Innocents Abroad |
|
|
Politics (North American and European), Economics, Finance, Culture, etc.
E-mail:
Recommended by
Innocents Abroad:
More Recommendations Below Links
Commentariat
More Recommendations:
|
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Terry Eastland, author of Energy in the Executive, defends separation of powers and executive privilege but concedes the need for Condoleezza Rice's testimony today. Eastland's analysis is the best thing written so far on the most recent tensions between the president and Congress. My only quibble is his assertion that the executive is all execution or administration and the legislature is all deliberation. In fact, the president participates rather significantly in the legislative or deliberative processes by virtue of the veto power. Otherwise, Eastland's analysis is excellent -- especially his point that political circumstances matter in working these tensions out and that Rice's frequent public appearances to reply to Richard Clarke necessitated her testimony today. Perhaps a less rhetorical presidency (or national security advisor) would have allowed a stronger assertion of executive privilege and may have circumvented today's testimony. The rhetorical presidency would seem to advance executive power. In this instance, excessive rhetoric undermined executive power by making it difficult to assert the case for executive secrecy and privilege. The administration is not as "insular" or "secretive" as the frustrated media once made it out to be; perhaps it should revert to that mode. The good news is that Rice's testimony went well, and in a few days nobody will remember Richard Clarke. Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Michael Medved laments the decline of the movie business over Jack Valenti's tenure as president of the Motion Picture Association of America. Dropping the old Production Code in favor of Mr. Valenti's "voluntary rating system" has lead to "the profligate use of obscene language strictly banned under the Production Code, the inclusion of graphic sex scenes along with near total nudity and, more vivid, sadistic violence than previously permitted in Hollywood movies." The economic result is that, despite reports of record "grosses" for new releases, fewer people are actually going to the movies these days. The record numbers are due more to inflation and rising ticket prices than increasing volume. The more tawdry pictures have driven away viewers. Anyone for censorship to save an industry? Of course, that's not exactly an argument that Rousseau would have contemplated in his pro-censorship Letter to D'Alembert. Monday, April 05, 2004
Comic Sociology: Defending Exurbia David Brooks is at it again with the method he himself best described in his first book as "comic sociology." Penetrating deep into the new American suburbia (which really is the most distant exurbia), Brooks describes a "more complicated and more interesting" scene than many commentators would admit. Sunday, April 04, 2004
Philip Bobbitt is one of the more interesting thinkers writing on international politics these days. His book, The Shield of Achilles (see IA recommendations, below) is perhaps a bit long, but for those seeking a broad, theoretical account of 21st century geopolitics that runs deeper than facile Hegelianism or reductionist relativism, it is, in my opinion, necessary reading. For a small sample of Bobbitt, check out his book review in today's New York Times. Saturday, April 03, 2004
I've never been able to develop the taste for Glenn Gould that others (including a close friend) have. Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed this review of a new biography of the eccentric Canadian pianist. Libertarians Can't Choose Libertarians see little difference between Bush and Kerry. This amazing assessment, made by Jane Galt and endorsed by Dan Drezner and Andrew Sullivan, comes at a point in American history when the level of acrimony between the parties is rather elevated. The most dubious remarks that Galt makes are regarding foreign policy and judicial review. She admits that there are differences in these areas that aren't trivial. But she worries about Bush's ability to stay the course in Iraq and about Republican-appointed judges enforcing social legislation she despises. First of all, she gives little reason to doubt Bush's stated intentions to stay the course in Iraq. She points to no words or actions of his that would make anyone doubtful. As for the alternative, Kerry, one is met with conflicting statements and actions at best. It is much less likely that he would sustain such an arduous enterprise. As for judicial review, Galt's remarks show her lack of respect for constitutionalism. She worries about judges upholding the law. This, of course, is what judges are supposed to do, for the alternative is arbitrary, virtually un-checked power. There are constitutional means for changing laws which Galt implicitly denies. Basically, Galt isn't sure she's a Republican or wants to vote for one, so she assuages her discomfort by arguing that little separates the two parties. Friday, April 02, 2004
