On the Egyptian Opposition. By Issandr El Amrani. The Arabist, February 27, 2013.
More on Egypt and Morsi here.
El Amrani:
The
National Salvation Front’s recent decision to boycott the upcoming
parliamentary elections in Egypt that reminded me I have been thinking of
writing a post on the subject of the Egyptian opposition for weeks. Warning: it’s
a long post.
Anyone
who follows Egyptian politics will have probably made two broad conclusions by
now. First, that the Muslim Brotherhood and President Mohammed Morsi, out of a
combination poor judgement, paranoia and greed, have made the choice of sacrificing
the possibility of a stable and inclusive transition for the sake of
consolidating their control over the old regime machinery rather than reforming
it. Second, that the “liberal” or secular opposition gathered under the banner
of the National Salvation Front (NSF) is missing a golden opportunity to
benefit from the Brotherhood’s actions and the public indignation they have
caused by behaving in an utterly politically clueless manner. Let us deal with
the second part of that equation.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Italy Leads The Way As World’s Leaders Fail. By Walter Russell Mead.
Italy Leads The Way As World’s Leaders Fail. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, March 1, 2013.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Is Egypt Heading Towards Civil War? By Mike Giglio.
Will Violence Erupt in Egypt? By Mike Giglio. The Daily Beast, March 1, 2013.
More on Egypt and Morsi here.
More on Egypt and Morsi here.
Why Public Schools Should Teach the Bible. By Roma Downey and Mark Burnett.
Why Public Schools Should Teach the Bible. By Roma Downey and Mark Burnett. Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2013.
“The Bible” Series: An Invitation to “Change the World.” By Jim Wallis. The Huffington Post, March 8, 2013.
What the History Channel Is Getting Wrong About the Bible. By Wil Gafney. The Huffington Post, March 12, 2013.
Black Samson and White Women on the History Channel. By Wil Gafney. WilGafney.com, March 11, 2013.
“The Bible” Series: An Invitation to “Change the World.” By Jim Wallis. The Huffington Post, March 8, 2013.
What the History Channel Is Getting Wrong About the Bible. By Wil Gafney. The Huffington Post, March 12, 2013.
Black Samson and White Women on the History Channel. By Wil Gafney. WilGafney.com, March 11, 2013.
The Political Clout of the Superrich. By Chrystia Freeland.
The political clout of the superrich. By Chrystia Freeland. Reuters, March 1, 2013.
Stacked Deck: How the Dominance of Politics by the Affluent and Business Undermines Economic Mobility in America. By David Callahan and J. Mijin Cha. Demos. PDF.
Stacked Deck: How the Dominance of Politics by the Affluent and Business Undermines Economic Mobility in America. By David Callahan and J. Mijin Cha. Demos. PDF.
Has Obama Lost Interest in the Israel-Palestinian Conflict. By Peter Beinart.
Has Obama Lost Interest in the Israel-Palestinian Conflict. By Peter Beinart. The Daily Beast, March 1, 2013.
Enough With This “Lost Cause” Nonsense. By Justin Green.
Enough With This “Lost Cause” Nonsense. By Justin Green. The Daily Beast, February 19, 2013.
Universal Human Nature Is An Illusion. By Ethan Watters.
We Aren’t the World. By Ethan Watters. Pacific Standard, February 25, 2013.
What Is Egypt? By Steven A. Cook.
What Is Egypt? By Steven A. Cook. Foreign Policy, March 1, 2013.
As America’s new secretary of state arrives in Cairo, it’s still not clear the United States knows what it’s dealing with.
More on Egypt and Morsi here.
As America’s new secretary of state arrives in Cairo, it’s still not clear the United States knows what it’s dealing with.
More on Egypt and Morsi here.
Don’t Trust Anyone Over 70. By Gautam Mukunda.
Don’t Trust Anyone Over 70. By Gautam Mukunda. Foreign Policy, February 27, 2013.
Why old leaders are dangerous.
Why old leaders are dangerous.
A Republican Message for Wall Street. By Peggy Noonan.
