"Obama's insistence that only Abbas and Fayyad exist conforms to the consistent Western contempt for democracy unless it is under control. Obama provided the usual reasons for ignoring the elected government led by Hamas." -Chomsky, January 26, 2009.
" Importantly, Obama will continue Bush's democracy boycott - failing to recognise the democratically elected Hamas government." TrueCents, January 20, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Inauguration Special
In a few hours, a tearful George Bush will wave the White House goodbye, as he's whisked to Texas from the presidential helipad. America will be plunged into an unprecedented crisis: how to deploy it's most malapropped president onto the lecture circuit. While it ponders that conundrum, Barack Obama will carve out the legacy of the 44th President. A preview:
Tone: Obama's tone will generally be much (much) more palatable than Bush's. The ugly stuff will be concealed, rather than trumpeted proudly.
Style: Just as the Obama campaing reprised themes from Bush/Cheney2000, there'll be similarities in style between the two. Don't expect Clinton-style micromanagement. Like bush, Obama will be a coordinator of people who do the actual work. He'll rule with decreasing authority over the camps, and focus his energies on projecting outward to the people (American and otherwise). He won't take month-long holidays.
the first 100 days: Barring a surprise crisis, we'll still be in honeymoon territory. There'll be softening of the approval rating, but nothing worrisome. The time will have been spent basking in goodwill.
The bubble: Obama kicks off with a staggering 86% approval rating. In constrast, Bush leaves with (according to CBS) a 22% rating. This is remarkable. After the biggest economic collapse in a lifetime, the failure of wars of aggression against two of the world's militarily most denuded countries, and the largest fiscal deficit in the history of the dollar, you need to select only five Americans to hear the opinion that Bush is doing a good (not just OK) job. The comaprison with the Bush's is interesting. W holds the record for the highest ever approval rating (92%) as well as lowest (19%). By implication he has endured the greatest bubble pop, with 73% of Americans going 180 on him. Obama's initial rating is unprecedented. This means that he'll lose points during the first year. A twenty point drop will bring him into the mid 60's, which is an attractive rating anywhere in the world. When he breaches 50-something, he has cause for concern, as no full-term president other than Regan and Johnson has managed a V-shaped rating curve. And Johnon had victory in the World War II to help him.
Ratings are driven by public ennui, and his biggest worry is that the American public will tire of their gut-curdling ride on the credit-coaster. 50-something approval points signals a bursting of the Obama-bubble, and a retreat to normalcy. I think we'll see this in the first year. After that, we won't see a sharp V, unless there's war or a significant terrorist attack.
The Economy: Obama's differences with Bush over the economy mirror the two's difference over the war in Iraq: the central pivot is not an in-princile difference, as much as the hindsighted confidence that Obama could have handled it better. Obama supporters will, no doubt, counter that he "opposed the war from the start", without considering his support for the no-fly regime, itself a unilateral act of aggression. Digressions aside, the convergence of opinion was elegantly demonstrated in the week of the first presidential debate, when Obama joined Bush in battling populist Republican resistance to TARP. The Obama team was pleased to point out that even John McCain, whose first interjection was timed forty minutes after the start of the discussion, was less enthused about TARP than his reformist rival. Much had been written long before about the conservatising influence of Obama's Chicago confidantes like Austen Goolsbee, foreshadowing a critique fleshed out following the staff announcements of the Obama shadow treasury (wisely postponed until after the election). Without rehashing too much of what's already been noted, Obama's management of the US economy will be difficult.
Foreign relations: For economic reasons, Mexico and China will overshadow Britain, and Iraq. In about a year David Cameron will be sworn in as the British Prime Minister. Any special relationship won't be based on hope and change. Obama will - very willingly and comfortably - deal direct with Europe, but will find it no more tractable than it was for his predecessor.
Bush. The reason that the rest of the world was happy to see Obama is that they believe him to be less threatening (i.e. more pliable) than Bush. Note that Medvedev waited until after the US polls had closed before announcing his European missile plans. He preferred not having that fight with McCain.
Israel/Palestine: Obama will deliver a speech, widely recognised as groundbreaking in it's recognition of Palestinian rights. it will criticise the tenor (but not the content) of past American involvement, and will invoke (probably explicitly) the two-state imperative. While the speech will promise an energised American engagement, it will stop short of imposing clear conditions on the extention of American diplomatic support and aid to Israel. Importantly, Obama will continue Bush's democracy boycott - failing to recognise the democratically elected Hamas government. This is not to say that Palestinian justice won't advance, but as in Iraq will be driven by internal dynamics. Under Obama, American influence will have a net retarding effect.
Africa: Obama will struggle to match Bush's factorfold increase of aid commitment, although he could (but probably won't) improve the gap between pledges and grants. Trade between the US and Africa will be increasingly marked by protectionist American concerns. Look out for an open resource war between the US and China, fought in Africa. The casualty of this will be African development. I exepect Obama to keep Bush's CENTCOM expansion plans on the backburner, as opposed to the dustbin. He is capable of authorign bombing raids a la the Somali raids during Bush's second term, but will do a better job of making the case.
Obama's war: The Status of Forces agreement signalled the end of American involvement in Iraq. The rest is mopping up. Obama will implement a surge strategy in Afghanistan, creating a temporary semblance of stability under whose cover he can execute a roughly dignified exit from a war which - bizarrely - he's invested in. So much for the inherited conflict. Obama will pursue agressive action in Latin America. Not a full-scale invasion, but a sovereignty-busting attack. The conflict triggered will not be of the scale required to resucsitate the economy (which doesn't preclude something else doing that).
