US Politics

Outrage is an emotion that should be kept out of rational discourse or responsible blogs. It leads to incoherence, screaming and shouting with no progress possible, except a catharsis for those yelling. Sorry, but the following will be more of a rant than a rational argument for there are two recent doings in the United States that really have my dander up.

First, Glenn Beck, the media star of the Tea Party movement, organized a meeting on August 28 at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, Sarah Palin included. When Beck reserved the site, he says he did not realize that August 28 is the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Beck’s rally, entitled “Restoring Honor,” was subsequently billed as a civil rights moment in the spirit of Dr. King. Forty-seven years have passed since over 200,000 people gathered in Washington in a crucial moment for truly emancipating people of color in the United States.

While the Memorial itself is associated with President Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation, Dr. King’s ringing words in 1963 gave added momentum to the civil rights movement which finally confirmed civil and political rights for all Americans.

Glenn Beck has called President Obama a racist. Beck, and many of his Tea Party followers, have incited racism in the United States. For him and his followers to use the memorial and appropriate the legacy of Dr. King is simply outrageous.

At the same time, a debate is raging in New York about the building of an Islamic community center two blocks from Ground Zero. The zoning commission of New York City gave unanimous approval. Opponents say that the building violates the memory of those killed during the terrorist attacks of September 11.

Although the center is not part of Ground Zero, protestors say it is an insult to the memory of those killed with obvious racist implications. The United States is a diverse, multicultural society. Downtown New York already has mosques. This is not sacred ground like the beaches of Normandy.

If the Lincoln Memorial as a site and the date of August 28 as a memorial to the civil rights movement are not hallowed, then the building of an Islamic center two blocks from Ground Zero is a non-issue. Those same people who are violating the memory of Lincoln and Dr. King are being outrageous in opposing the center.

Sorry about the rant. I don’t feel better.

Summertime is for holidays, and hopefully a bit of reflection away from the pressures of everyday work. The rhythm of waves pounding the sand leads to a different sense of time from the omnipresent telephone calls and e-mails. Here are a couple of thoughts from a beach in Greece and an isolated farmhouse in the Jura.

1) The recent controversy over the building of an Islamic Centre near Ground Zero in New York is undignified if not outrageous. Mayor Bloomberg had it right with other members of the Commission who unanimously voted yes. President Obama had it right the first time when he expressed approval, emphasizing the American tradition of religious tolerance. He was very wrong the next day when he hesitated by distinguishing the right to build the Centre from its appropriateness near hallowed ground.

2) The air pollution in Moscow from the fires in Russia as well as the consequent rise in wheat prices and the terrible floods in Pakistan are clear reminders that basic security needs are never guaranteed. As a result of the fires, the price of wheat has soared. For those who defend speculation on wheat as part of the market system even on primary goods, I would ask whether we will soon be speculating on the price of clean water or clean air.

3) General Petraeus has been backtracking on the exact date for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. When confirmed by the Senate several months ago, he said he was in complete agreement with the President’s timetable of July 2011. Now he seems less certain. Secretary of Defense Gates has indicated that he will be leaving his job sometime in 2011. Is President Obama still commanding the armed forces with a clear strategy and strong hand?

4) Arguments over a possible double dip in the U.S. recession have it wrong. Although the stock market remains high, unemployment continues to plague over 10% of working Americans. According to polls, this is the major issue for the American people. The Democrats will have to deal with this problem, more than the deficit, before the November elections if they are to maintain control of both houses of Congress.

The news business is going through difficult times. Advertising revenues are way down, with little clear understanding of the relationship between blogs and the internet to paper media.

For the moment, print is the big loser. But, whatever your media preference – I do assume people are still interested in getting the news, especially readers who are looking at this article – two recent stories show how valuable the media can be in checking the government while informing the public.

First, the Washington Post has published a three-part series on the exponential growth of the security industry in the United States. Reporters spent two years investigating the U.S. post-September 11, 2001 to reveal that 854,000 people hold top-security clearance, with 1,300 government organizations and 2,000 private companies dealing with counter-terrorism, homeland security and intelligence.

The bureaucratic overkill is indeed impressive, with little coordination, as might be expected. There are no good guys or bad guys here. Bureaucratic growth, as Max Weber explained long ago, is a neutral phenomenon that is hard to stop by anyone, even the President.