A Message for Wall Street. By Peggy Noonan. Wall Street Journal, February 27, 2013.
Noonan:
Look at this Politico story. Republican presidential hopefuls are trooping into Wall Street, just as Democratic hopefuls do. They meet with hedge-funders, CEO’s, billionaires. They chat, charm, discuss their efforts.
It all feels like we’ve been in this place, no? We’ve seen all these moves. We can imagine outcomes. It all looks so 2008, and 2004, and 2000. And years before that.
Democrats can get away with it, the long trudge to Wall Street, or at least always have. They’re the party of the little guy. They can court titans—it only shows their sophistication and broadness. They’re for everybody!
But for Republicans Wall Street is poison, and again we know the reason—they’re the party of the rich. The journey makes them look like handmaidens. And to a degree they are, as the Democrats are: Big money guys impose their views, they don’t give money for nuthin’.
I don’t know what Marco Rubio said to the people he met with, but in a new Republican Party this is what he would say:
“I want you to know me, and in time I hope you’ll feel enough confidence to invest in my efforts down the road. I’d like to know you, too, because you employ a lot of people, and that contributes a lot to the economy. I respect you, and I know you have insights that would be valuable to me in the area of high finance.
“But I don’t want to fly under a false flag. I am a conservative. I am pro-capitalism, pro-economic freedom and opposed to using the power of the government to distort and flatten all our economic realities. And for those reasons—because I am a conservative and because I want capitalism to work—I intend, as president, to break up the banks. I also intend, when it comes to tax reform, to do away with the carried interest loophole that gives you preferential treatment on much of your income.
“I’m going to move forward on these things in the Senate, but I likely won’t succeed in doing them until I’m president. But I don’t want to surprise you or leave you unclear on my intentions.
“I’m going to steer this party away from Wall Street and toward what used to be called Main Street and doesn’t have a name anymore. Our economy won’t take off again until our pigsty of a tax code is cleaned up. People have to feel everyone’s being treated fairly, that the rich aren’t calling the shots and gaming the system. And all future growth could be stymied if you guys make a half-trillion-dollar wrong bet tomorrow because some trader in London was high as a kite on Ambien. That could bring down the system the way it crashed in ’08. So we have to change the system. Too big to fail is too big to live.
“You may not like these policies, and I know the reasons you won’t, but I’m asking you to watch, and consider what I’m doing. Because the big banks and carried interest are over, they won’t survive the new era. I’m going to lead the charge. I’d like to keep coming back here and telling you what I’m doing and why.
“But I’m going to win this thing in ’16, and I’m going to win in part on these issues, and I feel I can ask you to join me because I respect you enough to know you know the big bank system is looking for trouble, and carried interest is ultimately destructive. I think you know this deep down.
“You’d do a lot for your industry, and I think for the country, if you just watch and keep an open mind. Thank you. This has been a pleasure. I love the subtle play of beige tones in your office.”
That would be one great meeting! A few of the CEOs and hedge-funders, the ones who didn’t laugh, might get pretty steamed. They don’t suffer fools gladly. Things could get testy, words said. And a lot of it could leak into the press in the next few weeks and startle a lot of people.
But why wait? Go on the Sunday morning talk shows and tell Bob, David, Chris and George. Write a big op-ed piece called “What I Told the CEOs.”
Everyone with a brain in GOP politics would tell you this is a real chump move. You’d be alienating the very funders you’d need to become a viable contender.
But you know what? Nothing comes free. In the end they’re millstones around your neck. They think if they’ve invested in you they control pieces of your policy. That’s certainly how they do it with the Democrats. And their policy ideas are usually bad! At least their central one, Keep Me Rich, is. Go help everyone be rich.
The truth is you’d lose nothing. Because they’re going to go for Hillary anyway. They know her, like her, have had transactions with her and Bill over the years. Also their wives will kill them if they don’t.
You think you’d lose everything to be brave and back policy you know is right. In the long run you’d lose nothing and could have much to gain. Look to your funding from what used to be called Main Street and doesn’t have a name anymore.
