27 May 2011
Gandhi: Brilliant Analyst, Inspiring Teacher
In reviewing Joseph Lelyveld’s “Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India” in the May 2, 2011, New Yorker, Pankaj Mishra seems to believe that Gandhi’s real legacy was to teach others to know and inspire them to believe that collective action is needed to combat certain forces of evil. The latter elements of society are those who are driven by a profit motive to pursue the “debilitating arms race” between India and Pakistan, and could include those who still abandon traditional Indian values in favor of material wealth.
There is certainly a lesson to be learned from Gandhi by those who have suffered the consequences of the subprime mortgage fiasco and the Euro-debt collapse. Modern society appears to be divided between the smart individualists who maximize short-term gains, coasting through the rough spots, and the pathetic victims of their dangerous risks who need to be inspired to act collectively in order to protect their basic interests. Mahatma Gandhi brilliantly recognized this truism but it is his disciples’ responsibility to carry out his inspirational message.
In reviewing Joseph Lelyveld’s “Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India” in the May 2, 2011, New Yorker, Pankaj Mishra seems to believe that Gandhi’s real legacy was to teach others to know and inspire them to believe that collective action is needed to combat certain forces of evil. The latter elements of society are those who are driven by a profit motive to pursue the “debilitating arms race” between India and Pakistan, and could include those who still abandon traditional Indian values in favor of material wealth.
There is certainly a lesson to be learned from Gandhi by those who have suffered the consequences of the subprime mortgage fiasco and the Euro-debt collapse. Modern society appears to be divided between the smart individualists who maximize short-term gains, coasting through the rough spots, and the pathetic victims of their dangerous risks who need to be inspired to act collectively in order to protect their basic interests. Mahatma Gandhi brilliantly recognized this truism but it is his disciples’ responsibility to carry out his inspirational message.
25 May 2011
Obama’s Re-Election Edge
It’s tempting to contrast Stanford fellow Shelby Steele’s characterization, in the May 25, 2011, Wall Street Journal, of the Republicans’ dilemma created by President Obama’s “cultural charisma” with the accusation two days earlier by Princeton Professor Cornel West that Obama is “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats.” Obama’s likeability numbers, driven by political correctness, certainly attest to the strength and skill of those power centers in determining the sentiments of America’s middle class. Those sentiments are indeed “normally subdued” until they are subjected to well-financed manipulation by public relations experts working for wealthy business interests.
These are the same interests who will assure a successful result for any re-election campaign. They are best not ignored by a black President who places more importance on his being in the White House than on spouting militant protests.
On the other hand, sweeping through the domestic stimulus package was made necessary by the recklessness of our politicians and financiers in building a subprime-mortgaged house of cards. And something must be done to reform our health-care system if our citizens are ever to enjoy their ever-elongating life spans.
It’s tempting to contrast Stanford fellow Shelby Steele’s characterization, in the May 25, 2011, Wall Street Journal, of the Republicans’ dilemma created by President Obama’s “cultural charisma” with the accusation two days earlier by Princeton Professor Cornel West that Obama is “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats.” Obama’s likeability numbers, driven by political correctness, certainly attest to the strength and skill of those power centers in determining the sentiments of America’s middle class. Those sentiments are indeed “normally subdued” until they are subjected to well-financed manipulation by public relations experts working for wealthy business interests.
These are the same interests who will assure a successful result for any re-election campaign. They are best not ignored by a black President who places more importance on his being in the White House than on spouting militant protests.
On the other hand, sweeping through the domestic stimulus package was made necessary by the recklessness of our politicians and financiers in building a subprime-mortgaged house of cards. And something must be done to reform our health-care system if our citizens are ever to enjoy their ever-elongating life spans.
20 May 2011
Will Libya be Obama's Bay of Pigs?
The U.S. should avoid massive intervention in the revolution in Libya. More largely, things have changed and foreign military action is no longer a necessary or economically practical solution to human rights outrages. Of course, there may be an exception when it comes to obviating natural disasters or autonomous genocides.
Who's responsibility is it to maintain and pay for a large standing armed force? When a petty dictator like Qaddafi (and, for that matter, Saddam or Milosevic) enforces the oppression of his nation through state apparatus that appears to be only eradicable by expensive international intervention, invasion and bombing are the old solution.