Once the security phobia was unleashed, the growth seemed inevitable. Its description, nonetheless, is gripping and not neutral. Clearly the series is a warning about waste and inefficiency.

Second, WikiLeaks has released 92,000 documents related to military reports from Afghanistan and Pakistan for the period 2004-2009 which were accompanied by analytical articles from the NY Times, Guardian and Der Spiegel.

Although much of the material was classified secret, nothing was revealed that put people’s lives in danger. What damage was done was to the general impression of the success of the Afghan War, with clear indications that the Pakistani security forces were often helping the insurgent Taliban.

As the death tolls continue to rise, and following the McChrystal Rolling Stone fiasco, the leaks and analyses further cloud optimistic forecasts by the U.S. government on the progress of the longest war in U.S. history. Clearly, the description of chaos in the field and duplicity behind the scenes will have an impact on future policies. The public’s scepticism has been reinforced.

The Washington Post took a gamble by freeing reporters for two years to investigate the security industry. WikiLeaks took a gamble by publishing the material, with the three media outlets risking some attempted form of government sanction a la Pentagon Papers.

So, with all the negative bites on the media and especially print, here are two examples of positive roles the media can play, making its demise that much more worrisome for democracy.

After 18 months in office, people are still trying to figure out who is Barack Obama. While he seems terribly comfortable with himself, the majority of Americans do not seem to be comfortable with him.

White Kansas-born mother, black Kenyan father, raised here and there, Hawaii and Indonesia, educated here and there, California, New York and Cambridge; he seems to be without roots and difficult to identify with.

Everyone’s strength is potential weakness; everyone’s weakness potential strength. Barack Obama was elected President in what has been termed a post-racial United States; race was always present, but rarely directly mentioned during the campaign.

He is the culmination of the Joshua Generation, those who were not active in the civil rights movement but who benefitted from its activism. (The term comes from Jewish history, referring to those who did not take part in the exodus but entered the Promised Land.) He has purposefully distanced himself from leaders of the civil rights movement like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, many of whom supported Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries.

There was no rainbow coalition behind him. His great strength is to benefit from being the first African-American President while enabling many voters to go beyond racial considerations. The post-racial allows him to avoid the residual antagonisms of the culture clashes of the 1960’s amid the turmoil of desegregation.

On the other hand, and here comes the weakness, it also takes Barack Obama out of history. The United States is a country of immigrants and movers. Few people live in the same area as their parents or grandparents. And yet, there is history, there are roots.

We can understand someone moving from Detroit to California; we can understand a third generation Italian; we can understand a refugee from Haiti. What we can’t understand is Barack Hussein Obama because we cannot understand his roots. In one sense, he epitomizes the free American who changes addresses every few years. But in another sense, this restlessness makes us uncomfortable.

Harry Truman was from Missouri, Dwight Eisenhower from Kansas, Jack Kennedy from Massachusetts, Lyndon Johnson from Texas, Richard Nixon from California, Jimmy Carter from Georgia, Ronald Reagan from California, The Bushes from Connecticut, Texas and Maine; Bill Clinton from Arkansas. We can identify the men with places. Barack Obama from Hyde Park, Illinois?

Barack Obama is not only post-racial, he is also post-historical. He is having trouble finding followers today because of a lack of commonality. Being post-racial and post-historical means being all things to all people, which, for the moment, is working to his disadvantage.

Americans are immigrants and movers, but they do understand roots. One can be cosmopolitan and grounded at the same time, universal and particular. President Obama is having the worst of both worlds. Joshua had a tribe, Obama has none.

The United States Senate has just passed the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, touted as the biggest reform of Wall Street since the 1930s. The bill was approved by 60 senators, including 3 Republicans and 2 independents, with one Democrat opposing. It should be ready for the President’s signature very shortly.

With the signing of this bill, President Obama can point to three major legislative achievements early on in his presidency, including the economic stimulus bill passed last year and the health care bill in March of this year.

Reform of financial regulation, reform of healthcare and stimulating the economy by stabilizing the banking system are not simple accomplishments; the first two have eluded presidents for years and years.

If President Obama has been so successful on the legislative front, why do a series of polls show his popularity dropping to a new low?

