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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 08:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 08:43 am (UTC)If I were Obama I wouldn't really want to talk to Gordon. Heck, the only reason I want to talk to him as me is so I can have a good rant.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 08:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 08:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 08:52 am (UTC)You backing Dave for the win then?
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 08:57 am (UTC)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 09:12 am (UTC)On the other hand a relatively modestly endowed country can go a long way to the economic top table with a system of free trade and secure property rights.
H
no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 09:32 am (UTC)Meanwhile Europe stands a lovely holiday destination, but if he needs anything from them he can work on the UN/EU as appropriate. Its not as though America really *needs* much from them that requires special attention.
Meanwhile China, Russia et al have a much shakier relationship with the US, but do have something to offer. How much stronger is your negotiating position with europe when you have some pull with China?
no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 09:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 09:40 am (UTC)Un-Australian is hurled around in Australian politics at anyone who is too clever, not prepared to go along with the masses or considers the wellbeing of any human outside of Australia.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 10:56 am (UTC)As you (and Hobbs) said, Power comes from Property Ownership, and right now China owns a huge chunk of the US. Or would, if they called in their markers.
Not sure what's up with the Russia love. Oil? Wanting to get some nukes out of the equation? Poking at Condoleezza Rice?
no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 10:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 10:58 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?
no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 11:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 02:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 08:36 pm (UTC)We squabbling coffee aunties in Europe still continue to have most of the nice toys and it has been in the interest of the Yanks to look after them for us for the last 50 years or so. Presently I genuinely see nothing in our Foreign Policy beyond the hope that they will continue to do so. This means that we simply have to do as we are told as we have done since Suez.
Japan, which might be said to be in the same position in relation to Asia as Britain is to Europe, has no choice. Her freedom from the Middle Kingdom is only assured as long as America has the will and power to maintain it.
Britain however has a choice; the Krauts, Frogs, Macaronis, Dagoes and Polacks are all about our level (yeah ok the Krauts are a bit harder than the rest of us, but hey if they want to run our economic policies I'm cool with that). Together, if we could be arsed, we are actually a match economically,politically and militarilly for any one else. So, if you are right and it is in America's own interest to turn her Sauronic eye elsewhere, is it not in our best interest to get stuck in to the European project? We might even be able to run it.
Clearly the present constitution is cock (no right of secession? where have I seen that before?) but that is because we don't care, if you will make our Founding Father a failed French President with a Diana obsession you have no one to blame but yourself.
D
no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 11:09 pm (UTC)Regarding resources, have you read The Bottom Billion by Paul Collier? He makes a very convincing case for the resource trap theory.
A question of purchasing power?
Date: 2009-10-12 11:48 pm (UTC)Likewise, I wonder at what new Great Game is afoot in continental Africa, and I can only hope that Africans' destinies are as materially beneficial as they are self-determined.
Now, back to Asia, they are gaining the role as global creditors (depending on how well they do against Arab States' investment banks), but their fortunes are inseparably linked to that of the US and other investment pools. China, Japan, and India are all facing, in different degrees, starvation without globalization.
Re: A question of purchasing power?
Date: 2009-10-13 07:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-13 07:06 am (UTC)Re: A question of purchasing power?
Date: 2009-10-13 07:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-13 07:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-13 08:07 am (UTC)Re: A question of purchasing power?
Date: 2009-10-13 08:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-13 08:28 am (UTC)But that isn't what the 'EU' is about. It's about jobs for politicians too awful to get elected.
In much the same way as I find the idea of having a car rather attractive, but wouldn't part with my own money for a Renault, I find the idea of a small organisation who would negotiate harmonised standards and lowered tariffs across Europe before making recommendations to national governments attractive, but I don't want to pay for the one I'm being offered as it is unfit for purpose. I'll keep voting to leave and spending my disposable income on non European products until the message sinks in.
Re: A question of purchasing power?
Date: 2009-10-13 01:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-13 04:45 pm (UTC)D
no subject
Date: 2009-10-14 08:42 am (UTC)The last time I checked, prophets in the wilderness were the ones preaching against the political establishment, not for it. I don't remember John the Baptist going round telling people that King Herod was just a misunderstood lover of children, for example.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-14 06:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-14 11:56 pm (UTC)I think it is a wilderness position to champion a United States of Europe, it seems a bit harsh to claim I am jumping on a populist bandwagon.
Is it really a horror movie premise to think the America will one day be challenged and not want to have to support her whether or not the cause be just?
D
no subject
Date: 2009-10-15 08:42 am (UTC)Whilst I would like to be a member of a European trading bloc which genuinely advantaged the citizens of it's member states by lowering trade barriers and improving infrastructure, this aint it.
I would feel different if the 'EU' could account for 97% of it's budget instead of 8%, and improved my standard of living instead of costing me £2250 pa (source: Brussels Group). It's not the concept I object to. It's the reality.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-16 12:04 am (UTC)I'll lend you Clark's Civilisation next week.
D
no subject
Date: 2009-10-16 12:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-16 08:36 am (UTC)I do not wish us to continue impoverishing ourselves now, in exchange for some extremely hypothetical future protection from a hypothetical future threat.
Where you at?
no subject
Date: 2009-10-18 07:52 pm (UTC)Just to annoy you personally, they have built some really nice roads with your money.
(The pop was at Bush III).
D
no subject
Date: 2009-10-19 05:01 pm (UTC)It's the illigitimate & unneccessary 'legislature' which I oppose. If they stuck to their mandate of extablishing a free trade area, and did so honestly, I'd have no issues with the Common Market at all.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-19 10:38 pm (UTC)Bored now, e mail me about the weekend instead.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-20 08:26 am (UTC)Be as insincere as you like.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-20 11:09 am (UTC)D
no subject
Date: 2009-10-24 03:10 pm (UTC)