCain was written off as dead, and people essentially dismissed Obama as unable to produce higher poll results. The political junkies were watching every statement, pronouncing Obama hurt by some foreign policy misstatement or Edwards desperate with his populist rhetoric.
I found that funny because the year before an election is like baseball's pre-season -- you can judge some of the talent, but it doesn't tell you much about how the season is going to play itself out. The time to start paying attention is when the voters start voting, and that's finally happening. I've long been of the opinion that Hillary would falter, and Huckabee was going to rise (see my blog entry last January 17th -- almost a year ago). That's because the mood of the electorate is one demanding a new tone in politics and a shift away from the kind of stale partisanship and folly of the last decade or so. People want a uniter, even more than they did in 2000 when George W. Bush claimed to be that person, and they want someone to inspire. So, in early January, on the day of the New Hampshire primary (it's 8:00 AM so the voting there is just starting), here's my take on the election. I don't blog much about American domestic politics, but sometimes watching the horserace is fun.
Republicans:
Mike Huckabee: Excellent speech in New Hampshire, and in my opinion he has a real shot at the nomination. While his religious statements and connection with the evangelicals could really hurt him, I think the Democrats need to make sure they don't underestimate him should he be the nominee. If he veers to the center in the general election, his talk of unity could really go far, and his version of Christianity as more about love and concern for others than fighting some culture war might be appealing. I'm not ready to predict him a certain winner -- he'll likely be third in New Hampshire and has a real fight on his hands. But he's got the inspirational sort of message and the sense of freshness that people are looking for, and provided he can withstand the scrutiny of the primary season, he's got a real shot.
John McCain: Probably the odds on favorite at this point to get the nomination, assuming he wins New Hampshire (though if he doesn't, he may drop out quickly). He has a strong base of support and is one "old timer" who's style and substance can still appeal to an electorate in the mood for change. Depending on events this year, he could mount an effective campaign as well, though in the general election I think he'd be at a disadvantage.
Mitt Romney: I can't find much to like about this guy -- he seems to me to be a phony, and I don't think his image and style inspires or speaks to what the public wants. He may get the nomination if he can bounce back in New Hampshire, but I doubt it. He's got an outside chance, but I think he's just not the kind of candidate that can win this year.
Rudy Guiliani: His strategy to essentially wait out the early primaries has avoided a Hillary Clinton style meltdown, where high expectations meet poor results. He's avoiding the negatives of losing since he isn't really trying, but waiting for the larger states is dangerous, because he's also not getting attention. It's probably his best strategy, given his weaknesses, but in a year where people are focused on the economy and want inspirational change, Guiliani is too much about 9-11 and yesterday. I think he'll fade.
Fred Thompson: A lot of fanfare around his entry, but I'm not sure what he's about or why one would vote for him. He seems bland to me, I haven't really noticed him. I suspect he's on the way out, though he could be someone Republicans who don't like either McCain or Huckabee (and there are many who dislike both) can rally around should Romney and Guiliani falter completely. That's Thompson's best hope.
Ron Paul: He's really a libertarian rather than a Republican, and gives voice to a wing of the GOP that has been pushed aside by the neo-conservatives and militarists. It's appealing to many given the disaster in Iraq, but ultimately he's not really a factor.
Democrats
Hillary Clinton: I think she's finished. If she shocks the world and wins New Hampshire tonight, then I'm dead wrong here. But, though she has money and can continue, she's not the candidate for this election. I also find her claims to be experienced to be pretty weak -- she's been a Senator since 2000, but first lady in the White House and Arkansas governor's mansion is hardly real Presidential experience. Ironically, those claims are part of what makes her seem stale and too much about the past. She also has a lot of negatives, and the GOP has rightly or wrongly painted her as power hungry and vicious. I think she exits more quickly than expected, her donor base will dry out.
Barack Obama: It's his to lose at this point, he's inspirational, competent, very disciplined, and conveys a mixture of youth and gravitas. His lack of experience might hurt him in other years, but this year it's all about offering change and inspiration -- and he does that in boatloads.
John Edwards: Edwards lost to Obama in terms of becoming the anti-Hillary, but his firey populism might allow him to stick around. By siding with Obama against Hillary in the New Hampshire debate, he made a calculated strategic choice to try to get Clinton out of the race quickly -- even if she tries to stick around go to trench warfare, if she's seen as being a loser, donors who aren't convinced about Obama may leave Hillary and go to Edwards. That would give Edwards the money to continue, and if he sticks to his message, he'll be in a solid position should Obama slip up. And, given Obama's lack of experience, that's very possible. Edwards is trying to out-position Hillary so that he will become the anti-Obama.