A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll had 60% of Americans lacking confidence in Obama’s decisions for the U.S. Why are Democratic members of Congress panicking at the possibility of losing control of the Senate and House of Representatives in the mid-term election next November?

Surely, the passing of the three bills is an impressive ticket to run on.

Some quick possible answers: Voters are doubtful over whether these measures will work to improve their lives. The stimulus so far has benefitted Wall Street, but not Main Street. Unemployment figures have stagnated at around 10%. 100,000 Americans file for bankruptcy every month. The other two bills will take time to implement with results far down the road.

Second, foreign policy dilemmas such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and the Middle East loom over the horizon with little success a definite possibility. The euphoria of the Nobel Peace Prize and Cairo speech are far behind us.

And finally, there is a general feeling that the transformation president has not really been transformational, and that the U.S. position of global leadership is slipping away. Unemployment remains high, prestige remains low, much of it seeping away in the Gulf of Mexico.

What is most interesting, I find, is that President Obama has lost the loyalty of many who elected him. Independents as well as young people have lost the campaign fervor; his constituency is not solid.

And it is for this reason that the passing of the third major piece of legislation in his presidency will not be reflected in an upturn in his popularity. Passing legislation is one thing, maintaining loyalty is quite another.

A recent decision by the United States Supreme Court has thrown the humanitarian/human rights communities in Geneva and Switzerland as well as throughout the world into a tizzy, raising difficult questions for those working to prevent violent conflicts or at least reduce their impact on civilians.

By 6-3, the Court barred material support to U.S designated terrorist groups in part of the Patriot Act, prohibiting people from providing “training, expert advice or assistance” to those groups.

In Holder vs. the Humanitarian Law Project, the issue was whether a non-governmental organization could advise the Kurdish Workers’ Party on how to take its grievances against the government of Turkey to the United Nations or the Tamils in Sri Lanka understand international law to resolve their conflict. The Court ruled that this type of assistance was considered aiding a terrorist group in a criminal act, exposing those providing help to prosecution.

Does that mean that someone who assists a U.S. designated terrorist group on how to negotiate a peaceful settlement of their dispute is liable to prosecution? Does that mean that someone who assists a U.S. designated terrorist group on how to follow international humanitarian law is liable to prosecution? Does that mean that someone who assists a U.S. designated terrorist group to destroy their land mines is liable to prosecution?

Apparently the answer to all these questions is yes.

Chief Justice Roberts, in the majority opinion, wrote that any form of support “frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends”. In other words, someone advising a terrorist group or a group that has been involved in terrorist activities automatically is assumed to be helping to further the organization’s illegal goals.

Switzerland, as a neutral country, has a long history of providing good offices in conflicts between governments and armed non-state actors. The International Committee of the Red Cross often intervenes with groups that have been designated as terrorists. The African National Congress, including Nelson Mandela, was for a long time on the terrorist list, as were the Maoists in Nepal who then became part of the government.

There can be no solution in the Middle East without involving Hamas or Hezbollah. The ruling of the Court places those who negotiate with these groups in danger.

Former President Jimmy Carter, founder of the Carter Center that works to promote free elections and conflict resolution throughout the world, said: “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that inhibits the work of human rights and conflict resolution groups. The ‘material support law’…actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence”.

Is Jimmy Carter now open to prosecution since he has spoken with members of Hamas and Hezbollah?

The Court has crossed an important distinction between material aid and assistance towards peaceful settlements of disputes. Judge Breyer, in his dissenting opinion, said that the government had not shown how prohibiting the teaching of international humanitarian law to peacefully resolve disputes achieves security.

Also, he rejected the claim that advising terrorist groups gives them legitimacy. But, the majority of the Court, as it has in several recent decisions, continues to follow an extremely narrow path, threatening the Spirit of Geneva and Switzerland’s long humanitarian tradition.

Editorials in major American newspapers such as the New York Times condemned the ruling. Will humanitarian organizations and certain governments do the same?

General David Petraeus has replaced General Stanley McChrystal as commander of the armed forces in Afghanistan after the latter and his aides made inappropriate remarks against civilian authorities, including the President, published in Rolling Stone magazine. McChrystal was forced to resign; Petraeus was unanimously approved by the United States Senate.