Noonan:
Look at this Politico story. Republican presidential hopefuls are trooping into Wall Street, just as Democratic hopefuls do. They meet with hedge-funders, CEO’s, billionaires. They chat, charm, discuss their efforts.
It all feels like we’ve been in this place, no? We’ve seen all these moves. We can imagine outcomes. It all looks so 2008, and 2004, and 2000. And years before that.
Democrats can get away with it, the long trudge to Wall Street, or at least always have. They’re the party of the little guy. They can court titans—it only shows their sophistication and broadness. They’re for everybody!
But for Republicans Wall Street is poison, and again we know the reason—they’re the party of the rich. The journey makes them look like handmaidens. And to a degree they are, as the Democrats are: Big money guys impose their views, they don’t give money for nuthin’.
I don’t know what Marco Rubio said to the people he met with, but in a new Republican Party this is what he would say:
“I want you to know me, and in time I hope you’ll feel enough confidence to invest in my efforts down the road. I’d like to know you, too, because you employ a lot of people, and that contributes a lot to the economy. I respect you, and I know you have insights that would be valuable to me in the area of high finance.
“But I don’t want to fly under a false flag. I am a conservative. I am pro-capitalism, pro-economic freedom and opposed to using the power of the government to distort and flatten all our economic realities. And for those reasons—because I am a conservative and because I want capitalism to work—I intend, as president, to break up the banks. I also intend, when it comes to tax reform, to do away with the carried interest loophole that gives you preferential treatment on much of your income.
“I’m going to move forward on these things in the Senate, but I likely won’t succeed in doing them until I’m president. But I don’t want to surprise you or leave you unclear on my intentions.
“I’m going to steer this party away from Wall Street and toward what used to be called Main Street and doesn’t have a name anymore. Our economy won’t take off again until our pigsty of a tax code is cleaned up. People have to feel everyone’s being treated fairly, that the rich aren’t calling the shots and gaming the system. And all future growth could be stymied if you guys make a half-trillion-dollar wrong bet tomorrow because some trader in London was high as a kite on Ambien. That could bring down the system the way it crashed in ’08. So we have to change the system. Too big to fail is too big to live.
“You may not like these policies, and I know the reasons you won’t, but I’m asking you to watch, and consider what I’m doing. Because the big banks and carried interest are over, they won’t survive the new era. I’m going to lead the charge. I’d like to keep coming back here and telling you what I’m doing and why.
“But I’m going to win this thing in ’16, and I’m going to win in part on these issues, and I feel I can ask you to join me because I respect you enough to know you know the big bank system is looking for trouble, and carried interest is ultimately destructive. I think you know this deep down.
“You’d do a lot for your industry, and I think for the country, if you just watch and keep an open mind. Thank you. This has been a pleasure. I love the subtle play of beige tones in your office.”
* * *
That would be one great meeting! A few of the CEOs and hedge-funders, the ones who didn’t laugh, might get pretty steamed. They don’t suffer fools gladly. Things could get testy, words said. And a lot of it could leak into the press in the next few weeks and startle a lot of people.
But why wait? Go on the Sunday morning talk shows and tell Bob, David, Chris and George. Write a big op-ed piece called “What I Told the CEOs.”
Everyone with a brain in GOP politics would tell you this is a real chump move. You’d be alienating the very funders you’d need to become a viable contender.
But you know what? Nothing comes free. In the end they’re millstones around your neck. They think if they’ve invested in you they control pieces of your policy. That’s certainly how they do it with the Democrats. And their policy ideas are usually bad! At least their central one, Keep Me Rich, is. Go help everyone be rich.
The truth is you’d lose nothing. Because they’re going to go for Hillary anyway. They know her, like her, have had transactions with her and Bill over the years. Also their wives will kill them if they don’t.
You think you’d lose everything to be brave and back policy you know is right. In the long run you’d lose nothing and could have much to gain. Look to your funding from what used to be called Main Street and doesn’t have a name anymore.