Communications technology and electronic personal networking have progressed to the point that formerly disenfranchised popular movements are able, with good organization and surreptitious support from abroad, have shown themselves able to overthrow those dictators.
The Europeans are on to something when they reduce their armed forces. The U.S. does not to take up any slack. Together they should invest in enabling local populations to assert themselves rather than in imposing political order from outside.
The U.S. should avoid massive intervention in the revolution in Libya. More largely, things have changed and foreign military action is no longer a necessary or economically practical solution to human rights outrages. Of course, there may be an exception when it comes to obviating natural disasters or autonomous genocides.
Who's responsibility is it to maintain and pay for a large standing armed force? When a petty dictator like Qaddafi (and, for that matter, Saddam or Milosevic) enforces the oppression of his nation through state apparatus that appears to be only eradicable by expensive international intervention, invasion and bombing are the old solution.
Communications technology and electronic personal networking have progressed to the point that formerly disenfranchised popular movements are able, with good organization and surreptitious support from abroad, have shown themselves able to overthrow those dictators.
The Europeans are on to something when they reduce their armed forces. The U.S. does not to take up any slack. Together they should invest in enabling local populations to assert themselves rather than in imposing political order from outside.
10 May 2011
The Lessons from a Mission Accomplished
Why has the killing of Osama Bin Laden accomplished our mission in Afghanistan? As Leslie Gelb says in his OpEd article in the May 9, 2011, Wall Street Journal, America’s beef was over the Taliban’s hosting of Al Qaeda. Bin Laden’s riches were what enabled them to do so. Now that he’s gone, it is very unlikely that anyone with the extremist views of a Bin Laden will command the wealth needed to mount as difficult and expensive a plot as 9/11.
We have learned a couple of lessons, though. Even if we nearly bankrupt ourselves, we cannot easily displace a despicable regime, particularly one that legitimately governs a remote corner of the world. Patience, economic development and information exchange will do that.
The second lesson is that we can never again ignore threatening plots no matter how remote the corner of the world in which they are cooked. That is the flip side of the same advances in information technology that promise the eventual worldwide emergence of equitable popular government. The ultimate danger for America is again blissfully to conduct ourselves as if globalization only has benefits—it also makes neighbors of our enemies.
Why has the killing of Osama Bin Laden accomplished our mission in Afghanistan? As Leslie Gelb says in his OpEd article in the May 9, 2011, Wall Street Journal, America’s beef was over the Taliban’s hosting of Al Qaeda. Bin Laden’s riches were what enabled them to do so. Now that he’s gone, it is very unlikely that anyone with the extremist views of a Bin Laden will command the wealth needed to mount as difficult and expensive a plot as 9/11.
We have learned a couple of lessons, though. Even if we nearly bankrupt ourselves, we cannot easily displace a despicable regime, particularly one that legitimately governs a remote corner of the world. Patience, economic development and information exchange will do that.
The second lesson is that we can never again ignore threatening plots no matter how remote the corner of the world in which they are cooked. That is the flip side of the same advances in information technology that promise the eventual worldwide emergence of equitable popular government. The ultimate danger for America is again blissfully to conduct ourselves as if globalization only has benefits—it also makes neighbors of our enemies.
09 May 2011
One Man’s Grail Is Another’s Abomination
In his essay in the May 8, 2011, New York Times, “Quest for the Unholy Grail,” John F. Burns seems to agree with David Cameron’s criticism of Pakistan for looking both ways in dealing with Al Qaeda. That characterization of Pakistan’s actions is probably true; but Al Qaeda and the U.S. have also been playing double games in dealing with each other and, for that matter, with a lot of other political entities in the region.
The West is two-faced in the eyes of fundamentalists whose reference point is ideology, not material progress. Seeing two sides of an issue is laudable and broad-minded until one assigns value to a point of view. In the world of “Realpolitik,” which is the frame of mind that demands the U.S. and the U.K. act in their own best interests, a friendly corrupt but stable government is preferable to short-run chaos in a strategically important region. America’s erstwhile allies in the fight against the order-seeking Soviets in Afghanistan, the mujahedeen and their progeny, Al Qaeda, hold a different frame of mind that demands conformity with strict Islamic doctrine even at the expense of human rights. And still, these fundamentalists accepted American support when it suited their ends.