Finally, Jobs Larry Kudlow is beaming on CNBC as I write this, for employment rose at the fastest monthly pace in four years for the month of March. The equity markets are set to rally on the news, and bonds appear poised to decline. In a recent piece, Irwin Stelzer has encouraged the American investor to "Gather ye rosebuds while ye may." What he means is that higher oil prices and lackluster jobs growth could cool the economy down by mid-summer. At least the jobs picture is looking better now. And Stelzer pulls back from a gloomy forecast in the end, citing the fabled resilience of the U.S. economy and its ability to absorb high commodity prices, temporary joblessness, and terrorist threats. It will be increasingly difficult for Kerry to make an issue of the economy. Update, 4:55PM -- Stocks managed to hold large gains and bonds were trounced. Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Bland, Complaisant Achievement Machines This is how David Brooks describes kids trying to get into top colleges these days. Sunday, March 28, 2004
France Turns to the Left The results are in from the second round of the French regional elections and it's bad news for Chirac's centre-right government. Prior to the election, Chirac's party held 14 regional councils, but that number appears to have been cut down to just one or two. And the benficiaries are the socialists and other leftists parties (and when I say left, I mean really left) who polled over 50% of the vote. This is certainly bad news for Prime Minister Raffarin who could end up being sacked. The only problem is, the most likely contender to replace him is Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, a man who wants not just the Prime Minister's post, but Jacques Chirac's job as well. Unfortunately for Chirac, Sarkozy continues to be the most popular politician in France. It should also be pointed out that Sarkozy is also far more pro-American than Chirac. The results are being interpreted as a protest against the reforms the Chirac government is trying to introduce in order to modernize and streamline the bulky French social welfare system. If this interpretation is correct, and I suspect it is, this can only be bad news for France and Europe overall. France and Germany are both in need of serious reform. Their economies are stagnant and their governments can't afford the welfare systems they put in place after World War II. This, like so many other areas, is another example of how dated and insular Europeans are becoming. On so many topics, they seem to want to stick their heads in the sand. And even worse is the fact that there aren't many statesmen in Europe worthy of the name who might pull their heads out. Saturday, March 27, 2004
Defending Mortality If the smartest new journal on the Canadian intellectual scene is the Western Standard, as Collin intimates below, then the smartest new journal on the American intellectual scene is the New Atlantis. The most recent issue is dedicated to Beyond Therapy, the latest report by the much-maligned President's Council on Bioethics. It also contains an essay by Paul Cantor on what poetry can teach modern science. The best entry point to the issue may be Diana Schaub's essay, "Methuselah and Us", a reflection on Beyond Therapy's discussion of "ageless bodies." Schaub defends human mortality by discussing two dystopias, resulting from the quest for immortality, presented in the original Star Trek series.  I'm no "Trekkie," but Schaub's is a compelling review, arguing that if mortality or death itself is not obviously good, it's certainly the foundation for other good things. Among the questions Schaub raises (via Star Trek) are: What would our attitude be to subsequent generations if we were immortal? And which stage of life would we like to prolong?This is must reading for all libertarians who defend the pursuit of science fanatically, and forget about potential misanthropic consequences. The libertarian arguments about these matters are virtually non-existent; libertarians posture about the freedom of science and seek to paint those who raise philosophic questions like these as neanderthals or religious zealots. But these libertarian accusations are not arguments; they are just a form of angry name-calling, resulting from the pain of having their faith in science questioned on rational grounds, where they arrogantly and ignorantly assume they are invulnerable. Ticktock So Kerry has finally commented on Clarke. Clarke is down to the last five minutes of his fifteen minutes of undignified notoriety, and the administration should treat him that way. A New Magazine On The Block There's a new magazine out there worth checking out. It's the Western Standard, published out of Calgary, Alberta. I mention this as an introduction to a piece I'm planning on writing soon about Alberta, Canada, the US and Europe. The title: "Is Alberta About to Take Over Canada, and the World?" Thursday, March 25, 2004
