Showing posts with label transition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transition. Show all posts

Thursday, November 20, 2008

The fable of the mountain and the mouse


"A mountain had gone into labour and was groaning terribly. Such rumours excited great expectations all over the country. In the end, however, the mountain gave birth to a mouse." Aesop

"The Americans who voted for Barack Obama as president were promised change they could count on, but it rather looks as if they may actually be asked to make do with a mildly refurbished Clinton Administration, with many of the same officials and nearly all of the same policies. The policies are drawn from the same centrist Democratic Party sources as those of Bill Clinton, and Obama’s admirers might even find themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State -- which makes no sense whatever. Are there no significant differences of view on war and peace between the two of them? Why did the American (and international) public have inflicted upon it a year and a half of Democratic party primaries in addition to the national election contest if the Democratic race could have been settled by the flip of a coin between people who believed in the same policies and thought the same thoughts?" William Pfaff
David Seaton's News Links
There is a saying in Spanish, "did we need such big saddlebags for such a short ride?"

You'd think I'd be happy to have all my past cynicism proved right... and so quickly, but I'm not... maybe if I lived on another planet, or if I were a future Chinese historian lounging in my comfortable study in Beijing a hundred years from now, chuckling as I read about the absurdity of America's slow motion drop into inanity, I would, but I'm not, so I wont.

People are talking about another "Great Depression" and comparing our period to the terrible 1930s, but aside from the "clack-clack-CLACK" feeling of a roller coaster about to go over the top and down, there is not much similarity.

The first and biggest difference that strikes me is the terribly tacky, almost drugged quality of superficiality and shallowness in everything today. The 1930s were serious times with great writers, poets, painters, cinematographers, philosophers and politicians all at the top of their game. Ideas, utopias, infernos, evil and innocence fought using meaningful language and memorable symbols. Only Bush and Cheney briefly managed to recapture some of the sinister deadliness of those times. The ghastliness of Bush had some seriousness about it. The veils were torn off of many things and for the first time most Americans were forced to take a good, hard look at ourselves: to waken from childish dreams and see ourselves as other see us.

At least, if nothing else, George W. Bush caused thousands of people to read America's last great public intellectual, Noam Chomsky, people that never would have read him otherwise. Bush brought Chomsky's texts alive and gave flesh to his insights.

Insight and consciousness are precious things, building blocks.

The left is about ideas, about facing reality bravely with full unblinking consciousness. An opportunity for the left to rebuild itself arose in the unlikely shape of George W. Bush and now it is about to be wasted.

Now after lengthy labor pains, with much moaning and groaning, the mountain has given birth to a mouse.

What makes me sad and angry is that the consciousness that has been raised during the Bush years is going to be sanitized and neutered as we tell ourselves another soothing bedtime story about ourselves to ourselves. DS

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Yet more reality

Der SPIEGEL: So what can Obama do?

Niall Ferguson: He can give a great inauguration speech.

SPIEGEL: And what else?

Ferguson: Give more great speeches.

SPIEGEL: He can't do more?

Ferguson: No, because he will have the least latitude of all presidents we can remember. Obama wants to assemble a nonpartisan government, and we will experience a more cautious first 100 days than we did under Bill Clinton. He will be cautious to the point of being boring. This will be precisely his great strength.

SPIEGEL: Where does the problem lie?

Ferguson: With Hank Paulson.

SPIEGEL: What does the current treasury secretary have to do with Obama?

Ferguson: Because of his big bailout plan, Paulson has already spent the money for Obama's healthcare reform and for his tax cuts. The money is gone.
_______________________________
A big struggle over control of Barack Obama’s foreign policy has already begun with his first White House staff nominees. Many of the people currently advising him, and all of those behind past Bush policies, are going to tell him his administration must choose between “weakness,” on the one hand, and “strength” plus “global leadership.” The latter means a quest for American hegemony that won’t be any more successful under Obama than it has been under Bush, and along the way will destroy his presidency just as it destroyed George Bush’s. William Pfaff
David Seaton's News Links
A window is opening briefly, people all over the world are impressed that the Americans have elected someone with African blood as their leader and most impressed of all are the Americans themselves. But racism will have actually died out when the novelty has worn off and the skin color of the US president finally becomes invisible and nothing else is seen but his job performance.

This "death of racism" is going to come sooner than many of Obama's well-wishers may feel comfortable with.

According to Eric Kleefeld at TPM quoting a Hotline/Diageo poll:
Obama has a favorable rating of 65%, and 66% of voters are somewhat confident or very confident that he can bring change to Washington. On the other hand, large majorities want him to compromise with Republicans (58%) and appoint an even mix of Dems and GOPers to his cabinet (61%).(...) As for the individual issues themselves, voters as a whole want movement on energy independence (24%), financial regulation (22%), a middle-class tax cut (21%), and national health care (15%). Obama's base of Democratic voters rank their priorities a bit differently: Middle-class tax cut 29%, financial regulation 22%, national health care 19%, and energy independence 13%.
I think that the results in California give a key to the complexity of the political climate today. Obama won by 61% to 37%, yet "Proposition Eight", to prohibit gay marriages, passed with the vote of African-Americans and Hispanics. It would appear that there is a very solid, socially conservative vote among those who voted for Obama and made a Democratic victory possible.

The Democratic coalition is made up of racial minorities, labor unions, and university educated "intellectuals": the gay issue is one that is basically for up market members of the last group.

Like the abortion issue, the gay issue is a dividing line between all these groups. What the California vote means is that there is still ample ground to grow "Reagan Democrats".

What is the synthesis here? What exactly does "change" mean in this context? A different face, a different way of talking, or the sort of sea change that Roosevelt brought about? Certainly the California vote
is like a Zen koan.

Why am I so skeptical that anything truly important is set to happen?

Simply because nobody is seriously talking about cutting defense spending in order to pay for all the "stimuli" or health or infrastructure reforms.
Speaking from memory, I think Americans spend almost eighty percent of the world's total defense expenditure... something absurd like that and I don't hear Obama or anyone close to Obama talking about "Guns or butter".

It is bailout time, are the Chinese supposed to bankroll the Pentagon?

What I sense is that the ever cautious Obama has brought us to the shores of the Rubicon and is about to hand out fishing polls. DS