Bill Richardson: Very competent, but also his experience and low key approach makes him a better candidate in a different year, not in a year where the mood demands change and inspiration. But if he continues to do well and not rub anyone the wrong way he's a good possible Vice Presidential choice, or maybe a top cabinet position.
It seems very likely that this will be a good year for the Democrats, and Huckabee seems the only Republican with the kind of fresh approach that could mess that up. McCain is an outside hope for the GOP, but at this point -- very early in the primary season -- Obama appears in the driver's seat. Tonight will tell a lot. It seems to me the people to watch closest now are: Obama, Edwards, Huckabee and McCain.
January 9 - The Comeback Kid!
I wasn't going to blog today due to a really busy schedule, but I was really surprised by last night's New Hampshire primary, as my comments yesterday certainly would show. The people of New Hampshire apparently don't want this process to end quite yet, and thus they have decided to keep Hillary alive. That's probably wise, the people of the Granite State take their responsibility seriously!
This is good news for the Democrats in that Hillary will not go intensely negative as it would be risky, and we may see a good, testing fight. This is bad news for Edwards, though, as he hoped that Hillary's apparent collapse would put him in the number 2 spot. That's not happened. The night was really bad for Romney, whose money and personal fortune could not win him either Iowa or New Hampshire. If he fails there, how can the GOP expect him to fare well in a national election? McCain seems the front runner, but at this point who knows.
I can't predict, I don't think anyone really can. So how about this: two brokered conventions yielding us Gore vs. Rice. :-)
January 10 - Heating up in Iraq and Afghanistan
It appears that violence is on the rise in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as the US continues to try to fight two wars against a weakened but patient insurgency, in a political context that offer dubious hope for the future. In Iraq a supposed surprise attack was no surprise, leading to at least nine dead American military men. Just as troubling was how far they went to try to keep the offensive a secret. They did not share the plans with the Iraqi military, fearing a leak (showing how trustworthy Iraq's military forces are!) Yet somehow, word got out.
Meanwhile there has been a spike in "spectacular" bombing attacks, and Iraq military leaders claim that new resistance forces are forming simply to try to get money from the US. The US policy of essentially 'buying off' former insurgent foes has had an unintended consequence of creating a cottage industry of would be American foes ready to be bought off. Reports continue about needless or random killings of civilians in both wars by American troops, and over 3000 marines are being sent to Afghanistan, where the situation is as bleak as ever.
Meanwhile, Iraq's government has proven so inept at trying to promote reconciliation that the US has dropped its demand for 'benchmarks' and simply tries to take an "it's Iraq's problem" approach. Shi'ite militias remain armed and in charge of many cities and towns, while Sunni groups patrol and govern Sunni areas. The central government is exceedingly corrupt and weak; the idea that Iraq will be capable of stability and rule of law -- let along liberal democracy -- any time soon doesn't seem credible. In Afghanistan Karzai admits he feels abandoned as the Taliban grows in strength, opium crops are at record levels, and war lords or the Taliban control much of the country. The central government is more like a Kabul city government, as Afghanistan continues its long tortuous run of violence and oppression, now into its fourth decade.
Yet at home the collapse of the housing bubble, credit crunch, and almost certain recession has put the economy on the table as issue one in the US election campaign. High oil prices combine with high debt to create real dangers moving forward. So, Americans, isolationist at heart, simply push aside the war woes -- it's old news after all. Yet if we hadn't gotten into those wars, especially the Iraq war, oil prices would not be so high and we'd not be spending hundreds of billions on essentially a pointless endeavor. Never mind the lost and shattered lives of both Iraqis and Americans. Soldiers are experiencing very low morale, as divorce rates sky rocket and psychological distress grows. In Iraq the UN estimates more than 150,000 have died because of violence unleashed with the US invasion. Our ability to cooperatively deal with economic issues has been hurt by the war, which on so many levels has been one of the most disastrous choices made in American foreign policy.
On top of all that there are bizarre goings on with Iran, reflecting either an effort by the Iranians to test and probe America's military will, or by the Americans to create some kind of false charge against Iran. Pakistan is in turmoil after Bhutto's assassination. Of course, Musharaf's problems can be directly related to his support for the US in 2001. At the time it looked like a stroke of genius, but now it looks like it may have started a process of Pakistan unraveling, another unintended consequence of the war.