“Arrow”: Manu Bennett Talks Playing Deathstroke And What's Ahead For Crixus On “Spartacus.”
“Arrow”: Manu Bennett Talks Playing Deathstroke And What's Ahead For Crixus On “Spartacus.” By Laura Prudom. The Huffington Post, February 13, 2013.
Prudom:
We’re supposed to be rooting for the slaves, but they really do some questionable things in the name of this war – I love that Steven DeKnight doesn’t want to paint them as completely noble or righteous when history says that they were kind of as bad as the Romans in a lot of ways. . .
Bennett:
Yeah, exactly. I think what they are doing by introducing Caesar is that they are introducing the might and the power and they’re introducing the greatness of Rome. I think the might and the power of Rome was always an element that existed in our story somewhere, it just wasn’t exposed that much. I mean, why did Batiatus want to get to the top of Rome? Because Rome is a hugely productive society; because it had wealth. Batiatus was just a little man that was disgruntled in his own small town of Capua and was trying to use entertainment with the people to gain power but he betrayed everybody. Even the characters that he betrayed had kids and families.
So I think where the story is going now is that it’s getting us out of the darkness of that fighting ludus. The slave rebellion has gone up against the military and is being chased, but of course the military powers are always trying to destroy something that’s trying to destroy itself internally. Now, [the slaves] are only just getting a glimpse of another city of what Roman people are like. This justification of the Romans is hugely necessary in the story, because we are going into a great time, a golden period of Roman history -- a time of Caesar ... You’re showing that there are really two sides to the coin and that Rome is a formidable, powerful, but also a very advanced society. Unfortunately, as a sign of the times, these slaves are just trying to escape their own hell but they might find themselves in amidst heaven, and there are some angels in their heaven of Rome somewhere too.
Prudom:
We’re supposed to be rooting for the slaves, but they really do some questionable things in the name of this war – I love that Steven DeKnight doesn’t want to paint them as completely noble or righteous when history says that they were kind of as bad as the Romans in a lot of ways. . .
Bennett:
Yeah, exactly. I think what they are doing by introducing Caesar is that they are introducing the might and the power and they’re introducing the greatness of Rome. I think the might and the power of Rome was always an element that existed in our story somewhere, it just wasn’t exposed that much. I mean, why did Batiatus want to get to the top of Rome? Because Rome is a hugely productive society; because it had wealth. Batiatus was just a little man that was disgruntled in his own small town of Capua and was trying to use entertainment with the people to gain power but he betrayed everybody. Even the characters that he betrayed had kids and families.
So I think where the story is going now is that it’s getting us out of the darkness of that fighting ludus. The slave rebellion has gone up against the military and is being chased, but of course the military powers are always trying to destroy something that’s trying to destroy itself internally. Now, [the slaves] are only just getting a glimpse of another city of what Roman people are like. This justification of the Romans is hugely necessary in the story, because we are going into a great time, a golden period of Roman history -- a time of Caesar ... You’re showing that there are really two sides to the coin and that Rome is a formidable, powerful, but also a very advanced society. Unfortunately, as a sign of the times, these slaves are just trying to escape their own hell but they might find themselves in amidst heaven, and there are some angels in their heaven of Rome somewhere too.
Manu Bennett as Crixus in Spartacus.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Putin’s Ph.D.: Can a Plagiarism Probe Upend Russian Politics? By Simon Shuster.
Putin’s Ph.D.: Can a Plagiarism Probe Upend Russian Politics? By Simon Shuster. Time, February 28, 2013.
Benedict’s Choice and the Crisis of the Western Church. By Walter Russell Mead.
Benedict’s Choice and the Crisis of the Western Church. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, February 24, 2013.
Yahoo CEO’s Work-from-Home Ban Spurs Feminist Debate.
Yahoo CEO’s Work-from-Home Ban Spurs Feminist Debate. Video. The Willis Report. Fox Business, February 28, 2013.