Guantanamo Bay: On Day1 President Obama will issue a decree closing the site. This will signal a continuation of the Clinton-Bush approach to prisoner rights, for while Obama will reach for the theatrics of closing the site, he'll studiously avoid the issue of prisoner rights. This must include legal representation, habeus corpus (I expect Obama to be a more convincing salesperson of the Bush tradition of denyign habeus), full disclosure to human rights bodies, access to relatives, due process in a properly constituted court of law, desisting from arbitrary arrest, and so forth. These Bush-era elements will remain intact. The clue to this is the arithmatic around Guantanamo itself. A Brookings Institute report shows that two thirds of the Guantanamo detained prisoners aren't there any longer. In addition, we believe (the figures aren't disclosed, for obvious reasons) that Guantanamo inmates constitute a minorirty of America's illegally-held prison population, the rest of whom live in so-called black sites. Because these sites have been outside of public scrutiny, the President will have no cause to close them. Expect at least some of the newly liberated Guantanamo inmates to find new digs in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, and who knows where else. Even those transferred to America can't expect the sort of trial that Americans (like Timothy McVeigh who - unlike the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees - actually was a terrorist).
Healthcare: When Obama leaves office a remarkable number of Americans will have remarkably enhanced access to medical care. This will be the single biggest acheivement of his presidency.
Black America: Black America will end it's tenure under Obama slightly worse off than it began. It's relative (to White America) exposure to social ills (poverty, prison, substance abuse, violent crime, HIV infection, etc.) will be slightly higher, and it's relative exposure to social benefits (wealth, health, security, employment) will be lower. This won't be Obama's fault; as America enters a period of diminished prosperity (i.e. negative real per capita GDP growth), long-standing social fissures are deepened. No one president can stem that in a single term (although perpetuation is a piece of cake). Neither will this imply the absence of signs of progress. A greater number of Black Americans will be receving a larger amount of healthcare covereage, quality education and (maybe) employment.
2012: Obama will face no Democratic challengers in the primaries. He may be Clinton-weak at his reelection, and will be helped by a lacklustre, ill-prepared republican campaing. The Republican frontrunners will be Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Piyush Jindall. It's way early, but I think that Romney's the candidate to watch. The next tier may include Charles Christ, Tom Ridge and rudi Gulliani. Whether the Republicans unseat Obama depends largely on their performance in the 2010 mid-terms, and their mastery of populist politics starting today. The four key tasks are:
Unraveling: Obama's juggernaut-of-rivals will give way to a more focussed, coherent, administration. The peripheral elements (like Paul Volker) will give way to the core, so that within two years the administration will look a lot more trim. If this is well managed (gently picking off the elements one-by-one), it will herald an unremarkable transition from a campaign of transformative insurgence to a conservative administration. If it's poorly managed it could spark divisive revenge from the outgunned rivals. Either way, the implementors of Clinton's triangulation will reintroduce centreism as the animating theme of the adminstration. This time, the chastening effect of the economic fallout will double the conservatising impulse.
Success: Obama won't be considered one of the worst. It's unlikely that he'll be remembered as a one of the best (excluding Dem partisans). Remember that Carter presided over a closing of America's inflation problem, but was rewarded by losing his party's nomination for reelection. Presidential success admits a gap between perception and reality. America rarely falls over (a consequence of its long history of developed markets and civil institutions). In order to increase his shot at success, he'll have to be pragmatic about which promises he'll ditch at the outset, and which he'll focus on. I expect him to do this.
Tone: Obama's tone will generally be much (much) more palatable than Bush's. The ugly stuff will be concealed, rather than trumpeted proudly.
Style: Just as the Obama campaing reprised themes from Bush/Cheney2000, there'll be similarities in style between the two. Don't expect Clinton-style micromanagement. Like bush, Obama will be a coordinator of people who do the actual work. He'll rule with decreasing authority over the camps, and focus his energies on projecting outward to the people (American and otherwise). He won't take month-long holidays.
the first 100 days: Barring a surprise crisis, we'll still be in honeymoon territory. There'll be softening of the approval rating, but nothing worrisome. The time will have been spent basking in goodwill.
The bubble: Obama kicks off with a staggering 86% approval rating. In constrast, Bush leaves with (according to CBS) a 22% rating. This is remarkable. After the biggest economic collapse in a lifetime, the failure of wars of aggression against two of the world's militarily most denuded countries, and the largest fiscal deficit in the history of the dollar, you need to select only five Americans to hear the opinion that Bush is doing a good (not just OK) job. The comaprison with the Bush's is interesting. W holds the record for the highest ever approval rating (92%) as well as lowest (19%). By implication he has endured the greatest bubble pop, with 73% of Americans going 180 on him. Obama's initial rating is unprecedented. This means that he'll lose points during the first year. A twenty point drop will bring him into the mid 60's, which is an attractive rating anywhere in the world. When he breaches 50-something, he has cause for concern, as no full-term president other than Regan and Johnson has managed a V-shaped rating curve. And Johnon had victory in the World War II to help him.
Ratings are driven by public ennui, and his biggest worry is that the American public will tire of their gut-curdling ride on the credit-coaster. 50-something approval points signals a bursting of the Obama-bubble, and a retreat to normalcy. I think we'll see this in the first year. After that, we won't see a sharp V, unless there's war or a significant terrorist attack.
The Economy: Obama's differences with Bush over the economy mirror the two's difference over the war in Iraq: the central pivot is not an in-princile difference, as much as the hindsighted confidence that Obama could have handled it better. Obama supporters will, no doubt, counter that he "opposed the war from the start", without considering his support for the no-fly regime, itself a unilateral act of aggression. Digressions aside, the convergence of opinion was elegantly demonstrated in the week of the first presidential debate, when Obama joined Bush in battling populist Republican resistance to TARP. The Obama team was pleased to point out that even John McCain, whose first interjection was timed forty minutes after the start of the discussion, was less enthused about TARP than his reformist rival. Much had been written long before about the conservatising influence of Obama's Chicago confidantes like Austen Goolsbee, foreshadowing a critique fleshed out following the staff announcements of the Obama shadow treasury (wisely postponed until after the election). Without rehashing too much of what's already been noted, Obama's management of the US economy will be difficult.
Foreign relations: For economic reasons, Mexico and China will overshadow Britain, and Iraq. In about a year David Cameron will be sworn in as the British Prime Minister. Any special relationship won't be based on hope and change. Obama will - very willingly and comfortably - deal direct with Europe, but will find it no more tractable than it was for his predecessor.
Bush. The reason that the rest of the world was happy to see Obama is that they believe him to be less threatening (i.e. more pliable) than Bush. Note that Medvedev waited until after the US polls had closed before announcing his European missile plans. He preferred not having that fight with McCain.
Israel/Palestine: Obama will deliver a speech, widely recognised as groundbreaking in it's recognition of Palestinian rights. it will criticise the tenor (but not the content) of past American involvement, and will invoke (probably explicitly) the two-state imperative. While the speech will promise an energised American engagement, it will stop short of imposing clear conditions on the extention of American diplomatic support and aid to Israel. Importantly, Obama will continue Bush's democracy boycott - failing to recognise the democratically elected Hamas government. This is not to say that Palestinian justice won't advance, but as in Iraq will be driven by internal dynamics. Under Obama, American influence will have a net retarding effect.
Africa: Obama will struggle to match Bush's factorfold increase of aid commitment, although he could (but probably won't) improve the gap between pledges and grants. Trade between the US and Africa will be increasingly marked by protectionist American concerns. Look out for an open resource war between the US and China, fought in Africa. The casualty of this will be African development. I exepect Obama to keep Bush's CENTCOM expansion plans on the backburner, as opposed to the dustbin. He is capable of authorign bombing raids a la the Somali raids during Bush's second term, but will do a better job of making the case.
Obama's war: The Status of Forces agreement signalled the end of American involvement in Iraq. The rest is mopping up. Obama will implement a surge strategy in Afghanistan, creating a temporary semblance of stability under whose cover he can execute a roughly dignified exit from a war which - bizarrely - he's invested in. So much for the inherited conflict. Obama will pursue agressive action in Latin America. Not a full-scale invasion, but a sovereignty-busting attack. The conflict triggered will not be of the scale required to resucsitate the economy (which doesn't preclude something else doing that).
Guantanamo Bay: On Day1 President Obama will issue a decree closing the site. This will signal a continuation of the Clinton-Bush approach to prisoner rights, for while Obama will reach for the theatrics of closing the site, he'll studiously avoid the issue of prisoner rights. This must include legal representation, habeus corpus (I expect Obama to be a more convincing salesperson of the Bush tradition of denyign habeus), full disclosure to human rights bodies, access to relatives, due process in a properly constituted court of law, desisting from arbitrary arrest, and so forth. These Bush-era elements will remain intact. The clue to this is the arithmatic around Guantanamo itself. A Brookings Institute report shows that two thirds of the Guantanamo detained prisoners aren't there any longer. In addition, we believe (the figures aren't disclosed, for obvious reasons) that Guantanamo inmates constitute a minorirty of America's illegally-held prison population, the rest of whom live in so-called black sites. Because these sites have been outside of public scrutiny, the President will have no cause to close them. Expect at least some of the newly liberated Guantanamo inmates to find new digs in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, and who knows where else. Even those transferred to America can't expect the sort of trial that Americans (like Timothy McVeigh who - unlike the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees - actually was a terrorist).
Healthcare: When Obama leaves office a remarkable number of Americans will have remarkably enhanced access to medical care. This will be the single biggest acheivement of his presidency.
Black America: Black America will end it's tenure under Obama slightly worse off than it began. It's relative (to White America) exposure to social ills (poverty, prison, substance abuse, violent crime, HIV infection, etc.) will be slightly higher, and it's relative exposure to social benefits (wealth, health, security, employment) will be lower. This won't be Obama's fault; as America enters a period of diminished prosperity (i.e. negative real per capita GDP growth), long-standing social fissures are deepened. No one president can stem that in a single term (although perpetuation is a piece of cake). Neither will this imply the absence of signs of progress. A greater number of Black Americans will be receving a larger amount of healthcare covereage, quality education and (maybe) employment.
2012: Obama will face no Democratic challengers in the primaries. He may be Clinton-weak at his reelection, and will be helped by a lacklustre, ill-prepared republican campaing. The Republican frontrunners will be Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Piyush Jindall. It's way early, but I think that Romney's the candidate to watch. The next tier may include Charles Christ, Tom Ridge and rudi Gulliani. Whether the Republicans unseat Obama depends largely on their performance in the 2010 mid-terms, and their mastery of populist politics starting today. The four key tasks are:
- fence-mending with Latino Americans
- Pragmatic economic populism
- candidate selection
- repairing thetechnology gap.
Unraveling: Obama's juggernaut-of-rivals will give way to a more focussed, coherent, administration. The peripheral elements (like Paul Volker) will give way to the core, so that within two years the administration will look a lot more trim. If this is well managed (gently picking off the elements one-by-one), it will herald an unremarkable transition from a campaign of transformative insurgence to a conservative administration. If it's poorly managed it could spark divisive revenge from the outgunned rivals. Either way, the implementors of Clinton's triangulation will reintroduce centreism as the animating theme of the adminstration. This time, the chastening effect of the economic fallout will double the conservatising impulse.
Success: Obama won't be considered one of the worst. It's unlikely that he'll be remembered as a one of the best (excluding Dem partisans). Remember that Carter presided over a closing of America's inflation problem, but was rewarded by losing his party's nomination for reelection. Presidential success admits a gap between perception and reality. America rarely falls over (a consequence of its long history of developed markets and civil institutions). In order to increase his shot at success, he'll have to be pragmatic about which promises he'll ditch at the outset, and which he'll focus on. I expect him to do this.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Gaza
(* I attach the text of a received email*)
> Hi,
>
> I have been so disgusted by the Israeli action in Gaza but so confused
> by conflicting messages. It is hard to know what to think, and what to
> do.
