… No, we really *are* all the same …

From Overheard in New York:

Hobo #1: Stop playing your f***ing drum, I hear it all the way over here.
Hobo #2: I was here first, motherf***er!
Hobo #3: You guys, why can’t you just play together?
Hobo #2: Nah, f**k you man! Stay out of it!
Hobo #3: You should die. You gonna die. Tonight!
Hobo #2: Are you threatening me, man?
Hobo #3 (laughing): Nah, man, I’m just a shoe shiner, but you’re seriously gonna die.

From Great moments in US Foreign Policy:

China: Stop the Capitalism now, I really mean it.
Taiwan: I was into Capitalism before you were a second world country, motherf***er!
US of A: You guys, why can’t you just play together?
China: Nah, f**k you man! Stay out of it!
Taiwan: You should die. You gonna die. Tonight! (China’s gonna kill you, but we appreciate the thought…)
China: Are you threatening me, old man?
US of A: (laughing): Nah, man, I’m just a liberty lover. But seriously. You’re gonna die.

or perhaps…

Russia: Stop playing your f***ing drum, I hear it all the way over here.
Georgia: I’m not playing a drum!
US of A: You guys, why can’t you just play together? …

European Umbrellas and American Rowboats

I had coffee the other evening with a German lawyer. “You know,” he said, “in Germany, we don’t even have a lot of the [menial] jobs that you have here in the states. Like those people who fill your grocery bags at the supermarket – in Germany, the stores can’t afford them. A lot of the jobs in the US seem to exist just so people can work. In Europe, we take care of everyone, so no one has to have a job like that …”

It was a very European thing to say.

Umbrella

During the European Middle Ages, the elites – the monarchy, the nobility, the church – had a duty to care for the lower classes. Ideally, the nobility had a (‘God-given’) responsibility to care for the poor, while the poor had a(n equally ‘God-given’) responsibility to reciprocate – to pay taxes, to fight in wars, to support the system. These aristocracies gradually evolved into what we see today; nations requiring all children to attend state-run schools, nations in which adults pay more than 50% of their income in taxes to a state which funds their education, transportation, healthcare, retirement, and everything else.

The European states are all grown up today, but at heart, they still recall those early aristocracies. Europeans are, on average, more likely than U.S. citizens to feel the government has a responsibility to care for them — and that they in turn have a responsibility to support the government. In other words, the social net in Europe functions like an umbrella, a government hand sheltering willing dependents. In one form or another, this approach has been a sociopolitical reality in Europe for the better part of the last 2000 years. Often, it works stunningly well. For example, check this commentary on the Danish Economy, from Foreign Affairs (March/April 2008):

On the one hand, the Danes are passionate free traders … On the other hand, Denmark spends about 50 percent of its GDP on public outlays and has the world’s second-highest tax rate, after Sweden; strong trade unions; and one of the world’s most equal income distributions. For the half of the GDP that they pay in taxes, the Danes get not just universal health insurance but also generous child-care and family-leave arrangements, unemployment conpensation that typically covers around 95 precent of lost wages, free higher education, secure pensions in old age, and the world’s most creative system of worker retraining.

So the Danish economy is some kind of Clintonian wet dream; a place where widespread government control produces a fair social scene, and – at the same time – a globally competitive economic entity. Could we reproduce this in the US? Not according to me – or to the author, Kuttner, who continues,

… with appropriate caveats, Danish ideas can indeed be instructive for other nations grappling with the enduring dilemma of how to reconcile market dynamism with social and personal security… Yet Denmark’s social compact is the result of a century of political conflict and accommodation that produced a consensual style of problem solving that is uniquely Danish. it cannot be understood merely as a technical policy fix to be swallowed whole in a different cultural or political context. Those who would learn from Denmark must first appreciate that social models have to grow in their own political soil.

The Copenhagen Consensus: Reading Adam Smith in Denmark
Robert Kuttner, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2008 (pp.78-9)

Kuttner concludes that, while instructive, the Danish system and solutions can’t be swallowed piecemeal by other countries. I would add, especially in the U.S., which never fit under the umbrella model to begin with.

Rowboat

Across the Atlantic, we in the United States look at the (Western/Christian) culture we share with Europe, and want to emulate the social systems we see working so well. Socialized healthcare, tight gun control, state-supported (and limited) higher education all seem simple at first glance, and add immeasurably to the quality of life modern Europeans enjoy. We’re then disappointed when transplanted reforms don’t flower here.

