Ruminations, May 24, 2009

Nations with Power

One of the theories of history is that all is based on power. Superficially, the theory says, ideologies, religion or other disputes are important, but really it comes down to power, and whichever nation has the most power wins – at least for a while. So, to be successful, a nation must be able to maintain its power or submit to being a follower in another nation’s camp.

National power is political, economic and military. After all, if a nation doesn’t have economic muscle, it can’t afford a strong military and therefore its political power is weaker.

Like all theorists, the advocates of this theory spend a good deal of time finding a rationale for the cases in which it doesn’t seem to work. But there may be something to it so let’s look at recent history in that context.

In the early 20^th century, Britain was still the major power but it seemed to be on the wane. France had slipped to a regional power. Russia and the United States had yet to assert themselves in Europe. The thinking in top German circles was that Germany had a fifty-year window of opportunity; unless Germany acted, it would be nothing more than a regional power. So it did and World War I was the result.

Although Germany did not win, Britain had been considerably weakened as had Russia. The United States left Europe and, as a result, there was a power vacuum. Germany rebuilt and tried to seize its opportunity again through World War II. In Asia, Japan was vying with the United States and Britain and was defeated.

This time, to avoid the leaving the power vacuum, the United States and the Soviet Union stepped in, in both hemispheres. Later, as the Chinese nation matured, it became a player in Asia but it was not a player at the end of WWII.  So, the United States and the Soviets went toe-to-toe for fifty years through some surrogate wars and through political and economic battles. When the Soviet Union fell, that left no competitors for the United States in Europe and an emerging China in Asia.

Without the Soviets, the United States could reduce its presence in Europe and allow the European Union pick up some of the slack politically and economically but still availing themselves of the American military umbrella. China became America’s competitor in Asia.

This leaves the Middle East. Until the mid 20^th century, Britain and France had been the major power brokers in this region. As those nations fell by the wayside, the United States and Soviets exerted their power with the United States coming out on top. Now, the United States is being tested. Excising an unfriendly governments in Iraq and Afghanistan will do much to give the United States a strong position but that still leaves Iran; Can Iran compete with the United States in the Mideast?

There are other power struggles on the horizon. Is North Korea our problem or can we safely cede it to the Chinese? If China continues to grow in power, with whom will Japan and Taiwan cast their lots as regional powers? Are the stirrings in Africa something that the United States should be concerned about, especially Somalia, Nigeria, Libya, Egypt and Zimbabwe? In the past, we were concerned with the Soviets gaining influence with nonaligned nations; should we be concerned about the influence of Iran, Hezbollah or China? Is Latin America a power vacuum where we need to be concerned?

Perhaps the U.S. is not powerful enough to play in all these areas and against all these rivals at the same time. Maybe a North American Union or a Union of the Americas will become necessary to deal with such challenges.

Power is an interesting concept. We live in interesting times.

Home on derangement

During the George W. Bush Administration, there were those who simply seemed to be deranged as far as President Bush was concerned. They would look for things to criticize and could not accept that the President did anything that was right or moral. This is not to say that Bush never did anything that could not be criticized, just that there were some who seemed to be completely over the top and some would even make things up. These folks were commonly referred to, in a term coined by columnist and psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer, as having “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”

Typical of this group was New York Times columnist and Nobel economics laureate Paul Krugman. In his column last week, Krugman says, “In a way, it was easy to take stands during the Bush years … [and] with a clear conscience, oppose all the administration's initiatives.”

Now it sometimes seems that there exists a nascent “Obama Derangement Syndrome.”  Not to say that there is nothing to criticize about Obama. His doubling and tripling of deficits, his policy on detainees in Guantanamo, his intervention in private companies, his attempts to regulate salaries in private enterprises, his healthcare policies and his promise to select Supreme Court Justices based more on “empathy” than an understanding of constitutional law are among legitimate issues for debate.

Nonetheless, it appears that many on the right appear to be taking a page from Krugman’s book: “with a clear conscience” they criticize everything Obama says and does. To wit:

·         Some have criticized Obama as being a Muslim. If it were true, should that even make a difference?

·         He has been called the “President who hates his country.” He may not like everything about this country but to say he hates his country is pure nonsense.

·         He has been criticized for saying of the United States while in Turkey (a Muslim nation in which many adherents are suspicious of the U.S.): "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." What’s wrong with that?

·         In Berlin last July, he said “there are times when [American] actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.” That seems true. To cite one example, we sent troops into Southeast Asia with the best intentions with the result that millions died; then we withdrew from Southeast Asia with the best intentions with the result that millions more died.

·         It’s fair to criticize Obama’s position on abortion but many have criticized him for his statements on abortion. Recognize that he is pro-choice. He has said that pro-life people base their stand on moral and ethical standards. He has said that the difference is irreconcilable. Given that he is pro-choice, that is about as far as he can go – and it is, in terms of tone and appreciation of the dilemma – a lot further than almost any other pro-choice politician.

·         Based on Obama’s policies, there was a move among some Republicans to rechristen the Democrat Party as The Democrat Socialist Party. That’s official name calling.

Before appearing to be a right-wing mirror image of MoveOn.Org or Paul Krugman, it would be wise for conservatives and Republicans to pay heed to the words of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. Last week, Steele said of Obama: “Folks like him. He’s got an easy demeanor. He’s a great orator. His campaign style is wonderful. His campaign was based on change and hope. He’s young. He’s cool. He’s hip. He’s got a good-looking family. What’s not to like? He’s got all of the qualities America likes in celebrity. So of course, he’s going to be popular. Only one problem. He’s taking us in the wrong direction and bankrupting our country. That, I do not like.”

Why Government Can't Run a Business

In an article in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, author John Steele Gordon identifies seven reasons why governments can’t run businesses (link to the full article is below). The reasons Gordon cites are:

1. Governments are run by politicians, not businessmen. Politicians can only make political decisions, not economic ones.
2. Politicians need headlines. And this means they have a deep need to do something … even when doing nothing would be the better option.
3. Governments use other people's money. Corporations play with their own money.
4. Government does not tolerate competition.
5. Government enterprises are almost always monopolies and thus do not face competition at all.
6. Successful corporations are run by benevolent despots.
7. Government is regulated by government.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html

Quote without comment

Richard Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal on May 23, commenting on U.S fiscal prospects: "Throughout history, what the political class has done is they have turned to the central bank to print their way out of an unfunded liability. We can't let that happen. That's when you open the floodgates. So I hope and I pray that our political leaders will just have to take this bull by the horns at some point. You can't run away from it."

Robert J. Kulak

West Hartford, Connecticut