Thinking Politician on the Right: David Cameron

David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party in GB spoke at a recent TED talk in London: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_cameron.html. How refreshing! He didn't talk about cutting taxes or balancing the budget or socialized medicine. In other words, unlike most Republicans in the U.S., he didn't just repeat platitudes! (I understand that some Republicans undertook some serious thinking at the recent health care meeting with President Obama, but I assume that came about so that the President wouldn't show them up). Most of what comes out of the mouths of most Republicans amounts to tired campaign slogans. (Yes, Democrats do it, but right now, Democrats have to actually make laws and govern, even though they are only doing a mediocre job of it.) Cameron spoke about how to provide a more effective government and how to empower people. He cited (with photos!) the work of Cass Sunstein (whom crazies on the lunatic fringe demonize in his position as Obama's head of regulatory affairs), behavioral economist Richard Thaler, Sunstein's co-author of Nudge, Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Economics prize-winner who isn't an economist (Nasim Taleb even likes him!), and Robert Cialdini (Influence). Wow, someone on the Right (relatively speaking) who thinks! Of course on the American right we have some thinkers, but they have no influence now and virtually all of the thinking from Republicans seems really tired and behind the times. Anyway, something refreshing from across the pond.

Afterthoughts:

1. Does the fact that the Brits have parliamentary government and have to think about ruling more seriously make them better at transitions and providing better-considered alternatives?
   
2. Does the fact that leaders of the parties in GB have to stand up regularly in parliament and answer questions—tough questions—make them better thinkers and speakers? Could you imagine W at question hour? Even Obama, who thinks and speaks very carefully and rather slowly, would have a hard time in such an atmosphere. I used to on occasion watch Tony Blair at question hour (I don't recall what channel), and I found it quite entertaining and thoughtful. (Although I must say that I watched Gordon Brown's TED talk, and I don't know that I made it to the end.)

Thomas Cahill’s Mysteries of the Middle Ages

Thomas Cahill continues his "Hinges of History" volumes with Mysteries of the Middle Ages: And the Beginning of the Modern World (2008, 368p.). I listened to it a second time as a part of my medieval reading project, and yes, I enjoyed it a second time. Cahill is born storyteller, whose informal style, pithy asides, and trenchant observations make for listening (or reading) that provides both entertainment and insight. Cahill prefaces his book with a glimpse of the Alexandria of Late Antiquity. From there, Cahill bases his tour based primarily on a discussion of notable and noteworthy personages of the period, including saints like Hildegard of Bingen and St. Francis, thinkers like Abelard (including an account of this tragic love affair with Heloise), St. Thomas Aquinas (no dumb-ox he), and Roger the proto-scientist Bacon, and artists Giotto and Dante (my man!). Cahill also discusses the many lives of Eleanor of Aquitaine (think Kathryn Hepburn in Lion in Winter), whose marriages, affairs, and actions provide quite a story in themselves. Cahill provides a sympathetic perspective on these figures so far away in time, and he appreciates how they laid the groundwork for what came later. Of the attitudes one may take about the Middle Ages, from derision to romantic celebration, Cahill takes the role of one who appreciates its positive accomplishments but who also fully acknowledges all of the blemishes.

If you've no real acquaintance with the Middle Ages, I recommend this book as an excellent introduction. A reader will find it full of the lore that makes this period both intriguing and slightly terrifying. BTW, if you haven't read the first book in his "Hinges of History" series, How the Irish Saved Civilization, I highly recommend it as well. It provides the story of the bridge between Roman civilization and the Middle Ages often known as the Dark Ages, but now referred to among historians as Late Antiquity. Anyway, it's the story of the Irish and how their monasteries preserved learning at a time when learning in the West was deeply crippled.

Brooks on Elites and Gates on Energy

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19brooks.html?ref=opinion: David Brooks on our meritocracy and where it's gotten us. This type of big picture topic is what Brookes does better than other columnists do. He points out that we have wider access to the elite class, and a more industrious elite; yet, elites don't exercise the same influence that they once did. Think back to the 1950's and before. Of course, Brooks recognizes that these elites were all old white guys, but given that we now enjoy more diversity, why don't they command more respect and exercise more leadership? Brooks floats some ideas. Interesting.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html : Bill Gates on energy @ TED Talks. Bill Gates, perhaps the ultimate nerd, is now trying to make the world a better place through his charity. His work on vaccines and schools are well noted and I think quite worthwhile. However, in this informative talk, he reports that if he had one thing that he could provide the world, it would be cheap, clean, and abundant energy. Cheap energy, he suggests, makes our society. (See Thomas Homer-Dixon for confirmation of this perspective.) However, Gates says we have to get to zero CO2 growth—fast. No climate-denier he. Some amazing technologies hold promise, and he does an excellent job of getting his audience to buy into this possibility. Recommended.

