Big Trouble
I spent last week in the Republic of Georgia, and returning home was a humbling experience. My group touched down at Dulles airport last Friday, at the start of Memorial Day weekend. The night before, President Obama gave the worst press conference of his presidency (so far) -- no wonder he doesn't like to give them anymore! On the oil spill, his message was incoherent: Obama said he was (a) in command and responsible and (b) unable to do anything. On the mini-scandal involving Congressman Joe Sestak, the president seemed evasive and opaque. The press is slowly emerging from its unrequited love affair with this president, and it's unclear whether he knows how to stand up to media pressure.
The day after I returned, BP pronounced the "top kill" method of clogging the burst oil pipe a failure. On Sunday, climate czar Carol Browner continued the White House's bizarre message: The White House, she seemed to say, is in charge -- but everything bad that happens is still BP's fault. Monday was Memorial Day, when we are reminded that Americans are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are stationed in some 70 countries around the world.
While I was abroad, I kept thinking that most of the things Americans fight about are small fry. At least that's the way our debates over health care reform and stimulus look like, when you are in a country where Russian troops are stationed about an hour from the capital. But when I came home, I realized the sense of helplessness that congealed in the second half of the Bush presidency is continuing, and it is big trouble indeed.
Above all, it is a problem of governance. Americans have lost faith in their institutions, and those in charge seem incapable of proving their competence. The oil gusher on the ocean floor is a metaphor for the torrent of crises America has faced since September 11, 2001. Crises which experts in business and government have no idea how to stop.
What do you think?
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Big Trouble
Maybe a crisis of institutions is not always a bad thing. The more we rely on ourselves the better.
I am not sure I see the lack of faith in institutions. After all, all we get in the face of each crisis is more of the same. Since we keep voting for the same people, doesn't that imply we think the solution to failed institutions is more of them?
I think we need to have less hubris about what we can control and what we cannot. Time to grow up and face the world as it is.
Re: Big Trouble
Matt, Bryan, this is the predicament of power that the always-insightful Bill McClay brings to light in his current cover essay at the Claremont Review of Books:
For Bill, Toynbee was right -- "Challenge and response is the way of life, and the way of national renewal." One possible response is "to ramp up the comprehensive supervisory power of our cultural elites, and of the political class that embodies and serves them, over our society and economy."
I'll leave the question of other possible responses open. One of the big debates in public life today is whether there's something about life today that transforms this cycle of challenge and response itself into a spiral of cascading extremes -- with moderation, in the Aristotelian sense, increasingly impossible.
Edited on Jun 1, 2010 at 8:56amMay '10
Re: Big Trouble
One possible response is "to ramp up the comprehensive supervisory power of our cultural elites, and of the political class that embodies and serves them, over our society and economy."
I hate this possible response. In Rome, the people eventually had to rely on a First Citizen to look to their rights over the political class. Julius Caesar was popular with the people; it was the political class that killed him.
America is great when the people act. The American Revolution was by the citizens. Alas, by the end of the war, the great men were mostly gone from Congress, to be replaced by run of the mill politicos.
Re: Big Trouble
Indeed, Bryan, Bill continues: "This is the view of the Obama Administration, with its centralized and technocratic vision of social reform, and its stress on the uses of expert knowledge in the proper governance of human affairs [...]."
May '10
Re: Big Trouble
Bleh.
Technocrats have a poor track record over the past 100 years or so.
May '10
Re: Big Trouble
James, in response to your other question, I do think our hunter-gatherer brains are still adjusting to radio and TV, to say nothing of the internet and 24 hour news cycle. I think there is a tendency for mass reactions to events that in the past would not have been such big stories. This can help and hurt. Without TV images, would Vietnam gone differently? I think so. But then, would we have had the Civil Rights bill without those images as well?
My hope is that a generation that has grown up with the internet will have a more measured response to all the information available. If history has taught us anything, it is that people are the one great constant, so I have to think that natural cycle of challenge and response will reassert itself. The goal is for that to happen in America, not someplace else.
Re: Big Trouble
Roughly one-third of Georgia remains occupied by Russian troops, as I understand it, while the tiny Orthodox country of just over four million faces a large Muslim population to its southeast, in Azerbaijan, and an even larger Muslim population to its southwest, in Turkey. What's the mood in Georgia, Matt? Do the Georgians expect the Russians to respect their independence, beginning, sooner or later, a withdrawal? Are they alarmed by the creeping radicalization of Turkey? Do they see the same taking place in Azerbaijan? How do the Georgians cope?