When President Obama announced the change in command, he said that it was not a question of personalities, but a matter of team work and a united effort of the military and civilians. He specifically reaffirmed continuation in U.S. strategy.

Moreover, during the confirmation hearings of General Petraeus, little attention was given to the overall strategy in Afghanistan, except for some sparing over the July 2011 date for beginning troop withdrawal. In other words, President Obama and General Petraeus both re-iterated that the United States will continue its current strategy in what has become the longest war in United States history, and in which Henry Kissinger, in an interview in the Financial Times, noted that the public “must be prepared for a long struggle”.

The war costs over 7 billion dollars a month at a time when reducing the deficit is on everyone’s lips. The death toll of U.S. troops is around 1000 and climbing. The coalition of the willing is neither a coalition nor willing; there seems little progress or light at the end of the tunnel.

A supplemental bill for 33 billion dollars more for Afghanistan is before the House of Representatives as well as an amendment that would require an exit strategy. Last year, an amendment for an exit strategy received 138 votes in the House, but it does not seem to have many more votes this year.

Last week, a female columnist in the Washington Post, accused President Obama of being the first female president. She said that his “rhetorical style has impeded his effectiveness.” In terms of his Oval Office speech on the oil crisis, she said, “His lack of immediate, commanding action was perceived as a lack of leadership because, well, it was.”

The war in Afghanistan has no serious strategy, certainly no serious exit strategy. President Obama can show real leadership by not only re-affirming civilian control over the military, but also by beginning to bring the troops home as soon as possible. That would show courage and leadership, with no gender implications intended.

All countries like to think they are special. Each country believes it is exceptional in one way or another; national pride is more than merely comparative advantage. With the flags waving high and emotions running deep during the World Cup, we are easily reminded that the nation-state is not withering away, although it is certainly being challenged from above and below.

For Americans, this notion of being special is multiplied by the historical story of the City on the Hill, the extraordinary combination of a geographic New World and the Pilgrims’ Promised Land. Many cities in the United States are named after Biblical references; the Geneva Bible travelled to Plymouth Rock on the Mayflower in 1620.

There are over 30 cities in the U.S. named Geneva. The attachment of the United States for Israel is part of a feeling of being more than just special; there are analogous emotions of religious exceptionalism, of being chosen people on chosen land.

Switzerland, like all countries, thinks it is special. From the founding story of William Tell and the swearing of the sermon at the Grütli, histories are written about that specificity, myths are created. While the histories can have religious undertones, they are, in the least, central features of national identity. Here in Geneva, the story of Catherine Cheynel, the Mere Royaume, is celebrated every December during Escalade.

Revisionist historians often go back to revisit the original myths. In the United States, it was proven that Thomas Jefferson had an illicit relationship with a slave and several out of wedlock offspring. In Switzerland, questions are being raised about the story of William Tell, even his actual existence.

Demythologizing is painful. The recent confrontation between UBS and Switzerland, with its challenges to banking secrecy, adds to a list of questions concerning fundamental identity. The Bergier Report on “Switzerland and the Refugees in the Nazi Era” on the activities of a neutral Switzerland raised fundamental issues about that neutrality during World War II.

The collapse of Swissair raised questions about the Swiss reputation for efficiency. The vote on the minarets raised questions about the Swiss tradition of tolerance and welcoming strangers. And, today, quarrels among the Swiss Federal Counsellors over the handling of the Libyan crisis raise fundamental questions about the collegiality of the executive branch of government.

In most countries, political leaks to the media are part and parcel of the daily process of government. Different ministries compete with one another to further their advantages. To an outsider, the collegiality of the Swiss Federal Council is a true exception to domestic politics in all other countries.

Once the Council decides among itself on a position, we are told, the entire Council follows, no matter what each actor thinks. Collegiality is a fundamental part of the Swiss political system and a building block of national identity and exceptionalism.

To see the acrimony among the members of the Council following the return of Max Goldi is politics as normal, for an outside observer. But, I understand, that domestically, it is a true exception. But, in another sense, it may be seen as part of the demise of Swiss exceptionalism.