Garry Wills with Charlie Rose & Steve Jobs @ Stanford

Charlie Rose interviews Garry Wills about "Bomb Power", Obama, and America in general: http://eztvlinks.com/charlie-rose-christina-romer-garry-wills/. Wills describes himself as "terribly" disappointed in what Obama has done, describing his appointments of Iraq war supporters, insiders on Wall Street, and insiders (AMA, big pharma, health insurance carriers) for health care. Wills suggests that Obama feels more constrained that he needed to be. Too much a lawyer, and not enough of a leader, suggested Rose. Wills counters—and I must agree—that a good lawyer gets people to do things. Wills thinks that Obama threw away a whole year with largely self-imposed constraints. Congress, nevertheless, remains "supine". Wills notes that the willingness of Congress to bow to the president is in part of the "cult" of the commander-in-chief. Wills notes that the presidency is not a military office, as established long ago by court cases. These are just a few quick notes that I took during the interview. It's not a thorough as the book, but for less than 30 minutes, you can get a solid, thoughtful overview, as well as his thoughts on Obama and more general topics.

 

Steve Jobs spoke at the 2005 Stanford graduation. In 15 minutes, he shares three stories from his life that prove quite thoughtful and enlightening. If you think that he's gotten all of the breaks, listen to it and consider. Worth your 15 minutes, I think you'll agree. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA.

My Current Thought on Climate Change

Thomas Friedman captures my current take on climate change. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html?ref=opinion. It's probably happening because of human activity (CO2 and the like), and even if current theories and predictions don't prove completely accurate, we still have other very compelling reasons to move forward.

Garry Wills: Bomb Power

It's always good news for me when Garry Wills publishes a new book, as the book inevitably casts new light on a worthwhile subject. I bought Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State (2010, 288p.) last Thursday, and I finished it today. In this book, Wills argues that the Manhattan Project and the Bomb that it produced created a new impetus toward an aggrandizement of presidential power and created a national security state to surround and support this increased power. As always, Wills sets forth his case with a mix of well-documented facts and pithy insights.

The Manhattan Project serves as the prototype of government secrecy. Once the Bomb became an established part of the American arsenal, the president gained new powers. When the Soviets joined the U.S. as a nuclear power, the president might have only a matter of minutes to take us into war. So much for the right of Congress—and only Congress—to declare war. Wills documents how the Cold War facilitated the growth of presidential prerogatives during the Truman administration. Indeed, Wills has interesting things to report on George Kennan (someone I've always admired). Kennan, it seems, helped let the genie out of the bottle with his "Long Telegram" and "X" article in Foreign Affairs, and Kennan spent a number of years later trying to get the genie back in the bottle. However, as Wills argues, the Truman administration was off to the races, and no president—even Obama it seems—wants to put the genie back into the bottle. Wills discusses how these developments effect more than just nuclear issues. The national security state allowed all manner of immoral and irresponsible behavior by the U.S. government. Ike toppled regimes surreptitiously in Iran and Guatemala (and Iran came back to haunt us). JFK, fueled by an infatuation with counter-intelligence and guerilla warfare, wondered into the Bay of Pigs, then the Cuban Missile Crisis, and this led to RFK's involvement in plots to assassinate Castro.

The list goes on, but, of course, the culmination lies in the presidency of George W. Bush (with plenty of warm-up during his father's and Reagan's administrations). During the Bush years we had the "dual administration" of Bush and Cheney, with Cheney and his cohorts straining every possible limit on executive prerogatives for action and deception. Interestingly, John Yoo has just published another book, and Wills takes on the crackpot legal arguments made by Yoo and his ilk (and rejected by true conservatives like Jack Goldsmith). Wills, as a major contributor to works on the Declaration and the Constitution, gives no ground on the words of the Founders and their intent.

In all, this is an important book. Wills breaks no new ground by way of revelations. Anyone who follows post-WWII American history and reads the papers knows this history. What Wills does provide is an indictment. Like a lawyer setting forth his case, he lays out the charges before us. We, the people, and those whom we entrust with the conduct of our government, have allowed our constitutional protections to erode in the face of a perceived imperative made plausible by the Bomb. Now, we the people must face the consequences of this course of conduct. No one professes optimism; however, Wills' closing words bear repeating:

"On January 25, 2002, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales signed a memo written by David Addington [Cheney's legal advisor] that called the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete". Perhaps in the nuclear era, the Constitution has become quaint and obsolete. . . . Nonetheless, some of us entertain a fondness for the quaint old Constitution. It may be too late to return to its ideals, but the effort should be made. As Cyrano said, "One fights not only in the hope of winning."" (240-241). Amen.

Quick Take: Robert Shiller on Economic Mood

In my never-ending quest to make economics into something more real, I find another ally. Robert Shiller writes of how "mood" affects an economy in his recent NYT article. Shiller notes how recessions and (yes, we must talk about them) depressions gain steam; indeed, one might summarize his argument by saying that depression (personal) creates depressions (economic). He cites an upcoming work by George Akerlof that "self-esteem" and "identify" affect economics. My goodness! What heresy! Not just money, money, money? (Of course, you're right, some do respond that way: many of our friends on Wall Street seem confirm this trait.) Schiller also cites a recent talk by Samuel Bowles ("Machiavelli's Mistake"—not sure that this is an appropriate title for Bowles to have chosen) suggesting that self-interest alone could fuel a high performance economy. All of this makes sense to me. Precedents? Start with Thucydides.