31 May 2006
The British Exit Strategy
In the Sunday Times of London on 21 May, Simon Jenkins wrote that “The Fantasy is Over” in Iraq. Partition is the only rational solution to the current dilemma. It was a dream to believe that the failed state there could ever be preserved in a neocon instilled democracy. The divisions in its population do not share enough of a civic culture to live together in peace without dictatorial suppression by a local tyrant or a foreign occupier. The British and American publics, however, do not have the stomach, patience, or cynicism to play that second role.
It was, after all, the British who carved the state of Iraq out of a jumble of conflicting peoples following WWI, and handed it to an Arab leader whom they made king. At one time, British intellectuals and politicians had enough power at their disposal to protect what needed to be in place in Iraq for the maintenance of order. Now the only world power is the U.S., and the U.S. administration is powerless when faced with media-savvy humanitarians, neocon philosophers and warfare-seeking industrialists on whom financing for its political existence depends.
The British, of course, have reached this conclusion before, most notably and tragically in India. But the whole West resigned itself to the breakup of Yugoslavia more recently, and there is no sanctimony to holding unfriendly neighbors together in unworkable states, democratic or otherwise. It was not clearly worthwhile to invest limitless financial and human resources into overthrowing Saddam. It is certainly not worth continued investment to pursue ephemeral democratic ideals in a political entity that will self-destruct in the absence of a strong authoritarian regime.
In the Sunday Times of London on 21 May, Simon Jenkins wrote that “The Fantasy is Over” in Iraq. Partition is the only rational solution to the current dilemma. It was a dream to believe that the failed state there could ever be preserved in a neocon instilled democracy. The divisions in its population do not share enough of a civic culture to live together in peace without dictatorial suppression by a local tyrant or a foreign occupier. The British and American publics, however, do not have the stomach, patience, or cynicism to play that second role.
It was, after all, the British who carved the state of Iraq out of a jumble of conflicting peoples following WWI, and handed it to an Arab leader whom they made king. At one time, British intellectuals and politicians had enough power at their disposal to protect what needed to be in place in Iraq for the maintenance of order. Now the only world power is the U.S., and the U.S. administration is powerless when faced with media-savvy humanitarians, neocon philosophers and warfare-seeking industrialists on whom financing for its political existence depends.
The British, of course, have reached this conclusion before, most notably and tragically in India. But the whole West resigned itself to the breakup of Yugoslavia more recently, and there is no sanctimony to holding unfriendly neighbors together in unworkable states, democratic or otherwise. It was not clearly worthwhile to invest limitless financial and human resources into overthrowing Saddam. It is certainly not worth continued investment to pursue ephemeral democratic ideals in a political entity that will self-destruct in the absence of a strong authoritarian regime.
26 May 2006
Sen on Democracy
The Nobel Laureate, Amartya Sen, recently spoke at the World Bank in Washington, in a display of his expansive and insightful intellect. He appeared on the occasion of the publication of his new book, “Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny.” One offhand remark of his particularly stuck me. Referring to the “war on terrorism” that has dominated discussion of the “clash of civilizations,” (he never referred by name to Samuel P. Huntington) he agreed with the prescription of democracy as one solution. As an aside, he remarked that a popular mistake was to identify the institution of that method of government with the holding of elections.
As he pointed out more than once in his lecture, public discussion of matters of common concern is more central to the functioning of civil society than enforcing a specific polling method. Even in the case of regular voting, it is the interchange of ideas between the members of a group leading up to a decision by ballot that evidences mutual respect for individual intelligence, and that defines a system of human behavior worthy of our aspiration.
The Nobel Laureate, Amartya Sen, recently spoke at the World Bank in Washington, in a display of his expansive and insightful intellect. He appeared on the occasion of the publication of his new book, “Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny.” One offhand remark of his particularly stuck me. Referring to the “war on terrorism” that has dominated discussion of the “clash of civilizations,” (he never referred by name to Samuel P. Huntington) he agreed with the prescription of democracy as one solution. As an aside, he remarked that a popular mistake was to identify the institution of that method of government with the holding of elections.
As he pointed out more than once in his lecture, public discussion of matters of common concern is more central to the functioning of civil society than enforcing a specific polling method. Even in the case of regular voting, it is the interchange of ideas between the members of a group leading up to a decision by ballot that evidences mutual respect for individual intelligence, and that defines a system of human behavior worthy of our aspiration.
17 May 2006
Enron’s True Fault
Kenneth Lay’s and Jeffrey Skilling’s lawyers have been claiming that the failure of Enron was not a criminal act. Indeed, the fault of their incompetence to run their innovative company lay at the hands of their Board of Directors. Those elected representatives of Enron’s shareholders were beholding to its management, but abdicated their responsibility on behalf of those who elected them to assure that Enron was being effectively managed.
Of course, the Directors were really elected by mutual, trust, and investment funds, who probably controlled the majority of Enron’s shares. The directors of those funds were complicit confusing the role of Enron’s management between ensuring the profitability of the company and convincing the market that its share value had no where to go but up. For the real role of a leading company’s CEO and top management today is not necessarily to create value with microeconomic success, but to create value through good Public Relations.
