I want to deviate from my usual economic theme this month and focus instead on the system by which the press -- mostly the US press -- covers government nowadays.
But perhaps this is not too great a deviation, for the behavior of the press affects not only politics, but economics as well.
Consider an editorial written in March by the Washington Post's editorial director, Fred Hiatt, in which he makes a very small and limited apology for the paper's coverage and evaluation of the Bush administration.
According to Hiatt, "We raised such issues" as whether the Bush administration had properly thought its proposed adventure in Iraq through, "but with insufficient force." In other words, Hiatt finds fault with himself and his organization for saying the right thing, but not loudly enough.
Next, consider a comment by the former editor of the New York Times, Max Frankel, about how the Washington ecology of media leaks is healthy, because "most reporters do not just lazily regurgitate ... leaks." Instead, "they use them as wedges to pry out other secrets" and so oversee the government. The system may be "sloppy and breed confusion," but "tolerating abusive leaks by government [that misinform] is the price that society has to pay for the benefit of receiving essential leaks about government."
So, where Hiatt sees a press corps that was a little too cowardly about overseeing the Bush administration, Frankel sees a press corps where a sloppy and confusing process is nevertheless doing a reasonable job. I see a very different picture.
It was the summer of 2000 when I began asking Republicans I know -- generally people who might be natural candidates for various sub-Cabinet policy positions in a Republican administration -- how worried they were that the Republican presidential candidate, Texas governor George W. Bush, was clearly not up to the job.
They were not worried, they told me, that Bush was inadequately briefed and strangely incurious for a man who sought the most powerful office in the world. One of president Bill Clinton's problems, they said, was that the ceremonial portions of the job bored him -- and thus he got himself into big trouble.
Look at how Bush had operated as president of the Texas Rangers baseball club, they said. Bush let the managers manage the team and the financial guys run the business. He spent his time making sure the political coalition to support the Texas Rangers in the style to which it wanted to be accustomed remained stable.
Bush knows his strengths and weaknesses, they told me. He will focus on being the US Queen Elizabeth II, and will let people like secretary of state Colin Powell and treasury secretary Paul O' Neill be the US' British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown.
By the summer of 2001, it had become clear that something had gone very wrong. By that point, Bush had rejected O'Neill's and Christine Todd Whitman's advice on environmental policy, just as he had rejected Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan's and O'Neill's advice on fiscal policy, Powell's and then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's advice on the importance of pushing forward on negotiations between Israel and Palestine, and -- as we learned later -- former CIA director George Tenet's and Richard Clarke's advice about the importance of counterterrorism.
A strange picture of Bush emerged from conversations with sub-Cabinet administration appointees, their friends and their friends of friends. He was not just under-briefed, but also lazy: he insisted on remaining under-briefed. He was not just incurious, but also arrogant: He insisted on making uninformed decisions, and hence made decisions that were essentially random. And he was stubborn: once he had made a decision -- even, or rather especially, if it was glaringly wrong and stupid -- he would never revisit it.
So, by the summer of 2001, a pattern was set that would lead British observer Daniel Davies to ask if there was a Bush administration policy on anything of even moderate importance that had not been completely bollixed up. But if you relied on either the Washington Post or the New York Times, you would have had a very hard time seeing it.
Today, it is an accepted fact that the kindest thing you can say about the Bush administration is that it is completely incompetent, which is the line now taken by hard-line Bush supporters like the National Review and the commentator Robert Novak.
Why didn't the US press corps cover the Bush administration properly for its first five years? I really do not know. I do know that the world cannot afford to rely again on US' press for its information: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
So I appeal to all of you working for newspapers, radio, and TV stations outside the US: It is to you that we -- including those of us in the US -- must look to discover what our own government is doing.
J. Bradford DeLong, professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley, was assistant US Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with