>
> The most cogent account I have found, with context, especially about
> Hamas coming to power, and the sorry story of of Gaza after 40 years
> occupation and then the last two years in which it has been turned
> into a vast open-air prison, is this one from Avi Shlaim, an Oxford
> Professor:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
>
> Shlaim is one of the "new historians" like Benny Morris, who have
> questioned some of the founding 'myths' of the problem. He is maligned
> in places on the internet, but I suppose people who tell the truth (or
> even half the truth) will always have detractors. I am sure that much
> could be argued with in his account above, but much of it also rings
> true with me.
>
> I have been wondering what to do. Not just about this episode, but
> about the problem of Israel and the Palestinians in general.
>
> Some of my friends in the UK have been boycotting Israel for years
> (e.g fruit and vegetable products in UK supermarkets), and I am
> feeling that I should now do the same. This won't matter much, but a
> collective attitude would, and so presumably would enough people in
> the US calling their congress-people, etc. Interestingly, the leader
> of the opposition liberal democrats in the UK called today for a
> suspension of UK arms to Israel (more than 20 million pounds worth in
> the first three months of 2008), and of EU arms to Israel. [This is
> not to mention the several billions of dollars per year in US aid to
> Israel].
>
> Sanctions on south africa were a key factor (although I guess it's
> debatable how key) that led the regime to eventually talk with the
> "terrorists" and then compromise and share power.
>
> Interested in your views,
> Hi,
>
> I have been so disgusted by the Israeli action in Gaza but so confused
> by conflicting messages. It is hard to know what to think, and what to
> do.
>
> The most cogent account I have found, with context, especially about
> Hamas coming to power, and the sorry story of of Gaza after 40 years
> occupation and then the last two years in which it has been turned
> into a vast open-air prison, is this one from Avi Shlaim, an Oxford
> Professor:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
>
> Shlaim is one of the "new historians" like Benny Morris, who have
> questioned some of the founding 'myths' of the problem. He is maligned
> in places on the internet, but I suppose people who tell the truth (or
> even half the truth) will always have detractors. I am sure that much
> could be argued with in his account above, but much of it also rings
> true with me.
>
> I have been wondering what to do. Not just about this episode, but
> about the problem of Israel and the Palestinians in general.
>
> Some of my friends in the UK have been boycotting Israel for years
> (e.g fruit and vegetable products in UK supermarkets), and I am
> feeling that I should now do the same. This won't matter much, but a
> collective attitude would, and so presumably would enough people in
> the US calling their congress-people, etc. Interestingly, the leader
> of the opposition liberal democrats in the UK called today for a
> suspension of UK arms to Israel (more than 20 million pounds worth in
> the first three months of 2008), and of EU arms to Israel. [This is
> not to mention the several billions of dollars per year in US aid to
> Israel].
>
> Sanctions on south africa were a key factor (although I guess it's
> debatable how key) that led the regime to eventually talk with the
> "terrorists" and then compromise and share power.
>
> Interested in your views,
Friday, January 2, 2009
Whip out the bubbly...
I liked 2008. It just didn't turn out as it should have. But it was a nice year. In principle.
OK, in lieu of resolutions (which impose too much responsibility on the offerer), and hot on the heels of the last quarter's bubble-popping frenzy (the housing bubble, the securitisation bubble, the investment banking bubble, etc.) allow me to present the next three bubbles.
First, a disclaimer. I can't deny that there'll be other bubble-bursts inbetween (eg. Vanity Fair warn convincingly of an impending private equity pop). Second, they may not all pop this year. But I have tried to lay them out in the order I think they'll unfold. So here goes:
1. The US treasury. This is a stealth bubble, inflated by Bush, longstanding hubris, and latterly the Federal Reserve Bank. The unravelling will take the form of an increased impotence, as the government finds itself unable to intervene effectively. Treasury bond yields will rise, and the coporate spread will narrow. This means that the government's ability to borrow will weaken. Given that it's voluntarilly weakened its ability to raise taxes, and it's in deficit, Americans will learn the meaning of the Afrikaans post New Year phenomenon bubble-las.
2. Barack Obama. This one was popping last September, until in a rare example of an implosion shielding another implosion, the panic stemming from the housing collapse kept it going. More on this in my Jan20 note.
3. China. It's a long story, but China's been poorly managed for a long time. The banks have been a mess. It's been as dependent on overstretched Americans as the rest of us. Let's not get started on the politics, save to say that rich people don't like having their own freedom restricted. And there's an increasing amount of wealth in China. This reduces the effectiveness of extreme goverment efforts at gerrymandering the economy.
Initially, there'll be firesale attempts at prolonging the implosion. Invariably, these involve selling the most recent stocks of the familly silver (or china). In this case, they're US treasry bonds. I forget the numbers, but the overwhelming majority (80% order of magnitude) of new American borrowing over the last years has been from China. This is why in my list China is #3, and the American treasury #1. In a reversal of the bubble altruism that propelled Obama to November, we have here a case of a bubble pressganging another bubble.
OK, then. Crappy New Year.
OK, in lieu of resolutions (which impose too much responsibility on the offerer), and hot on the heels of the last quarter's bubble-popping frenzy (the housing bubble, the securitisation bubble, the investment banking bubble, etc.) allow me to present the next three bubbles.
First, a disclaimer. I can't deny that there'll be other bubble-bursts inbetween (eg. Vanity Fair warn convincingly of an impending private equity pop). Second, they may not all pop this year. But I have tried to lay them out in the order I think they'll unfold. So here goes:
1. The US treasury. This is a stealth bubble, inflated by Bush, longstanding hubris, and latterly the Federal Reserve Bank. The unravelling will take the form of an increased impotence, as the government finds itself unable to intervene effectively. Treasury bond yields will rise, and the coporate spread will narrow. This means that the government's ability to borrow will weaken. Given that it's voluntarilly weakened its ability to raise taxes, and it's in deficit, Americans will learn the meaning of the Afrikaans post New Year phenomenon bubble-las.
2. Barack Obama. This one was popping last September, until in a rare example of an implosion shielding another implosion, the panic stemming from the housing collapse kept it going. More on this in my Jan20 note.
3. China. It's a long story, but China's been poorly managed for a long time. The banks have been a mess. It's been as dependent on overstretched Americans as the rest of us. Let's not get started on the politics, save to say that rich people don't like having their own freedom restricted. And there's an increasing amount of wealth in China. This reduces the effectiveness of extreme goverment efforts at gerrymandering the economy.
Initially, there'll be firesale attempts at prolonging the implosion. Invariably, these involve selling the most recent stocks of the familly silver (or china). In this case, they're US treasry bonds. I forget the numbers, but the overwhelming majority (80% order of magnitude) of new American borrowing over the last years has been from China. This is why in my list China is #3, and the American treasury #1. In a reversal of the bubble altruism that propelled Obama to November, we have here a case of a bubble pressganging another bubble.
OK, then. Crappy New Year.
Monday, December 15, 2008
On solid footing.
A few remarkable things about this video:
0. The aim. I don't think I could get that close. Twice.
1. The secret service response time. If you've seen Spike Jonze's "Five Stop Mother Superior Rain" video, you get a sense of the silent pandemonium in the first few nanoseconds of an assasination.
2. Bush seemed to enjoy this, proving that the inner fratboy is hard to kill.
3. Nuri al Maliki was the most breathtaking. This is a replay of his unflappable form last year when a bomb exploded outside a press conference with the new UN secretary. Ban Ki Moon tried to crawl under the table, and Maliki looked as if bomb blasts within retching distance are an everyday thing. Which I suppose they are.
4. The SOFA, which brought Bush to Baghdad, may surprise in its content. Patrick Cockburn has it covered here.
0. The aim. I don't think I could get that close. Twice.
1. The secret service response time. If you've seen Spike Jonze's "Five Stop Mother Superior Rain" video, you get a sense of the silent pandemonium in the first few nanoseconds of an assasination.
2. Bush seemed to enjoy this, proving that the inner fratboy is hard to kill.
3. Nuri al Maliki was the most breathtaking. This is a replay of his unflappable form last year when a bomb exploded outside a press conference with the new UN secretary. Ban Ki Moon tried to crawl under the table, and Maliki looked as if bomb blasts within retching distance are an everyday thing. Which I suppose they are.
4. The SOFA, which brought Bush to Baghdad, may surprise in its content. Patrick Cockburn has it covered here.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
After the race
"Thaht's kwoit ah hedd o' hairrr ya gat therrrre," at which, startled, I gave up the attempt at removing my underpants to address the wizened frame of the hulking Scot who towered over me (in the mens' change room at the Sea Point swimming pool). It was an unusually grey and rainy Cape Town summer's morning, which I found fit for a swim.
He was very friendly, this grey-bearded haggis eater, who - in an apparent bid to ant-dissapate the tension from his dreadful greeting offered "Sooow, arrr ye ahs huppy aboot thah eleyction ahs wee arrr?" And then, when my expected "absolutely" was met with awkward pause he coninued "wahll, ut least therrr'll be ahn ehnd ta tha worrrs."
"Well not if it's up to Obama, he favours an intensification in Afghanistan."
"Whall, at least tha parrrtie of warrr is ote."
"Not really. Vietnam was a Democratic initiative. The (uncapitalised) bay of pigs was Kennedy."
"Uhm ohld enuff ta rememberrrr thaht, yong mahn", he intoned serenely. And then, flashing youthful optimism in defiance of his years (and putative memory) he wrapped "whall, we'rrre just ohptimistic, though I cunn see yorrr skehptical". And then I swimmed.
So now, in the full comfort of my undergarments, allow me to share with you (a first, as this usually is a solo misery) the closing moments of my post-electoral gloom. What's now become a (probably permanent) four-yearly cycle of despair has been remarkably shorter this time around. The reasons are clear. There's no Ohio or Florida recount to prolong the hope. The alternative wasn't that alluring, and I'm a little more experienced.
So why this? Unlike the last two times, the despair requires a bit of explaining. My shower mate's presumption is in keeping with the standard distribution of assumptions. Instead of going through things repetitiously, I hope to refer those with a professed interest (you, probably) to this blog. This way I get to mope once, and live a little more.
My reservations about the Obama candidacy were threefold, and didn't change much over the latter course of the campaign:
1. The candidacy was based upon a cynical, unnecessary and harmful exploitation of race.
2. It was an empty candidacy, at its core an expression of style, with only a tactical reversion to substance.
3. It was a dishonest campaign.
The first point may need elaboration. Barack Obama was one of five people of colour on presidential tickets this season. Why were none of the others regarded as vectors to the "historic opportunity (to elect an unwhite President)" (brackets not mine.) In short, because none of them asked to be thus regarded. This in spite of the fact that one of them (Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party candidate) offered the astonishing double whammy of being a black woman candidate.
The major/minor party distinction only partly explains the difference, but while it could account for McKinney and Matt Gonzalez (Ralph Nader's running mate), it hardly explains Alan Keys (Republican) and Bill Richardson (Democrat). The reason Obama stood out, is that he asked to. I'd encourage readers to view this article from the LA Times' Shelby Steele:
Here's a snippet:
I don't wish to be drawn on a debate around the timing of Iowa. What resonates is Steele's characterisation of Obama's allure: The illusion of a quick-fix, in lieu of a programme of substance-driven change. The danger of this offer is evident. To the extent that it succeeds, the quick-fix tells the previously anxious "you have nothing left to regret, and by implication nothing left to attend to." And so, the first two issues defining my reservation morph. I've previously referred to this as the delegitimisation of radical politics; an immediate consequence of the substanceless bargain.
In this regard, I was struck by John McCain's acceptance speech. There were only two moments of sustained clapping; the second when he thanked Sara Palin, and the first when he declared
Without a laboured elaboration of the third reason, I recall the extent of Obama's flip-flopping. His pacifist preening to Democratic primarygoers, contrasted starkly with the later sabre rattling about Pakistan, guns, FISA and Jerusalem. The turnaround on campaign finance was clear deceit. This, in an ordinary candidate, would've skotched his credibility. How it sustained his transformative claim is beyond me.
