Daily Archives: March 2, 2011
Reading through Martin Walker’s Feb. 28th piece for UPI about the unrest in the Middle East and N. Africa, I found this interesting:
That heady early talk of an Arab spring and a democratic flowering across the Arab world now seems distinctly premature. It is going to be much more difficult, and much more complicated, as the Europeans found when they started turning back thousands of Tunisians looking for jobs and opportunities in Europe rather than staying home to enjoy the new freedoms.
Beyond the unpleasant endgame of the Gadhafi regime, there are three predictable crises yet to come in North Africa. The first will be the question of food shortages and subsidies in Egypt, where the price of bread has been kept artificially low for decades at a cost of more than $3 billion a year. (The Mubarak government spent more on its various subsidies than it did on health and education.)
Egypt’s new government faces a tough dilemma. It cannot afford the subsidies but nor can it afford the popular outrage among the poor if it tried to end them.
The second crisis will come when business returns to normal and 30 percent of Egyptians and Tunisians in their 20s remain unemployed and a new class of graduates emerges to join them. They will demand government jobs. The government will try to comply but the government has no money. Money will be borrowed and printed. Inflation will result.
The third crisis will be more a problem of U.S. domestic politics but it will have grave implications for Egypt. It concerns Israel. The new Egyptian government, whatever its politics, will find it difficult to be quite as accommodating to Israel as Mubarak used to be. In particular, it will find it politically very unpopular to maintain the siege of Gaza.
His point, of course, is while there are many other problems attendant to any forced overthrow of a government, there are some others that will likely manifest themselves that will put even more stress and pressure on compromise governments (by the way, whatever happened to ElBaradei in Egypt?).
In fact, the new Prime Minister of Tunisia’s latest government just stepped down over dissatisfaction that change wasn’t coming fast enough. So as hard as putting some form of government together that can quickly take the reins and effect the changes that the protesters have said they want, there are other externalities, beside a lack of history or tradition with a free form of government, that may sabotage their efforts.
As most pundits are now saying – after the initial orgy of opinions claiming this was nothing short of the flowering of democracy in some very arid land – we’re “early” into all of this. That’s called “walking it back”. Now that the heady days of nonsensical optimism have passed, more sober analysis is becoming prevalent. And, as one might expect, many are looking back into history to find a clue to what may happen in these countries.
Lo and behold, some are finding some fairly disturbing examples and principles that seem they may apply themselves to these particular situations. For instance, as David Warren reminds us, the “most ruthless usually triumph”. And our history is rife with examples.
A couple of points from Warren’s piece. First ruthless doesn’t just apply to those who rise in opposition to the current government. A recent example:
It does not follow, from the fact everyone is hooting, that Moammar Gadhafi will fall. He might, tomorrow, for all I know, or all anyone knows who is not clairvoyant. But as I recall, Saddam Hussein did not fall after the Gulf War of 1991. And the comparison is instructive. Every part of Iraq not directly attached to him through extended family and tribal networks (so tightly that they would share his fate) rose against him. And the world, beginning with the United States, was then as now urging his opponents on.
Saddam endured plenty of defections. Eventually, even "no fly zones" were established, to stop him from using airplanes and helicopters against the general population. But by the time these could be declared, and enforced, he had broken the back of the insurrection, and needed ground force only.
Saddam’s consistent policy was to be more ruthless than any potential rival. He slaughtered people by the tens of thousands to retain power, on that occasion alone. And that was not the only occasion on which his power was challenged. The casualties in the Iran-Iraq war, that continued eight years from September 1980, may never be adequately counted. Mixed in with them were huge numbers from his own side that Saddam massacred "pour encourager les autres." Millions of Iraqis found themselves being minced between two satanic giants: the other, of course, being Ayatollah Khomeini.
Gadhafi is also ruthless.
Loony as a cartoon character, but certainly ruthless. That sort of ruthlessness obviously has a value to the person or organization that uses it – it provides a means to keep or take power.