May '10
Re: Big Trouble
At the same time, economic conditions within Georgia look extremely promising. According to the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, Georgia is the 26th freest economy in the index and boasts incredible business, trade, fiscal, and labour freedom. Furthermore, the Georgian government is seeking to fully implement the Economic Liberty Act championed by President Mikheil Saakashvili which, according to the Caspian Business Journal, would
"ban any increase in the number of licenses or regulatory boards, cap the debt to GDP ratio at 60%, limit the expenditure to GDP ratio at 30%, enforce a budget deficit ceiling of 3% of GDP (in line with European Union guidelines) and disallow tax increases except through referenda" as well as "leave the government unable to take ownership of banks or set prices of any kind" and guarantee "the freedom of capital movement" and explicitly link "social welfare to voucher or cash payment programs."
May '10
Re: Big Trouble
Nice post Matt, and one that reminded me of Gene Healy's book, The Cult of the Presidency. Its no wonder we're losing faith in our institutions -- when we expect your presidents to be able to fix any problem, address any crisis, we're expecting too much, and we're bound to be continually disappointed.
May '10
Re: Big Trouble
Like Wiplash's point in Iron Man.He just has to make the god bleed.
Re: Big Trouble
Peter, I'd say the Georgians are feeling rather betrayed right now. Since the Rose Revolution in 2003, they've placed a lot of faith in Western security and political institutions, only to see those institutions do nothing when the Russians invaded in August 2008. Nevertheless, the Georgians remain pro-NATO, pro-EU, and pro-America -- and they are continuing the economic and political reforms Michael mentions in his comment. I'll have more on Georgia in the next issue of The Weekly Standard.
On the current crisis, I agree with James that Bill McClay's latest is a must-read. And Conor raises an interesting question: Why do we expect so much of our presidents when the record of presidential accomplishments is spotty, to say the least? Perhaps it has something to do with our hunter-gatherer brains. Despite all our capacities for rational thought, humans instinctively look to "the big man" to take charge.
May '10
Re: Big Trouble
America has a long history of selling out Eastern Europe. Not really supporting Georgia comes as no surprise. If we were serious, we would move all those troops in Germany further east. Oh, wait, there I go being too provocative.
I do think there is something of biology in wanting "the big man" to fix it, but we don't have to have our leaders be that way. Showing some humility is effective with Americans. Obama has a very supportive press. I think an honest "Hey, there is only so much we can do here" would work. He just cannot admit mistakes or failures of any kind for some reason.
Re: Big Trouble
If Western institutions let down the Georgians, Matt, it was traffic on a two-way street: Saakashvili has seriously disappointed the West, too -- measured by the way he's let his own people down and by his own very Western education. That's no excuse to 'throw Georgia to the Russians'. But the once-frozen conflicts in Abkhazia, Ossetia, etc., are all the direct consequences of the collapse of the USSR. Tying our relations to their resolution on our terms still strikes me as too much trouble, not enough upside. A free and sovereign Georgia, of course, is worth quite a bit of trouble indeed.
(Via)
Edited on Jun 3, 2010 at 6:13amRe: Big Trouble
Bryan G. Stephens: America has a long history of selling out Eastern Europe. Not really supporting Georgia comes as no surprise. If we were serious, we would move all those troops in Germany further east. Oh, wait, there I go being too provocative.
I do think there is something of biology in wanting "the big man" to fix it, but we don't have to have our leaders be that way. Showing some humility is effective with Americans. Obama has a very supportive press. I think an honest "Hey, there is only so much we can do here" would work. He just cannot admit mistakes or failures of any kind for some reason.
Well, Bryan, to see your provocation and raise it, if ever there was a time for doing that, it was 1945. As for big-man biology, it's true that our big brains and big hearts both long for a single big representative of natural power and supernatural authority on earth. Hobbes knew as much, and he knew that Moses proved it.
May '10
Re: Big Trouble
James Poulos
Well, Bryan, to see your provocation and raise it, if ever there was a time for doing that, it was 1945
Well, at the time there was sentiment toward doing so, particularly from Winston Churchill and the States Department's Central European Affairs Bureau. The top US military leadership (Marshall and Eisenhower) was strictly against it though, not wanting to inhibit the immediate task of defeating the Germans by ticking off the Soviets by breaking their agreements on the matter. These leaders ultimately held more influence over FDR and Truman and won out on this argument. It also didn't help that FDR naively thought he could work out a rational deal with Stalin on the democracy issue in CEE.
