Ed Pearl
Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:52:12 -0800
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/opinion/23krugman.html?th&emc=th Stuck in the Muddle By Paul Krugman NY Times Op-Ed: January 22, 2009 Like anyone who pays attention to business and financial news, I am in a state of high economic anxiety. Like everyone of good will, I hoped that President Obama's Inaugural Address would offer some reassurance, that it would suggest that the new administration has this thing covered. But it was not to be. I ended Tuesday less confident about the direction of economic policy than I was in the morning. Just to be clear, there wasn't anything glaringly wrong with the address - although for those still hoping that Mr. Obama will lead the way to universal health care, it was disappointing that he spoke only of health care's excessive cost, never once mentioning the plight of the uninsured and underinsured. Also, one wishes that the speechwriters had come up with something more inspiring than a call for an "era of responsibility" - which, not to put too fine a point on it, was the same thing former President George W. Bush called for eight years ago. But my real problem with the speech, on matters economic, was its conventionality. In response to an unprecedented economic crisis - or, more accurately, a crisis whose only real precedent is the Great Depression - Mr. Obama did what people in Washington do when they want to sound serious: he spoke, more or less in the abstract, of the need to make hard choices and stand up to special interests. That's not enough. In fact, it's not even right. Thus, in his speech Mr. Obama attributed the economic crisis in part to "our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age" - but I have no idea what he meant. This is, first and foremost, a crisis brought on by a runaway financial industry. And if we failed to rein in that industry, it wasn't because Americans "collectively" refused to make hard choices; the American public had no idea what was going on, and the people who did know what was going on mostly thought deregulation was a great idea. Or consider this statement from Mr. Obama: "Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed." The first part of this passage was almost surely intended as a paraphrase of words that John Maynard Keynes wrote as the world was plunging into the Great Depression - and it was a great relief, after decades of knee-jerk denunciations of government, to hear a new president giving a shout-out to Keynes. "The resources of nature and men's devices," Keynes wrote, "are just as fertile and productive as they were. The rate of our progress towards solving the material problems of life is not less rapid. We are as capable as before of affording for everyone a high standard of life. ... But today we have involved ourselves in a colossal muddle, having blundered in the control of a delicate machine, the working of which we do not understand." But something was lost in translation. Mr. Obama and Keynes both assert that we're failing to make use of our economic capacity. But Keynes's insight - that we're in a "muddle" that needs to be fixed - somehow was replaced with standard we're-all-at-fault, let's-get-tough-on-ourselves boilerplate. Remember, Herbert Hoover didn't have a problem making unpleasant decisions: he had the courage and toughness to slash spending and raise taxes in the face of the Great Depression. Unfortunately, that just made things worse. Still, a speech is just a speech. The members of Mr. Obama's economic team certainly understand the extraordinary nature of the mess we're in. So the tone of Tuesday's address may signify nothing about the Obama administration's future policy. On the other hand, Mr. Obama is, as his predecessor put it, the decider. And he's going to have to make some big decisions very soon. In particular, he's going to have to decide how bold to be in his moves to sustain the financial system, where the outlook has deteriorated so drastically that a surprising number of economists, not all of them especially liberal, now argue that resolving the crisis will require the temporary nationalization of some major banks. So is Mr. Obama ready for that? Or were the platitudes in his Inaugural Address a sign that he'll wait for the conventional wisdom to catch up with events? If so, his administration will find itself dangerously behind the curve. And that's not a place that we want the new team to be. The economic crisis grows worse, and harder to resolve, with each passing week. If we don't get drastic action soon, we may find ourselves stuck in the muddle for a very long time. *** http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/middleeast/22gaza.html?ref=world This is not an op-ed, but a startling turn-around for NY Times news. It ignores the murderous assault by Israel, the horrors visited on civilians in Gaza and reaction in the rest of the world. But it presents a realistic analysis of Palestine's political situation to its readership, not even 'balancing' it with an Israeli government or US neocon critique, alongside. This alone would be a major improvement, but may also reflect a similar dynamic going on, albeit reluctantly, within the Obama administration. Assuridly, the Times phones are now being blistereed by AIPAC, et al. Ed On Palestinian Question, Tough Choices for Obama By STEVEN ERLANGER NY Times: January 21, 2009 JERUSALEM - With the rule of Hamas in Gaza apparently unchallenged and its popularity growing in the West Bank, the new Obama administration faces an immediate policy choice: support a Palestinian unity government, as Egypt and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, want, or continue to isolate Hamas and concentrate on building up the West Bank as a political alternative to radical Islam. The issue is urgent because of the international effort to rebuild a bombed-out Gaza while trying to avoid letting Hamas take credit for the reconstruction, as Hezbollah did in southern Lebanon after the 2006 war. But the choice is more fundamental. It goes to the heart of what President Obama can accomplish in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process when the Palestinian side remains violently divided against itself. In a series of calls to Middle Eastern leaders on Wednesday, President Obama did not tip his hand, simply calling for a role for the Palestinian Authority in Gaza's reconstruction. But many Middle East experts are eager to hear whether the Obama administration will try to create a credible, unified Palestinian government that could negotiate and enforce a state-to-state relationship with Israel, the essence