But watching the candidates debate, it's like being in ancient Rome, with the wars out in the frontier, while the public at home lose interest. There is still a chance for a 'peace with honor moment' in Iraq, but even that is starting to look dubious as the army's ability to maintain these force levels dwindles, and morale for those there on many tours of duty dissipates. These wars are sucking the life slowly out of the American political and economic system, and nobody seems to know what to do about it. True, we can't turn back the clock and undo choices already made. We have to move forward from where we are. But it doesn't seem people are even trying to figure out what to do -- apparently the campaigns have decided that their focus groups don't like talk about Iraq. Yet the cost continues to grow on multiple levels.
January 14 - Wanting an Answer Key
In looking at the situation in the Mideast, I'm struck by the fact that many of our problems are being caused by something that has been obvious in the academic world for decades, but which average folk and politicians haven't yet come to grips with: the "West" -- our culture, who we are -- is a cultural and social artifact, built on a long often bloody history, yielding a set of beliefs and ideals that reflect both our Christian tradition and our embrace of reason and rationality. The result is a unique world view, a perspective developed over time primarily in Europe, but now of course encompassing the US. Because the power of reason has given us the capacity to grow and expand beyond all measure, we tend to assume that we have found the right way. We're ahead because we have discovered the truth, and are more advanced. We see development as progress along a particular path. Our path, many believe, is universal and we just happened to discover it first. That myth -- or error of seeing our cultural as being the natural 'way things are/should be' -- leads to dangerous illusions. It's also an obviously misguided view of reality.
Two problems with the western perspective. One, it's very materialist. Anything emotional or spiritual is distrusted from the start -- if you can't show or prove it in material terms, well, it's just speculation, isn't it? However, that also leads to a material measure of success and happiness. Life is about consumption and production. Improvement is about getting more money. The market is embraced as a kind of natural system whose outcomes are trusted because, well, they are usually better in material terms. That also leads to dangerous comparativism. First, people deny their own happiness by comparing themselves to others. Someone perfectly happy and content making $40,000 might find himself in the pit of anger and depression if he finds out a colleague doing the same or inferior work is making $60,000. Nothing changed in that person's life; the material success of another person has turned happiness to despair because justice is defined in terms of material outcomes. Someone feels wrongly treated or disrespected and what was a happy life becomes one of anger and misery, at least until one feels like he's received justice. Crazy, no? Perhaps the lack of a spiritual balance to the material comparisons is a cause of a lot of our stress, anxiety and inability to separate happiness for comparisons to others.
And this extends to comparing cultures and societies. We are better because we have more wealth. And if we doubt it, well, don't others want more when given the chance? Aren't they trying to be like us? That's where we stumble. They might want more wealth, but they don't necessarily approach the issues and values the same way we do. Every culture has its own set of shared understandings and values. When Columbus landed in the New World he was surprised by how little the natives valued gold, something Europeans would literally die for. What is wealth, what counts? And how does wealth rank compared to other factors? Just as someone in the US might choose an academic career because one values freedom and the ability to do what one loves more than the money a law career might allow, whole cultures might value various cultural attributes above material wealth. And, while we in the West tend to be fiercely individualistic, almost ignoring how most of our attributes and traits are culturally learned (each of us would be a different person if we were born in a different time and place), other cultures may value community, kinship bonds, or other collective ideals. And while we in the west tend to see dichotomies, other cultures accept multiplicity and even paradoxes. So extremist western individualists hate "collectivism," having turned different perspectives into an "ism" whereby one is right and the other wrong, others might see individual identity and being part of a close community as complementary. Our battles over "isms" seems to reflect an inability to accept the complex multiplicity of human life. Our belief there is a right way causes us to see alternative cultural perspectives as wrong or even dangerous.
The big error of the enlightenment was the belief that it could give us an "answer key," the proper way to understand the world. It ultimately rationalized our ethno-centrism and led our internal battles to be fierce, with communism vs. capitalism emblematic of that tendency. And, in dealing with other cultures, we tend to think they all want to be like us, and if only the bad guys were removed they'd develop a society a lot like that in the industrialized West.
Guess what: there probably is no answer key, only different perspectives and different cultures. There isn't a right way to live, but we are free to choose to define a way that's right for ourselves. And, unless one wants to separate oneself from society, that means we have to engage in compromise and politics to choose how to deal with differences of perspective. Sure, you'll always have the whiney types who will complain that they have it all figured out and that any social limitation is somehow a pox on them because they haven't chosen it -- these range from anarchist libertarians to committed Marxist revolutionaries. But the reality is that we are by nature social and create communities, from families to virtual worlds. And there is no secret answer key on how to create these communities or what we should value. We're free to choose, limited by the fact that we're in a world where others have similar freedom -- and can act on their views. So when we think about Iraq, Iran's young Islamic democracy, Russia's style of authoritarian reform, China's balancing of markets and order, or African efforts to build cultures destroyed by colonialism, we have to take very seriously the fact that our history is not theirs, and we can't expect them to want to have the same kind of system or values that we have. If the population of the most powerful country on the planet can learn that lesson, life will be much easier for everyone.
January 17 - Europe rising
Back in the 1990s, as the US economy was growing and the stock market bubble creating a frenzy of optimism, Europe sank into recession. While many American commentators suggested this was due either to the inferiority of the European system (too many taxes, too much welfare) or European demography (Europe is aging and needs to pay for expensive pension plans), there was a more direct cause: monetary union. The Maastricht agreement required a move towards budgetary discipline and debt reduction in order to make it into the system. Throughout Europe, despite protests in France and the collapse of a political system in Italy, taxes increased and spending decreased.
Now, it doesn't take an economic genius to figure out that if this going on throughout the EU, it's going to spark an economic slowdown. Yet, despite the difficulty of trying to achieve fiscal discipline during a recession, they trudged on. The Euro made its debut in 1999, though originally as an accounting unit. Trade was still done in local currencies, but the Euro currencies had a fixed exchange rate vis-a-vis the Euro. It quickly lost value, falling below 80 cents a Euro. The US remained confident, with even the crash of the stock market bubble not slowing down consumer spending.
Yet now, as growth across Europe gains pace, Great Britain's per capita GDP has moved ahead of that of the US, and the dollar has declined ot a value of $1.50 per Euro, a huge shift from just seven years ago. Geopolitically, Europe has moved from being under the wing of the US, due to the Cold War, to being in a position to make real deals involving Russia, China, and countries in the Mideast. As America's image declines due to it's aggressive foreign policy, Europe is more than willing to be the western partner of choice. While many in the US imagine a "long war" against "Islamofascism," most Europeans contend that the Mideast is going through a major transition, and terrorism is simply a by product of modernism creeping into a culture defined for centuries by Ottoman conservatism. It's a problem, but it's not like the terrorists are likely to come out on top, and certainly not a war! Even the huge American economy no longer is as much of a draw, thanks to the EU's development of a market of nearly half a billion people.
Europe has not been hit as hard by oil price increases for a variety of reasons. First, oil is priced in dollars so the dollar's decline has made oil price increases relatively smaller for Europe than the US. Second, Europe gains much of its electricity from nuclear power plants, and is not so dependent on fossil fuels. Finally, European transport is cheaper in the sense that cars are smaller, public transportation more prevalent, and populations more concentrated. And, though the credit crisis is global, European economies seem less vulnerable than the US, where the collapse of the housing bubble looks hauntingly like Japan's property bubble collapse in the early 90s. Finally, the US continues to spend money in the relatively unproductive field of military spending, while the Europeans are convinced that military power is now of limited use given the interdependent world. The Europeans clearly spend enough to protect themselves from any foreign attack, but they don't have the same global ambitions the US does.
Of course there are counter tendencies here. The declining dollar should help bolster American exports, and will make European imports more expensive for Americans. Yet looking at trade patterns, it doesn't look like the US will threaten most European exports, and shouldn't impede growth. Europe's aging population is a problem, as is the difficulty in embracing immigration and a non-ethnic notion of citizenship and national identity. Also, the increasing Muslim population, which might reach 25% in France by 2050, creates a new cleavage for European politics. They were late to see the need to address this, but thanks to the drama of 9-11, this is seen by Europeans as an issue they need to address successfully -- and they almost certainly will, and without the Islamophobic vitriol of the far right.
Europe is emerging from a decade of difficult adjustment, where social welfare programs were cut, tax structures altered, and the backwards and broken economies of the old Communist bloc had to be restructured and brought to life. At first the East was a drain; now it's starting to be a benefit, as these economies have no where to go but up, and that's good news for the rest of the EU. Europe's also developed cutting edge ideas about political organization, regionalism, and post-sovereign politics. The US seems stuck in a kind of Cold War mentality, trying to use 20th century concepts to order and understand a different 21st century world. That may sound like bad news, but Europe rising is not. Because, ultimately, the US -- a profoundly wealthy and innovative country -- will realize what's happening and have to make real adjustments. Europe will be in a position to help us out, in a sense repaying the US for helping them out last century.
January 21 - Diversity
On Martin Luther King day the word du jour is "diversity." Nobody opposes diversity, at least not openly. But as a concept, it's vague and ill-defined. We like diversity, but of a certain kind. Different ethnic and racial groups are cool. Different lifestyles and sexual preferences should be recognized as legit. Different religious or secular perspectives should be respected. But what exactly is diversity, and what does it mean to recognize or even "celebrate" diversity. (I'm up for celebrating just about anything, but I want to know how to do it!)
To me it's not so much the diversity that's at issue, but status and power. After all, I'd be seen as relatively silly if I walked in a room of white males and said, "wow, we have diversity here -- red hair, various shades of brown, blonde and dark hair...with eye colors ranging from grey to blue to black, and heights from 5 foot tall to 6 foot 5!" Skin color is an example of diversity, not eye color. Why?
Back in 1968 a second grade teacher did an experiment where she told her class that blue eyed children were superior. She acted the part all day, praising blue eyed children and berating and belittling brown eyed kids. At recess the children grouped together by eye color, and the blue eyed kids bullied the brown eyed children, who felt inferior and refused to fight back. She gave them an exam she'd given them last week. The blue eyed kids did about the same, the scores of the brown eyed kids fell by 25%. Within a day she had created a difference in status that showed itself in a variety of ways, including lower test scores (which, if this had been real, would have been presented as proof that brown eyed children are inferior). The next day she tried to turn the experiment around and said she'd made a mistake the day before, and actually brown eyed kids were superior. The blue eyed children, fearful of losing the status and power they enjoyed, went into such fits that she had to end the experiment right there.
So eye color can matter as much as class, skin color or religion. Diversity becomes an issue when differences, of which there are a myriad, are used to rationalize higher or lower social status, or power by one group over another. Things like slavery are dramatic examples, but minorities, gays, Muslims, and other groups find themselves treated as lower status by much of our society, even if there are legal frameworks to protect them. The differences between them and the 'mainstream' of the culture lead to efforts to marginalize them or deny them equality. Worse, this permeates the culture -- you can make it illegal to refuse to hire someone on the account of, say, sexual preference, but you can't make it illegal for people to ridicule them or ignore them. Indeed, efforts to legislate to that level of individual behavior are both ineffective and counter-productive.
What causes people to engage in such abusive and unfair actions against others? I think the root is similar to what I talked about on January 14th, in "wanting an answer key." People want to think there is one true religion, or one right set of moral beliefs to live by, so the actions of others are a threat to their view that they have it right. That's why homophobia is really a phobia -- a religious extremist who wants the world to live according to his or her moral beliefs see equal status for those who don't as dangerous. Ethnic and racial differences are similar, and can be built along lines of race (blacks in the US), religion (former Yugoslavia), or tribal (Rwanda). In cases where one sees the presence or success of another culture as a threat to his or her own, it creates fear of the other. Like the kids throwing fits when told they were not the superior children, challenging an existing set of privileges creates a powerful backlash.
So what does it mean to celebrate diversity? I think at base it means to recognize that when humans are seen as being, for some reason, different enough so as to deny equal status in the community, that's wrong. It means building a culture where all humans are recognized as inherently valuable because of their humanity, without regards to skin color, eye color, lifestyle or religion. Yet, as politically satisfying as those words are, there is an inherent grey area. Where does one draw the line in terms of actions, and its impact on society. Clearly theft and murder are actions that allow us to remove power and status from some; religious folk arguing that culture binds us and provides stability claim things like gay marriage or gays in the military endanger us in different ways, and the actions of those people should allow lower status. How does one draw the line?
It seems to me the line is drawn culturally. In the early 20th century it was clear that discrimination against blacks was OK, gays were abnormal, and non-Christians were heathen. That's the reality we had in most of the US. Now, that's changed. There are still prejudices, but society is much more open to accepting these forms of diversity without oppressing or denying equal status. But it's only changed a bit -- there are vast pockets of people who still hate/discriminate, even if they can't do so openly. Celebrating or honoring diversity means simply trying to do ones' own part in pushing the culture slowly -- and cultures do not change quickly -- to one where people view other humans as essentially human like themselves, with differences being normal and natural, not something which divides. And, if those of us who believe in the value of humanism treat others with respect then, slowly, our culture will change. At some point prejudice based on race, religion, sexual preference, lifestyle, etc., will seem as odd to future generations as those second graders thinking eye color was so important seems to us.
