Angry Birds

By Sean Macken in Sydney, Australia

4 November 2011

Conventional American politics seems about to be torn asunder by two equally angry political movements. On the right wing stands the Tea Party; an unashamedly conservative movement, populated disproportionately by the over fifties and desperately trying to constrain a bloated and overweening government. On the left stands the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement; a decidedly liberal grouping, populated by under-thirties and desperate for the government to do something, anything, to fix the financial, corporate and banking systems. As their respective placards show, both regard each other with horror and they diverge widely on what should be done.

For all their differences, however, there are a lot of similarities between the Tea Party Movement and OWS. Both have a blurred and obscure log of claims. The OWS cite generalities and slogans; roughly approximating an appeal for more social equality and a rage against corporate greed. The Tea Party, being anti-tax, anti Government and pro-liberty — whatever that means — is only slightly more coherent.

Both seem to be drawing from the same wellspring of bitterness that has engulfed post-Lehmann Brothers America. Tea Partiers have seen their retirement savings eroded and their house prices collapse, while Government largesse has been lavished on stimulus-packaged white elephants. Occupy Wall Streeter’s have seen their job opportunities vanish and value of education eroded, while Government allows bankers to pay bonuses out of tax payer funded bailouts. Both sides are feeling the pinch and both are angry.

Read More

What is most interesting to me is that their respective resolutions to the problems reflect two long traditions in American politics. On the one side, government can, and should, provide solutions to society’s problems. On the other side Government is the problem.

The impact each of these movements will have on the wider body politic is as yet unclear. The Tea Party is influencing GOP policies and positions and may yet be, as Sarah Palin said, “the cleansing … the Republican Party needs.” Similarly Al Gore’s description of OWS as the “primal scream of democracy” means Democrats are taking notice too. The result may be more political gridlock with Democrats and Republicans’ locking in behind each camp. Or perhaps, with such a nebulous agenda, the main parties will struggle to meet each group’s needs. Perhaps they’ll just have to stay angry and stay on the wing.

Hide

Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

How the West was lost

By Sean Macken in Sydney, Australia

19 August 2011

Many historians ascribe the fall of the Roman Empire not to pressure from without, but collapse from within. In this version of the story, the Visigoths and Vandals fell upon a dysfunctional Rome, already in its death throes. Indeed the gates of Rome were opened for the Visigoths by disgruntled Romans hoping for a better life under the Barbarians. Historians like A.J. Toynbee argue that had the governance of Rome not become so dissonant, Rome could have withstood these external threats. Is the same internal dysfunction undermining US hegemony now?

Standard & Poor’s' downgrade last week was not a vote of no-confidence in the US economy or a reflection of concern over the US dollar. It was a vote of no confidence in the governance coming from Washington. The stalemate over the debt ceiling, the bickering over tax and spending cuts, and political brinkmanship between Congress and the White House marked a new low in American political life. This is what S&P saw as the real problem with the US economy.

At the same time, there is a similar failure of leadership in Western Europe. Riots in England, default in Greece, and sex and corruption scandals everywhere else mark a new low for Europe’s governance and represent a serious threat to its long term future. In almost every Western nation, the leaders seem determine to fiddle, Nero-like, while around them the flames grow higher.

Read More

China’s a help not a hindrance. Despite the concern of shaved-headed West Pointers over the recent launch of a new aircraft carrier, China is not a threat to the West. (At least, not yet.) The Chinese are not the barbarians at the gate or a menace to fear. Indeed, a growing China is a boon for the struggling Western economies. The addition of millions of middle class Chinese consumers is a potential bonanza for world markets. Twitter may be banned, but think of the potential iPhone sales.

Similarly, the savings glut of Chinese peasants is lifeline for debt laden central bankers. Like a junkie who has lost his dealer, the Western governments would sorely miss China’s savers. Hillary Clinton may bemoan the difficulties of talking tough to her banker, but at least she still has one. Greece doesn’t.

The decline of the West is not inevitable. The sovereign debts can be repaid, riots can be quelled, and budgets balanced — but only if there is clear and sound governance. The internal discord which has marked Western governments is a far greater threat then any hooded petrol bomb thrower — or credit rating agency. As Abraham Lincoln put it, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” If the internal rancour continues for much longer one could easily imagine Western citizens adopting the Roman citizens' path of throwing open the gates in the hope of a better life under the Chinese.

Hide

Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

Recent Posts

Archive