In the last two months, I have been in eight US cities — Boston, New York, Washington, Houston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. Phew! I am left with several sentiments.
First, if you have to travel from city to city in the US, you would do yourself a favor if you could find a way of journeying by train. The airlines are pretty awful. They are lucky that hostility to competition in what purports to be the homeland of free-market capitalism has kept Asian airlines out of their domestic marketplace. Do American air travelers know just how bad the service that they get really is?
US airports are as dire as British ones, maybe worse. Los Angeles gets the Oscar, with Soviet-style queues through security. How is it that the US gives us Silicon Valley wizardry and Third World infrastructure?
But, for all the misery of air travel, when you get to your destination it can still blow your socks off. The lakeside architecture of Chicago. The sight of Puget Sound in Seattle (one of my favorite cities). The view across San Francisco’s bay from Nob Hill. Park Avenue in New York on a fine late spring morning. They are all, to borrow from Frank Sinatra, “my kind of town.”
What is surprising for a European — at least for this European — at the moment is the relative optimism in all these cities. Yes, the economic news has been and remains grim. Much of the automobile industry is bust. Car dealerships are being closed. House prices remain pretty flat. Unemployment and the budget deficit are soaring. But there is not the same sense of gloom that envelops you in Britain and much of Europe.
EBULLIENCE
My guess is that much of this is the result of traditional American ebullience: the view that what goes down will sooner or later bounce back up. This is one of the reasons why the US has represented a quarter or more of the world’s output for the best part of 150 years.
But there is another factor at work.
We often talk — a good Marxist point — about the impact of economics on politics. And we have seen this recently in Britain. Down goes the economy and down goes the Labour government’s standing.
Britain’s Labour government is just about as unpopular as it is possible to be. It performed disastrously in recent elections for local councils and the European Parliament. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is sustained in office primarily by the calculation of his ministers that getting rid of him would trigger an early election that they would lose heavily.
But what about the impact of politics on economics? That is what I believe you see today in the US. The economy may look bad, but the president looks great. Despite the ubiquitous efforts of Fox News, Barack Obama dominates, enthralls and enthuses the audience of voters — consumers, workers, investors, one and all. He is, as one US commentator calls him, The One.
EVERY TALENT
Obama seems to have every political talent, and he passes the character test too. Moreover, his wife is a star in her own formidable right. Turn on any TV channel and there they are: glamorous, decent and smart.
So while the economic numbers may look bad, the country’s political leadership looks great. And if you’re an American, you observe other countries around the world (especially in Europe) where people say, “If only he was ours.”
I am a fan myself: a fan with two worries. First, what happens if politics does not trump economics and Obama’s policies don’t start to produce a recovery? That is when the old political calculus may take its grim toll. If there are no signs of economic recovery by the end of the year, the polls may start to turn. Obama is smart enough to understand this.
So why — my second worry — does he take quite so much on his own shoulders?
Every day, on every news bulletin, he is out there swinging. He might argue that he has to be. There are so many issues, from healthcare reform to the Middle East, that need his attention.
I just worry about the boredom factor. If you assume that governing is like campaigning — that you have to be on top of the debate 24 hours a day, seven days a week — can you really anticipate a long shelf life?
Don’t you risk becoming, even if you are smart as hell, too much of a good thing?
I hope I am wrong. Obama is a star. The world needs one. But it needs one who continues to shine brightly for several years to come.
Chris Patten is a former EU commissioner for external relations and was the last British governor of Hong Kong. He is currently chancellor of Oxford University and a member of the House of Lords.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS