Barack Obama.
Oct. 12th, 2009 09:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyA common claim I’ve seen bandied about on the internet is that Obama is ‘Un-American’. A handy catch all phrase this, as the speaker doesn’t really have to explain what it means but it sounds pretty damning all the same. Leaving aside the socialization of medicine argument that the US is having with itself at the moment (that’s an internal affair and entirely their own business), the second most common reason for Obamas UnAmerican-ness is that he’s cosying up to some people traditionally not seen as the best friends of the USA (like China and Russia) and not so much repudiating as simply ignoring the US’ old allies in Europe, leaving people like Gordon Brown and Silvio Berlusconi hanging round looking as lonely as ugly kids at a school dance.
When Gordon Brown first whizzed over to Washington, all full of himself due to being the first international leader to be invited after the inauguration, Obama gave him five minutes and then said he had to go because he had an important meeting with the Boy Scouts of America, but here’s a box set of DVDs to entertain you on the way home. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
At the time I saw this as a move straight out of Machiavelli; when greeting the ruler of a supplicant people, he wrote, always be cruel first, to let them know you can be. After that you can be as kind as you like, but they will always know where they stand.
Subsequent to that, however, I stopped being so sure. Various Euro-leaders desperate for a bit of the Obama shine have been politely accommodated but not exactly been the bosom buddies they once were under Clinton or Bush.
Anyway, I've lately been browsing Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. It's a pretty hard read, in that way that anything written 400 years ago which isn't Shakespeare tends to be, but he makes several points which it's handy to be reminded of from time to time - cheif amongst them being that Political Power derives from the Ownership of Property. It's one of those things which is self-evident but is also often forgotten, especially at an individual level in Democracies where universal suffrage weakens it as a rule as my vote is, theoretically at least, worth as much as yours.
The more I think on it at a societal level, though, the more applications as a rule it has: for instance, it explains why Communism doesn't work. If all property is held in common, then nobody holds any property and so nobody has any political power except the lucky Comrade at the top of the heap who has power of disbursal over everything.
Back in the 1760s, both Benjamin Franklin and William Pitt realised that this rule meant somehting important: that the American colonies, with their effectively unlimited space and natural resources plus rapidly growing population, would sooner or later outstrip the mother country and the centre of political and economic power would shift from Westminster to the east coast of the Americas. They advised Westminster to make accomodation with this in order to prevent an otherwise inevitable split, but it was ignored with rather famous historical results.
As it was, thanks to the success of other colonies in india, Africa and Australasia, it took longer for this shift to take place (About 180 years) than perhaps they expected, but happen it did - and I can't help but find myself wondering if we're seeing a situation again in which a shift of political and economic power from the Atlantic to the Pacific Rim is now almost an inevitability. China, Russia and India are all in a comparable position to the American colonies with huge potential natural resources and rapidly growing populations. In other words, the amount of property ownership, and hence political power on a global and realpolitikal scale is growing. I'm wondering if Obama is looking to avoid the error made by the British 230 years ago and is trying to come to an accomodation with growing powers before they outstrip the US.
With an aging population and a declining economic base, sidelining Europe, no matter how much it stings them, certainly makes solid political sense from his position.
When Gordon Brown first whizzed over to Washington, all full of himself due to being the first international leader to be invited after the inauguration, Obama gave him five minutes and then said he had to go because he had an important meeting with the Boy Scouts of America, but here’s a box set of DVDs to entertain you on the way home. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
At the time I saw this as a move straight out of Machiavelli; when greeting the ruler of a supplicant people, he wrote, always be cruel first, to let them know you can be. After that you can be as kind as you like, but they will always know where they stand.
Subsequent to that, however, I stopped being so sure. Various Euro-leaders desperate for a bit of the Obama shine have been politely accommodated but not exactly been the bosom buddies they once were under Clinton or Bush.
Anyway, I've lately been browsing Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. It's a pretty hard read, in that way that anything written 400 years ago which isn't Shakespeare tends to be, but he makes several points which it's handy to be reminded of from time to time - cheif amongst them being that Political Power derives from the Ownership of Property. It's one of those things which is self-evident but is also often forgotten, especially at an individual level in Democracies where universal suffrage weakens it as a rule as my vote is, theoretically at least, worth as much as yours.
The more I think on it at a societal level, though, the more applications as a rule it has: for instance, it explains why Communism doesn't work. If all property is held in common, then nobody holds any property and so nobody has any political power except the lucky Comrade at the top of the heap who has power of disbursal over everything.
Back in the 1760s, both Benjamin Franklin and William Pitt realised that this rule meant somehting important: that the American colonies, with their effectively unlimited space and natural resources plus rapidly growing population, would sooner or later outstrip the mother country and the centre of political and economic power would shift from Westminster to the east coast of the Americas. They advised Westminster to make accomodation with this in order to prevent an otherwise inevitable split, but it was ignored with rather famous historical results.
As it was, thanks to the success of other colonies in india, Africa and Australasia, it took longer for this shift to take place (About 180 years) than perhaps they expected, but happen it did - and I can't help but find myself wondering if we're seeing a situation again in which a shift of political and economic power from the Atlantic to the Pacific Rim is now almost an inevitability. China, Russia and India are all in a comparable position to the American colonies with huge potential natural resources and rapidly growing populations. In other words, the amount of property ownership, and hence political power on a global and realpolitikal scale is growing. I'm wondering if Obama is looking to avoid the error made by the British 230 years ago and is trying to come to an accomodation with growing powers before they outstrip the US.
With an aging population and a declining economic base, sidelining Europe, no matter how much it stings them, certainly makes solid political sense from his position.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 08:52 am (UTC)In his shoes, Merkel would be the only European leader I'd answer the phone to.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 08:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 09:11 am (UTC)Ferguson observes (In 'Yhe Ascent of Money') that assets don't make you 'rich' they just give your creditors more security. In other words, owning stuff makes you credible.
Disposable income makes you rich.
So, why don't we own anything? Well, 'ownership' is pretty fluid these days, and if I was rich enough not to need to waste time blogging, I'd be much more likely to want to own something in a low tax regime than a high tax regime.
Sensible tax rates = political influence? I think so.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 09:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 10:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 11:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 10:59 am (UTC)In the same way as competence results in influence, incompetents are sidelined. What would Obama want from him?