Saturday, February 16, 2008

Small World After All

“Different circumstances call for different talents, different sensibilities, different approaches to power,” Leon Wieseltier writes in the New Republic, making the case against the case for Barack Obama. What his supporters seem not to understand, Wieseltier writes, is “that we are heading into an era of conflict, not an era of conciliation”:

It is not ‘the politics of fear’ to remind Obama's legions of the blissful that, while they are watching Scarlett Johansson sway to the beat, somewhere deep inside a quasi independent territory we might call Islamistan people are making plans to blow them to bits. (Yes, they can.)

Wieseltier is just getting warmed up:

Jihadist terrorism is only one of the disorders in an increasingly disordered world. The most repercussive fact of our time is surely the transformation of China. The "metrics" are all staggering. Quantities, quantities, quantities. China already has the power to wreck the American economy. However many tanks and fighters it has, its hoarding of American dollars is itself a kind of arsenal … Meanwhile the authoritarian Putin has punkishly succeeded in restoring Russia to its inglorious heritage, reminding the world of the old formula that capitalism plus state power equals fascism.

There is more, about Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine, Darfur, and “Latin America” (“where the failures of liberal economics have sullied the reputation of liberal politics”). You may read his whole column here.

IF A NEOCONSERVATIVE is a liberal who thinks that he, alone among his friends, has grown-up, let’s just say that Wieseltier’s lament is not unfamiliar. He wants “hardness” from his president. He wants the necessary. So he is willing to patronize people he otherwise thinks fondly of to stave off disaster, like Michael sadly kissing off Fredo to get on with the olive oil business.

And implicit in Wieseltier’s fear is a geo-political logic about as old as the olive oil business, Plato to NATO, as they say—a logic for why national power must be hard and presidents, commanders-in-chief. It is, indeed, this very logic that makes liberal economics “sully the reputation” of liberal politics. Roughly, it goes something like this:

Our compounded material needs (“quantities, quantities”) add up most quickly to the national interest; the mind wants unpredictable things, but not, alas, the body. And material needs are grounded in ground. You’ve got to conquer it to own it, and own it to drill it. Or harvest it. Or exploit (the euphemism is “employ”) the cheap labor living on it. Or if you are America since 1900, open doors to its “consumers” everywhere.

A talent for conciliation is all fine and well for an era of conciliation: the pleasure principle draws us to hopeful talk. But the reality principle takes cannon. Read, for starters, John Hobson, the Edwardian liberal turned realist who inadvertently instructed V.I Lenin on the inevitability of imperialism. Today, just read jihadist web sites, or Exxon’s annual report.

So we need, Wieseltier fears, to project military power and the nerve to use it. Against quantities, quantities, there must be toughness, toughness. Otherwise, cannot jihadists deny us crucial resources when they are not, deep in Islamistan, plotting to blow our mosh pits (and, we may well extrapolate, our civilization) “to bits”? Cannot Hugo Chavez deny us a continent? Worse, cannot China, if we cross it, use its hoard of American dollars to wreck the American economy? Cannot, soon enough, Russia?

NO, THEY CAN’T. But to appreciate why, you need the humility to learn how our own “different circumstances” may be different from, say, Neville Chamberlain’s.

This is hardly the place to explain the extraordinary changes we’ve nicknamed “globalization” in recent years—changes in the technologies of production, architectures of companies, and the terms of competition—that have transformed what we mean by capitalism. (If you are reading blogs like this, you probably know a good deal about them.) Anyway, to believe that Chinese officials and entrepreneurs—“China”—can gain anything by using its power to wreck American companies and households—“the American economy”—you have to believe that General Motors thinks it might gain from wrecking IBM, or MIT, for that matter.

There are exceptions (about which more in a moment), but what mostly creates wealth these days is intellectual capital—scientific know-how and market know-about—exchanged in global networks. We live in an infinitely more integrated world system than the one we were born into. Major players cannot hurt it without seriously hurting themselves; the phrase peer-to-peer is not a false hope.

Nor is intellectual capital a scarce resource in the zero-sum sense. If Hitler took Ukrainian grain fields, then Stalin no longer had them. But when IBM gave Lenovo the know-how to make laptops, this did not mean that IBM no longer had it; the transfer of technology gave IBM the chance to exit a comparatively unprofitable business and move on to higher value services—with cheaper laptops. You do not make yourself dumber, or your prospects in the world poorer, by teaching others. The fact that corporate knowledge makes up 80% of corporate value creates a crisis for the accounting profession, but not for imperial powers. It makes a nonsense of justifications for imperialism.