Indeed, the cracks in the transformative facade were immediately available on election night. Even as they said "yes we can", the voters of ultra-blue California passed a ban on same-sex marriage, by the same margin as Obama's national popular vote. This mirrored the cunning of the change agent, who during the campaign endorsed the bigotry of the ban, objecting only to the effort to centralise the decision-making around the ban (i.e he wanted states, not the federal congress to decide.)
Returning to my shower mate, something else is striking. There is a racial determination of the expected response involved in all of this. Black people are expected to shirk from McCain, and embrace Obama. Anyone who looks like doing contrariwise on either count is, however tacitly, required to explain. Which can lead to rambling blogging.
Again Steele's remarks are pertinent:
So much for my initial concerns. Given that Obama is president, what now? There's something like a more constructive reason for writing this blog: Sometimes I hope to be refuted. Refutation is easier when one is upfront with one's reservation. Otherwise, there is the temptation to continually change the gripe in response to parts of it being undone. Obama has the potential to come up with new ways to disappoint me. But barring that, I don't wish to add to the current crop. The onus is on him to trim it.
In the spirit of bipartisanship (and in defiance of your the temptation to forget George Bush too soon), allow me to channel Karl Rove:
Four years from now, Black America will continue to be as much of a relatively impoverished, undereducated and overimprisoned place as it is now. In fact it's likely to get worse. This is not due to Obama at all; inequality so deeply entrenched takes a long concerted effort to undo. Even if you really want to. The only way out is to define programmes of improvement. They need to betoken a radical break from the present. There's a myriad of ways that this can happen, which implies a host of possibilities for Obama. By establishing credible institutions for the improvement of Black America, he will have vindicated the claim that his was but a tactical - and pardonable - bargain.
He was very friendly, this grey-bearded haggis eater, who - in an apparent bid to ant-dissapate the tension from his dreadful greeting offered "Sooow, arrr ye ahs huppy aboot thah eleyction ahs wee arrr?" And then, when my expected "absolutely" was met with awkward pause he coninued "wahll, ut least therrr'll be ahn ehnd ta tha worrrs."
"Well not if it's up to Obama, he favours an intensification in Afghanistan."
"Whall, at least tha parrrtie of warrr is ote."
"Not really. Vietnam was a Democratic initiative. The (uncapitalised) bay of pigs was Kennedy."
"Uhm ohld enuff ta rememberrrr thaht, yong mahn", he intoned serenely. And then, flashing youthful optimism in defiance of his years (and putative memory) he wrapped "whall, we'rrre just ohptimistic, though I cunn see yorrr skehptical". And then I swimmed.
So now, in the full comfort of my undergarments, allow me to share with you (a first, as this usually is a solo misery) the closing moments of my post-electoral gloom. What's now become a (probably permanent) four-yearly cycle of despair has been remarkably shorter this time around. The reasons are clear. There's no Ohio or Florida recount to prolong the hope. The alternative wasn't that alluring, and I'm a little more experienced.
So why this? Unlike the last two times, the despair requires a bit of explaining. My shower mate's presumption is in keeping with the standard distribution of assumptions. Instead of going through things repetitiously, I hope to refer those with a professed interest (you, probably) to this blog. This way I get to mope once, and live a little more.
My reservations about the Obama candidacy were threefold, and didn't change much over the latter course of the campaign:
1. The candidacy was based upon a cynical, unnecessary and harmful exploitation of race.
2. It was an empty candidacy, at its core an expression of style, with only a tactical reversion to substance.
3. It was a dishonest campaign.
The first point may need elaboration. Barack Obama was one of five people of colour on presidential tickets this season. Why were none of the others regarded as vectors to the "historic opportunity (to elect an unwhite President)" (brackets not mine.) In short, because none of them asked to be thus regarded. This in spite of the fact that one of them (Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party candidate) offered the astonishing double whammy of being a black woman candidate.
The major/minor party distinction only partly explains the difference, but while it could account for McKinney and Matt Gonzalez (Ralph Nader's running mate), it hardly explains Alan Keys (Republican) and Bill Richardson (Democrat). The reason Obama stood out, is that he asked to. I'd encourage readers to view this article from the LA Times' Shelby Steele:
Here's a snippet:
Obama's special charisma -- since his famous 2004 convention speech -- always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up -- given an air of 'change' -- by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in...This was never lost on me, and as a lifelong (so far) pawn in the web of racial politics I found the use of blackness as a central bargaining chip to be particularly offensive. Steele's remarks on the deployment of the chip chime with what I've struggled to articulate in private conversation before. Steele continues:
Obama is what I have called a "bargainer" -- a black who says to whites, 'I will never presume that you are racist if you will not hold my race against me.' Whites become enthralled with bargainers out of gratitude for the presumption of innocence they offer.I've seen (and continue to) the operation of this halo effect in South Africa. Nelson Mandela is, without question, regarded as "a great leader", with no reference to policy and implementation under his stewardship. There's a racial element to the attribution. Black south Africans remember and recognise him as a selfless, ultimately vindicated freedom fighter. White South Africans, who generally despise the violent guerrilla movement he began, and the crippling economic sanctions campaign he endorsed, limit their attribution to a localised equivalent of the redemption bargain.
Bargainers relieve their anxiety about being white and, for this gift of trust, bargainers are often rewarded with a kind of halo...
Obama's post-racial idealism told whites the one thing they most wanted to hear: America had essentially contained the evil of racism to the point at which it was no longer a serious barrier to black advancement. Thus, whites became enchanted enough with Obama to become his political base. It was Iowa -- 95% white -- that made him a contender. Blacks came his way only after he won enough white voters to be a plausible candidate...
I don't wish to be drawn on a debate around the timing of Iowa. What resonates is Steele's characterisation of Obama's allure: The illusion of a quick-fix, in lieu of a programme of substance-driven change. The danger of this offer is evident. To the extent that it succeeds, the quick-fix tells the previously anxious "you have nothing left to regret, and by implication nothing left to attend to." And so, the first two issues defining my reservation morph. I've previously referred to this as the delegitimisation of radical politics; an immediate consequence of the substanceless bargain.
