The Chilly Mist of Sovereignty

It has been a couple years since I have had a direct window into the inner workings of tools of sovereignty in an emerging market country. But I had the opportunity again this month, and I am as convicted as ever about the "commercial" nature of the enterprise. I find it remarkable how, in every country, there are folks who are instinctively good at grabbing and pulling the levers of sovereign power. No matter how poor, how small, or how newly-emerged from sectarian violence a country, such people exist there, and they make it to the halls of government. They know how to dress, how to speak judiciously, how to demonstrate control over their subordinates - how to exude power. They generally also master the language of serving the best interests of their constituents.

In many places, however, they also know something else. They know how to work behind this imagery in a relentless pursuit of personal or business enrichment. While the public facade is all about subjects that would play well in any IMF consultation, UN General Assembly session, or press conference, discussions behind the scenes can quickly turn quite concretely to the subject of the personal or business "take" for the minister or other official in question. Of course, there should be no surprise in any of that behavior. This kind of "corruption" (as it is termed in the west) is all too-well understood. But seeing it up close and personal can be quite a shock, no matter how many times one has been through it before. It is very easy to become wrapped up in the language of helping a poor population, and considering what can be done legitimately to advance its health, education, and general welfare. Perhaps it is the heat of that excitement which exacerbates the shocking chill of the next part of the discussion. And, in my experience, an unwillingness to engage the chillier topic usually prevents any role in the warmer work.

I harbor no criticism, either of the system that creates the officials who behave this way, or of the system that has molded my thinking and that causes my reactions. I see vast numbers of people suffering deeply under both systems. And I see stark enrichment at the "top" of both systems. I suppose what I lament most is the persistence of the inaccurate mythology about sovereignty. It is fundamentally not about helping others; it is fundamentally about helping ones' self to the national cookie jar, whatever its size or contents, limited only by the strength of domestic political organization. Of course, I would prefer things to be different, and I would welcome global leadership that would work in practical ways to effect change. But until we at least openly recognize the current reality, change will never be possible.

Who's Afraid of Stephen Colbert?

What does it say about the US Presidential race and the media when comedian Stephen Colbert writes about his candidacy in Maureen Dowd's New York Times column in the heat of the campaign? - less than 13 months before the election! I can promise you that no small group of voters thought approvingly about a Colbert presidency upon reading the column. Heck, his, or John Stewart's, candidacy has been raised at more cocktail parties this year than I can remember.

The US Presidency is one of the most powerful offices in the world. And the New York Times is one of the most respected newspapers in the world. Together, these institutions embody enough gravitas for a black hole. How can it be that Stephen Colbert can switch all that off? What does the New York Times editorial board know about US voters' attitudes that enables a "thumbs-up" for publication of Colbert's ramble?

The editorial decision might just have been taken just so the paper could look "hip" by tossing a bone to popular culture. That doesn't sound quite on to me, but it is possible. More likely, the New York Times has had to acknowledge that Comedy Central is nipping at its heels. And Comedy Central has been doing much more than nip when it comes to the White House. So to decline to publish Colbert not only would make the New York Times seem uncool, it would make the paper seem out of touch. Imagine Colbert telling the story on his show of arriving at Dowd's place, writing his column, and having the paper decline to publish. Ouch.

George and Dick - Who Knew?

David Brooks and Thomas Friedman came to the same view within the past couple days in their columns on the New York Times editorial page, although neither was so bold as to state the ultimate conclusion in black and white:

George W. Bush is a screaming liberal.

So, therefore, is Dick Cheney, I say. And I use "liberal" in the same vitriolic way that Republicans do when discussing "tax and spend" Democratic candidates. David and Tom describe a pretty highly appealing version of conservatism. A conservatism that is learned in the ways of individuals and societies. That is pragmatic about how far societal goals pragmatically ought to be set outside of range of what has already has developed. Conservatives observe that which is proven over the course of a given history. Steeped in the failure of revolutions, but the abiding success of evolution(ary change - apologies to those on the religious right), thinking conservatives choose their objectives and their means carefully. They may have lofty objectives, and they may desire big change. But they choose to get there incrementally, as they recognize that is the way most likely to succeed, statistically at least.

Liberals, on the other hand, first have grand ideas. They observe injustices in the world, and they then go about evaluating what could be done to address those injustices. Romantic about revolution(ary change - apologies to those who would not want to associate their thinking with Chavez' or Castro's), liberals seek "to think outside the box" in designing solutions that others are not considering. Solutions that may have unforeseen costs and unpredictable consequences, given their new or non-traditional nature. Liberal ideas occasionally succeed in a very big way, and the afterglow drives another generation of big thinkers.

Using essentially this framework, both David and Tom describe how George and Dick have let down a good segment of traditional Republican support. Rather than assembling a considered set of goals and means, based on critical examination of societies and cultures, George and Dick have opted to let their administration be dominated by a war which was poorly planned in the extreme and which has always had nothing but idealistic goals, untempered by obvious realities. I could see 60's hippy personalities being quite proud of the Bushies' grand aspirations and desire to spread democracy (if not US petrochemical profits) all around the world, all at a revolutionary stroke.

Perhaps those drug-infested days at Yale in the 1960s remain powerful influences in Bush's mind after all?