Ruthlessness can come in many guises, but it essentially means letting nothing stand in the way of attaining an ultimate goal. Whether it is in politics, sports or revolution, the most ruthless in the pursuit of their goal usually triumphs. And that’s regardless of whether or not you agree with their methods.
So Libya has descended into unspeakable violence. But I’d guess few would believe anyone more ruthless than Gadhafi (and his family) exits there – but there may very well be.
Which takes us to part II of this. Why do some nations who go through the throes of this sort of revolutionary change find it within themselves to create a more free and democratic society while others fall into even more and greater tyranny than before? Warren’s theory:
We should grasp, for instance, that the American Revolution was almost unique in history, for ending so well. We should also grasp why. It was, from beginning to end, under the leadership of highly civilized men, governed by a conception of liberty that was restrained and mature. George Washington commanded, in his monarchical person, the moral authority to stop the cycle of reprisals by which revolutions descend into "eating their own." Nelson Mandela achieved something similar in South Africa.
Alternatively, a whole society -I am thinking here of the nations of Central Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall -may be so exhausted by revolutionary squalor that they long for return to "normal" life and have constitutional orders in their own, historically recent past, available as models. But even they needed Walesas and Havels.
Where such men exist, they are visible at any distance, from the start. Nowhere in the Arab world -and particularly not in Egypt, its centre of gravity -can such leaders be detected; only ridiculous pretenders. Nor do the conditions exist for wise statesmen to emerge. Nor have any of the Arab states a stable constitutional order to look back upon. Tyranny begets tyranny.
Certainly there are many shades and flavors of tyranny, and a nation may even lessen the hold its tyranny without actually ending it. But as Warren observes, there are no real leaders emerging (at least not yet) that one could label, at least in the way Westerners would, that could be considered “highly civilized men” imbued with a sense of liberty that is “restrained and mature”.
Instead, given the area, the culture, the history, we see this as what will likely emerge:
As we should surely have observed by now, whether or not the Islamists command Arab "hearts and minds," they are not only the best organized force, but the most ruthless. They are also in possession of the simplest, most plausible, most easily communicated "vision."
Islam, in whatever form, shape or flavor is the common thread of these revolutions. As I’ve mentioned before, what is considered a “moderate” in most of these countries would be viewed, were he a Christian, as a fundamentalist in most other places. The inclusion of Islam into the everyday lives of the people is as natural as breathing. They take for granted it will be an essential part of any government they form.
There are no Walesas and Havels in those countries. There are Imams and Ayatollahs who fill that function. And, as Warren points out, the vision they present is indeed the “simplest, most plausible, most easily communicated vision” of all of them, to include secular representative democracy.
They also fulfill the other two historical requirements to take power – they’re the best organized and, as we’ve seen in many other places, the most ruthless.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
Gallup tells us that economic confidence has slumped sharply in the past two week due mainly to the spike in gas prices driven by the unrest in the Middle East and North Africa.
Funny how that works, no? Gas prices go up, economic confidence goes down. And the rest of that goes “economic confidence goes down, incumbents suffer”.
So you’d think smart politicians would want to ensure that they’ve done everything they could to ensure gasoline prices remain as low as possible.
You’d think. But that’s not exactly what has happened here, is it? We’re now in the 10th month of a drilling moratorium imposed by this administration, so there’s really no immediate or impending increases in production domestically that could help ease this, is there?
The slump in confidence is likely tied to gas prices, which have risen sharply amid growing political instability in the Middle East, most notably in Libya. The U.S. Department of Energy reported an increase in gas prices from an average $3.14 per gallon nationwide during the week ending Feb. 14 to $3.38 this past week. In addition, news media focus on the challenges governments are having in passing budgets may also affect Americans’ perceptions of the economy.