Even before 1776, we were a group of pioneers, people who wouldn’t or couldn’t fit under the Old World’s Umbrella – we were landowners who wanted more than Britain or Spain or France could provide. We were jailbirds who’d decided servitude here was better than eventual freedom, there. We were pioneers who wanted more for our children – in short, the U.S. was built on the backs of misfits, rebels, individualists, and immigrants. Our culture and government have always reflected this.

Practical Implications

I”m not sure how this plays out in the Real World today; for example, I don’t know how universal healthcare for the U.S. should look different than universal healthcare in Europe. Perhaps we should drop the issue down to the state level – an individualized, grassroots approach might have the kind of effects we want. Perhaps we should open more free clinics at the lower level. Perhaps everyone should get four free visits a year. Perhaps we should pass out healthcare vouchers and let individuals choose. Perhaps we should do something else entirely.

Especially today, as we draw nearer to the 2008 elections, we must remember that the United States has a very different political birthplace than Europe, despite our many cultural similarities. We’ve always functioned under a rowboat model; in its cleanest incarnation, government on this side of the Atlantic is nothing more than transportation for the ideas and ingenuity of the people driving it – a government Of the People, by the People, and for the People, if you will.

All I know for sure is that copied solutions won’t work for the U.S., whether they’re copied from England, or Denmark, or even a near neighbor like Canada. We need solutions tailored to our culture, that takes us into account; our strengths, our weaknesses. We need solutions that take into account the millions of immigrants – legal and illegal alike – that add immeasurably to the energy and drive of this country. We need a system that takes into account our penchant for violence, our fetish for rebellion, our predilection for rugged individualists, our admiration for stupid, honorable choices, our mercantilism, our repressed hypersexuality, our need to be heard, our constant soul-searching and redefinition – as individuals, as a culture, as a country.

We need, in short, a system that is built for us, from scratch – not one adapted from somewhere else. In the United States, we’ve spent centuries learning how to row our own boat, how to stay above the flood; in the end, deserting the rowboat for an umbrella may be harder to do than to say – especially when dry land is getting so hard to find.

Looking out for #1

I went out with my first boyfriend because he told me he loved me.  My second made me feel desirable, no matter what.  I went out with my third because I thought he was the most mysterious and beautiful creature I’d ever seen.  Each fulfilled a need for me – psychological, physical, emotional – something.  But none of these relationships lasted; while I’m still friends with my exes, when push came to shove, something broke – and these were boyfriends, serious interests.  We tried. Frankly, even if I’d had my mind on the long term when we began, I might still have gone out with these guys – and we would all still be on separate paths today.  

Many companies – and many countries – choose their relationships the same way.  They’re thinking about what the partner can do for them today, what revenue can be brought in, whether or not these desert fighters can keep the rebels down… They’re not thinking about the long term – and even if they are, long-term predictions fail more often than they succeed.  Prediction isn’t good enough, and current needs always change.  

So if we can’t think about now, and we can’t bet on the future,

how do we choose and cultivate good relationships – at any level? 

There’s the positive advice: 

“Only go out with people you’re attracted to”
“If he treats his mother well, he’ll treat you even better”
“If he can dance, he’ll be better in bed…”

And the negative advice: 

“Never be friends with someone you can’t respect.”  
“Never go out with someone you aren’t friends with first” 
“Don’t get serious with someone who falls in love too fast” 
“Never get involved in a land war in Asia”

… and most important, “Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!!!!”  … 

 

… But seriously, forks … these are all just soundbytes – you can’t base any relationship on fortune-cookie advice. Here’s my current take on relationships:  

For a good relationship with staying power, look for someone who pushes you to become the person (or organization) you want to be – someone with a complementary personality (culture), and someone with complementary goals.  

 

It’s easy to pick a partner based on the moment, or based on what you think you can do for them, or what they can do for you.  However, in the long term,

 

you have to look out for #1.

You have to look for someone who pushes you to work harder, to have more fun, to think more deeply, to make more sales, to produce more revenue, to further peace and prosperity and equality and free trade – because the better you are, the better you’ll help them to be.  Because, in looking out for yourself, you’re looking out for everyone else, too.  Because in the end, the only thing you can really count on is the personality – or the culture, if you will – of the other.  

