Big government is back
November 19, 2008
Robert L. Borosage writes in the Huffington Post (Nov 18, 2008): a ‘major recovery program — featuring substantial public investment — will be inevitably the first initiative of the Obama administration’. ‘The era of big government is over is over. …[W]e are … “all Keynesians now”‘.
Are we reentering an era of big government? It is hard to imagine neo-liberal ideology rolling over without a fight. At the same time, it’s hard to see how nations will haul themselves out of recession, or begin to fight climate change, in a laissez faire environment.
Perhaps we are inevitably Keynesians now?
More than an American dream
November 6, 2008
On November 4, 2008, Americans said ‘yes’ to life. They looked to the future and saw an America that was different to yesterday. And they affirmed the change. They affirmed the promise of an unknown future.
Pundits and strategists will analyze the success of the Obama campaign for years to come. But the reason that Obama triumphed is clear. He campaigned on a ticket of change in times that were crying for it. He ran a disciplined campaign, and built an unprecedented grassroots movement that raised record sums of money. Most importantly, he offered the American people the chance of believing in themselves again. He achieved this, not through jingoistic flag-waving and the rejection of things un-American, but by calling upon the heroic spirit that has seen America through its darkest days.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson weren’t born heroes but became heroic by the disposition they assumed in relation to their times. Obama reminds us that we too can be heroic, providing that we confront the need for change and see change for what it can be and is — a positive way ahead.
In times of change, this is more than just an American dream.
The castaway’s dilemma
September 24, 2007
Regarding the slow but inevitable transformation of national economies from ‘dirty’ to ‘clean’ productive systems, the level of dissemblance and denial among political leaders today is painful to watch. It is no longer possible for respectable politicians to try to deny the role of industrial societies in causing climate change. Yet neither (apparently) can responsible economic mangers (and what is a political leader today but the de facto CEO of a giant business corporation?) throw caution to the wind and restructure the economy along carbon neutral lines – at least not until it is clear that everyone else is doing the same thing (incurring the same costs and gambling on the same benefits). In the evolution of the global political debate over how to address the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, the question is not yet: ‘How are we going to change?’ It remains: ‘Who is going to change first?’
Our situation is analogous to that of a group of castaways huddled aboard a sinking raft, which has washed against a reef surrounding a tiny atoll. A shark patrols the lagoon between the reef and the shore. The castaways know that the first of them to dive into the water and swim for shore will get eaten by the shark. The raft is sinking, and sooner or later all of them will end up in the drink, but no one wants to go first. The best strategy would be to swim for it together. But who could trust the others to dive into the water at the crucial time? Perhaps all they can do is sit tight on the sinking raft and wait for it to go down. Then they will be forced to swim for their lives.
Is this not a fair depiction of our current situation? If so, we should start a conversation about how we are going to deal with it.