Marissa Mayer Is Wrong: Working From Home Can Make You More Productive. By Derek Thompson. The Atlantic, February 25, 2013.
The worst decision Marissa Mayer has made in her tenure as Yahoo CEO. By Vickie Elmer. Quartz, February 25, 2013.
The new Mommy Wars. By Joanne Bamberger. USA Today, February 25, 2013.
Get Off of Your Cloud. By Maureen Dowd. New York Times, February 26, 2013.
Marissa Mayer’s Job Is to Be CEO—Not to Make Life Easier for Working Moms. By Anne-Marie Slaughter. The Atlantic, February 28, 2013.
Making Teleworking Work. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, March 1, 2013.
Marissa Mayer Is Wrong: Working From Home Can Make You More Productive. By Derek Thompson. The Atlantic, February 25, 2013.
The worst decision Marissa Mayer has made in her tenure as Yahoo CEO. By Vickie Elmer. Quartz, February 25, 2013.
The new Mommy Wars. By Joanne Bamberger. USA Today, February 25, 2013.
Get Off of Your Cloud. By Maureen Dowd. New York Times, February 26, 2013.
Marissa Mayer’s Job Is to Be CEO—Not to Make Life Easier for Working Moms. By Anne-Marie Slaughter. The Atlantic, February 28, 2013.
Making Teleworking Work. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, March 1, 2013.
Divorce Rate Booms Among Boomers Over 50.
The Gray Divorce Revolution: Rising Divorce Among Middle-Aged and Older Adults, 1990–2010. By Susan L. Brown and I-Fen Lin. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, Vol. 67, No. 6 (November 2012). PDF. Also find it here. Figure 1.
Baby Boomer Divorces on Rise. Video. The Willis Report. Fox Business, February 28, 2013. Also find it here.
Boomer divorce: A costly retirement roadblock. By Rodney Brooks. USA Today, February 26, 2013.
Are Baby Boomers Still Pushing Up the Divorce Rate? By Robert Hughes, Jr. The Huffington Post, November 2, 2012.
Past 50 And Still Having Sex? You’re Not Alone. By Susan Krauss Whitbourne. The Huffington Post, February 28, 2013.
What Your Grandmother Didn’t Tell You About Her Sex Life. By Susan Krauss Whitbourne. Psychology Today, February 12, 2013.
Baby boomer divorce rate doubles. By Greg Clary and Athena Jones. CNN, June 27, 2012.
More Americans Rejecting Marriage in 50s and Beyond. By Rachel L. Swarns. New York Times, March 1, 2012.
Post-50 divorce rate doubled in 20 years. By Leslie Mann. Chicago Tribune, February 27, 2013.
Age gap: She’s old enough to be his . . .wife. By Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz. Chicago Tribune, September 19, 2012.
Baby Boomer Divorces on Rise. Video. The Willis Report. Fox Business, February 28, 2013. Also find it here.
Boomer divorce: A costly retirement roadblock. By Rodney Brooks. USA Today, February 26, 2013.
Are Baby Boomers Still Pushing Up the Divorce Rate? By Robert Hughes, Jr. The Huffington Post, November 2, 2012.
Past 50 And Still Having Sex? You’re Not Alone. By Susan Krauss Whitbourne. The Huffington Post, February 28, 2013.
What Your Grandmother Didn’t Tell You About Her Sex Life. By Susan Krauss Whitbourne. Psychology Today, February 12, 2013.
Baby boomer divorce rate doubles. By Greg Clary and Athena Jones. CNN, June 27, 2012.
More Americans Rejecting Marriage in 50s and Beyond. By Rachel L. Swarns. New York Times, March 1, 2012.
Post-50 divorce rate doubled in 20 years. By Leslie Mann. Chicago Tribune, February 27, 2013.
Age gap: She’s old enough to be his . . .wife. By Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz. Chicago Tribune, September 19, 2012.
Shock and Awe: The Exodus Narrative. By Mary Joan Winn Leith.
Shock and Awe: The Exodus Narrative. By Mary Joan Winn Leith. Video. Lecture at Stonehill College, November 23, 2008. Biblical Archaeology Society Library. (BAS Library subscription required.)
