George Handlery about the week that was. The balmy era of peace, unilateralism and the blizzard of reality. Walking on water and secular sainthood. What to worry about? Behind Communist revivals. Is it anti-Russian to reject Stalinism? A Queen, Logic and Gay Pride. Shy success = a crime sounds good and how it supports poverty.
 
1. Those who wanted Obama elected have great expectations. As my local paper’s “expert” puts it, “the world will be more peaceful from now on”. This makes Obama the ace in a card game of hope. He is expected to be able to deliver an era of balmy harmony because US unilateralism, the source of all problems, will be avoided. This anticipation appears to belong to the category of “once I win the lottery my financial problems will be solved”. The unkind blizzard of reality is that American unilateralism does not have its source in her craving for an imperial role. Unilateralism is the consequence of having to act alone because, once the going got tough, there were no allies for action.
 
2. It is comforting to be told that the Americans have chosen well. Here the belief is wide spread that the new president is not only able to walk on water but that he can do so without getting his Florsheim’s wet.
 
3. If you believe Europe’s press then Obama is just about to save the world. Indeed, the enthusiasm falls short only of North Korean rallies in praise of Baby Kim. Amusingly, after his (“instant, just add water”) promotion to secular sainthood, the more sober jubilants admit that no one knows who Obama is. Put realistically, the mystery is not accidental but a do-it-to-yourself product. It comes from not having wanted to know more and is not caused by the dearth of data. The record was there and was also accessible. Overlooking it was a contribution to the election success of the favorite. Therefore, once future events will make the contours of the mystery man clearer, the enthusiasm will follow the DOW on the charts. (N.B., unlike in the case of the candidate, this writer wishes President Obama well.)
 
4. The temper of the forces behind Obama will become additionally assessable if we evaluate the –generally ignored – ambassadorial appointments BO will make.
 
5. Europe is, according to the International Herald Tribune “apprehensive” about how Obama will handle the “nuclearization” of Iran. We should rather worry about the crazy men of Tehran getting their bomb.
 
6. Communism might be brain dead but the Communists hang on. In the Czech Republic, they are on their way back to government functions. For some time a convention held that a party that does not clearly commit to democracy and does not renounce its blood-strained past is not to be entrusted with power. The return to the outskirts of power is now discernible. A myopic view that forgets the past and its crimes, as well as the inclination to succumb to the pledge of those who promise an easier life than the one that can be had, have an appeal to amnesiac fools. This functions for the same reason that ponzi schemes continue to work. Another factor behind the revival are those Social Democrats who by now have forgotten that they had been the victims of the ruling Bolsheviks. The shared elements of leftist ideology work in favor of cooperation. It now legitimizes a movement that thrived by abusing power. The problem of democratic leftists is that they find in the democratic center their main electoral enemy. The support of the Communists in a constellation, in which the electorate is divided in nearly equal blocks, makes a valuable asset out of a party with a few percentages of the total vote.
 
7. The special challenge to the German Social Democrats who govern with the CDU is a small but hard-core Communist party on their left. The temptation is to enlist the support of “The Left”. At the same time, to be successful, the SPD needs to assure the voter that they are not cozying up to unrepentant Communists. Therefore, voting SPD does not mean a vote for Moscow’s puppets who ruled East Germany. This implicit dilemma has become accentuated in Hessen, an entity within the Federal Republic. Led by Ypsilanti, an ambitious woman, the local SPD was in a position to associate with the Left Party and form a “state’ government. This is precisely what the “Sozis” promised not to do. The voters were assured that working with the left totalitarians is out of the question. The temptation of power made Ypsilanti to ask her party to approve that partnership. Those who took “Democrat” more seriously than they did “Social”, brought the plan and with it Ypsilanti to fall. On the national level, Ypsilantismus might have consequences. An opening to the Left will play a role in national elections. As this is written, Mr. Clemens, a centrist and the ex-number two of the SPD, has formally left his party. With that, he probably prevented his expulsion for his categorical refusal to cooperate with the Left Party. Will the prospect of a Red-Red-Green coalition make moderate voters support Merkel’s CDU, or will the SPD take power with partners that are beyond the pale for many Germans?
 
8. November 19: EU parliamentarians suggested that August 23 be declared to be the day of Communism’s victims. An institute to uncover and popularize the history of Communism is also planned. The outcome is doubtful. Russia will not like the idea and many are anxious not to alienate her. Medvedev has refused to attend a commemoration of the Ukrainian Famine (1932/33) in which 3.5 to 9 million have died. Refusing to call the mass murder – or was it genocide (?) – a natural catastrophe is taken as an insult to Russia. Actually, no one has made “Russia” responsible. The crime was a Communist-Stalinist one. Medvedev’s reluctance to attend shows that in his subconscious Russia and Stalinism are related terms.
 
9. Spain’s queen provoked an outcry by revealing that she cannot fathom why Gays must feel demonstratively “proud”. This writer, whose oldest and best friend is openly gay, agrees. Let logic be applied. If we hold that being gay is normal though not frequent then feeling shame or pride makes no sense.
 
10. We are supposed to feel proud if our fellows declare us successful. In the case of industrialized societies whose officially destitute often live better than history’s rich, this generalization does not always hold. An “industry” has developed that disparages successful communities. Essentially these are accused of having caused and benefited from the plight of traditional societies. Misery was universal before the era of modern society, its political order and economy. The charge is that these have not defeated in the case of others what they have overcome at home. The critique of success claims that achievement condemns the achiever. Distributing shame instead of recognition damages the less developed even if it leads to the transfer of funds to them as an act of atonement. The critique hinders the emulation of the achievers and that encourages the “poor” to miss the opportunities that lead to a better life. What the accusation achieves is that the distributory bureaucracies gain a few billions to secure their influence and existence. Meanwhile, where the thesis success = evil is accepted, it will restrain constructive striving and prevent the application of success strategies. The result is entrenched poverty and dependence.
 
11. The finance crisis. We should keep a fact in mind while collectivistic projects are spun to contain the crisis. At the beginning, there was the decision of “politics” that those who cannot afford it should own their own home. The assumption followed that the project could be realized without someone paying for the delusion.
 
12. Languages have the power to secure their survival by constant change. If you stop living in a language for decades, upon your return you find that regardless of your native fluency, new terms have emerged and that others have gone out of use. English is a good global language. That is because it is flexible and capable to adjust to local conditions without becoming incomprehensible or sneered at by other users. There are instances, however, when nationality and a state are linked to the use of an official language in its government-sanctioned version. Historically, Paris made quite jittery by outside influences on the way French is spoken. (It testifies to the skills of the French to protect their reputation that they are not called by nasty names for this.) Following the same tradition, Slovakia has expressed its insecurity by making a law that imposes a 50-5000 € fine on those that pollute the state language. Even by French standards, this is rather draconic. So one is left to wonder whether this is a defense against English, German or Russian influence and whether it not just a way to limit the use of the native tongue of minorities.