That is the rule in international politics. Mr. Cameron is naïve not to have expected it of the Pakistanis. It appears that Bin Laden understood when it came to selecting a hiding place.
In his essay in the May 8, 2011, New York Times, “Quest for the Unholy Grail,” John F. Burns seems to agree with David Cameron’s criticism of Pakistan for looking both ways in dealing with Al Qaeda. That characterization of Pakistan’s actions is probably true; but Al Qaeda and the U.S. have also been playing double games in dealing with each other and, for that matter, with a lot of other political entities in the region.
The West is two-faced in the eyes of fundamentalists whose reference point is ideology, not material progress. Seeing two sides of an issue is laudable and broad-minded until one assigns value to a point of view. In the world of “Realpolitik,” which is the frame of mind that demands the U.S. and the U.K. act in their own best interests, a friendly corrupt but stable government is preferable to short-run chaos in a strategically important region. America’s erstwhile allies in the fight against the order-seeking Soviets in Afghanistan, the mujahedeen and their progeny, Al Qaeda, hold a different frame of mind that demands conformity with strict Islamic doctrine even at the expense of human rights. And still, these fundamentalists accepted American support when it suited their ends.
That is the rule in international politics. Mr. Cameron is naïve not to have expected it of the Pakistanis. It appears that Bin Laden understood when it came to selecting a hiding place.
06 May 2011
Partnership for Patients Has Limited Goals
Reforming Medicare is not a panacea for the nation’s health care or federal deficit problems. In his OpEd article in the April 29, 2011, WSJ, Dr. Donald Berwick vaunts the cost-reduction objectives of the Partnership for Patients championed by his Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the Department of Health and Human Services. That program may help to limit the growth of hospital care in the U.S., and even reduce occasions of actionable malpractice; but its fiscal impact will not make much of a dent in our annual multi-trillion dollar health care expenditures. It is foolish to think that modeling health care reform on private sector advances in the automotive, computer, appliances and communications industries will result in competition-driven savings.
Taking a cue from Dr. Jordan Stoll’s letter published in the May 5, 2011 WSJ, health care is not a product that can be closely compared to consumer or industrial goods, but not only because of patients’ “free will.” Curing a patient’s physical and psychological well-being is much more complex than filling his or her needs for interacting with the environment or with other people. Materials and equipment for accomplishing those functions can be standardized and their costs can more commonly benefit from economies of scale.
Managing the cost of providing the highest level of health care for all the members of society will only be successful when they are personally engaged in the effort. The burden cannot be shifted to hospitals, practitioners, pharmaceutical or medical device companies. A key element of health care change must take the form of educating and inducing each individual to practice healthier lifestyles.
Reforming Medicare is not a panacea for the nation’s health care or federal deficit problems. In his OpEd article in the April 29, 2011, WSJ, Dr. Donald Berwick vaunts the cost-reduction objectives of the Partnership for Patients championed by his Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the Department of Health and Human Services. That program may help to limit the growth of hospital care in the U.S., and even reduce occasions of actionable malpractice; but its fiscal impact will not make much of a dent in our annual multi-trillion dollar health care expenditures. It is foolish to think that modeling health care reform on private sector advances in the automotive, computer, appliances and communications industries will result in competition-driven savings.
Taking a cue from Dr. Jordan Stoll’s letter published in the May 5, 2011 WSJ, health care is not a product that can be closely compared to consumer or industrial goods, but not only because of patients’ “free will.” Curing a patient’s physical and psychological well-being is much more complex than filling his or her needs for interacting with the environment or with other people. Materials and equipment for accomplishing those functions can be standardized and their costs can more commonly benefit from economies of scale.
Managing the cost of providing the highest level of health care for all the members of society will only be successful when they are personally engaged in the effort. The burden cannot be shifted to hospitals, practitioners, pharmaceutical or medical device companies. A key element of health care change must take the form of educating and inducing each individual to practice healthier lifestyles.