January 23 - It could get much worse
I've blogged so much in the last year and a half about the structural weakness of the US economy, that even as the problem finally reaches a point where it can't be ignored, I'm not sure what else to say. For past entries about the economic problems we face, here are some blog dates you can check out: November 23, 2007, September 14, 27 and 28, 2007, August 16, 2007, etc. There are others, including June 23, 2006, but teh theme has been the same: a high current accounts deficit means an overvalued dollar, sustained by foreign investment into the US which renders our economy vulnerable, and risks future stagflation or deflation.
So, is it here? First, I am relieved that people are finally recognizing that the economy is not in good shape, and this isn't just another typical little downturn. The Fed's emergency 3/4 of a point interest rate cut, a dramatic development, was welcomed only by a stock market drop of just over 100 points, so far today it's down over 200 more, back at levels hit first in 2000. Meanwhile, the Republicans and Democrats seem united on a stimulus package, though it's unclear what it can do for the economy. It seems to be more the politicians wanting to look like they're doing something than a really well thought out plan. The fight over who gets the money is about politics, not economics. Also, given our already high debt rate and last year's record high inflation rate, there are dangers that this could trigger stagflation and put more pressure on the dollar. I'd prefer they just not pass a stimulus package and focus on the structural issues.
Yet even those remain troubling, especially as big banks are "saved" via sovereign wealth funds, and more of America's economy is owned by outsiders. This makes economic sense, but also is a shift in ownership/control of world assets from the US to countries with systems often very different from our own. Good news is that the current accounts deficit is down from 6% of GDP to 5% of GDP but, especially given the weakness of the dollar and questions about the US economy, that probably still has to fall.
But I'm not going to repeat all the arguments from the blog entries linked above. Instead, I'll cut to the chase: the global economy is rebalancing, and the US is destined to have a less prominent role. At this point, low interest rates could spark enough consumer spending to avoid a deep recession, but it isn't going to revive the housing market, and there is limited equity available for re-financing or home equity loans. A best case scenario is a real recession, a permanently weakened dollar, and a bout of stagflation. In many ways, it could be a lot like the seventies, though structurally we were on much sounder footing in the 70s, and the oil price increases then were panic-induced and not based on the structures of supply limits and increasing demand. Thus we'd "recover" from a stagflation-recession without a boom of growth to surpass the last boom, but instead with meager growth, and a risk of deflation.
Some things could make it even worse. First, a well timed terrorist attack or some other global crisis could induce a downward spiral which could make this more like the 30s than the 70s. Second, if the government doesn't recognize the need to clean economic house and restructure the budget, tax system, and debt, it'll be far more difficult to get out of this. The "right" has to recognize that we can't afford military ventures like an on-going conflict in Iraq or pressure on Iran. The "left" has to recognize we can't afford domestic ventures like national heath care or expanded social welfare programs. Until we get the structural problems in the economy fixed, our ambitions have to be reigned in.
We are in the middle of a global process of geopolitical and geo-economic realignment, and it could get a lot worse before it gets better.
January 24 - Politics, Yuck!
American politics makes me sick sometimes. Bill Clinton is acting like an absolute idiot, taking potshots at Obama and being extremely un-Presidential. The Clinton machine seems to have indeed learned the Lee Atwater method of dirty politics, and is going after Obama with everything they have. In 2004 we saw similar tactics used against John Kerry by President Bush, ranging from lies by so called "swift boaters" to personal smears. That's politics in this day and age.
The famous German philosopher Juergen Habermas noted back in the early 60s how politics was shifting from a strong public sense of participation and debate to becoming more of a spectator event, where politicians perform for us, doing whatever it takes to get our vote. We are less involved in the debate, choosing policies and candidates like products, packaged to appeal. And, of course, the strongest appeal is to the gut, not the mind. An intellectual ad about the merits of a health care proposal takes second to cherry picking quotes, playing gotcha games, or lies/smears designed to create an emotional reaction against another candidate.
This is a fundamental sickness in our political system, and it's only gotten worse as big money and big media has come to dominate politics. And, while blogs and internet debates may be opening up more public space, the impact on politics so far has been negligible. To be sure, if you live in Iowa or New Hampshire things are a bit better. You have the Presidential candidates virtually living in your state for a year or so, and if you don't get to meet him or her and have a chat, well, that's your fault. Accordingly, those states find more debate and real discussion than when the "super Tuesdays" come and primaries come fast and furious -- then big media takes over. In the actual race after the conventions it's even worse. Everything is scripted, focus-grouped and sanitized. They stay mum about the bad news, realizing that, while it may make it awkward for them to confront after they've won, well, by then the real goal would have been accomplished anyway: they will have won.