 

So how do you look for a partner who’ll help you be more who that you want to be?  

1. Know yourself -
   if you don’t know who you are, now, in the short term, you don’t have a solid base for long-term growth.  Know your basic principles.  Know your boundaries.  Know the lines you won’t cross – no matter what happens. Introspect. Think. Define yourself.   
    
2. Pick a direction - 
   Goals change over time, of course – but if you have a good idea what you want to do, you’re halfway there already – and you’ll be creating targeted relationships with people and organizations that (hopefully) won’t interfere with, or disapprove of, your actions in pursuit of that goal. 
    
3. Know the territory, know the personality/culture of those you interact with -
    Whether you’re looking for a trading partner or a serious relationship, get more information.  Put your friends in different contexts, to see how they react to new things.  Gather information on your trading partners’ interior affairs.  Find out how your business partners treat the people who work in their factories. Know the system, and how you can use it to further your own interests.
   Information is your friend.  
    
4. Know what you’re looking for.  Be realistic.  Keep your standards high  -
   We can’t all date supermodels, sometimes there is no good negotiations partner, and sometimes the only thing to do is to sell your company to Microsoft while the timing is right.  Things aren’t always perfect, but if we keep our standards high, it’s hard to go completely wrong.  
    
5. Be Decisive.  Be patient.  Don’t be afraid to say no -
   Good isn’t better isn’t best.  It’s fanatically difficult to pass up a good sale, or a good date, or a good trading partner, in search of the best one – but if we’re decisive about discarding what we don’t need, we’ll have more time and energy left for the things – and people – we do.  
    
6. Be flexible. Take risks. 
   For success, we must act.  Just keep moving.  

 

Change is slow

(Written May 6, 2008)

The end of the Cold War. Germans dancing on the Berlin wall. The United States breathes a sigh of relief; The great Communist empire has fallen, now we’ve only Cuba left to deal with. How hard can it be, after all, to starve a small island nation into submission? The hippie movement – already creaking under the strain of children, jobs, real life – finally bends its knee to the inevitable; flashy technology is more addictive than hard drugs. Baby needs shoes. Bill Gates gives this talk to the Computer Science Club at the University of Waterloo – discussing, among other things, floppy drives, and the upcoming move from 8 to 16-bit computers.

And Russia? Russia flings away its satellite states, willingly lets go her hold on the Middle East – especially Afghanistan, Russia’s Vietnam during the warmer days of the Cold War. Russia turns inward for almost 20 years, accepting a lack of dominance, a lesser place in world affairs, letting a hand – or two – go by in the great-stakes game that is International Affairs.

Fast-forward to the mid 2000’s – Russia, resurgent. In a February 28, 2008 article titled “Smoke and Mirrors,” The Economist styles Russia’s economy ‘booming,’ citing a 7% growth rate, and stating,

…Even Mr Putin’s critics are impressed by Russia’s transformation in the past few years. A country that almost went bust ten years ago now boasts a $1.3 trillion economy, foreign-currency reserves of nearly $480 billion and a $144 billion stabilisation fund for surplus oil and gas revenue. Annual growth of real incomes has been in double digits. GDP per head has risen from less than $2,000 in 1998 to $9,000 today at current rates of exchange…

Russia even ranks fourth in the world in the creation of new millionaires, and while it certainly has its share of problems – falling fertility counts, infrastructure issues, and high inflation rates among them – it’s safe to say Russia is making a strong reappearance on the world stage.

In 15 years, in other words, Russia’s transformed itself from an international pariah into an up-and-coming powerhouse. The transformation has not been easy, and could not have been made without a deliberate stepping-down, an acknowledgment that even Russia – with her power, might, and vast natural resources – couldn’t continue as she was. A Cold War analyst- Soviet Side – was quoted saying Russian politicians realized they could build bombs or they could build Russia – but that they couldn’t do both at once.

And so Russia turned inward. Millions of people suffered. Political upheaval. Social upheaval. Unrest, riots, deaths. And today, she’s stronger than before.

I think we’re rapidly approaching a similar decision point in the United States. Do we build guns, or capital? Do we build other nations, or our own?