Regular Biblical Archaeology Review contributor Mary Joan Winn Leith provides a fresh perspective on the language and imagery of the Book of Exodus by exploring ancient Egyptian iconography of power and authority. Through their acute awareness of Egyptian propaganda and art, the biblical writers and storytellers successfully inverted the very same imagery to illustrate Pharaoh’s ineptitude when confronted by Moses and the Israelite God Yahweh.
Running Time: 53 minutes.
Regular Biblical Archaeology Review contributor Mary Joan Winn Leith provides a fresh perspective on the language and imagery of the Book of Exodus by exploring ancient Egyptian iconography of power and authority. Through their acute awareness of Egyptian propaganda and art, the biblical writers and storytellers successfully inverted the very same imagery to illustrate Pharaoh’s ineptitude when confronted by Moses and the Israelite God Yahweh.
West Complacent Over Why Nations Fail. By Gideon Rachman.
West complacent over why nations fail. By Gideon Rachman. Financial Times, February 25, 2013.
Rachman:
The success of a book can sometimes tell you as much about the times as about the book itself. That may be the case with Why Nations Fail, which was published last year to great acclaim from reviewers and prize juries, and even compared to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.
The book, by Professors Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, is certainly erudite and interesting. But the excited reception for Why Nations Fail may also have something to do with the fact that its message is deeply reassuring to many in the west. I finished the book this weekend, surrounded by newspapers predicting that the US will, this week, slash its budget so deeply that it puts hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk. Meanwhile, the Italian elections threaten to reignite the eurozone crisis.
But do not despair. Hurl the newspapers to one side – and take the long view. Based on a magpie-like assembly of evidence from many centuries, the authors of Why Nations Fail have concluded that, for all its difficulties, western-style democracy is the key to long-term prosperity. The professors argue that countries “such as Great Britain and the United States became rich because their citizens overthrew the elites who controlled power and created a society where political rights were much more broadly distributed”. Professor Ian Morris, a reviewer, summarises their argument, thus: “It is freedom that makes the world rich.”
In part, the discrepancy between the newspapers and the thesis of Why Nations Fail is simply a question of time. The book deals with the evolution of societies over centuries. This week’s Italian elections and the US sequestration are, by comparison, mere stitches in the great tapestry of history.
But that is not quite reassurance enough. The political situations in Italy and the US have similar, and disturbing, long-term implications. They point to the tendency of modern democracies to pile up debt by making unaffordable spending promises to voters, that politicians then cannot wind back.
Investor confidence in Italy has been restored over the past year by a government led by Mario Monti, an unelected technocrat. But in the elections, Mr Monti looks likely to trail in an undistinguished fourth. His reforms won the approval of the markets – but not of the voters. Similarly, in the US, the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission offered a more rational way of controlling government spending than the meat axe of the sequestration. But the technocrats’ solution has failed to pass the political test in Washington.
The uneasy sense that western democracy is not working very well is heightened by the counter-example of China’s rapid economic progress. Chinese success challenges the conventional political wisdom formed after the cold war about the superiority of democracy as an economic system. China’s ascent also appears to challenge the insistence of Messrs Acemoglu and Robinson that prosperity can be secured only by “inclusive” economic institutions, rooted in political pluralism.
The professors spend some time grappling with Chinese success in Why Nations Fail and conclude that “Chinese growth ... is just another form of growth under extractive political institutions, [and] unlikely to translate into sustained economic development.”
This seems a remarkably dismissive verdict on almost two generations of double-digit growth, which has dragged hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and transformed China into the second-largest economy in the world. Nonetheless, it reflects a strong tendency in American academia to talk down the rise of China – and to stress the enduring strengths of the US system.
All of this might not matter much if the arguments were confined to seminar rooms. But, in fact, versions of the argument made in Why Nations Fail dominate western political debate. No presidential election in the US is complete without all candidates paying obeisance to the idea that “freedom” is not just morally superior – it is also what makes America strong.
