One night, in a bar in Zanzibar, I saw two sex workers chatting up a couple of Germans. The Germans were in their 50s, paunchy and balding — the women were young and pretty. It was a painful sight, the Germans plying the women with drinks and single entendre; the women laughing as though their lives depended on it, which in a way they did.
But after a while the true pathos became apparent: The Germans actually thought that these young women were interested in them because of who they were rather than what they had — money. That their dazzling personalities and dashing good looks had magically transformed them into irresistible specimens of manhood. Mistaking the possibility of a commercial transaction for the unlikelihood of sexual attraction, their eyes lingered on the mirror behind the bar as they started preening themselves, as though their looks mattered.
Power, whether you wield it or not, has a way of shading our sense of selves and others. In The Audacity of Hope, US president-elect Barack Obama recalls a businessman seeing former US vice president Al Gore shortly after the 2000 election.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
“During the campaign I would take his calls any time of day,” the executive said. “But suddenly, after the election, I couldn’t help feeling that the meeting was a chore. At some level he wasn’t Al Gore, former vice-president. He was just one of the hundred guys a day who are coming to me looking for money. It made me realize what a big steep cliff you guys are on.”
The US may be perched on the edge of a similar precipice. The degree to which it commands its hegemony through wealth and might (hard power) as opposed to culture and democratic example (soft power) has long been an open question. The personal aspiration, individual liberty and social meritocracy that are central to its national brand have an almost universal appeal. But how much that ethos makes sense without wealth and power is another matter. People need a social ladder worth climbing and something to do with their freedoms when they get to the top.
Have Caribbean kids been ditching cricket for basketball because it is faster and slicker or because it offers the possibility of university scholarships, riches and fame? Was Obama’s victory any more miraculous than Bolivian President Evo Morales’ — he was the first indigenous Bolivian to rule his country — or do we just know and care more about it because of the US’ impact on our lives? What is Sex and the City without the shopping and the skyline? By almost any count Sweden has greater gender equality and liberated sexual mores than the US. Yet would the escapades of four single women in Stockholm stand a chance of becoming an international blockbuster, even if it were in English? Unlikely.
The truth is that US economic and cultural power are so inextricably woven that to separate them would be to see the whole thing unravel before your eyes. Both are fundamental to how the rest of the world views the US and how Americans view themselves.
And yet, with the simultaneous transition of Obama’s ascent to the White House and the national economy’s descent into long-term decline, countervailing pressures are pushing those two factors in contradictory directions. Abroad, US political leadership has never been so popular or so impotent. At home, Americans have never felt so excited about what their country might become or so apprehensive about where it might be heading. The next few months are shaping up to be truly Dickensian: the best of times, and the worst of times.
On the one hand, almost three weeks after the election, Obama still peers out from posters and badges. The warm glow of his victory still radiates and few seem keen to snuff out the flame. On the subway in New York last weekend an African-American woman in her 50s asked me what I thought of “our new president.” We talked politics until my stop, exchanged a handshake and a hug. I dare say I’ll never see her again.
The disappointing composition of his transition team (if he was going to appoint half of former US president Bill Clinton’s Cabinet, why not just let Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton have the nomination?) has done nothing to blunt the enthusiasm. Two months before he takes office Obama enjoys a 61 percent approval rating. If the rest of the world were polled, it would be even higher. As his triumph was announced, public celebrations erupted in almost every time zone. It is difficult to think of a moment when there has been more global goodwill towards an American leader, let alone such a dramatic reversal of attitude towards US leadership.
On the other hand, it is difficult to think of a moment when Americans felt more depressed about the state of their country or were less able to enforce their will on the world. Just one in six believe that the country is heading in the right direction, and consumer confidence is at a historical low. A country wedded to the notion that every year will be better than the last, and every generation more prosperous than the last, has seen social mobility stall and the past look more promising than the future. Meanwhile, thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan, the nation’s military is hopelessly overstretched and its reputation for invincibility lies shattered. Diplomatically, it is out of moral capital. Economically, it is out of plain old capital.
While these two trends coincide, they are not moving in lockstep. The presidential transition is hostage to a definite time period — Obama will not take the oath for another 57 days. Meanwhile, the scale and pace of the economic decline is indefinite. Less than two months ago, Citigroup was one vulture swooping in to feed from the carcass of the failed Wachovia bank. With its shares now in freefall and its chief executive in peril, Citigroup now looks set to become carrion itself. Obama wants to try and save the big three car manufacturers; it remains to be seen how many will be left by his inauguration.
So Obama’s win may have been a lesson for the rest of the world, as claimed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
“Electing a black president says around the world that you can overcome old wounds,” she told the New York Times last weekend. “I’ve said in our case, we have a birth defect, but it can be overcome.”
The trouble is the rest of the world no longer needs to attend the lectures.
“Owing to the relative decline of its economic and, to a lesser extent, military power, the US will no longer have the same flexibility in choosing among as many policy options,” the National Intelligence Council (NIC) said last week.
The report acknowledged that while the US would remain the single most powerful force in the world, its relative strength and potential leverage are in decline.
It doesn’t take a genius to work this out. Which is just as well, since there are clearly few geniuses in the NIC. Its last forecast, in December 2004, predicted “continued US dominance,” and oil and gas supplies “sufficient to meet global demand.”
It can take time for perception to catch up with reality. By the time those Germans figured out their true aesthetic value, they may well have been broke.
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS