Tag: Barack Obama

Categories
Economics

[1937] Of Brown, Obama and permanent interest

Libertarians typically have no reason to protest the typical annual meeting of Group 20 (G20). G20 is of course the grouping of the richest and most influential countries in the world. This year’s meet up in London however is not a typical gathering. It is extraordinary because of the global economic turbulence we are witnessing at this very moment. In trying to address the problem, both the Obama and the Brown administrations are advocating large spending and they will likely call for others to do the same at the G20. This call — probably made for the first time in recent memory — gives libertarians a reason to join the protest against the G20, particularly, against the US and the UK.

Both administrations have been building the spending momentum for weeks, if not months now. Indeed, both countries are leading the way in economic stimulus with government spending as a major pillar. Much has been spent but both English-speaking countries — especially the Obama administration — content that too many are not spending enough. The idea is that the problem is not spending too much. Rather, it is about doing too little.[1]

In Malaysia, the Finance Minister Najib Abdul Razak has unfortunately embraced that idea. With as much as RM67 billion worth of stimulus plan with another RM5 billion injected into the equity market with much opacity by the Malaysian government, the credential of the expected next administration of Malaysia — the expected Najib administration — as a big spender is not in question. This is by no mean that Malaysia is following the footstep of the US and UK. Indeed, the current administrator of Malaysia is gloating by the fact that they did it first during the Asian Financial Crisis when the US was dead against it. The Malaysia’s administration takes the current trend as a justification of their past action.

Momentum or not, both Obama and Brown administrations’ effort to lobby for more spending from other countries is meeting resistance, especially from Europe and Latin America. For regions not known for their love for free market, this is certainly refreshing when the traditional advocates of free market are taking steps in the wrong direction.

Germany called United Kingdom Prime Minister Brown’s method as crass Keynesianism.[2] Although eventually capitulating by increasing its spending but still short from what the Brown and the Obama administration had hoped for, Germany was unhappy at what they saw as them bailing out imprudent others. Germany had worked hard to keep its accounts in order and it despised the idea of spending their money to correct others’ mistakes, while undoing Germany’s successes.[3]

Czech Premier who also holds the presidency of the European Union went as far as calling Obama’s call for greater spending as the road to hell. He has been reproached by other European leaders for the harsh words but nevertheless, it exhibits the sentiment of the member states of the European Union.[4]

In Latin America where Brown and later the Vice President of the United States Joe Biden flew down earlier, both faced similar but more politely put opposition. The hero of the moment was Chile, as President Michelle Bachelet, an economic left, practically rehashed argument forwarded by the Conservative Party led by David Cameron in the United Kingdom to Brown.[5]

Judging from the results of these meetings, both Obama and Brown are likely to meet heavy resistance at the table of G20 when it comes to how to address the global economic crisis.

In all likelihood, the reversal of roles probably has little to do with philosophical difference and much to do with the fact that the economic crisis has unequal effect across the world. In Europe unlike the United States, far more comprehensive social safety nets are in place. The automatic pervasive mechanism as advocated by economist John Taylor is already in place.

Germany meanwhile had saved enough in good times that they believed that the country was able to ride on the wave safely. The same argument is applied by Chile when Bachelet effectively said no to Brown’s call for support for greater spending, which he is expected to repeat at the table of G20.

For Asian countries especially for the export-driven economies, while the pain is undeniable, it is unlikely to go as bad as in the US. And indeed, the different nature of economic crisis in Asia demands different solutions. What the US and the UK are asking is but only a one-size fit-all policy.

Also, there is a sense of the often used German word which has found its way to mainstream English language: schadenfreude. Schadenfreude means pleasure derived from watching others’ misfortune. The latest prominent leader seemingly to enjoy the scenario is the Brazilian President when Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. He reminded all that this crisis was caused by “white people with blue eyes.”[6] This schadenfreude however has become excessive lately and risks of becoming masochism.

For libertarians, the opposition mounted against the US and the UK is something to be supported of, even when the causes of opposition differ. As it goes, there are no permanent allies and no permanent enemies. There are only permanent interests.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — In this crisis, doing too little poses a greater threat than doing too much. Any sound economic strategy in the current context must be directed at both creating the jobs that Americans need and doing the work that our economy requires. Any plan geared toward only one of these objectives would be dangerously deficient. Failure to create enough jobs in the short term would put the prospect of recovery at risk. Failure to start undertaking necessary long-term investments would endanger the foundation of our recovery and, ultimately, our children’s prosperity. [Obama’s Down Payment: A Stimulus Must Aim for Long-Term Results. Lawrence Summers. Washington Post. December 8 2008]

[2] — Mr Steinbruck questioned why Britain was “tossing around billions” and closely following the high public spending model put forward by 20th Century economist John Maynard Keynes.

