David Leonhardt on the Economy

A very good article on the U.S. economy and current concerns. Like the article on Krugman that I just posted and my comments on that post, Leonhardt takes a modest view of economic knowledge--that a lot is known that is mostly correct--but that we still have a good deal of uncertainty. That having been said, some ideas and practices are surely true, and some policies manifestly better bets that others. To this I say, Amen!

Krugman: A Short But Perceptive Take on What's Wrong

This is almost too cute, the Keynes must be spinning in his grave remark ("in the long run we're all dead", right?), but Krugman's point is serious and reminds me of my thought about the Great Depression. Why, when we had factories, workers, no natural catastrophes of an unusual sort, not natural cataclysm, did the material world go into such a funk with people wanting? If it's not a natural disaster, then it's a man-made disaster (I would say human now, but then we can blame almost exclusively men!). And if we made it, we should be able to fix it, right? We're having an awfully hard time of it. Perhaps it all is way out of our grasp because of the complexity of it all, but certainly some course of action would prove better than others, such as fiscal stimulus, monetary policy, deficit reduction--they can't be all equally good or bad for our well-being. So, modesty, yes, but choices must be made. This isn't like plagues of old or climate change (yet) that changed the course of civilizations in the past.

Bruce Bartlett: Obama as Conservative

This interesting article from Bruce Bartlett (via Paul Krugman) has some interesting history. Having just mentioned Bartlett in a comment posted on Roscommon to Imogene, I followed Krugman's lead to this article. Of course, liberals who go conservative or vice versa can be a good thing (I like Ike), but I'm not sure of Obama's game here. Right now, more spending by the government is in order, I think. I follow those who say that inflating demand (not the currency) and getting more back to work is most important. Thus, why repeat FDR's mistake in 1937 of pursuing budget trimming mania? Obama seems to me to be making the same mistake. Plus, the Republicans are now driven by a real fringe group. What happened to Wall Street & Main Street Republicans?

Why Niebuhr Now? by John Patrick Diggins

I've already written of my anticipation of this book and my enthusiasm for both the subject and the author, so I won't go on. Much of this short book places Niebuhr within the American culture of his days. But as Diggins will do, he not only tells of Niebuhr's ideas and arguments and his place in history, but he nails the essence. Let me quote:

Today American's political and business leaders typically announce that "freedom" is the touchstone of all their efforts, the benchmark against which we are to measure their accomplishments. The term is our national creed. Centuries ago freedom was considered a passion to be controlled; today it is a principle to be celebrated. Educators teach it, poets chant it, philosophers define it, moralists preach it, politicians swear by it, the retired enjoy it, immigrants dream of it, and the poor strive for it.

The cult of freedom is so ubiquitous in American history that it continually erodes the biding force of authority, a concept carrying weight mainly in the Supreme Court rulings and the tenants of religious sects. Many Americans regard authority as inheritly alien and illegitimate and on this the extremes meet. . . . Preoccupied with the fetish of freedom, few Americans dwell on its riddles and paradoxes. We readily assume that to be free is to do what we wish. But are not our wishes often subject to passions that affect our actions? Genuine freedom consists in self-mastery, escape from external restrains and inner compulsions. Niebuhr would not forget Saint Augustine’s warning that the mind may control the body but cannot control itself. But in American life few question that freedom is anything but a self-evident truth, eternally subject to rebirth and reaffirmation. 

Reinhold Niebuhr was no enemy of human freedom, but he tried to make us aware of the ironies inherent in the concept. Where there is freedom, he observed, there is also power, and where there is power, there is sin and the temptation to sin. Rarely does America see itself solely in terms of power. Instead, we over estimate our dedication to freedom and forget that we are as much creatures of history as its creators.

(110-111).

Well, enough for now. If you care about freedom, power, sin, pride, and self-knowledge, then these two thinkers have a lot to share with you.

Teach Us to Sit Still: A Skeptic's Search for Health & Healing by Tim Parks

The title, from a favorite poem, caught my eye, and a favorable review led me to grab this book when I saw it at the library. Mr. Parks, an Englishman who lives in Italy with his family and who as a career as a successful novelist (he's made it the Booker-Mann short list), developed severe problems with his plumbing, the the central culprit appearing to be his prostrate. N.B. Hear me knocking on wood, but the similar symptoms did not prompt my choice of this book. So far, so good. But as breast cancer seems a real threat to most woman, so the prostrate for men. Thus, some personal concern--but I digress. His prostrate, however, wasn't cancerous. It was . . . well, doctors weren't quite sure what was wrong. Urologists, in any event, recommended a roto-rooter of the nether regions. He didn't cotton to this idea. He searched, and then he came upon a book. Not to spoil the ending, but he ends up performing exercises and attending a mindfulness meditation retreat. All the while it seems, he protests, but it works.

I won't say more, but if you're interested in a very tell-told story of health and its elusiveness, of how our bodies and minds interact (or ignore each other), and how we can, if we open ourselves to experiences that the mind, a priori, wants to reject, we can experience some really amazing changes. A very good book and thought-provoking.

Donald Kaul & Obama

Two important things about this article: First, I think it marks that third week in a row that Donald Kaul has appeared again the Des Moines Register. Frankly, the P-C I get for local news, but the DMR is a mere shadow of its former self, across the board. Picking up the man who wrote for it going back in into the early 1970's (at least that's when I picked up the habit from my dad), is a great choice for a paper that hasn't made many great choices over the years.