The US military probably could have liberated Hungary, most of Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia, but declined on the former two for the reasons above and on Yugoslavia because they did not want to deal with the obvious complications there. Realistically speaking though, that's probably as far East as they could have beaten the Soviets. Furthermore, the Soviet Union would have fought tooth and nail over cases such as Poland, due to its geography and ample anti-Russian and anti-Communist sentiment.
May '10
Re: Big Trouble
MC1183
James Poulos
Well, Bryan, to see your provocation and raise it, if ever there was a time for doing that, it was 1945
If that was the only time to move East, why did Rummy propose moving the US bases from Germany to Poland? Sure, it would have been great to prevent the loss of Eastern Europe in 1945, but that is no reason that we can't redress any errors later. Maybe not with as much effect, but it was, and is still a good idea when Rummy proposed it.
May '10
Re: Big Trouble
previous cont...
The US's biggest failing was probably in Czechoslovakia, which from 1945-1948 was a genuine neutral. The US had opportunities to apply diplomatic pressure in order to try and keep it so, but chose to simply stand back and let it fall to Communism.
The abandonment of CEE in 1945 was a deliberate political strategy, and lauded by proponents of containment at the time, including George Kennan. That isn't without reason, because the the US effectively used CEE as a trade off in negotiations, too keep official Soviet influence out of Western Europe and Japan. From a pure realpolitik standpoint, "trading" Romania and Bulgaria for Italy and Japan is a clear winner.
Moving back into the present, if you accept the gradualist view of the containment policy, you'd still have to deem it a success and an appropriate decision for the time. That being said, from a moral standpoint it was definitely a "sell-out".
Re: Big Trouble
James,
I'm no Saakashvili apologist -- he is impulsive and occasionally stretches the limit of his authority (in these ways he sort of reminds me of a young, Georgian Rudy Giuliani). But you'll have to explain to me how he has "let his people down." Polling shows that Georgians support the direction their country is headed, and it is Saakashvili who is most responsible for putting Georgia on a Western-oriented, liberal democratic course. The advances Georgia has made in a short time under Saakashvili's government are nothing short of amazing. When the Rose Revolution occurred in November 2003, Tbilisi had electricity for only two hours. Organized crime was rampant. Today, Tbilisi is a modern, bustling city with hotels, restaurants, casinos, and a vibrant street life.
The conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia were "frozen" until Putin decided to thaw them. Compared to the Russian prime minister, Saakashvili looks like Thomas Jefferson. Did he handle the situation on 7 August (prior to the Russian invasion) as well as he might have? No. Was he responding to years of Russian infringement on these territories, and a legitimate Georgian fear that a resurgent, autocratic Kremlin seeks to reabsorb Georgia into the new Russian empire? Absolutely.
Re: Big Trouble
You're right, Matt, that we shouldn't downplay the gains Georgia has made under Saakashvili. But we shouldn't downplay the setbacks, either -- which are worse than anything Rudy inflicted on NYC. It's one thing to stretch the limits of one's authority, and another to stretch one's authoritarian muscles. You're right to suggest that Putin's a man with an agenda, but the whole story has to focus on the decisive roles played by all the parties -- including the locals in Ossetia and Saakashvili himself. Saakashvili was willing to veer into irresponsible leadership during a profound crisis, putting his country at severe risk, in the hopes that the US would lead a coalition that would stop Russia from absorbing the statelets. That was an extremely imprudent misapprehension of reality. The idea that the US would and should stop Russia from conquering Georgia proper is totally sound. And sure enough, that happened. But Saakashvili wanted more -- and he was willing to put his whole country on the line, gambling all his great gains, to get it.
May '10
Re: Big Trouble
MC1183
The US military probably could have liberated Hungary, most of Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia, but declined on the former two for the reasons above and on Yugoslavia because they did not want to deal with the obvious complications there. Realistically speaking though, that's probably as far East as they could have beaten the Soviets. Furthermore, the Soviet Union would have fought tooth and nail over cases such as Poland, due to its geography and ample anti-Russian and anti-Communist sentiment. · Jun 3 at 6:50am
The fact that Britain went to war over guarantees to Czechoslovakia, and ended up (of necessity) betraying them, and the Poles, and the rest of Eastern Europe has always been a bitter pill (even though it all happened long before I was born). Which is one of the things that makes it incredibly moving to me as I walk along the aisles of the supermarket in my Kentish village to hear slavic languages being spoken. At last we are doing the right thing by Poland (and getting some first rate builders and plumbers in the bargain)!