This unquestioning assumption of the superiority of the American way may, in fact, be part of what ails the US. I think that Why Nations Fail makes a strong case that, over the long term, there is a clear correlation between political freedom and economic success. But, in the US, a generalised attachment to liberty has somehow turned into an unquestioning veneration of the constitution that has become almost quasi-religious.
As a result, Americans may be unable really to address the fact that their political system is not working well. There is a similar problem in Europe, where the compulsion to pay homage to the European ideal stopped many politicians from asking hard, but necessary, questions about the continent’s single currency, the euro.
The Chinese system clearly has its own terrible flaws, including brutality and corrosive corruption. But it has also had the virtue of a radical pragmatism, captured in Deng Xiaoping’s maxim that “it doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.”
Rachman:
The success of a book can sometimes tell you as much about the times as about the book itself. That may be the case with Why Nations Fail, which was published last year to great acclaim from reviewers and prize juries, and even compared to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.
The book, by Professors Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, is certainly erudite and interesting. But the excited reception for Why Nations Fail may also have something to do with the fact that its message is deeply reassuring to many in the west. I finished the book this weekend, surrounded by newspapers predicting that the US will, this week, slash its budget so deeply that it puts hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk. Meanwhile, the Italian elections threaten to reignite the eurozone crisis.
But do not despair. Hurl the newspapers to one side – and take the long view. Based on a magpie-like assembly of evidence from many centuries, the authors of Why Nations Fail have concluded that, for all its difficulties, western-style democracy is the key to long-term prosperity. The professors argue that countries “such as Great Britain and the United States became rich because their citizens overthrew the elites who controlled power and created a society where political rights were much more broadly distributed”. Professor Ian Morris, a reviewer, summarises their argument, thus: “It is freedom that makes the world rich.”
In part, the discrepancy between the newspapers and the thesis of Why Nations Fail is simply a question of time. The book deals with the evolution of societies over centuries. This week’s Italian elections and the US sequestration are, by comparison, mere stitches in the great tapestry of history.
But that is not quite reassurance enough. The political situations in Italy and the US have similar, and disturbing, long-term implications. They point to the tendency of modern democracies to pile up debt by making unaffordable spending promises to voters, that politicians then cannot wind back.
Investor confidence in Italy has been restored over the past year by a government led by Mario Monti, an unelected technocrat. But in the elections, Mr Monti looks likely to trail in an undistinguished fourth. His reforms won the approval of the markets – but not of the voters. Similarly, in the US, the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission offered a more rational way of controlling government spending than the meat axe of the sequestration. But the technocrats’ solution has failed to pass the political test in Washington.
The uneasy sense that western democracy is not working very well is heightened by the counter-example of China’s rapid economic progress. Chinese success challenges the conventional political wisdom formed after the cold war about the superiority of democracy as an economic system. China’s ascent also appears to challenge the insistence of Messrs Acemoglu and Robinson that prosperity can be secured only by “inclusive” economic institutions, rooted in political pluralism.
The professors spend some time grappling with Chinese success in Why Nations Fail and conclude that “Chinese growth ... is just another form of growth under extractive political institutions, [and] unlikely to translate into sustained economic development.”
This seems a remarkably dismissive verdict on almost two generations of double-digit growth, which has dragged hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and transformed China into the second-largest economy in the world. Nonetheless, it reflects a strong tendency in American academia to talk down the rise of China – and to stress the enduring strengths of the US system.
All of this might not matter much if the arguments were confined to seminar rooms. But, in fact, versions of the argument made in Why Nations Fail dominate western political debate. No presidential election in the US is complete without all candidates paying obeisance to the idea that “freedom” is not just morally superior – it is also what makes America strong.
This unquestioning assumption of the superiority of the American way may, in fact, be part of what ails the US. I think that Why Nations Fail makes a strong case that, over the long term, there is a clear correlation between political freedom and economic success. But, in the US, a generalised attachment to liberty has somehow turned into an unquestioning veneration of the constitution that has become almost quasi-religious.