As to this piece, Kaul expresses my sense of Obama to a T. I'm prepared to give Obama a lot of slack, but I do wonder why he is not more assertive. Every politician, even FDR, for example, is cautious and can't get too far out in front of the selectorate (thank Bruce Bueno de Mesquita for the term). But if you're negotiating, and trying to build your base (which politicians must do constantly), you have to bluff a bit. BTW, note that Kaul describes Republicans as "mad"--nothing like a poignant double-entendre. I don't have an answer to Kaul's question, but we need help. As he pointed out in an earlier Kaulumn, Michelle Bachmann and her ilk are positively daft, part of a growing group of know-nothings (my term, not his). I really do wish that I had an answer.

Donld Rumsfeld: Right on One Thing

Recently I've been reading more and more about the detriments--serious detriments--of sitting on your hind-end too much. Iowa Guru, in fact, purchased a computer stand for me that now replaces the pile of books that I had on my desk to allow me to stand at my computer, so I'm moving forward. (I have to yet to do something along those lines at my office, which presents greater logistical problems.) So, when I saw this article, I have to give a shout-out to Donald Rumsfeld in an "you've got to give the devil his due" moment. (Okay, he's not the devil, but he strikes me as the epitome of arrogance and hubris.)Rummy has a good idea, and one that we'd all probably do well to emulate. Sometimes, you just don't know where good ideas will come from!

Crazy Republicans

Dave Brooks gets it right when he calls the failure of the Republicans to make a deal on the debt ceiling with debt reduction "the mother of all no-brainers". Others have caught it as well, including the Rational Optimist (from a more minimal government, less taxes perspective) as well as economics commentators. (Of course, Krugman is going nuts over this, as I think he should, but best read him directly.) Certainly we need to reduce long term debt, big time. I'm galled that Republicans get religion about debt reduction after they've been on a spending spree (e.g., Reagan's large deficit and then W's). Also, unless we address entitlements and military spending, we're dealing with chicken feed.

All of this leads to deeper questions: is the political culture really more warped than in past years? The Tea Party element, so far as I can see, really has no grip on policy matters. I suspect its run by more subterranean influences. N.B. I am not saying that we shouldn't reduce our huge deficit. We should. However, doing it too drastically and too fast could lead to disaster, as could a default by the U.S. government. Think Uncle Sam as dead-beat--no good. As for President Obama, he needs a deal, but I'm thinking that he might need more of a Truman-esque pose ("give 'em hell, Barack"), which, unfortunately, seems inimical to him. In the end, we can't allow know-nothings to run the country. And while the Dems are far from perfect, this isn't an equal "a pox on both your houses" situation: the Dems are more responsible even if far from perfect. Enough said, for now.

Another to Celebrate our Nation: Franklin Foer on Liberalism

The wonderful Five Books site from the UK is a great source for interviews with reading recommendation. I saved this from a couple of days ago, and it works as we celebrate our nation. What is a liberal? Foer's answer to this question, quoting Herbert Croly,that it is "the use of Hamiltonian means to accomplish Jefersonian aims" is probably as good as it gets. We have to compare this with the classical liberalism of John Stuart Mill and, for instance, the Austrian school of Von Mises and Hayek. An interesting interview & a good choice of books. And, no, liberalism isn't a cuss word.

Jack Rakove on the Constitution

This brief piece by Stanford historian Jack Ravoke is a great 4th of July piece, even if its talking about the Constitution and not the Declaration (the former is more important than the latter in my mind). Great recommendations for reading this most important document.

For the Fourth: John Patrick Diggins's Eugene O'Neill's America: Desire Under Democracy

My custom is to pick a work of American history to read in celebration of the 4th. This year, I decided on a work by John Patrick Diggins (who edged out John Lukac's A New Republic: A History of the United States in the Twentieth Century). Diggins final book was published on June 30, and while I still mourn his passing, I was pleased to learn that his final work, Why Niebuhr Now, would make it to press. I eagerly await its arrival @ PL. Fortunately, I had on hand his next most recent book, a book on Eugene O'Neill, which I'd only dipped into. I haven't seen a great deal of O'Neill, but what I have--oh, my! I had the experience of seeing a film production of The Iceman Cometh by the American Film Theater, starring Frederic March, Robert Ryan, and Lee Marvin as Hickey. What a great Bijou Theater experience. Then, in 1999 (I think), I saw Broadway production with the lovely One Hungary Panda, who graciously accompanied me to this. The production starred Kevin Spacey, and I thought it superb. O'Neill is not easy. Two factors greatly influence his drama: his Irish-American family and his reading of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Spengler. This odd coupling doesn't make for much comedy (but try "Ah, Wilderness"), but it's great stuff. (BTW, O'Neill won a Nobel prize and four Pulitzer prizes for his work.)

So why Diggins? Because his work, on American political thought,Herman Melville, John Adams, on the pragmatists and their critics, Weber (his visit to America), Lincoln & Reagan (yes, I've started this one): all focus on the vicissitudes of democracy and power and how it all fits--or doesn't. No one, but perhaps the late Christopher Lasch, combines the intensity of analysis with deep historical understanding. He's certainly one of my favorite American historians.

Happy Independence Day!

Book List from Financial Times

I haven't seen a summer reading list from the NYT (perhaps they don't run it anymore?). In any event, the Financial Times from GB has a list, and the recommendations cover a wide variety of topics. I'm currently reading (among other things) Tim Harford's book Adopt of the list.

Jeffrey Sachs @ 5 Books

Five Books is a great site, and this interview with Jeff Sachs is a good source of perspective on global development goals. This man is an optimist despite seeing a lot of hardship. But most importantly, I'm impressed that he realizes that alleviating extreme poverty depends a lot on the good will of persons with the resources to help. In the end, economics depends, or is built upon, ethics.