We’re a state – not a nation. (state implies political borders; nation, emotional ones). As citizens, we’re fundamentally divided on far too many issues. The top 10% lives very well, but things are getting harder for the bottom 40. The American Dream is poised to turn into a nightmare, along with the crash of Social Security, an eventual revaluation of the Chinese Yuan, and a rise in socialized medicine. School systems are faulty at best, a breeding ground for disillusionment, at worst. None of this is to say we’re out – just that we’re down; we can’t continue to ignore problems at home, and expect those issues to be solved, as they have in the past, by our position at the receiving end of the so-called ‘brain drain’ – it’s no longer working in our favor. Indian engineers are choosing to stay in India, as conditions rise for them there.

And so: We get to choose our own fate. Here’s a thought: What if we lean heavily on China, India, Brazil, France, England, etc, to form a serious coalition on banning – and preventing the gain of – nuclear weaponry? What if we accept that we’ve made nothing but poor choices in the Middle East, and throw as much money as possible, now, at the fuel problem, pull out of the Middle East as soon as it’s economically – not image-wise – feasable. What if we turn inwards for a while, and build our infrastructure, our economy, our sense of national identity? What if – for the first time since the early 1940’s – we focus on #1? If the only thing we insist on, on the world stage, is nuclear weapons?

So we lose standing in the world economy. So we lose trade networks. So we lose influence – but much of that we’ve lost, already. We can get it all back, but not if the center is weak.

Politics and Policy

McCain and Obama
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html?em&ex=1199941200&en=0f58b454068ac467&ei=5087%0A

A really interesting – and nicely unbiased, I thought – look at the two front-runners as they stand. I’d recommend this article :)

The central issue in this election is the crisis of leadership. Voters are reacting against partisan gridlock. Obama and McCain both offer ways to end this gridlock. Obama wants us to rise above it by rediscovering our commonalities. McCain hopes smash it with fierce honesty and independent action.

Women are Never Front Runners

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?em&ex=1199941200&en=e3d49753c7f6da32&ei=5087%0A

I didn’t buy the premise of this article by renowned feminist Gloria Steinem, at first, but found myself agreeing more as time went on. It’s a neat look at the kinds of perception we take for granted, if nothing else. Check this:

THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?

.. but this is Barak Obama’s profile, just turned female. .. Interesting, no?

Torture and objectivity

This is from the FBI’s website, witness accounts of detainees being tortured.

Guantanamo Bay Inquiry

A survey of 493 FBI personnel who were asked whether they observed aggressive mistreatment, interrogations or interview techniques of GTMO yielded 26 positive responses and several additional responses that were “not purely negative.”

Here’s one of the ‘positive’ ones:

W(itness) observed women crying near the river, their homes had been destroyed by planes. Trucks full of people trying to surrender were blown up by planes. On 2d day after capture, d(etainee) was put in a ditch by Northern Alliance people. Next day, he was allowed to jump into a truck and taken to Mazar-e-Sharif where he was forced into a metal “shipping”-type container w/about 100 men. The container was then closed and d blacked out due to lack of air. When he awoke, there were new holes in the container., The man next to him was dead. He thinks he was in the container 24 hours – only 20 men survived. When it opened he was at Sabergaan jail. The dead were put into a hole and buried, he heard that those too weak to get out of the container were as well. US soldiers arrived about a month later

I repeat: this is from the FBI’s website. It’s been released under the Freedom of Information Act. Here’s another:

on several occasions, witness (“W”) saw detainees (“ds”) in interrogation rooms chained hand and foot in fetal position to floor w/no chair/ food/water; most urinated or defecated on selves, and were left there 18, 24 hrs or more. Once, the air conditioning was so low that the barefoot d was shaking with cold. Another time, it was off so the unventilated room was over 100 degrees, d was almost unconscious on floor with a pile of hair next to him (he had apparently been pulling it out throughout the night). Another time, it was sweltering hot and loud rap music played – d’s hand and foot was chanined and he was in a fetal position on the floor. Upon inquiry, W was told that interrogators [military contractors] ordered this treatment. Took place in Delta Camp.

So those accounts have been told to the FBI and are under investigation; I can imagine one or two people giving a false account to the FBI for the shock value of it, but not 30+ military personnel, many/most of whom would certainly lose their careers – and possibly freedom – if it turns out they’re lying.