“The switch from decades of supply-side politics all the way to a crass Keynesianism is breathtaking,” he said. [Germany questions UK rescue plan. BBC News. December 11 2008]

[3] — German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in a speech to Germany’s parliament on Thursday that her government was doing more than most to support the world economy through higher spending and lower taxes. Germany’s stance could come under pressure from financially weaker countries within Europe as their economies sink deeper into trouble, economists say.

Struggling EU countries range from Ireland and Spain, where housing-market bubbles have burst, to Hungary and Latvia in the continent’s post-communist East, where capital flight has forced governments to seek IMF aid.

Although Germany is in its worst recession in 60 years, Europe’s biggest economy has relatively strong public finances and enjoys the trust of capital markets.

That means Germany could be doing more to raise its domestic demand through higher government borrowing, say critics. Germany’s reluctance to do so means its neighbors’ recessions will be worse than necessary, says Julian Callow, European economist at Barclays Capital. [EU Rebuffs Calls to Increase Fiscal Stimulus, Aid. Marcus Walker. Adam Cohen. Wall Street Journal. March 20 2009]

[4] — BERLIN, March 25 — The president of the European Union on Wednesday ripped the Obama administration’s economic policies, calling its deficit spending and bank bailouts “a road to hell.”

The comments by Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek of the Czech Republic, which holds the E.U.’s rotating presidency, startled some U.S. and European officials, who are preparing for President Obama’s visit next month to several European cities, including Prague, the Czech capital. [E.U. President Blasts U.S. Spending. Craig Whitlock. Washington Post. March 26 2009]

[5] — Gordon Brown suffered another setback over his diplomatic offensive yesterday, as the Chilean president inadvertently echoed Conservative attacks on the prime minister’s handling of the economy. [E.U. President Blasts U.S. Spending. Craig Whitlock. Financial Times. March 26 2009]

[6] — Mr Brown’s decision to use the South American leg of his trip to call for a G20 $100bn (£70bn) deal to support world trade was overshadowed when Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the Brazilian president, blamed the financial crisis on “white people with blue eyes”. [E.U. President Blasts U.S. Spending. Craig Whitlock. Financial Times. March 26 2009]

Categories
Politics & government

[1879] Of so long, Mr. President

Craiglist for Washington DC is filled with incessant postings regarding the availability of accommodation in and around the city. As Inauguration Day draws near, the population size of the US capital is swelling as people from all over come to celebrate the event. It is a celebration of a beginning, a continuum and an end on the same day. The eight years of the Bush presidency are finally coming to an end and that is a relief. It is a great relief particularly for me because the Bush administration was riddled with disappointment, outrage and the betrayal of ideals.

With so many voting for Barack Obama on November 4, 2008, January 20, 2009 will surely be different from the Inauguration Day that fell on the same day exactly 8 years ago.

It was raining on January 20, 2001 and the newly-elected President Bush was received by a hostile crowd in the capital. The result of the 2000 presidential election ended so closely that the Supreme Court had to come in to settle the hotly-disputed political contest. Elections of national proportions are naturally divisive but the decision of the court only cemented the division for years to come.

The bitter division was observed on the very first day of the Bush administration. The journey through Pennsylvania Avenue was not pretty for the new President. Angry protesters pelted the presidential motorcade with trash. That forced the new President and his entourage to hurry up rather than enjoy the day meant to celebrate the Office of the President of the United States of America.

Roughly two years earlier, Vice President Gore visited Malaysia in 1998 for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Kuala Lumpur. “Democracy confers a stamp of legitimacy that reforms must have in order to be effective,” he said.

“And so, among nations suffering economic crises, we continue to hear calls for democracy and reform in many languages — people’s power, doi moi, reformasi.”

He, of course, was referring to the political turmoil of the late 1990s in Malaysia that led to the incarceration of the former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. Al Gore was clearly sympathetic to Anwar Ibrahim, reflecting what the position of the US was in the whole issue. The Barisan Nasional-led government under the combative former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad naturally was not amused with the remark.