In this regard, I was struck by John McCain's acceptance speech. There were only two moments of sustained clapping; the second when he thanked Sara Palin, and the first when he declared
"Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth."Put differently, "Now that (the presidential) race is behind us, race is behind us."
Without a laboured elaboration of the third reason, I recall the extent of Obama's flip-flopping. His pacifist preening to Democratic primarygoers, contrasted starkly with the later sabre rattling about Pakistan, guns, FISA and Jerusalem. The turnaround on campaign finance was clear deceit. This, in an ordinary candidate, would've skotched his credibility. How it sustained his transformative claim is beyond me.
Indeed, the cracks in the transformative facade were immediately available on election night. Even as they said "yes we can", the voters of ultra-blue California passed a ban on same-sex marriage, by the same margin as Obama's national popular vote. This mirrored the cunning of the change agent, who during the campaign endorsed the bigotry of the ban, objecting only to the effort to centralise the decision-making around the ban (i.e he wanted states, not the federal congress to decide.)
Returning to my shower mate, something else is striking. There is a racial determination of the expected response involved in all of this. Black people are expected to shirk from McCain, and embrace Obama. Anyone who looks like doing contrariwise on either count is, however tacitly, required to explain. Which can lead to rambling blogging.
Again Steele's remarks are pertinent:
But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites -- especially today's younger generation -- proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer's ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.This last line invokes something else that's weighed on me. Obama continues to benefit from what George Bush (or his speechwriter) poetically dubbed "the soft bigotry of reduced expectations". Ironically, it is Bush himself who dropped the bar for Obama, by providing as benchmkark his disastrous administration. This has allowed Obama to escape comparison with the more substantive people he actually was running against.
So much for my initial concerns. Given that Obama is president, what now? There's something like a more constructive reason for writing this blog: Sometimes I hope to be refuted. Refutation is easier when one is upfront with one's reservation. Otherwise, there is the temptation to continually change the gripe in response to parts of it being undone. Obama has the potential to come up with new ways to disappoint me. But barring that, I don't wish to add to the current crop. The onus is on him to trim it.
In the spirit of bipartisanship (and in defiance of your the temptation to forget George Bush too soon), allow me to channel Karl Rove:
What Mr. Obama and his team achieved was impressive. But in 75 days comes the hard part. We saw a glimpse of the challenge Tuesday night. The president-elect's speech, while graceful and at times uplifting, was light when it comes to an agenda. That may have been appropriate, but it also continued a pattern.Very much good will come from the Obama presidency. As they accrue, his accomplishments must be recognised and praised without reservation. The misgivings described here can be addressed by engaging his administration on specifics, as I have no doubt sections of civil society will.
Many Americans were drawn to Mr. Obama because they saw in him what they wanted to see. He became a large vessel into which voters placed their hopes. This can lead to disappointment and regret. What of the woman who, in the closing days of the campaign, rejoiced that Mr. Obama would pay for her gas and take care of her mortgage, tasks that no president can shoulder?
Four years from now, Black America will continue to be as much of a relatively impoverished, undereducated and overimprisoned place as it is now. In fact it's likely to get worse. This is not due to Obama at all; inequality so deeply entrenched takes a long concerted effort to undo. Even if you really want to. The only way out is to define programmes of improvement. They need to betoken a radical break from the present. There's a myriad of ways that this can happen, which implies a host of possibilities for Obama. By establishing credible institutions for the improvement of Black America, he will have vindicated the claim that his was but a tactical - and pardonable - bargain.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The last debate
Still unsure if I can blog this, as the channels I have access to claim that they won't be covering it. Anyway...
Dramatis Personae
BS - Bob Shaeffer, moderator.
BS - Likely content of tonight's discussion.
BO - Barack Obama, pretender.
JM - John McCain, posttender.
TAP - The (much-venerated-never-questioned) American People
Quoting Zogby "The stagnant nature of this race comes as tonight’s final presidential debate looms. The first two presidential face-offs have been somewhat lackluster, failing to gain a television audience as large as the debate between the vice-presidential candidates, Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin. Tonight’s event is the last time Obama and McCain will stand on the same stage before the election."
McCain's last chance to talk in detail.
0:00:00 Shaefer finishes his nonsens, and they stroll on. This is a roundtable. The first question is "why's your economic plan beetter than his?"
0:01:00 McCain reprises his deathbed opening. I didn't hear who was sick this time (Kennedy in the last debate). But the prayers went up. There's a lot of eyelash flutter.
0:03:00 Obama hits the ground running with details. He's following the Palin formula of talking straight into the camera. He has won the debate in the first five minutes. Remarkable.
0:05:20 JM takes the first stab. It's the tax gambit. Incidentally, it revolves around a Joe-sixpack man whose name really is Joe. Supposedly, this man met BO at a rally. JM is doing the Palin thing too now. However belatedly.
Both of them are stressing the differences between themselves. This is JM's last chance to challenge BO's numbers.
0:07:30 BO marshalls independent studies to support his economic policies. So far, there's been nothing new, detail-wise.
0:09:00 remarkably, JM talks to the wrong camera. This is a suable offense.
0:10:30 JM has started fighting. BO looked tired in the last salvo. JM still hasn't found the camera.
0:11:30 Here's a reprise of the "what spending will you cut" question from the last debate.
0:12:50 BO defers the answer until his presidency "I want to go through the federal budget line-by-line," etc.
0:14:00 JM defeats the claim that he's an old man: "During the Depression WE had a thing called..." He gets back to his small government refrain. It's not seemed to work in the past.
0:16:40 Porky, the second debte mascot, makes a dramatic return. She's tackled the same way that BO's done in the past (perspective). So far, BO's been in control of the debate. Ironically, he looks more grandfatherly, which helps in these fragile times.
0:18:00 JM delivers his first attempt at soundbite of the evening "Senator Obama, I'm not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago."
