Obama in Berlin: Wishy Instincts, Washy Preferences

From the desk of George Handlery on Sun, 2008-07-27 15:47

bj-logo-handlery.gif

George Handlery on the week that was. Obama in Berlin: what is in the package? Russia’s permission is needed to defend Europe. Negotiating by not talking. America as an ally. Leopards and their spots. A convenient pretense: both sides are right. Minority rights and majority protection.
 
1. Obama in Berlin. It is an attractive venue as Berlin is a symbol of hanging on tough in moments when surrender appeared to some to be the easy and wise choice.  Watching the performance the excellent packaging makes a striking impression. Under the wrapper, a lot of space-filling Styrofoam. It protects a miniscule object. The hard-to-describe item has fuzzy contours. The crowd cheered loudly when fashionable slogans were fed to it. Especially the implied dropping of Iraq got approval. Notable is the reception of Obama’s inconsistent reference to “defeating terror’ in Afghanistan. The claim that America needs her European “partners” help there – to which Germany is officially committed – brings silence. This speaks loudly. It also lends credibility to the claim that Obama’s “wishy” instincts match Germany’s “washy” preferences. Great endorsement. Comforting reassurance for the correctness of the proposed path says the campaign. Poor America.
 
2. Obama’s popularity here comes from the fact that he is a surface upon which the desires of the historically protected and undeservedly lucky locals can be projected. What many Europeans want from Obama is something that even they, who are ignorant about free lunches, know cannot be gotten from McCain. The wish is an America that is an effective last resort guarantee of security while she, contradictorily, avoids confrontations by evading them through dexterous submission to pressures. The shadow of future disappointment darkens the anticipated end of the road. Even Obama is unlikely to be willing and able to practice as much appeasement as is expected of him.
 
3. Obama (July 15) called upon the US to end her single-minded “focus on Iraq.” Between the lines, this sounds like a first call to drop the entire Iraq project. The US might officially forget such retreats. Furthermore, her politically only temporarily interested citizenry could also fail to notice the facts and the implications of backing out of commitments. However, future friends and foes will be made to think. One result: friends will seek distance and the enemies will be emboldened by yet another self-willed defeat.
 
4. An insight generated through extensive Obama-watching. To be nominated you must proclaim how, if compared to all others, different you are. Once nominated you better prove that you will continue to manage things as before in the existing framework. Add that you will do this better than the other guys could. Leopards do not change their spots. Obviously, some of the candidates are not leopards.
 
5. A categorically reduced presence in Iraq has crept into the platform of a party that might win the US’ presidential contest. Through a withdrawal that is not warranted by earlier military success and Iraq’s ability to combat the Jihadists, America will be sending a message. The meaning of the smoke-signal: new challenges posed elsewhere will in the future not be met resolutely.
 
6. Something we know but have not learned. The simple solution that enables the voter instantly believe in it without thinking is not necessarily the best response to problems to be solved.
 
7. July 16. The US sent an envoy to Geneva to accompany the Solana-led Europeans in their talks with Iran. Meanwhile Iran held air power tests and announced that it is invulnerable. Conclusion: every effort to meet Iran halfway after one has already moved part of the way in her direction is met with new threats.
 
8. Regardless of the EU’s, and newly of the US’, concessions, Iran is unprepared to suspend the enlargement of her nuclear activities. Obviously, Iran regards (anticipating a new President and the promised stalemate in Iraq) military action against her nuclear project as unlikely.
 
9. Iran refuses to halt her enrichment program in exchange for material concessions by the EU and the US. Meanwhile, Iran wishes for the talks to continue. The question might be: what talks? Besides gaining time to complete ongoing projects, what purpose can talks, held merely to exchange noises, have? July 19. The meeting with the representative of the Great Powers plus the US’ Burns represented a major gain for Iran. So did the proposition that a “freeze for a freeze” be agreed to by Tehran.  (Iran does not expand her ongoing enrichment activity. In exchange, the concerned Powers refrain from additional sanctions. Plainly put this means that Iran continues without accelerating while the Great Powers persevere in doing nothing.)
 
10. Iran calls the proposal rejected by her as being part of a “step forward”. Obviously, the purpose of this odd interpretation is to make the other side appear to be unreasonable once Tehran chooses to make it clear that she will not compromise diplomatically. A clear sign of this came on July 24. According to Iran’s interpretation, the IAEA’s attempts to control – as agreed earlier – her nuclear activities is an insult to her. Either the international nuclear watchdog cuts back on its aggressive sniffling or Iran might stop “cooperating” with the IAEA.
 
11. Russia is reluctant to accept a European anti-missile defense system. Is Russia’s disapproval of such a system of defense a greater danger than the peril implied if, deferentially, the continent is left indefensible. Precisely put, “indefensible” here pertains to having to obtain Russia’s approval for acquiring the relevant technology and then, logically, needing her permission to use it.
 
12. Labor unions and politicians try to maintain branches, firms and jobs endangered by modernization unchanged. That is easier than to advocate instead programs creating novel opportunities that are synchronized with new conditions. The votes come from the people locked in the threatened industries. The future beckons from the latter grouping.
 
13. We have the choice between temporary job-protection from the competition and adjustment to the challenge facing us. It is better to learn to compete effectively than to protect what has become redundant and unproductive.
 
14. There is some confusion about what liberal means. At least in the classical and unpolluted (and in the US out-of-use) sense of the concept, “liberal” is more than a commitment to listen critically, nevertheless attentively to both sides. It also implies that an informed decision will be the upshot of clear-headed evaluations.  Properly, the genuine liberal might find in one side more merit than in the other. What unadulterated “liberalism” does not include is an obligation to proclaim that both diametrically opposed sides are equally valid.
 
15. Regardless of the positive or negative context of a story, the more you talk about the repulsive, the more acceptable the disgusting will become.

 

@ Atlanticist911

Submitted by traveller on Sat, 2008-08-02 12:17.

I don't believe the US voters are so stupid to vote for this empty shell.
Than again they once voted for Kennedy and for Carter.
If he becomes president the US is in for a nightmare.

Jud Süss

Submitted by George Handlery on Mon, 2008-07-28 18:54.

Regarding "Jud Süss". I have been, and still am, quite reluctant to react. There are two reasons.

1. The person who raised the matter has strong dislikes. Whatever I can say will not influence "K". In addition, the rest of those who read this in the BJ will not care.

2. Let us keep in mind that the world is full of nuts. Not all of them deserve attention.

Now to the case. (I actually took time to look up the matter.) The film was shown, twice a day,  between July 10 - 13 in the cellar of a house in Budapest. Since the 18th, the police are active in the matter. Showing of the film counts as a hate crime. Showing it is officially something like "agitation against a community." A raid at a venue that is not identical with that of the showing, led to the confiscation of DVDs and of copies of the book.

cellar film

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-07-28 20:22.

Thanks for your comment. BJ readers are always interested in 'hate crimes'.

Budapest cinema show, wonderous stories

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-07-28 16:19.

Thanks for your comments. I'm glad that there is some reaction, at last. I'm not sure what 'game' may be implicit in a condemnation of 'Jud Süß' performances, but I'm sure atlanticist will teach me his thoughts. As traveller says Mr. Hendlery could tell us that the film is badly acted and directed, I'm also not sure whether his (Hendlery's/traveller's) 'disgust' goes with the performance or the message. As for 'freedom restriction', I wonder if the lament is the restriction or if he plees for a much harsher control of propaganda. And for marcfrans, I'm not sure he recalls 'Jud Süß' at all, he's more focused on 'Russian influence' and the everlasting threat of the red bear.

@ kappert

Submitted by traveller on Mon, 2008-07-28 18:21.

Kindly check the meaning of the word disgusting in the context I wrote.
Freedom of speech is the highest value to fight injustice, anti-semitism, communism and all other -isms.

Commenting on KA

Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2008-07-28 15:55.

1) These are not so much mixed signals as they are successive signals.  Power does change regularly, especially in democracies.  It is not surprising that policies change too.  What is surprising is that the same lessons have to be re-learned over and over again, which essentially means that people have very short memories. Just look at Kappert or yourself... Or to paraphrase the old saying "The triumph of hope over experience".  

