I've recently made it a priority in my life to start reading more fiction. I'm sick of endlessly reading the New York Times and the Economist in a futile attempt to stay up to date on government and politics. Not only is it the reiteration of facts on a daily or weekly basis, but reading the news doesn't necessarily facilitate thought. I never really expected it to, but I expected it to at least keep my brain active. Apparently, that isn't the case. Reading facts, and even opinion, can't stimulate the thought required to maintain a keen mind. The words are either telling you stuff that you should remember or telling you how to think. There isn't any work being done or creative thought being spurned. So I decided to introduce more fiction onto the plate.
I decided to start off with a shorter book. I wasn't going to jump into Joyce or Faulker without something to warm up on. Hell, I'm not sure I could have finished Ulysses in college when my reading skills were at their summit. Anyway, I started with Fahrenheit 451 by science fiction writer Ray Bradbury. It was only about 150 pages and I remember reading it in high school but not really retaining anything. It didn't resonate with me like books such as A Brave New World or The Great Gatsby. Part of the reason may have been that the subject matter wasn't relevant to me then. But the more likely answer is that I really didn't care or was too ignorant to appreciate Bradbury's work.
The first thing that struck me was Bradbury's prose. He has a special talent for presenting writing that is smooth and quick while also being descriptive. The dialogue between characters flows without much interruption and is quite adept at developing the characters. Needless to say, Bradbury is considered a great writer for a reason. But I'm not qualified to critique a novelist, and this wasn't meant to be a book review.
The second, and more important, thing that struck me was the subject matter of the novel. Bradbury constructed a world where people burn books because they have been found to facilitate thought and therefore take away from communal happiness. The people of Bradbury (dis)utopia are constantly entertained and move so fast that thinking is an afterthought. They constantly listen to radio shows through earpieces, drive at excessive speed in order to concentrate on survival rather than wander in thought, and watch TV on their walls. Sound familiar? Depends on your perspective on the world I guess.
The Atlantic Monthly wrote an article this past summer asking "Is Google Making Us Stoopid". Are we so engorged in a culture of instant gratification that we fail to have deep discussions with each other? Does the instant acquisition of information through the internet take away from the depth of knowledge that we attain? All these are pretty fair questions of society at present. Everywhere I go people are playing games, listening to music, talking mindlessly to others, or playing games on little gadgets. It seems like nobody just takes time out to think anymore.
Bradbury assaults this phenomenon directly. Its quite impressive for a novel that was written in the 1950s before the Internet and telecommunications age. His ancillary characters are so preoccupied by stuff that elitists would consider trivial. The main character's wife constantly talks about her TV shows with her friends and refuses to acknowledge anything else. They talk of war like its some distant subject that doesn't affect them (even though one of the characters' husband at war). The society that Bradbury portrays is one of trivial selfishness. They have a false sense of happiness through ignorance of anything but their own lives. They don't worry about others or anything that goes on outside their television parlor. And ultimately, they are nothing more than drones living their lives at the mercy of consumerism and sleeping pills.
Hopefully we aren't falling into Bradbury's world. Sometimes I wonder.
____________________________________________________________________
I found it satisfyingly ironic that my first novel in my fiction renaissance dealt with consequences of society without books and thought. Here I was worrying about becoming stupid because I wasn't reading books and the first book I read told me my assumption was correct. Bradbury's has inspired me to read what are considered the best fiction novels of all time. I'm going to use this list by Random House to determine what those are. The first one? You guessed it...Ulysses.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
The Death of the GOP
A few months ago I wrote about the possible death of the Democratic Party due to the divisive nature of the primary campaign. However, the party seems to have coalesced nicely and any animosity has been marginalized. While watching this campaign play out, it has become increasingly apparent to me that the Democrats, in fact, can achieve Jesse Jackson's dream of a rainbow coalition. They have a broad appeal and an inclusive culture that seemingly fights for the everyman, instead of pretending to be the everyman. The latter of which is what the Republicans do.
The McCain campaign this past week has decided to intensify its attacks on Senator Obama by bringing up his relationship with radical domestic terrorist William Ayers. Apparently Ayers held a housewarming party for Obama when the latter was running for state senate. They live in the same neighborhood and have been involved on some educational committees within that community. Ayer's last bombing, or bombing by his group the Weather Underground, occurred when Obama was eight years old.
So the connection is pretty tenuous. Ayers has since become a professor at the University of Chicago and Chicago citizen of the year. Apparently the entire city of Chicago are terrorist sympathizers. However, none of this stops the Republicans from attacking Senator Obama for the association. And in turn, they risk unleashing a culture clash that may ultimately destroy their party.