Without Legs Josh Marshall and other liberal commentators are in a lather over Richard Clarke's allegations that the Bush administration wasn't as tough on al Qaeda as it could have been. Besides the momentary sensationalism, this "story" has no legs; in a week's time it will be over. Everyone knows U.S. intelligence failed to prevent 9-11. Nevertheless, as terror alerts increase and the world looks more dangerous, the GOP gains ground. Will anyone trust the Democrats to have a fiercer foreign policy? When FDR was fighting fascism, the GOP was slowly shaking its isolationism in foreign policy. When communism posed the greatest threat, the GOP assumed the responsibility for defending liberal democracy. The Democratic party, however, has never recovered from its pacifism in the face of communism. The Islamic fundamentalist threat arguably resembles the fascist threat to liberalism, but the Democratic party cannot muster the same effort against the enemy this time. Update, 3/26/2004 -- William Kristol argues that Clarke's apology has cheapened public discourse and cites Clarke admiting that his recommendations in January 2001 would not have prevented 9/11. David Brooks says "if you want to live the soap opera, buy Clarke's book. If you want something serious, read the commission reports. You'll find them at www.9-11commission.gov." Dream On From Friedman's op-ed in today's New York Times: If the European Union was thinking long-term, it would hold an emergency meeting and announce that each E.U. country would be sending 100 men to stand alongside the 1,300 Spanish soldiers in Iraq to help protect the Iraqi people as they try to organize their first democratic election — free of intimidation by terrorists. Sunday, March 21, 2004
New Hope for Canada? And in Canada there was also an electoral contest underway this weekend. In fact, it was a leadership contest to pick the head of the newly reunited (if that makes any sense) Conservative Party. The victor was former Alliance Party leader, Stephen Harper. Not surprisingly, the governing Liberals, up to their necks in scandal, have already started accusing Harper of being an extremist, a man who does not share "Canadian (read: Liberal Party) values." The goal of this argument is to paint Harper as a western redneck, hostile to the rest of the country. The problem is, many of the things he stands enjoy the support of a large number of western Canadians. Now, when Paul Martin took over the leadership of the Liberal Party last December, he said one of his priorities was to lessen western alienation. I hardly think that labeling a man who shares the views of many westerners (not to mention a large number of people in Ontario) as extremist is the best approach. The Liberals see themselves as the governing party in Canada and will gladly throw principle to the wind in order to keep power. They may now be about to throw Canada to the wind as well. Western Canadians are not a happy bunch right now. If the Liberals win by isolating the region, it could be the straw that breaks the camel's, or in this case, the buffalo's back. I plan to discuss this issue a great deal more over the next few months leading up to the as yet uncalled federal election in Canada. Part of my efforts may include documenting instances of what I like to call "Liberal Party hate speech." The Liberals are going to attempt to evade their own scandalous behavior by further alienating western voters, though they'll do it by saying Stephen Harper doesn't really represent the West. Marshalling internet resources to combat that sort of smear is essential. More on this in the days to come. French Regional Elections The results are in from today's regional elections in France and they show the Socialists on top with 40% of the vote compared to about 34% for Chirac's centre-right coalition. The Front National has garnered around 17% of the vote. This is a sharp blow for the government and might mean the end of Prime Minister Raffarin. It's also a sign that French voters aren't all that pleased with reforms aimed at cutting back France's extensive social welfare state. While I have little sympathy for the current French government, their efforts (though relatively meager) to trim the bloated French system were laudable. That French voters have rejected them is not a good sign for France's future. It appears that the French want to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to economic realities. Does anyone really believe that a France, and an EU dominated by old school socialist economics, an aging population, rising Islamist influences and anti-Americanism will ever amount to anything? Saturday, March 20, 2004