2) Given very different goals and intentions (from those of western countries), it is understandable that the new  Russian regime wants to keep the European continent (and to the extent possible, the USA as well) "indefensible" against future Middle Eastern blackmail.  But, this is short term thinking, and certainly at odds with 'European' interests.  Also, there is nothing that prevents Russian "access" to Serbia (a candidate for EU membership!), just like there is nothing that blocks 'reasonable'  Russian access to Cuba, Venezuela, etc...or other 'rogue' regimes.

 3) A lot of empirical research has confirmed that the major factor determining both new-job creation and old-job destruction is 'technological change'.  'Trade' (or market opening) is a distant secondary explanatory factor.  Mr Handlery's point is simply that, for an economy to remain "productive" (i.e. rich or wealthy), it must remain efficient, so the adjustment must be made.  The speed is a matter of degree and of political accomodation, but the point is that 'protectionism' (against either new technology or against trade) must be temporary. Mr Handlery's use of the term "modernization" is a sensible one. 

By contrast, your negative reference to "outsourcing" can only muddle the waters, so to speak.  Outsourcing and new technology are not in opposition to each other.  Both will only be undertaken if they can enhance efficiency of employed resources of labor and of ('real' as opposed to financial) capital.  Choices among different technologies and 'techniques' (implying different degrees of labor intensity in production) should in principle be determined by business managers using 'efficiency' criteria deriving from a variety of market conditions.  They should not be based on political criteria and hypocritical standards intended to preserve inefficiency and privileges or special economic rents.  

Or, to put it another way, you are hiding behind populist leftist slogans to oppose freedom of (real) capital movements. This can only result in sub-optimal use of capital resources. In so doing, you are also indirectly limiting free trade, and thereby ensuring lower labor efficiency all around.

@ kappert

Submitted by traveller on Mon, 2008-07-28 14:54.

Apart from the correct comment by Atlanticist, Handlery could only say that this film is disgusting and badly made/acted.
Further he could say that the laws banning the showing of such films are restricting our freedoms some more.

@George Handlery

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Mon, 2008-07-28 05:28.

Handlery: ...a withdrawal that is not warranted by earlier military success and Iraq’s ability to combat the Jihadists, America will be sending a message...new challenges posed elsewhere will in the future not be met resolutely.

 

America sent a similar message in 1975. Yet it sent completely different messages in 1990 (Iraq), 1995 and 1999 (former Yugoslavia). Nor are these mixed signals uniquely American: Russia's 1996 message to the Chechens differs markedly from its more recent communication.

 

The most successful control of foreign affairs is through proxies. Military occupation is a temporary measure until "your" people can be put in place. Unfortunately, the United States is mismanaging both phases in Iraq. The Wehrmacht and Red Army knew a thing or two about occupying a hostile territory and holding it - indeed, their tactics make Gitmo look like a hotel.

 

Handlery: Is Russia’s disapproval of such a system of defense a greater danger than the peril implied if, deferentially, the continent is left indefensible. Precisely put, “indefensible” here pertains to having to obtain Russia’s approval for acquiring the relevant technology and then, logically, needing her permission to use it.

 

Not European. American. Given that the United States has rejected the Russian compromise (i.e. the Azerbaijani base) and is engaged in a struggle with Russia for control of Central Asian natural resources, how should Russia regard the continuing existence and expansion of an obsolete military alliance, color revolutions, etc. It is telling that NATO's recent expansion is acting as a cordon sanitaire - one that prevents Russian access to Serbia, an ally it has had an interest in for over a century.

 
Handlery: Labor unions and politicians try to maintain branches, firms and jobs endangered by modernization unchanged...We have the choice between temporary job-protection from the competition and adjustment to the challenge facing us. It is better to learn to compete effectively than to protect what has become redundant and unproductive.

 

Again. Not modernization. Outsourcing has little to do with modernization and everything to do with old labor-intensive techniques that circumvent Western technologies, markets and applicable legislation (i.e. on human rights). While labor unions in the United States have prevented greater automation along German and especially Japanese lines, the latter is an ethnocentrist reaction to familiar demographic storm clouds rather than the ingenuity that proved Malthus incorrect.