If you noticed the television during the Republican convention, there was an abundance of one thing. Old white people. And, conversly, the lack of another - minorities and young people. Maybe the young people there looked older because they wore khakis and old man shirts. Anyway, what became apparent is that the GOP is a dying breed. Minorities will outnumber the white majority by 2030 or so. But party association by racial lines is not the Republican Party's direst threat.
This culture war that the Republicans have played since the era of Nixon is finally beginning to catch up with them. The GOP has, for the past 40 years, prospered on the disdain of the elite intellectual class, aka the college educated bunch. They have espoused "small town values" (whatever that means) at the cost of appealing to the educated person. By making smart people look stupid, the GOP has alienated a good portion of its base. Lawyers now donate to the Democrats at a 4 to 1 ratio over the GOP. Doctors and bankers are at 2 to 1. Yes, bankers! How the GOP managed to do that, well I'll tell you.
Every time Sarah Palin talks about Senator Obama hating American because he "palls around with terrorists", she gets an standing ovation from her crowd (along with yells of "Kill Him!" and racial epithets thrown at black members of the press corps). Sure, this may fire up the base and get a positive response from the people who vote Republican because its the party of Jesus, but it makes the GOP the party of the redneck. And that has as much appeal to professional people as going to college has to rednecks. It is self defeating. The GOP has aliented the educated regions of the United States. But they are also alienating another branch of American society.
Whatever populist rhetoric the GOP puts out there this campaign season, it is completely countered by their history and policies. They speak fighting for the common family but only cut taxes for the very wealthy. They talk about providing jobs for "Joe Six Pack" (whoever that is) yet provide tax incentives for outsourcing (which I agree with as sound macroeconomic principle but is still a valid example of hypocrisy). The truth is that the GOP is held hostage to the principles of big business. They adhere to the failed Reagan policy of "trickle down economics" where tax cuts and benefits to the very wealthy somehow will translate into more opportunities for the middle class. With economics such a huge issue in this election, the middle class are paying more attention to these policies and are moving away from the GOP.
The GOP basically disdains the culture of the educated class yet provides policies that are tailored to those same people. They espouse the values of small town America in election years but fail to support their needs when in office. They appeal to prejudice and fear to fire up their base, yet do nothing to allay fears from minorities and "liberals". This is a very dangerous path the GOP and the McCain camp are choosing to walk. By unleashing the tide of a culture war, they not only threaten their very existence, but threaten any racial and civil harmony this country has built during the latter half of the 20th century.
The McCain campaign this past week has decided to intensify its attacks on Senator Obama by bringing up his relationship with radical domestic terrorist William Ayers. Apparently Ayers held a housewarming party for Obama when the latter was running for state senate. They live in the same neighborhood and have been involved on some educational committees within that community. Ayer's last bombing, or bombing by his group the Weather Underground, occurred when Obama was eight years old.
So the connection is pretty tenuous. Ayers has since become a professor at the University of Chicago and Chicago citizen of the year. Apparently the entire city of Chicago are terrorist sympathizers. However, none of this stops the Republicans from attacking Senator Obama for the association. And in turn, they risk unleashing a culture clash that may ultimately destroy their party.
If you noticed the television during the Republican convention, there was an abundance of one thing. Old white people. And, conversly, the lack of another - minorities and young people. Maybe the young people there looked older because they wore khakis and old man shirts. Anyway, what became apparent is that the GOP is a dying breed. Minorities will outnumber the white majority by 2030 or so. But party association by racial lines is not the Republican Party's direst threat.
This culture war that the Republicans have played since the era of Nixon is finally beginning to catch up with them. The GOP has, for the past 40 years, prospered on the disdain of the elite intellectual class, aka the college educated bunch. They have espoused "small town values" (whatever that means) at the cost of appealing to the educated person. By making smart people look stupid, the GOP has alienated a good portion of its base. Lawyers now donate to the Democrats at a 4 to 1 ratio over the GOP. Doctors and bankers are at 2 to 1. Yes, bankers! How the GOP managed to do that, well I'll tell you.
Every time Sarah Palin talks about Senator Obama hating American because he "palls around with terrorists", she gets an standing ovation from her crowd (along with yells of "Kill Him!" and racial epithets thrown at black members of the press corps). Sure, this may fire up the base and get a positive response from the people who vote Republican because its the party of Jesus, but it makes the GOP the party of the redneck. And that has as much appeal to professional people as going to college has to rednecks. It is self defeating. The GOP has aliented the educated regions of the United States. But they are also alienating another branch of American society.
Whatever populist rhetoric the GOP puts out there this campaign season, it is completely countered by their history and policies. They speak fighting for the common family but only cut taxes for the very wealthy. They talk about providing jobs for "Joe Six Pack" (whoever that is) yet provide tax incentives for outsourcing (which I agree with as sound macroeconomic principle but is still a valid example of hypocrisy). The truth is that the GOP is held hostage to the principles of big business. They adhere to the failed Reagan policy of "trickle down economics" where tax cuts and benefits to the very wealthy somehow will translate into more opportunities for the middle class. With economics such a huge issue in this election, the middle class are paying more attention to these policies and are moving away from the GOP.