Actually, if you really want to understand what China can and cannot do, to and with the American dollar, you might want to read James Fallows’ excellent recent report from Shanghai. China’s quantities are a sign of deeper problems that need to be addressed gradually and collectively: China’s reliance on an undervalued currency to drive labor-intensive export manufacturing, America’s underinvestment in education, which keeps some of its children from knowledge work (and from stores other than Walmart). Too many Americans are ignorant and they save too little. The last thing we need is another president who tells others they are with us or against us while telling Americans to go shopping.

Sure, one zero-sum resource looms large these days, and some Americans cannot seem to stop defining the national interest in terms of who gets to refine it. Leaders of the organized American Jewish community, like its chairman Malcolm Hoenlein, think that any hint of a d├ętente with Iran should be worrying to Israel’s friends. But military actions, or even their threat, will not work so well as patient globalism to resolve what now seems dangerous. A few weeks ago, George W. Bush warned Iran about its weapons’ program from, of all places, Hanoi. Get it? And so what if, owing to Chinese demand and Russian supply, oil prices go out of sight? So what if Exxon will lose its monopolies? Food will cost more. Trips will. This will only hasten the market forces and technological cooperation we need to cool the atmosphere.

Indeed, the globalization of our “platform” has liberated people once thought peripheral to the developed world to join it. I include up-and-coming people “deep in Islamistan,” as in Dubai, Amman, Ramallah, and Tripoli (where I myself taught 200 promising executives last year); people whose brains and dignity make epithets like Islamistan seem not just ugly but stupid.

ARE WE HEADED into an era of conflict? Of course. We are the human race. But that is different from saying, as Wieseltier does, that the world economic system is generating irresolvable conflicts of interest. We need a president who will be comfortable among equals—Europeans, Chinese, Russians, Latin Americans—pursuing inherently common interests; someone who might also be an inspiration to people in Africa and the Middle East who, like the kids on Chicago’s South Side, want to believe they are respected and can make it. Such a president would know how to lead all sides to custodianship of what is quickly emerging as a global commonwealth.

Barack Obama may not have fully figured out how to get there—who could?—but he’s had the brass to say that we need to rebuild not just the Atlantic alliance but the United Nations, too. He is signaling, strongly, that his most important job would be to coordinate with other world leaders a general defense against shocks to the emerging world structure: shocks of terror, to be sure, but also shocks that come from, say, currency imbalances, or the persistence of nuclear stockpiles—shocks that America cannot possibly handle alone. More power to him. The key is to keep the peace, from which the developed world cannot lose.

Which brings me, finally, to the talent for conciliation. I have never actually experienced an “era of conciliation” and cannot really imagine one—not as an historical era, anyway. It is another matter in personal life. Most people I know do get more conciliatory as they grow older, for they come to understand how commonplace are the ordinary foibles of people everywhere; how much big ideas pale next to the love we have for our families, and how little control we have, at times, over the excesses and posturing of our leaders. Older people also come to fear how little they know. The best fear, really.


Anonymous said...

great post. Minor error:

You probably meant Hugo Chavez, not Caesar Chavez.

(feel free to correct the error and delete my comment! :D)

Bernard Avishai said...

Proof positive, if any more be needed, that bloggers suffer from a want of copy editors. My apologies to the memory of Caesar Chavez, who (of course) organized the American Farm Workers Union. A senior moment, alas.

Bernard Avishai said...

I forgot to add that I've corrected the error, so people coming to the blog from here on in will not understand the fuss.

O.Sutton said...

Hi Bernie
You mentioned the failures of liberal economics that have sullied the reputation of liberal politics. I would challenge the notion of the overall success of liberal economies.
The economical structure of our times has evolved to become anything other than liberal. It is totalitarian in nature. Some multi national companies, who account to share holders on a base of profitability and share price only, have operating budgets bigger than those of some governments. Yet, their ‘chiefs’ were not elected by anyone but rather appointed by some interest groups or individuals.
Under the current model of globalisation, desperate cash starved governments trying to create local employment, are constantly courting the giant companies. The terms of most future ventures between these giant companies and the governements are likely to harm the local people in the long run whether it is by polluting their land or by eroding any worker’s rights. (it is great to get an Intel factory, but look closely at the demography of their young work force…as my Intel friend employee said… nobody over a certain age can live like this…).