0:21:00 BO turns the soundbite around. He's forced JM to show his pen, which makes him look out of control. This debate is turning into a game changer. But not for Arizona.
0:22:30 Bob Shaeffer (should I call him BS?) asks about the campaign dirt.
0:23:30 BO sneers at the townhall idea. Potential gaffe there. He goes on to dismiss the importance of tone in the debate.
(I only just got to make this blog at the eleventh hour. So it was unprepared. None of the fanfare from the last time. So far, this seems like a more robust version of the last one. So I'm tiring of it.)
0:33:30 JM dredges up the dirt on BO. Who said that negative character portrayals are off the Ayre? Then BO dispatches elegantly. That should be the end of this issue now. BO sneers a little more. Then BS turns the corner.
0:42:00 Some droll remarks about the veeps.
Someone should have taught McCain how to speak slowly. TAP don't like no edgy folk. Even Bush knew this.
Next cycle we should have live audience tracking, to work out for how long people stay tuned into the debates. And at what points they opt out.
I don't know how JM intended to sit through ten townhall debates with such a small stock of ideas.
0:58:00 BREAKTHROUGH - BO says "zero", and JM's jaw drops. It's a long story, though. They're talking healthcare. BO is on top of the details. JM has raced through various options that he didn't seem enthused about. it sounds as if the reigning expert on the McCain healthacre plan is Barack Obama.
1:04:00 Talking judges. After telling us at Saddleback that he didn't like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, JM now proudly reveals that he voted for her.
1:13:00 Mercifully, the last question arrives.
1:24:00 "Gentleman, we have come to the close". JM lies first: "I think we have had a very healthy discussion." Finally he finds the right camera. (Or it finds him.)
Interestingly, JM focuses on his long history, and BO on his short one.
BO wins this one on a clear points decision. It's the first debate with a clear outcome.
G'night.
Dramatis Personae
BS - Bob Shaeffer, moderator.
BS - Likely content of tonight's discussion.
BO - Barack Obama, pretender.
JM - John McCain, posttender.
TAP - The (much-venerated-never-questioned) American People
Quoting Zogby "The stagnant nature of this race comes as tonight’s final presidential debate looms. The first two presidential face-offs have been somewhat lackluster, failing to gain a television audience as large as the debate between the vice-presidential candidates, Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin. Tonight’s event is the last time Obama and McCain will stand on the same stage before the election."
McCain's last chance to talk in detail.
0:00:00 Shaefer finishes his nonsens, and they stroll on. This is a roundtable. The first question is "why's your economic plan beetter than his?"
0:01:00 McCain reprises his deathbed opening. I didn't hear who was sick this time (Kennedy in the last debate). But the prayers went up. There's a lot of eyelash flutter.
0:03:00 Obama hits the ground running with details. He's following the Palin formula of talking straight into the camera. He has won the debate in the first five minutes. Remarkable.
0:05:20 JM takes the first stab. It's the tax gambit. Incidentally, it revolves around a Joe-sixpack man whose name really is Joe. Supposedly, this man met BO at a rally. JM is doing the Palin thing too now. However belatedly.
Both of them are stressing the differences between themselves. This is JM's last chance to challenge BO's numbers.
0:07:30 BO marshalls independent studies to support his economic policies. So far, there's been nothing new, detail-wise.
0:09:00 remarkably, JM talks to the wrong camera. This is a suable offense.
0:10:30 JM has started fighting. BO looked tired in the last salvo. JM still hasn't found the camera.
0:11:30 Here's a reprise of the "what spending will you cut" question from the last debate.
0:12:50 BO defers the answer until his presidency "I want to go through the federal budget line-by-line," etc.
0:14:00 JM defeats the claim that he's an old man: "During the Depression WE had a thing called..." He gets back to his small government refrain. It's not seemed to work in the past.
0:16:40 Porky, the second debte mascot, makes a dramatic return. She's tackled the same way that BO's done in the past (perspective). So far, BO's been in control of the debate. Ironically, he looks more grandfatherly, which helps in these fragile times.
0:18:00 JM delivers his first attempt at soundbite of the evening "Senator Obama, I'm not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago."
0:21:00 BO turns the soundbite around. He's forced JM to show his pen, which makes him look out of control. This debate is turning into a game changer. But not for Arizona.
0:22:30 Bob Shaeffer (should I call him BS?) asks about the campaign dirt.
0:23:30 BO sneers at the townhall idea. Potential gaffe there. He goes on to dismiss the importance of tone in the debate.
(I only just got to make this blog at the eleventh hour. So it was unprepared. None of the fanfare from the last time. So far, this seems like a more robust version of the last one. So I'm tiring of it.)
0:33:30 JM dredges up the dirt on BO. Who said that negative character portrayals are off the Ayre? Then BO dispatches elegantly. That should be the end of this issue now. BO sneers a little more. Then BS turns the corner.
0:42:00 Some droll remarks about the veeps.
Someone should have taught McCain how to speak slowly. TAP don't like no edgy folk. Even Bush knew this.
Next cycle we should have live audience tracking, to work out for how long people stay tuned into the debates. And at what points they opt out.
I don't know how JM intended to sit through ten townhall debates with such a small stock of ideas.
0:58:00 BREAKTHROUGH - BO says "zero", and JM's jaw drops. It's a long story, though. They're talking healthcare. BO is on top of the details. JM has raced through various options that he didn't seem enthused about. it sounds as if the reigning expert on the McCain healthacre plan is Barack Obama.
1:04:00 Talking judges. After telling us at Saddleback that he didn't like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, JM now proudly reveals that he voted for her.
1:13:00 Mercifully, the last question arrives.
1:24:00 "Gentleman, we have come to the close". JM lies first: "I think we have had a very healthy discussion." Finally he finds the right camera. (Or it finds him.)
Interestingly, JM focuses on his long history, and BO on his short one.
BO wins this one on a clear points decision. It's the first debate with a clear outcome.
G'night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