The GOP basically disdains the culture of the educated class yet provides policies that are tailored to those same people. They espouse the values of small town America in election years but fail to support their needs when in office. They appeal to prejudice and fear to fire up their base, yet do nothing to allay fears from minorities and "liberals". This is a very dangerous path the GOP and the McCain camp are choosing to walk. By unleashing the tide of a culture war, they not only threaten their very existence, but threaten any racial and civil harmony this country has built during the latter half of the 20th century.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
The End of an Era: The Financial Crisis and the Washington Consensus
Since the end of the second world war, the United States has been the primary source of economic and military might throughout the world. The Soviet Union was a worth challenger for a portion of the Cold War but ultimately doomed to failure due to its strict adherence to Communist philosophy. During that time, the United States formulated the policy of Containment which sought to bolster any regime willing to oppose Soviet influence. This, theoretically, would prevent the spread of the Red Scare and avoid direct confrontation with the Soviet Union. To achieve such an end, the United States provided almost unlimited funds to nations in exchange for economic concessions. After the Cold War and into the era of globalization, there were political concessions involved with nation building. This was the Washington Consensus.
The Washington Consensus was a cornerstone of US foreign policy during and immediately after the decline of the Soviet Union. Western leadership believed that open markets would necessarily translate to open politics, also knows and democracy. Essentially, the European Union's path to membership is a successful heir to the Washington Consensus. The goal was to bring developing nations under Washington's umbrella through economic integration. The United States and the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), would essential loan nations money on certain conditions. Usually these conditions required low tariffs, free trade agreements, low interest rates, and a transparent political system.
There was no inherent problem with the ideas behind the Consensus. However, its implementation had mixed results. When a nation applied the tenements of the plan, their markets usually grew very quickly. In fact it resulted in hypercapitalism, or, rapid growth with little restraint. This looks great on paper and on government fiscal statistics, but it wreaks havoc socially. The result of this quick capitalsim was that it actually increased the income gap in already divided developing countries. Although the poor were getting richer, they were getting richer at a slower rate than the already rich. So while a poor Argentine could now afford a car, the wealthy class bought planes and influenced politics. This inequity in income led to social movements across many of the nations that implemented the Washington Consensus. The result is the leftist movement, with anti Americanism, sweeping South America.
That was the first knell sounded for the Consensus. The second was the success of economies that rejected Washington's plan. China refused to take part in the trade liberalization that Washington demanded. Instead they devised an authoritarian capitalist model that succeeded on tight corporate regulation and government directed growth. This ran almost completely counter to Washington. The Chinese took their economic growth slowly and carefully integrated their markets in to the world's financial system. Their economy succeeded because the government has absolute power and can direct spending any way it wants. The difference between the Chinese and nationalized movements of the past was that the Chinese understood how to use capitalist markets to make money efficiently. They were brutal in implementation and profitable in result.
This is not an advocacy of the Chinese model of growth. However, it is an example of a nation that has become, in less that 15 years, an economic powerhouse by following exactly the opposite of what the Washington Consensus demanded. A counter to the Chinese model is the Indian model. India actually implemented all the provisions of the Washington Consensus and has succeeded in becoming the fastest growing nation in the developing world. However, their revolution is one that comes from the people instead of from the government. It is bottom up as opposed to top down. The social and political change that hypercapitalism brought upon India has forced the government to listen to the people and adapt to their needs intead of manipulating the people and making them adapt to the will of the government. The enormous beauracracy and slow moving democratic process in India actually helps the country remain stable and adopt to changes as they occur. Success stories like India's are very rare. It only proves that the Washington Consensus can really only work in nations were democracy is practiced and its values are revered. That is why the type of capitalism espoused by Washington works in the United States and India. They share the same democratic values.
The success of China and the petroeconomies (Russia, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia) has given the world another model to strive for: authoritarian capitalism (or, facism). What is interesting is that these models, for the majority, are based on the sale of one commodity, oil. The petro nations are the beneficiaries of the ultimate cash crop. However, their economies are a house of cards compared to the likes of China, India, and Brazil. Once the reliance on oil weakens, or the market price goes down, these economies will face fiscal crisis. They already spend too much of the profits on government spending and not enough on corporate development. This means that while Russia uses its profits from oil to build tanks, Gazprom can't afford to develop new natural gas or oil fields. China uses corporate profits to expand and develop their industries instead of solely bolstering military power. What this all means is that more and more developing countries will use this model for future economic growth instead of a more realistic model. As a result, fewer countries in the developing world will be inclined to implement a democratic model if the authoritarian one can provide financial stability.