Gallup’s Economic Confidence Index comprises two measures — one assessing consumers’ views of current economic conditions and another measuring their perceptions of whether the economy is getting better or worse. Both components are more negative than they were two weeks ago, but most of the change has come from increasingly pessimistic expectations about the economy’s direction.
The pessimism is being driven by the understanding that we haven’t the means to effect the problem nor have we done anything in the interim to improve our ability to effect the problem. In other words, we’re more at the mercy of foreign oil now than we were when this administration took office.
Secretary Salazar has been on a vendetta against oil, using the unusual but certainly horrific accident on the Deep Horizon platform, to effectively shut down a critical portion of the domestic oil industry. It has cost thousands of jobs and billions of dollars (not only to the industry but to the government in the form of royalties and taxes). Rigs which were scheduled to be deployed in the Gulf before the moratorium are now deploying elsewhere. It costs millions for companies when oil drilling rigs sit idle. So they’re off to do what – exploit foreign oil fields. And they most likely won’t be back in Gulf waters anytime soon.
The point, of course, is the entire energy situation in the US is being badly mishandled by the incumbent administration. And while they sit and fiddle, we become less and less able to effect world pricing for oil because our capability has been hamstrung by a government and bureaucracy that is basically antagonistic to fossil fuels.
That’s a risk, especially in these economic times. If the economy is still in this sort of shape, pessimism still holds the majority in consumer confidence and gas prices hang around the $3.50 range, even some of the so-called front runners in the GOP at this point might be able to squeak out a win. And it would most likely, as Charlie Cook predicts anyway, mean a tough election for Congressional Democrats in both houses.
Gasoline isn’t going to go down anytime soon as the unrest continues to roil the ME and N Africa. And if something happens in Saudi Arabia, all bets are off. But it is interesting to see how quickly the price of one commodity – albeit a critical commodity – can turn sunshine to gloom with the public. It is something to watch going forward.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
Michael Kinsley goes on a bit of a tear about states subsidizing the film industry in an LA Times piece. Kinsley is just flat upset that states are giving way subsidies to “millionaires”. Frankly, I don’t think government should be subsidizing any industry. But back to Kinsley:
Government, in order to work, must be a monopoly. The appeal of the movie industry to beleaguered state treasurers, in addition to its glamour, is its mobility. There are no huge factories. Regardless of where the movie is supposedly set, it can be shot almost anywhere. And it will employ locals and spend money.
But mobility giveth and mobility taketh away. Pit the states against one another and the subsidies will inevitably become more generous and less effective at the same time.
The same logic applies when the competition is foreign. True, we might tire of having to watch film after film often implausibly set in Vancouver. But in any attempt to outbid Canada for the privilege of hosting a movie shoot, even a successful effort will be self-defeating.
"Governors and legislatures should call ‘cut!’ on cynical efforts to kill forward-looking incentive programs for film and TV production, in New Mexico and in all other states," Richardson says.
"Cynical" is an odd word to describe people (and there aren’t many) who want deeply indebted state governments to stop forgoing billions in tax revenue in the futile effort to entice the movie business to make its next western in Erie, Penn., or wherever.
Whatever indeed. I don’t disagree. For once I can give Kinsley kudos.
Well, almost. In the same article he says, talking about Bill Richardson, former governor of New Mexico (and the “Richardson” quoted above):
Richardson might well be a candidate for one of the "respected elder statesman" seats that come open every generation (sort of an American version of the British House of Lords, only chosen by the media instead of the government), bringing with them memberships of prestigious commissions, offers of ambassadorships, opportunities to express concern on "Charlie Rose" or the PBS "NewsHour" shows (if those institutions manage to survive the current Republican onslaught) and so on.
Yes, you caught it. He’s talking about the subsidy the Federal government gives the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a multi-million dollar corporation that helps fund PBS, another multi-million dollar tax subsidized entity.
Irony – still a mystery to much of the left.
Next Kinsley will be urging us to buy a book on how to save the trees.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
Just watch – and don’t try to tell me afterwards that it is due to “market failure”:
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!