For a middle class to expand, it should grow naturally over a period of time in a free economy. In China, the middle class grew as a bi-product of government controlled manufacturing binge that left China with 5 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world. Middle class needs minimum quality of life such as air fit to breath if it is to prosper. As people become middle class, it is harder to force them to co-operate with authoritarian regimes and then you see the cream of the crop migrating to other countries (which is what is happening today all over the world. Although you are starting to see middle class demonstrating in China and the brave few in Iran and Russia but not without risking ruthless regimes and therefore their lives.

You wrote about our compounded material needs that add up most quickly to the national interest. This need is the fantasy of today’s middle class. It helps them stay in a situation where many can no longer find happiness in their daily lives. A typical middle class life is comprised of work and miscellaneous family obligation .The wonderfull liberal economics, left the middle class with extended working hours. When the workday is over, one can barely manage to put out fires financially or personally. Because of the collapse of the education infrastructure, the family has had to pick up the burden of supplementing children education (when educational aspirations are to remain a priority within the family).

Educational infrastructure looks as miserable as the rest of the other decaying infrastructure whether it is the roads or the medical systems. It is the very perfect enviroment for mediocre politicians to keep their agenda while not being intelligently scrutinised by the destructed masses.

In fact in our cherished globalism there is no feasible way for a politician to be a visionary. Whether Clinton or Obama gets to power, it is likely globalism that will chart their political career and not their vision.(big interest groups managed to kill Clinton’s attempts for mandatory health insurance in the past and likely do so again). Today Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are attempting to take on charity/welfare to step in where their governments failed, as they likely can no longer ignore the massive social problems in their country.

Vision has been removed from the leading powers in democracies and is only afforded to dictatorial rulers all over the world who truly follow their vision. These dictators are, many times, the recipients of all or part of what benefit the global economies have brought their country. They are both the monetary recipient and the implementers of the policies under which business operates and wealth is created and distributed in their domain. Both are a far cry from free economy.

The sad part is that civil right watchers, whether it is labour unions or NGOs all over the world, have been plagued with mediocrity. They make very little impact on world’s problems and many of them have a self-serving comfortable existence.
The same way that China And Saudi Arabia are economically intertwined with the U.S by owning a slice of its economy; labour unions who own securities, cannot afford to hurt the economy for self serving economical reasons. In Toronto the teachers union pension fund, is one of the biggest and very lucrative financial force on the Toronto stock exchange. In the new world’s order everything is intertwined and amazingly self-serving to very few.

As we admirably turned to globalisation so have our problems. Jihadism is no longer a Palestinian problem and the Arab Israeli wars are now more global: Israel against the muslin world war (one that in my opinion cannot be won because of it’s shear size). Many Muslims who hate Israel cannot identify it on the map and know nothing about the conflict. It will take a miracle to turn that hatred around, as it is very difficult to reach these masses.
In the west, your average middle class person has no time to read about any issues. With globalisation that same person is asked to take a stand on issues while not being adequately informed.

So where do we go from here? Hopefully to less globalization

ibrahim said...

Sesli sohbet Sesli chat
Seslisohbet Seslichat
Sesli sohbet siteleri Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli Chat
Sohbet Sesli siteler
Sohbet siteleri Chat siteleri
Sohbet merkezi chat merkezi
Sesli merkezi sesli Sohbet merkezi
Sesli chat merkezi Sohbetmerkezi
Sesli Sohbet Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli sohbet siteleri SesliChat
Sesli Sesli siteler
Seslimuhabbet sesli muhabbet
sesli sohbet sesli chat siteleri
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslisohbet seslichat
seslikent sesli kent
sesli sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat sesli chat siteleri
seslisohbet seslichat

ekle paylas said...

nice blog Thanks for sharing. voicesohbet was really very nice.
sesli chat siteleri sesli sohbet
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslichat seslisohbet
sesli siteleri chat siteleri
sohbet siteleri sesli siteler
voice sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli sohbet seslisohbet
sohbet siteleri sesli chat siteleri
seslichat sesli chat
herkesburda herkes burda
sohbetmerkezi sohbetmerkezi