In effect, the Washington Consensus was a failure before this financial crises even started. However, the recent collapse of American financial institutions and the contested bailout plan effectively buried the Washington Consensus in the graveyard of history. Now the American model of capitalism, once the paragon of economic development, is now ridiculed as the ultimate flop. Every nation across the world that has been touched by the Washington Consensus or that has no stake in international finance probably feels a bit of Schadenfreude. But what is worse is that America's best tool for spreading democracy was its economic prowess, not its military force. And now we have no justification for our system, no moral authority, and a military that is handcuffed. If our isolation wasn't complete before, it may be now.
The Washington Consensus was a cornerstone of US foreign policy during and immediately after the decline of the Soviet Union. Western leadership believed that open markets would necessarily translate to open politics, also knows and democracy. Essentially, the European Union's path to membership is a successful heir to the Washington Consensus. The goal was to bring developing nations under Washington's umbrella through economic integration. The United States and the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), would essential loan nations money on certain conditions. Usually these conditions required low tariffs, free trade agreements, low interest rates, and a transparent political system.
There was no inherent problem with the ideas behind the Consensus. However, its implementation had mixed results. When a nation applied the tenements of the plan, their markets usually grew very quickly. In fact it resulted in hypercapitalism, or, rapid growth with little restraint. This looks great on paper and on government fiscal statistics, but it wreaks havoc socially. The result of this quick capitalsim was that it actually increased the income gap in already divided developing countries. Although the poor were getting richer, they were getting richer at a slower rate than the already rich. So while a poor Argentine could now afford a car, the wealthy class bought planes and influenced politics. This inequity in income led to social movements across many of the nations that implemented the Washington Consensus. The result is the leftist movement, with anti Americanism, sweeping South America.
That was the first knell sounded for the Consensus. The second was the success of economies that rejected Washington's plan. China refused to take part in the trade liberalization that Washington demanded. Instead they devised an authoritarian capitalist model that succeeded on tight corporate regulation and government directed growth. This ran almost completely counter to Washington. The Chinese took their economic growth slowly and carefully integrated their markets in to the world's financial system. Their economy succeeded because the government has absolute power and can direct spending any way it wants. The difference between the Chinese and nationalized movements of the past was that the Chinese understood how to use capitalist markets to make money efficiently. They were brutal in implementation and profitable in result.
This is not an advocacy of the Chinese model of growth. However, it is an example of a nation that has become, in less that 15 years, an economic powerhouse by following exactly the opposite of what the Washington Consensus demanded. A counter to the Chinese model is the Indian model. India actually implemented all the provisions of the Washington Consensus and has succeeded in becoming the fastest growing nation in the developing world. However, their revolution is one that comes from the people instead of from the government. It is bottom up as opposed to top down. The social and political change that hypercapitalism brought upon India has forced the government to listen to the people and adapt to their needs intead of manipulating the people and making them adapt to the will of the government. The enormous beauracracy and slow moving democratic process in India actually helps the country remain stable and adopt to changes as they occur. Success stories like India's are very rare. It only proves that the Washington Consensus can really only work in nations were democracy is practiced and its values are revered. That is why the type of capitalism espoused by Washington works in the United States and India. They share the same democratic values.
The success of China and the petroeconomies (Russia, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia) has given the world another model to strive for: authoritarian capitalism (or, facism). What is interesting is that these models, for the majority, are based on the sale of one commodity, oil. The petro nations are the beneficiaries of the ultimate cash crop. However, their economies are a house of cards compared to the likes of China, India, and Brazil. Once the reliance on oil weakens, or the market price goes down, these economies will face fiscal crisis. They already spend too much of the profits on government spending and not enough on corporate development. This means that while Russia uses its profits from oil to build tanks, Gazprom can't afford to develop new natural gas or oil fields. China uses corporate profits to expand and develop their industries instead of solely bolstering military power. What this all means is that more and more developing countries will use this model for future economic growth instead of a more realistic model. As a result, fewer countries in the developing world will be inclined to implement a democratic model if the authoritarian one can provide financial stability.
In effect, the Washington Consensus was a failure before this financial crises even started. However, the recent collapse of American financial institutions and the contested bailout plan effectively buried the Washington Consensus in the graveyard of history. Now the American model of capitalism, once the paragon of economic development, is now ridiculed as the ultimate flop. Every nation across the world that has been touched by the Washington Consensus or that has no stake in international finance probably feels a bit of Schadenfreude. But what is worse is that America's best tool for spreading democracy was its economic prowess, not its military force. And now we have no justification for our system, no moral authority, and a military that is handcuffed. If our isolation wasn't complete before, it may be now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)