With Bush’s victory over Gore, somewhere at the back of my mind there is a memory of the former PM almost celebrating it. I am unsure if that memory is made up but I am certain that supporters of BN made no bones about expressing how they welcomed Gore’s defeat: a payback to his speech in Kuala Lumpur in 1998. I somehow feel that the same individuals would have preferred Gore to Bush in retrospect.

I do not remember much of the first more or less eight months of the Bush administration but I do vividly remember September 11, 2001. I had just begun my freshman year in an American university and I woke up at around 9am on a Tuesday only to be greeted with cancelled classes and closed offices. Just as I was trying to adjust to my new life, the World Trade Center in New York collapsed after being rammed by two hijacked passenger airplanes to unveil a new world. Al-Qaeda claimed credit and Osama Bin Laden, the head of the organization and a guest of the Taliban-led Afghanistan, was a likely candidate for Time’s Person of the Year.

September 11 is, without doubt, the single event that made everything the Bush administration is today possible.

Shocked, a divisive society came together behind Bush with a majority of the world offering goodwill unconditionally. The political will shown in Washington made retribution swift. An ultimatum was issued: surrender Bin Laden or face military action. Afghanistan refused and the rest is history. The US now occupies the landlocked country with a US-supported government in place.

Then, there was Iraq. Suddenly, weapons of mass destruction was the buzzword and Saddam Hussein of Iraq was accused of maintaining it. Iraq said that it did not have it anymore. Bush maintained otherwise and was prepared to disarm Iraq forcefully. Secretary of State Colin Powell tried to convince the world that there were WMD in Iraq. The United Nations, however, was unconvinced and refused to sanction any military action of the level Bush advocated.

Frustrated, the US forged the Coalition of the Willing and invaded Iraq. Unity within the US and goodwill of the world crumbled as swiftly as it was born immediately after September 11.

Sooner or later, the wars were positioned as a conflict between the Muslim and Western worlds. Understandably, many within the US Muslim community feared of becoming the victims of hate crimes. Several of my Malaysian friends warned me to watch my back. While their concern was comprehensible, I did not suffer any of it and I tend to view warnings with skepticism. Rather, my fear was based on something else entirely.

Reports were coming out that the US government was spying on thousands of individuals in the United States and allegations of telephone conversations and email exchanges being tapped made its way around the internet. It was later proven to be true. More distressing was that Bush had the audacity to defend it, even when the secret was out in the open. I however could never be certain if I was ever bugged; a large part of me is confident that I was a victim. After all, as Bush had emphasized in defending the secret tapping program, only calls made to overseas were monitored without a court order.

Some Malaysian friends had to report to the newly-created Department of Homeland Security at regular intervals. It was as if they were ex-convicts on parole. I would have felt humiliated if I had been treated like that. So much of my time would be wasted just reporting to the office in Detroit.

While I was spared of that, profiling by the US government ensured that I went through more rigorous security inspections compared to others.

Every time I took the plane, the security personnel would pull me aside and say “Congratulations, you are selected for further security screening.” I hate having to take off my shoes and to loosen my belt just so they can use the metal detectors. And I hate strangers going through my bags looking for weapons or bombs, just because I am a Malaysian.

In many ways, I was not harassed by US citizens. They were kind to me. I instead was harassed by the US government. In the land of the free, it did not feel like the land of the free. Liberty was curbed in the name of security. Sacrifices had to be made, they said.

The talk of pro-war itself was suffocating. It was either you are with us or against us. Oh, the arrogance!

In the end, Saddam Hussein was executed with unholy haste for the unholy crimes he committed. But there was no WMD to be found. Somebody lied and people died just like that. Thus, the credibility of the US went down the drain. For a world power that could have done some good, it was a shame.

It was shame also that the US sacrificed the moral high ground it took in the wake of the Asian Financial Crisis to save its financial as well as the automotive sectors. If a Democratic administration maintained the moral high ground in economy, surely one would expect a Republican administration would do better. But no, the US government under Bush made sure it did everything necessary to prevent institutions from failing as it should under a free market.

There is no atheist in the foxhole and there are no libertarians in a financial crisis. Bah!