Is Old Europe Flying High Again? The recent victory for the Socialists in Spain would suggest that “Old Europe,” i.e. the Franco-German alliance, has won a new ally against the US, but as Eursoc.com points out, this sort of speculation is a bit premature. While Spain’s Socialists look likely to be more Euro-centered and less pro-American, Eursoc notes that the situation is a bit more complex. The most important factor here is that the Franco-German alliance is not as solid as the French would like us to believe. Germany has strategic interests different from France. Though France may be content to bad-mouth the Americans, the current German government is beginning to turn away from that sort of blustering rhetoric. In the heat of an election campaign, Schroeder was willing to use anti-American sentiment to save his own neck, but as far as Germany is concerned even Schroeder knows that his country must ultimately maintain good relations with the US. And interestingly enough, this is a realization coming from a leftist German government, one that most likely will be defeated in the next election (though that’s what everyone thought before the last election). In any case, this demonstrates that Germany, even when ruled by the left, will only go so far in offending the US. By contrast, the French, despite having a right of center government, will use anti-Americanism as a long-term plank in its foreign policy. And, as far as the rest of Europe is concerned, all other European countries will alternate between the rhetoric of anti-Americanism and support for the US, depending on whether the left or the right comes to power, which itself is more a function of domestic issues than international ones (as was the case in Greece where a leftist and rather anti-American government recently fell to a more pro-American right of center party). This, it seems to me, is the best light in which to look at Europe, as well as the best guide for American statesmen. Britain tends to be friendly with the US in most matters. France tends to be hostile even when appearing friendly. Germany, despite trying to build close relations with France, is reluctant to damage its trans-Atlantic ties. The rest of Europe will alternate between anti-Americanism and pro-Americanism depending on who comes to power, which, as I noted, usually has more to do with domestic than international concerns. As a final point, a point which refutes the claims that the Americans are not particularly deft when it comes to diplomacy, especially the current administration, I would suggest that, judging by how the Bush administration handled the various European players in the build-up to Iraq and since the war, those making the decisions in the US government understand something of how Europe’s nations work. The administration touted Anglo-American commonality, befriended smaller European nations, quickly forgave grievances with the Germans and have allowed antagonisms with the French to simmer. In other words, the American administration has focused its hostility on the French as much as possible. I remember reading somewhere that during discussions prior to the Iraq invasion, Dominique de Villepin made the comment that the problem with the Americans is that they don’t read Machiavelli. The force of this statement was that the Americans failed to understand that much of what the French were doing was pure grandstanding in order to improve their international leverage. I think the Americans may very well have understood this. De Villepin seems to think that the core of Machiavelli is simple deception shrouded in the appearance of morality. If that’s the case, then I would suggest that the problem with the French is that they don’t read Machiavelli carefully. There is a moral message in Machiavelli, and it has to do with the morality of acquiring, something the French seem almost habitually unable to comprehend: a Machiavellian joke at France’s expense. Friday, March 19, 2004
Progress in Iraq Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, quotes an Iraqi blogger on the progress we're making in Iraq and the connection between Iraq and terrorism: "Ali, the Iraqi blogger, put such attacks into a larger perspective: 'Some people still wonder what would be the relation between the liberation of Iraq and [the] war on terrorism. I think that the fact that nearly all the terrorists are gathered on our land to fight so fiercely should be more than enough explanation.' He added: 'We are . . . showing [other Arabs] what they can achieve once they are free . . . I see these evil powers show their true and ugly face and play their last card - surer than ever that we are winning.'" This is the blog Wolfowitz cited. Mandatory Reading in Israel No, my title doesn't refer to the Bible. Peter Berkowitz recounts a night in Tel Aviv when Francis Fukuyama and former Prime Ministers, Shimon Peres and Benjamin Netanyahu, debated the "end of history" thesis. It's interesting that Fukuyama's writings remain "mandatory reading" in political science classes in Israel and that a debate among him and former prime ministers would generate a rock-concert like atmosphere. Any faculty member in a U.S. university who wanted to make Fukuyama or Kojeve or Hegel mandatory reading would almost certainly face the ostracism of his colleagues. Unlike so many inferior pieces about Fukuyama's original thesis, Berkowitz's reminds us that Fukuyama related his understanding of events to his understanding of human nature and argued that liberal democracy satisfies, more than other political arrangements, the erotic and thymotic aspects of human being. This leads to the question of whether Islam is to blame for the current condition of the Muslim Arab countries. Fukuyama thinks that, although Islam "awaits its Luther," the problems result from bad government and dismal economic prospects. |