As a result, Americans may be unable really to address the fact that their political system is not working well. There is a similar problem in Europe, where the compulsion to pay homage to the European ideal stopped many politicians from asking hard, but necessary, questions about the continent’s single currency, the euro.
The Chinese system clearly has its own terrible flaws, including brutality and corrosive corruption. But it has also had the virtue of a radical pragmatism, captured in Deng Xiaoping’s maxim that “it doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.”
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Tribes With Flags. By Aaron David Miller.
Tribes With Flags. By Aaron David Miller. Foreign Policy, February 27, 2013.
How the Arab Spring has exposed the myth of Arab statehood.
Why Aaron David Miller is lame, cliché, and offensive. By Issandr El Amrani. The Arabist, March 1, 2013.
More on Egypt and Morsi here.
Miller:
And even in ethnically homogenous Egypt, religious identity defines the fault lines of the country’s turbulent political life. President Mohamed Morsy’s first allegiance isn’t to the notion of an inclusive nation, but to the Muslim Brotherhood’s conception of Islamist governance. And let’s be clear, membership in the Brotherhood isn’t like joining a health club: It requires years to gain entry, and it’s a way of life that demands a comprehensive worldview. Like the Eagles’ Hotel California, you can check out but you can never leave.
How the Arab Spring has exposed the myth of Arab statehood.
Why Aaron David Miller is lame, cliché, and offensive. By Issandr El Amrani. The Arabist, March 1, 2013.
More on Egypt and Morsi here.
Miller:
And even in ethnically homogenous Egypt, religious identity defines the fault lines of the country’s turbulent political life. President Mohamed Morsy’s first allegiance isn’t to the notion of an inclusive nation, but to the Muslim Brotherhood’s conception of Islamist governance. And let’s be clear, membership in the Brotherhood isn’t like joining a health club: It requires years to gain entry, and it’s a way of life that demands a comprehensive worldview. Like the Eagles’ Hotel California, you can check out but you can never leave.
Evolution of Liberal Dance: A Parody of Michelle Obama. By Michelle Malkin.
Parody video: Evolution of Liberal Dance. By Michelle Malkin. MichelleMalkin.com, February 24, 2013. At YouTube.
Evolution of Mom Dancing (with Jimmy Fallon and Michelle Obama). Video. Late Night, February 22, 2013. YouTube.
Can Someone Please Explain How This Michelle Malkin Video Is Funny? By David A. Graham. The Atlantic, February 26, 2013.
Evolution of Mom Dancing (with Jimmy Fallon and Michelle Obama). Video. Late Night, February 22, 2013. YouTube.
Can Someone Please Explain How This Michelle Malkin Video Is Funny? By David A. Graham. The Atlantic, February 26, 2013.
What the Hagel Victory Means. By Stephen M. Walt.
What the Hagel victory means. By Stephen M Walt. Foreign Policy, February 27, 2013.
I’d like to thank the Senate Armed Services Committee. Foreign Policy, February 1, 2013.
I’d like to thank the Senate Armed Services Committee. Foreign Policy, February 1, 2013.
Treachery at the Top in Afghanistan. By Ralph Peters.
Treachery at the top in Afghanistan. By Ralph Peters. New York Post, February 26, 2013.
Will the Muslim Brotherhood Heed Allah or Tom Friedman? By Barry Rubin.
Who Will the Muslim Brotherhood Heed: Allah or Tom Friedman (and such people)? No Contest. By Barry Rubin. Rubin Reports. PJ Media, February 26, 2013.
Are Republicans Going the Way of the Whigs? By Richard Reeves.
Are Republicans Going the Way of the Whigs? By Richard Reeves. Real Clear Politics, February 22, 2013.
1 Kitty, 2 Empires, 2,000 Years: World History Told Through a Brick. By Alex Madrigal.
1 Kitty, 2 Empires, 2,000 Years: World History Told Through a Brick. By Alex Madrigal. The Atlantic, February 21, 2013.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)