This flaw in our system causes us to ignore economic problems, treat a foreign intervention like a kind of unreal video game or abstract issue, and allow government to have more and more power over our everyday lives. The marketing leads us to choose to empower those who have money and want power. And, as Plato noted long ago, the last people who should be given power are those who want it badly.
Can this be fixed? I doubt the internet gives us the capacity to do so -- blogs tend to divide up into like minded partisans who bolster each other's arguments and heap scorn and ridicule on outsiders who come in and question their perspective. It does have a kind of democratizing quality to it, which allows us to debate without control of the big corporate powers, and thus could provide an opening. But ultimately I think the only way to get a true, functioning democracy with real public political participation and space is by having smaller polities. The only way to really limit the expansion of power is to have power less centralized. That doesn't look likely to happen any time soon.
January 29 - What the President needs to do before leaving office
The United States is facing a world in transformation, and we've got two led weights tied to our shoes: wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economy. President Bush deserves credit for pursuing a realist path in Iraq -- making peace with Sunni insurgents to focus on a smaller, beatable foe -- al qaeda -- and ignoring he Shi'ite militias, creating an uneasy but so far effective truce. The problem with this approach is there is no clear way to end the US commitment. Meanwhile, a stimulus package for the economy will at best produce a little big of activity, but not enough to solve structural problems in the economy.
In short, we're entering a different world, with the US playing a different role. It is not, however a collapsing America. Although in relative terms the "unipolar" moment is over, the US still has a massive military industrial complex, a large economy, and is home to technological innovations that still drive world markets. The key will be to figure out how to address the structural problems, redefine America's role in the world, and make adjustments in our own notion of who we are and what our interests are. It's not the Cold War any more, the thinking of that era does not apply to the world in the 21st century.
President Bush this year needs to do all he can to create an opportunity for next year's White House occupant to start at that task. As an unpoopular lame duck with election hubbub dominating the media, he' not in a position to actually set the course. But he can ready the ship. Job one: Iraq. It appears that the President is backing off of plans for a rapid withdrawal of troops this year, even though the surge itself can't be maintained. With little progress in terms of reducing corruption and gaining true political reconciliation -- and with the Shi'ite militias and Sunni tribes controlling most of the territory, with little penetration by the Iraqi government, rapid withdrawal risks an escalation of violence. Since the American public would not want to "re-surge" if that happens, Bush would be forced to continue the withdrawal and admit failure, something he is loathe to do. So instead it seems we're back to 'stay the course' -- try to maintain stability, go on offensive against al qaeda, and hope that Iraqis use the time to create conditions for political stability.
This isn't enough. Somehow the US has to actively engage Syria, Iran and other states in the region to create some kind of regional effort for stability. I get the sense we're doing this with Iran in a very secretive manner, involving the Saudis as well. If so, that is helpful -- and of course this isn't something they'd be making public. The President has to find a way to shift responsibility for Iraq to regional powers and create a window to pull the US troops out in relatively large numbers by the end of the year and give the new President options and a chance for success. We can use our economic and military clout to help play off different interests in the region and maintain some US influence, but the dream of American dominance is gone, and I think the President knows it. This will be a hard task, but one the President has to accomplish. If he does, he'll claim success and a sense he'll be right: he will have redefined US goals and interests to reflect a new understanding of the limits to American power.
However, Afghanistan is emerging as an even bigger problem. When the US shifted towards war in Iraq, little thought was given to the future of Afghanistan. The Taliban was gone, NATO seemed ready to take over, Karzai was our handpicked leader, and Pakistan was still following the US lead. It seemed that the hard part was over and, if things got worse, well, we'd emerge with an even stronger position in an Iraq that was stable and pro-American. The failure in Iraq has meant that we have been unable to put much effort into dealing with the increasing strength of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's refusal to do much of anything to help curtail that (and they may be secretly supporting it).
Like Iraq, Afghanistan isn't a country that can simply be shaped to fit the western mold. Yet since NATO can't handle the situation, and the US isn't likely to be able to devout large amounts of forces to change things (and it's not likely we could even if we tried), we need to rethink the whole situation. With Pakistan in turmoil, that adds to the urgency -- this is ultimately far more important than Iraq. Unfortunately there is no magic bullet here. The Taliban hasn't been defeated and is strengthening, even as allies reject increasing forces and some even talk about pulling out or decreasing their presence. There is no military solution for Afghanistan.