If you want to be (more) shocked, and along the same lines, read this article, posted on Salon, a San Francisc-based news source about which I know nothing whatsoever, except that they carry interesting articles. This one is (purportedly) by a Yemeni man who was held and tortured by the US for two years.

All of this, naturally, brings me to political philosophy.

The hardest thing to attain in life is objectivity; to see yourself, others, the world itself, without bias. This is as true for nations (and states) as it is for people. Perhaps objectivity is an impossible goal – but I’ve spent enough time outside of the U.S. now to say that the view from the outside frightens me

• Allegations of institutionalized, government-sanctioned torture all over the world.
• Unnumbered and hugely destructive nuclear weapons – more than most of the rest of the worlds’ combined – in the hands of an incredibly flexible, lethal army/navy/air force, with trigger-happy generals and Presidents at the helm.
• An intelligence community so advanced it can spy on its own citizens without disturbing either their consciences or daily lives.
• Surly airline security that repels and humiliates instead of inviting.
  (see this Salon article – an entertaining read, at least! – or my own thoughts on airline security/hysteria here).
• A ‘closed’ border so porous we’re enacting punitive immigration laws.
• Most US citizens – by far – don’t even have a passport. Those who do, likely have never been anywhere other then Canada or Mexico.
• Most don’t speak a second language, but if they do, it’s most likely to be Spanish, and they speak it at home.
• The highest murder rate – by far – among other industrial and first world nations, and one of the worst school age reading and math skill sets among that same group.
• Capable of holding an international grudge – and the world’s longest-running embargo (against Cuba) – for over 40 years.
• An upper class whose top 1%’s increase in income from 2003-5 was more than the total income of the poorest 20% – most of whom are black or Hispanic.

The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows.
The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.

“Report Says That the Rich Are Getting Richer Faster, Much Faster,”
NYT 12/17/2007

… shall I go on?

I’m not denigrating the United States here, merely pointing out that the view from the outside is quite different from that on the in. Every story has another side. The United States, like India, is a nation state where any statement you make about it will be both true and false.

Can we fix this? I don’t know. We’ve been running on massive deficits since WWII, and on a wartime economy since WWI. We are a nation of spenders – up to and far beyond our means. We eat, we drink, we enjoy life at home – and, hemmed in by oceans on either side, and by neighbors who have no reason for aggression – we feel (mostly) safe.

Most Estadonidenses (am I spelling that right, M?) are like people anywhere; they (we?, heh) simply want to have a home and community, to find a partner, raise our children safely, eat good food, enjoy life.

Somewhere along the way, I think we’ve gotten lost; we’ve forgotten that no one can have it all, no country, no person, no government.

• We cannot be the masters of war, the world’s arms dealer, the military innovators and be loved and respected as a peaceful, peace-making, mature nation.
• We cannot act like “ugly Americans” while in Paris, and expect to be welcomed with open arms at the European summit.
• We cannot refuse to deal with China – or, for that matter, with the rational Middle East – on realistic and equal terms and expect to be able to control the outcome of all action in the region.
• We cannot refuse to buy oil in Africa – on whatever grounds, be they morally correct or not – and then expect to have African oil when our Middle East wells run dry.
• We cannot torture criminals – of any stripe – and be regarded as purveyors of justice.
• We cannot ignore history if we wish to survive the present.

That is the bottom line, I suppose. When we say one thing and do another, we must eventually explain ourselves.
So how do we fix it?

I expect that eventually, we’ll have to face a choice – as the USSR did, just before the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989. To let the outside states go, and sacrifice the heart, or to keep the heart of the nation, but let the empire crumble to pieces? In 1989, Gorbachev let the satellite states go, and, unable to fund both guns and plowshares, turned to inward economic development. Today, under Putin, Russia is emerging, a lean, confident Phoenix, triumphant from the ashes of her past.

Could we do the same? Could we let the empire go, withdraw from our bases, allow the rest of the world to muddle about as it did before we came on the scene? Could we take 50 years to revitalize our economy? Could we reinvent, reformat, reenergize, re-Constitutionalize (sorry) ourselves?

Do We, The People, have it in us any more?

Have we become too .. soft, too sedentary to take on the task of first, seeing ourselves, and second, affecting change in our own lives and backyards?

I’m no political analyst, and I don’t know shit about economics, but I do know we’re overextended in every way imaginable. If we don’t pull back soon, well .. something’s got to give.