What was politely called unorthodox in the late 1990s quickly became the orthodoxy. Government intervention is the order of the day. As a result, the size of government grew tremendously that one would wonder if it was a Republican President sitting in the Oval Office. Coupled with war spending, the beast was on the loose. The small government ideal, supposedly part of the Republican Party, was betrayed.

So pervasive were the tentacles of government that even scientific reports were censored just to support the political position of the White House on several issues, especially on climate change. In one particular case, a lawyer with little background in science, edited facts presented in a report prepared by climate scientists. He was caught and resigned to save Bush from further embarrassment. Shortly after that as if he had nothing to regret, he joined ExxonMobil, an energy company that vehemently rejected the idea of climate change until only very recently.

Yet, after all the wrongs and more, Bush is right in saying it is history that will judge him. “There are things I would do differently if given the chance. Yet I have always acted with the best interests of our country in mind”, he appealed.

Perhaps but whether it was good enough is another matter.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

This article was first published in The Malaysian Insider on January 19 2009.

Categories
Books & printed materials Society

[1832] Of infected by Western ideology

I thought, the following words in the Dreams from My Father describe something also relevant to the Malaysian society.

“Truth is usually the best corrective”, Rukia said with a smile. “You know, sometimes I think the worst thing that colonialism did was cloud our view of our past. Without the white man, we might be able to make better use of our history. We might look at some of our former practices and decide they are worth preserving. Others, we might grow out of. Unfortunately, the white man has made us very defensive. We end up clinging to all sorts of things that have outlived their usefulness. Polygamy. Collective land ownership. These things worked well in their time, but now they most often become tools for abuse. By men. By government. Any yet, if you say these things, you have been infected by Western ideology.” [Barack Obama. Dreams from My Father]

Not too long ago, I remember Malaysian politicians — religious conservatives too — accusing those who think disagree with various government policies and various traditions as being influenced by Western ideology.

Categories
Environment

[1827] Of what about the Kyoto Protocol, Mr. Democrats?

Since the Democrats are in control of both the White House and the Congress, will it finally ratify the Kyoto Protocol?

Categories
Politics & government

[1825] Of the best America has to offer

He was a relatively unknown United States Senator candidate for Illinois when he delivered the keynote address of the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. With a devastated summer coming to an end, I found myself lying forlornly on a sofa watching the DNC on television. I wanted to listen to Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards and John Kerry instead of a skinny black guy with a funny name as he called himself. The commentators on television however were discussing on how Barack Obama is a rising star in the Democratic Party, much like how the Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm was except that he writes well. Maybe I should give him a chance and stay in front of the television, I thought to myself.

I cannot recall who introduced him to the podium but I remember me being impressed in a way I have never been. His words, especially when he spoke of how “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is there United States of America”; how “there is not a black American and a white America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America” moved me so much.

The next half hour was purely exhilarating that I as a foreigner in a little liberal fortress in the Midwest felt the urge to vote on November 4 even when I have no right to do that. I need not this speech to be partial to John Kerry but Obama’s address inspired me to participate in one way or another. It was hard to sit down while watching the crowd in Boston welcoming enthusiastically of Obama’s address. It was easy to be carried away by the spirit of the moment.

I keep track of him ever since that day in a July. The internet was buzzed with the possibility of Obama running for the Presidency sometimes in the future. The reason was simple: he outshone all speakers during the DNC.

The 2004 presidential race was easy for me. There was an illegitimate war in Iraq much to the disapproval of the majority in the world community. Fierce debates conducted within the hall of the United Nations Security Council and massive protests all over the world were evident to that.

Civil liberty meanwhile was under threat with the onerous Patriot Act passed. There were reports that telephone conversations were being bugged. Privacy was disrespected in the name of security.

As a Malaysian in the United States, I hated being profiled and pulled over by airport securities every time I took the airplane. That however was not as bad as some of fellow Malaysians had to suffer. They had to report to the some homeland security office all the way out of Ann Arbor in Detroit regularly.

Bush’s “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” speech made it all too angering that made it clearly, it was then anything but Bush. Well, actually, John Kerry was the only real option to George Bush. In the modern two-party system in the US, it is always between the Democrats and the Republicans.

But Kerry lost and Bush stayed in the Oval Office.

Four years later, the cycle begins anew and this time, it is between John McCain from the Republicans and Barack Obama from the Democrats, both being the US Senators. Choosing between McCain and Obama however is harder than it was between Bush and Kerry for me.