The best the President can do is shift to a containment option against the Taliban, and strengthen local leaders, and work with other countries to help the Afghans help themselves. Somehow, the President has to make Afghanistan a priority and come up with a plan that doesn't allow it to be a lingering or even growing war (the US recently increased its presence there). Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are anywhere close to stability, and current tactics are unsustainable. The next President will have to redefine America's role and accept the inability of military power to achieve victory and pro-American regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. This President is unwilling to go that far, but needs to find a way to set up the next President for completing that task.
January 30 - Surge failure (but it's not our fault)
The surge is failing. That goes against the conventional wisdom being spouted by the President and many Republicans, who point to lower casualty rates and relative calm in Iraq. How can that be a failure? Indeed, the United States military has succeeded in what it needed to do in the surge, it bought time for the Iraqis to stabilize their regime, and lowered violence levels. Unfortunately, the Iraqis have not done what they need to do, and as the surge nears an end point we're back where we were in 2005. The surge stopped the violence and arguably turned what had become civil war into sectarian violence (the level of killing far lower), but it hasn't achieved the political results that are necessary for Iraq to become the kind of stable, self-governing state the world would like to see.
First, credit has to be given to the President for adopting a military strategy that achieved the goals it set out to achieve. Gen. Petraeus, while given too much credit in some circles (he simply implemented a change chosen by those above him, some credit him with the change), did a good job in executing the new strategy and making it work. The US military did everything it possibly could to stablize the situation, and smartly made alliances with former enemies, and kept the uneasy truce with the Shi'ite militias.
Alas, the Iraqis did very little. It may not be for lack of effort. The government of Prime Minister al-Maliki clearly would like to have power and stability, but it can't. Not only are the ministries corrupt and riddled with militia members and people with other agendas, but the government's control of the country is virtually non-existent. From Basra to Zakhu militias, Sunni tribes or Kurd separatists hold power and govern their own regions. Shi'ite militias are especially dangerous, despite the fact they've mostly avoided conflict, hoping to wait out the Americans who have focused almost exclusively on al qaeda. And, given that al qaeda is a bitter rival to the Shi'ite militias, they don't mind the Americans taking on their enemy at all -- so long as the Americans don't try to stay or unduly influence the Iraqi government.
The declined rate of ethnic violence is also deceptive. Iraq has had massive population shifts as ethnic cleansing was carried out on a mass scale in 2006. There aren't nearly as many mixed neighborhoods and cities as two years ago, the violence of 2006 effectively altered the demographics of Iraq. If the US were to leave, the situation could nonetheless revert to the kind of violence seen in 2006 and early 2007, and nothing suggests that the Iraqi government would be in any position to reign in Shi'ite militias or extend control over Sunni and Kurd regions of the country. Moreover, the high levels of corruption make it exceedingly unlikely that any sort of democratic polity could emerge -- corruption destroys such systems.
So what now? As I noted yesterday, a regional settlement is the best way to go. The powers around Iraq don't want it to descend again into the hell of 2006, and as long as we don't try to throw our weight around, they're likely to work to try to keep stability. More importantly, though, the United States has to come to grips with what the failure in Iraq means. The Democrats are keen to recognize Iraq as a huge error, but want to simply use it to paint the Republicans as wrong or incompetent. Yet most Democrats went along with the war in 2003, and few warned of what was to come. The Republicans want simply to avoid embarrassment, so they'll spin any good news as success or "small steps" to a solution, and ignore the problems. Neither side has come to grips with the fact that this shows a real limit to American power, and addresses what that limit means.
The answer seems clear to me. The US has to recognize that we can't push democracy forward via military conflict. The use of violence kills people and destroys communities, and that is not the kind of ground on which to build a stable democratic polity. We have to recognize that democracy has to develop slowly, on its own terms, and in the meantime we'll have to deal with folk we don't necessarily agree with. That said, we can be a positive influence -- a role model, of what freedom and liberty can achieve. Right now we're seen as a negative role model of what greed and a desire for power leads a country to embrace. Instead of the shining city on the hill, we're seen more like a re-emergence of that city on seven hills: a would be modern Rome. If we alter course, our military power can focus purely on protecting national interests from outside attack, and we can build alliances to try to promote effective counter-terrorism and regional stability. The dream of 'spreading democracy' was alluring and seductive. It turned out to be unrealistic. The surge was probably the best effort to yield an Iraq that the President could call a success, but the Iraqis have refused to do their part. We have to now find a way to leave and re-constitute our policy in a more realistic and humble manner.