Lay and Skilling were certainly effective at that, until the bubble burst. Their imminent conviction is to scapegoat them for the distortion of the investment market that has been caused by putting future personal wealth in the hands of greedy believers in their own ability to beat the inevitable deflation of monetary value. It’s enough to make me a gold-bug.
Kenneth Lay’s and Jeffrey Skilling’s lawyers have been claiming that the failure of Enron was not a criminal act. Indeed, the fault of their incompetence to run their innovative company lay at the hands of their Board of Directors. Those elected representatives of Enron’s shareholders were beholding to its management, but abdicated their responsibility on behalf of those who elected them to assure that Enron was being effectively managed.
Of course, the Directors were really elected by mutual, trust, and investment funds, who probably controlled the majority of Enron’s shares. The directors of those funds were complicit confusing the role of Enron’s management between ensuring the profitability of the company and convincing the market that its share value had no where to go but up. For the real role of a leading company’s CEO and top management today is not necessarily to create value with microeconomic success, but to create value through good Public Relations.
Lay and Skilling were certainly effective at that, until the bubble burst. Their imminent conviction is to scapegoat them for the distortion of the investment market that has been caused by putting future personal wealth in the hands of greedy believers in their own ability to beat the inevitable deflation of monetary value. It’s enough to make me a gold-bug.
05 May 2006
Soaking the Rich
According to Stephen Moore in the May 4, 2006, Wall Street Journal, the George Bush way to soak the rich, apparently, is to give credit for income growth in the last three years to “investment tax cuts” advocated by the Republican Administration and Congress. He counts the increased taxes paid by the beneficiaries of that growth as a “substantial” shift of the tax burden onto the backs of the wealthy.
If the tax cuts provided the incentive for economic growth, then the beneficiaries of that growth should naturally be liable for a larger share of the tax burden. If the George Bush tax rate cuts were “among the most successful policies to soak the rich in American history,” then economic growth for them must have been a serendipitous consequence. After all, “soaking the rich” is a policy that should at least improve the welfare of the rest of us. Having it both ways would certainly be a good definition of “success.”
Of course, it may not have been intended that economic growth over the last three years only improved the welfare of the top tier of taxpayers, increasing their share of the economic pie but not their numbers. Or was it?
According to Stephen Moore in the May 4, 2006, Wall Street Journal, the George Bush way to soak the rich, apparently, is to give credit for income growth in the last three years to “investment tax cuts” advocated by the Republican Administration and Congress. He counts the increased taxes paid by the beneficiaries of that growth as a “substantial” shift of the tax burden onto the backs of the wealthy.
If the tax cuts provided the incentive for economic growth, then the beneficiaries of that growth should naturally be liable for a larger share of the tax burden. If the George Bush tax rate cuts were “among the most successful policies to soak the rich in American history,” then economic growth for them must have been a serendipitous consequence. After all, “soaking the rich” is a policy that should at least improve the welfare of the rest of us. Having it both ways would certainly be a good definition of “success.”
Of course, it may not have been intended that economic growth over the last three years only improved the welfare of the top tier of taxpayers, increasing their share of the economic pie but not their numbers. Or was it?
04 May 2006
Democratic or Liberal?
In his essay in the April 30, 2006, New York Times Magazine, Peter Beinart makes a common mistake by characterizing the struggle against terrorism or totalitarianism as a democratic one. Civility, after all, is not a democratic value. It is really a liberal value; and I don’t mean liberal vs. conservative. I mean liberal vs. uncritical, unconsidered, unthinking, dogmatic. It is civility that demands economic opportunity – a chance to achieve material happiness – not democracy.
Globalization has made opportunity a prerequisite of order, because the lack of material happiness virtually anywhere generates chaos that is felt worldwide. It happens that owing to the location of oil wealth, Islamic societies have been quick to foster terrorist disrupters of world peace and personal security. There is nothing unique to Islamic fundamentalism that is inimical to material well-being. Religious fundamentalism in any other culture with the same extreme polarity of deprivation and wealth can produce the type of nihilist anomie that created 9/11.
When truth is a certainty, as most fundamentalist faiths preach, knowledge often suffers, not to mention civil order. What is needed for a more rational world is not a democratic victory over evil, but a liberal victory over dogmatism.
In his essay in the April 30, 2006, New York Times Magazine, Peter Beinart makes a common mistake by characterizing the struggle against terrorism or totalitarianism as a democratic one. Civility, after all, is not a democratic value. It is really a liberal value; and I don’t mean liberal vs. conservative. I mean liberal vs. uncritical, unconsidered, unthinking, dogmatic. It is civility that demands economic opportunity – a chance to achieve material happiness – not democracy.
Globalization has made opportunity a prerequisite of order, because the lack of material happiness virtually anywhere generates chaos that is felt worldwide. It happens that owing to the location of oil wealth, Islamic societies have been quick to foster terrorist disrupters of world peace and personal security. There is nothing unique to Islamic fundamentalism that is inimical to material well-being. Religious fundamentalism in any other culture with the same extreme polarity of deprivation and wealth can produce the type of nihilist anomie that created 9/11.
When truth is a certainty, as most fundamentalist faiths preach, knowledge often suffers, not to mention civil order. What is needed for a more rational world is not a democratic victory over evil, but a liberal victory over dogmatism.