This is mostly because McCain, at least before he pandered to the base of the Republicans party for the upcoming Presidential race, has a mind of his own. He was, as others derisively called, a Republicans in name only; a RINO. He had the audacity to speak up his mind even if it is unpopular.

Who had the guts to tell off those farmers in Iowa that ethanol subsidy is wasteful, that it is far more efficient to import it from Brazil? Or facing off those automotive workers in Michigan that they need to compete fairly against their counterparts across the Pacific?

It is an unpopular but the right positions to take. Nobody who participated in the Democratic and the Republican primaries, save probably Ron Paul, has the guts to say that but John McCain.

What made McCain refreshing to me is that he is one of those blue green politicians which are so rare in American politics — he believes in free market and care for the environment. He sees the market economy and the environment as not something mutually exclusive.

In the fierce repeating debates to open the Arctic National Wildlife refuge in Alaska for drilling, he joined the Democrats in opposing it. In the early 2000s, he together with Joe Lieberman drafted a bill to do something about US carbon emissions through market-based mechanism.

McCain does however hold disagreeable political positions from my point of view. Some of them are issues on security and civil liberty, hawkish foreign policy, abortion, religion and teaching on evolution. While I was prepared to overlook these issues, they have unfortunately been amplified during the primaries. Instead of maintaining a centrist outlook, McCain’s journey to the right to join the religious conservative is disappointing. Having Sarah Palin as his running mate made it all worse.

Under Obama as the President, it is unlikely that the same social and civil liberty issues would disturb me as much. Democrats, after all, on average are conscious of civil liberty.

The best of all, having a black President would challenge the xenophobic tendency of the conservatives. At the end of the day, it is an effort at the creation of a United States less riddled with prejudice.

When McCain should have distanced himself from the policies of Bush, he made a u-turn to gain the favor of the socially conservatives within the Republican Party during the primaries, as he competed for votes with other candidates like Mitt Romney and the religiously conservative Mike Huckabee.

The Economist lamented McCain’s transformation months ago and recently, translated its disappointment by endorsing Obama. The disappointment is shared by many libertarians.

A number of libertarians are abandoning the Republicans by are migrating to the Obama camp. The Republican Party under Bush has betrayed the libertarians and there is a need for libertarians to make a statement.  There is a need to point out that libertarians as independents too can play the role of a kingmaker. The role is not unique to the socially conservatives or the evangelicals.

These libertarians are now hoping that Rubinomics would reign in spite of all the speeches that Obama gave, like the renegotiation of NAFTA or punishment for firms which outsource its operations outside of the US.

I am however unsure how wise that switch of camp is, especially so when the Democrats are controlling both the House of Representative and the Senate. With another Democrat in the Oval Office, there might be a tendency to take an overtly populist protectionist stance against trade, hurting the fuel of prosperity for people all over the world. The unnecessary expansion of the role of government seems inevitable with the Democrats controlling both the executive and legislative branches of government.

This is especially so given the current economic climate in the US where it is easy to make a scapegoat out of the idea of economic liberty. Short term but shape pain has a way in making people forget the cumulative net benefits reaped from the very idea which they scorn.

The worry should be typical of a centrist which has the ideal candidate conscious of civil and economic liberty. I want a candidate which believes in both civil and economic liberty.

In the United States the ideal candidate is hard to come by. The Republican Party represents the socially conservative but economic liberal group, sometimes with the tendency to trump civil liberty in the name of security. The inverse is true for the Democratic Party. Both sides have their strengths and both sides have their weaknesses.

In any case, both McCain and Obama are trying to blur the traditional separation line. Obama does take up some idea of economic liberty more than most Democrats and McCain does respect civil liberty more than most Republicans. Both are less divisive than say Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton or Tom DeLay or George Bush. Both are willing to reach across the aisle.

For this reason, especially when I do not have the right to vote in the election, I am one of those undecided individuals standing by the sidelines watching race intently. Though I cannot vote, I will be affected by the results of the election because after all, the US is a superpower with presence all over the world.

Whatever the outcome to the November 4 2008 Presidential Election, the winner will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution which guarantees the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whatever the result will be, it will be the testament of the best America has to offer; liberal democracy.

I am unable to endorse either candidate because I like and dislike both. I however can endorse something larger and I endorse the system.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.