For just as the myths of neutrality were questioned by the Bergier Report, the myth of efficiency was questioned by the collapse of Swissair and the myth of tolerance was questioned by the referendum on minarets, the quarrels among the Federal Counsellors highlights the lack of collegiality among the executives.

It is not surprising to an outsider, but for those prideful of the exceptional concept of collegiality, it is one more example of Switzerland’s myths and specificity being called into question.

Is this another part of a painful process of demythologizing and the end of Swiss exceptionalism? In a sense, the debate about Switzerland’s entering the European Union is tied to the question of being exceptional, just as the United States considers its national laws superior to international law and is often against multilateralism.

“Neutrality,” I was told, “is the foreign policy of a small country surrounded by large neighbours”. On the other hand, within Switzerland, neutrality is part of the fundamental identity of modern Switzerland and intertwined with its humanitarian tradition and the ICRC.

No one likes to see dirty laundry hung out to dry. Quarrels among political leaders are unseemly, and not a dignified example of what leadership should be. On the other hand, politics, for most of the world, is usually unseemly. We would all rather see Swiss identity tied to someone like Roger Federer.

But, perhaps, the petty quarrels are part of a process of political integration and a move away from isolation. Goldi’s liberation was dramatically helped by outside intervention. For, as we can observe with Israel today and often with the United States, an unrealistic exceptional national identity can have extremely negative consequences.

While most of the sporting world has been focused on the World Cup, the majority of Americans were engrossed in the finals of the National Basketball Association playoffs. While most of the sporting world acknowledged improved play of the U.S in draws with England and Slovenia, the majority of Americans were watching Kobe Bryant and the Los Angeles Lakers triumph over Paul Pierce and the Boston Celtics. While most of the world concentrates on elegant footwork and headers, the majority of Americans marvel at hand-eye coordination featuring dunks and jump shots.

Why can’t the United States like soccer? My theory, contrary to Henry Kissinger, the transplanted German, is that the most popular American sports are fundamentally different from soccer, just as the United States prides itself on being the exceptional City on the Hill and fundamentally different from the rest of the world.

Major U.S. sports, football, basketball and baseball, all have extended time outs, constant direction from coaches, a considerable level of physical violence, and no tie games. Soccer, the world’s sport, is fluid, has little on field advice from the managers, penalizes the smallest violent act, and often ends in draws.

Soccer has made progress in the United States in terms of the national team’s quality as well as interest. But, it is far from becoming a national sport and competing with football, basketball and baseball.

My own limited soccer experience took place in a pick-up game in a park in New York City. I was the only “American” on the field. In a moment of glory, I dribbled the ball across the midfield, at which point the opposing players broke out in laughter shouting, “A visitor from another planet”.

The national basketball season is over. But, I will wager that there will more people in the U.S. watching baseball now than following the games in South Africa, even if the national team is doing well. In terms of sports, the U.S. remains from another planet.

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama was praised for his calm, detached manner. As opposed to George Bush’s impulses and Bill Clinton’s emotions, Obama was seen as properly distant and disciplined. “This is a man who will remain in control when a crisis arrives,” was the positive comment on his demeanor.

Now, after seventeen months in office, President Obama is being criticized for being too detached, too unemotional. Fifty-six days after the oil spill began and well into his first major crisis, President Obama finally addressed the country on national television from the Oval Office.

Critics are saying, “He does not feel the pain of the people suffering in the Gulf. He does not understand the outrage of the American people against BP. He should be empathetic towards those being hurt and angry at those responsible”.

The very qualities that were his strength during the campaign now seem to be his greatest weaknesses. He is calm and detached; he should be more emotional. He is intellectual and cerebral; he should be more instinctive. He is an academic college professor; he does not understand and connect with the average citizen.

In addition, he is being criticized for using the oil crisis to push ahead with his energy bill to wean the American people off of fossil fuels. This was, I remind you, a major part of his campaign promises as well as a proposal that was already submitted to Congress before the spill. Finding new sources of energy has always been a bedrock of the Obama agenda.

What to conclude from these observations? The President of the United States must be many things to many people. President Obama’s popularity ratings are for the moment under 50%. In order to move forward with his agenda, he will have to show that multiplicity of persona which is part of all great politicians and leaders. In other words, can he be both cerebral and emotional?

Maybe a little drama would be helpful at this point.