Collectivism and its record: consistently downward. The politics of the economic downturn: Is cause and effect filed in the right order? An incredible suit. Is the one that resists encroachments a troublemaker? What the recent spy case tells – about us.

 

1. In a side comment, “The Economist” (to this writer the world’s best weekly) mentioned that, regardless of its ups and downs, Americans prefer Capitalism to Socialism. This is apparently so because, even if they lack personal experience, the Yanks seem to be aware that Socialism has a consistent record. Its arrow points south.

 

2. Much intellectual energy is spent on ingenious explanations for the way out of what is officially a crisis of the economy. Such efforts react to the predicaments of individual national economies. Their conglomerate makes up the global economy. Peel away the non-essentials. The cause of past and current troubles might emerge as monocausal. We might be suffering from a welfarist policy running amok. Unearned allotments are addictively habit forming. Therefore, such gifts “can be dangerous to your health”. Accordingly, the economically imperative shrinkage of handouts is hindered by the political obstacles belated frugality provokes. Thus, what we experience is not really an economic problem. We are facing the economic consequence of a political problem. The extent of the ailment is demonstrated by merrily striking Greeks. There streets can be filled with crowds that feel it is reasonable to demonstrate for guaranteed retirement at the age of fifty-five. Meanwhile, the “world” is about to push the limit to around seventy.

 

3. Some minor news items have it in them that they can provoke us. Such is the one heard while lifting weights (July 10). Betancourt, a French Columbian double citizen, and once a lightweight presidential candidate, sues “Bogota”. She wants millions for her years spent in captivity. Oh, no, not the Columbian government has held her Betancourt captive. She had been a prisoner of the gang that tries to overthrow the government in Bogota.

Through an operation that earned a deserved standing ovation, the government now sued liberated the good lady now in need of coins. There are other oddities. Prior to her capture by the Commies, Ms Betancourt pleaded for a rather friendly approach to the guerrilla. This might have been the reason why, brainlessly, she dared to enter a guerilla dominated war-zone. She did so after ignoring the warning of the last government checkpoint of the menace. She also signed declaration affirming her awareness of the hazard. Not ineptly, the FARC’s bearded gunmen exploited the opportunity that Betancourt, one of Lenin’s useful idiots, provided them.

Ignore polite formulations. The point is that, while the captivity of Ms Betancourt is a typical MO of Leftist philosophers with a gun, she shared the responsibility. Putting herself at peril, she demonstrated more trust for the Reds than for the now sued government of the country. Add: The government of Columbia is the one that liberated her. (July 12. Betancourt, reviled for trying, has decided not to pursue her complaint.)

What do we learn? Since Ms Betancourt has not thought of sueing the FARC, she is telling us that the Left is right even when it is totally wrong. Furthermore, if one sues, one should indict the party that caused the tort. Lastly, the shady attempt to get some spending money, reveals a bad habit of ours. Even in cases in which personal decisions lead to a calamity, some expect government –meaning the community of the normal ones – and not the fool, to carry the consequences.

 

4. Especially in Europe, Israel is losing support. The charges are served in a sauce that alleges that the critic is not against Jews and even has some Jewish friends. The caveats are understandable. Any position that gets/got special treatment is likely to be abused. I once had a Jewish roommate. He reacted angrily to criticism by insinuating that telling him that 2x2 was, even in his case, almost 4, meant the claimant did not like Jews. He liked to recommend that such people should, therefore, avoid getting “Jewish” polio shots.

In this case, the abuse that converts victim status into an advantage and an overreaction, seems to play a secondary role. The attitude does not reflect the merits of the Palestinian cause nor the de-merits of Israel’s case. (Both exist.) Much rather, it seems that the factual issues that are debated are marginal. The sentiment that blames Israel seems to be a part of a decisive question that hovers in the background of this column. It is “what is wrong with us”.

Israel’s resistance to encroachment is mostly hard as steel. No wonder. She has little to give up before the concession becomes a death sentence. Furthermore, Israel had no time to forget in a decadent manner that those that threaten one with extermination are likely to mean it.

The upshot of this unwillingness to negotiate the modalities of extinction has implications. The lack of equivocation means that it will surface in the form of an open crisis. The refusal to discuss capitulation creates newer tremors. That makes it difficult to ignore the dispute. “Solving” the problem by ignoring it in tune with our next election oriented culture is difficult. This might or might not make Israel guilty of a detail of her relations to the Muslim world. Doggedness, however, creates an uncomfortable sense of tension. It does not conform to the preference of solving issues by ignoring them. An uncomfortable feeling arises, caused by reminders of inconvenient realities, which refuse to go away if one looks the other way. This discomfort is caused by Israel’s reaction to challenges. Doing so makes her “guilty” of causing tension and of robbing those that would like to be bystanders that bask in the illusion that “all is well” of their bliss. A classical parallel is the proverbial case when the messenger bringing bad news is shot for disrupting the good cheer of the court.

 

5. Is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a local spat that threatens to globalize itself through the efforts of one of the parties? Or could it be that what we see is the regional symptom of the fundamental clash of global cultures for supremacy?

 

6. To the delight of the tabloids, a juicy story emerged. It included much of what we like to see and hear. There were voluptuous ladies uncovered and reports of undercover activity. It kept within the boundaries of entertainment because it did not get bloody. Nicely, the entire act ended in a spy exchange in which the Russians and the Americans swapped their assets for what the other fellow held. So far, do good.

The revealing part of the story is behind its headlines. The Russians caught in the US were so called “sleepers”. These are embedded in their host society where they are available for service in a future crisis. In this case, the implants were to befriend natives that might make careers that involve future influence, power and knowledge. The hoped for scenario is this: Get close to a person that enters government service as a gofer. He could be in charge of a desk in twenty years. With that – just think of Soviet espionage in the UK and the US! – you might hit the jackpot. Anyhow, there is nothing dilettantish about this approach. Unless of course a cell is discovered. Then you can soft-pedal the evidence by claiming amateurishness.

Here the bungling is provided by the press coverage of the event. Low and behold, everybody concluded that there was nothing to worry about and that, therefore, summer vacation’s quiet did not need to be disturbed. The lesson: self-administered anesthetics work best. The aware are left with an insight from the reported event that tells more about us than it reveals about the case.