of the so-called two-state solution that has dominated peace negotiations. "This is a moment of very tough choices, with no dominant approach with obvious advantages," said Gidi Grinstein, president of the Reut Institute, a policy research group in Tel Aviv. "Obama is being pushed to go for a Palestinian national unity government, negotiations and a comprehensive settlement. But it would be a mistake to push the two-state solution toward a moment of truth when it is in a moment of weakness, and when there is both a civil war and a deep constitutional crisis on the Palestinian side." Egypt, Saudi Arabia and even some in Israel favor a national unity government that would enable the Palestinian Authority to be seen as at least notionally in charge of the rebuilding in Gaza. But even if the antipathies between Hamas and Fatah, which controls the West Bank, could be overcome, a deal would almost certainly entail early elections that Fatah might very well lose. The Gaza war has been bad for Fatah, and its popularity is plunging. Hamas is feeling victorious after surviving the Israeli pounding and is unlikely to allow Fatah to restore its presence, even for an election, in an angry Gaza. The essential issue, and not for the first time, is whether Israel and the West should engage Hamas as an indisputable fact, in the hope that Israeli military power and political reality will trump Hamas's religious conviction that Israel must be destroyed, or instead continue to confront and isolate Hamas, in the hope that Fatah can somehow be resurrected or some third force be created around Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who is seen as a more capable leader. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France is trying to get ahead of the argument, suggesting that France would deal with Hamas as part of a national unity government that rejects the use of violence. But putting such a government together will not be easy, and Hamas has said its demands will be tougher than before the war. These will include the release of all Hamas political prisoners held in the West Bank and the opening of the crossings into Gaza. "Hamas feels it has come out unbroken and popular among Palestinians and Arabs," said Khalil Shikaki, a Palestinian analyst and pollster. "French statements also embolden it. Hamas won't accept a government led by Fayyad and would want to lead it," a prospect, he added, that Mr. Abbas "would find hard to accept." Part of the deal would be early elections in the next six months, he said. Hamas no longer recognizes the authority of Mr. Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, whose four-year term as president should have run out on Jan. 9, but which he insists has been extended under emergency procedures. Hamas has never recognized the legitimacy of the unelected Mr. Fayyad. Mr. Abbas has proposed early elections for his office and the legislature, which Hamas won in free elections in 2006. But he also wants to change the electoral rules to benefit Fatah, making the election a straight vote for parties and removing the constituency voting for individual candidates that so benefited Hamas last time. Hamas rejects the changes and elections for legislators before their four-year terms expire a year from now. Yet if Hamas did accept early elections as part of a negotiated national government or accord, it could win the presidency, said Zakariya al-Qaq, a political scientist at Al Quds University in Jerusalem, for Mr. Abbas is considered a spent force. His months of negotiation with Israel and the United States have been fruitless, while he has failed to reform Fatah, which many Palestinians still consider to be collaborationist and corrupt. Many Palestinians also think he was too passive and too late in protesting the Israeli war in Gaza and the civilian deaths because he secretly wanted Hamas eradicated, Mr. Qaq said. "Abu Mazen looked weak and had nothing to say, and Hamas comes out looking like the leader," he added. "People think the man is over. It's not a question now of the legality of Abu Mazen, but his legitimacy as a leader." Mark Regev, the Israeli government spokesman, said Israel believed that Hamas had been damaged politically in the war. "We think it's a very low probability that Hamas will do well in a future Palestinian election," he said. Many analysts disagree. Yossi Alpher, the Israeli co-director of www.bitterlemons.org, a Web site that promotes Israeli-Palestinian dialogue online, said that if there were a unity government, there would probably be new elections. "Given Hamas's political gains and Abu Mazen's losses, Hamas could win them, and then end up running not just Gaza but the West Bank, too, at least politically," he said. Mr. Obama is not the only new leader on the horizon. Israeli elections are scheduled for Feb. 10, and the conservative candidate, Benjamin Netanyahu of Likud, is expected to win. Mr. Netanyahu supported the war and believes that Hamas is an eternal enemy, an ally of Iran, and must be defeated. Mr. Grinstein, of the policy research group in Tel Aviv, said that in the current confusion, it might be better for Mr. Obama not to reach for "unobtainable objectives," but instead to explore an older idea: recognition of Palestinian sovereignty while the borders are still being negotiated and Israel unilaterally pulls out of more West Bank settlements. Ziad Abu Amr, an independent legislator from Gaza close to both Fatah and Hamas, said he hoped that this time the international community would support a Palestinian unity government and open the crossings. Negotiation will be difficult, he said, but Hamas is a reality, and "maybe this is the time to engage Hamas and the other factions, since Hamas showed a lot of pragmatism and accepted this cease-fire." With Mr. Obama, he said, "this idea may be revived - it requires some wisdom and flexibility, and the international community should respect the choice of the Palestinian people." As for Israel, he said, "we'll just have to see what emerges on the other side." ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:laamn-unsubscr...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:laamn-subscr...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:laamn-dig...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:laamn-ow...@egroups.com?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:la...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/la...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:laamn-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:laamn-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: laamn-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/