What with the recent release of Radiohead's new album The King of Limbs, the internet is once again bordering on convulsions in reaction to this rare event. There's a Track-By-Track Breakdown of the album on Rollingstone.com. There's a blog dedicated to determining if there is another album being released right behind Limbs. There's a guide to Thom Yorke's dance moves in the "Lotus Flower" video. But a thoroughly interesting opining from Tim Carmody on Snarkmarket caught my eye. Tim examines the claim by a flighty Twitterer that "Radiohead > The Beatles". The article is well thought-out, but it's the comments below that are the real treasure, as readers (and Tim, in response) examine the heights within our popular consciousness to which Radiohead, and many other acts, have scaled and what that really means in the music industry. As I have often dwelled on such a comparison, my couple of pennies were added as follows:
This, from Tim, is the key: “It isn’t completely about longevity, or quality, or even popular success, but the intersection of the three.” There are bands/artists that make absolutely brilliant music and that garner incredible popular+critical acclaim, but fall off after one or two albums; bands/artists that have been consistently making excellent music for decades but that only a small sliver of the populace has heard of; bands/artists that have been selling concert tickets by the millions since before I was born but who’s music really isn’t all that good (probably fewer of these, but they’re there). Radiohead is a band that has made consistently amazing music, for nearly two decades, and is adored by the majority of fans and critics alike, and they do all these things at a level probably unparalleled today.
Now, are they better than the Beatles? I feel the premise of the question is misguided. As has been said above, *so* much about the music industry has changed since then. A godfatherly figure in my life, who was alive during Beatlemania and may have actually seen them in the Cavern, once explained to me that a very significant part of what enabled the Beatles to cast such a massive shadow over all popular music henceforth was that they were The First. Granted, their music was consistently excellent, and they were consistently loved by pretty much everyone with ears. But everyone before them, even figures as large as Elvis, got on a boat and crossed the ocean. The Beatles boarded a rocket and went to the moon.
Has Radiohead also gone to the moon? Almost certainly. Again, the level at which they have achieved quality, longevity, and popular success with their music is matched by an incredibly select group of musicians, dating back through the 20th century. But I personally feel that they can never be “better” simply because it’s the Beatles’ flag sticking out of the rock, planted in 1964, with the words “I Want To Hold Your Hand.” Given all that, though, like Tim also said above, “the fact of making the comparison no longer seems inherently ridiculous.”
Monday, February 28, 2011
Monday, November 22, 2010
President Obama's Entreaty to Israel
Many things have been said and written about the presidency of Barack Obama since his inauguration on a cold day in January 2009, and probably all of these have been disputed by one commentator or another. However, there is one facet of his half-term in office with which one would be very hard-pressed to disagree: Obama goes big. True, there will always be a significant cadre of leftwingers who say he doesn't go big enough, from Krugmanites who said he should have pushed early and often for a bigger stimulus to the single-payer advocates who wanted him to go full-throttle for (at least) the public option in the slog to health-care reform to the liberal Democrats who said the financial regulatory reform bill was "simply not enough." Despite these often-voiced complaints, even the most radical members of both parties could probably agree that Obama at least aims high, even if his cross-hairs inevitably get pulled down, for better or worse, by a short-sighted Republican party furiously employing the 60-vote requirement in the Senate.
Domestic policy work aside, there are two disparate yet possibly related areas in which Obama has clearly made an effort to go big, in lieu of not going at all: the 2008 presidential campaign and his administration's current policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Anyone paying even a modicum of attention to the primary battle between Obama and then-Senator Hillary Clinton will recall the political fiasco surrounding the sermons of Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the way in which those videos enforced a swath of perceptions about Candidate Obama. Rather than take the John Kerry approach and steadfastly believe that ignoring the problem would make it go away (see Truth, Swift Boat Veterans for), Obama opted to swing for the fences and met the controversy head-on with a much-hyped speech in Philadelphia. While the speech did not make the problem go away entirely in the campaign, it was eventually lauded for effectively neutralizing the issue in the primary and reducing its impact in the general election.
The Obama administration's role thus far in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been similarly high-intentioned, but with significantly (and regrettably) lower-minded results. While Obama originally aimed to have a peace agreement in place within one year of the commencement of negotiations, that vision now appears in the minds of virtually everyone involved (except the administration) to be nothing more than a pipe dream. The diagnoses for the perceived paralysis of the talks are as varied as the commentators issuing said diagnoses, but there is one symptom in particular that seems ideally suited for the skills Obama demonstrated in the campaign (and have since been conspicuously absent from his governing style): the lack of public and governmental support in Israel for Obama and his approach to the conflict. If the polls are to be believed, most Israelis think Obama is working primarily in the interests of the Palestinians and that this position automatically puts him at odds with the interests of Israel. According to POLITICO's Ben Smith, Obama has "resisted advisers’ suggestions that he travel to Israel or speak directly to Israelis as he has to Muslims in Egypt, Turkey and Indonesia." This makes no sense from either a policy or a public-relations standpoint. If Israeli support for Obama's initiatives is so anemic, he would do well to employ his greatest political weapon (his ability to deliver one helluva speech) in an attempt to combat this problem.
As for what such a speech would say, that would probably be the easiest part. The speech would first assert that it is each nation's first and foremost responsibility to look out for the interests and security of its citizens, and that Israel has, with better and more immediate reason than most, been unflinchingly consistent in taking on this responsibility. The speech would concede that America must also work in favor of its own interests, but also point out that the interests of other nations, especially those of its allies, and more especially those of Israel, frequently overlap with its own. The speech would take a lofty turn towards the idea that, whereas conflict and aggression usually end up serving the interests of only one group or people, peace and coexistence can be beneficial to all (Obama would do well here to point out that these words are intended for the Palestinians as well).
It is in this light that the speech would spell out exactly why peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is in the highest interest of Israel, and by extension of America: it would remove the Palestinian issue as a rhetorical weapon from the salvos of Israel's detractors in the Arab world; it would give political cover to Israel's more moderate neighbors, such as Jordan and Egypt, for establishing closer ties with Israel fueled by their own economic interests. From a security standpoint, it would drastically reduce the likelihood of suicide-bombers or rocket attacks from the Palestinians, and would provide Israel with vastly broader support in combating any factions (such as Hamas) that might engage in such tactics. And perhaps most significantly, it would help line up international (and Arab) support for Israel should it be forced to take serious military action against Iran's nuclear weapons program.
An oratorically-persuasive speech of this nature, clearly spelling out the fact that America's (and Obama's) goals in this process are to further the interests of the Israelis, would probably not win over a portion of the Israeli public or government sufficient enough to set the stage for a completed peace deal. But at the very least, it would be a valiant attempt at showing the Israelis what Obama is really aiming for, and why it is in their interest to help him achieve it.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
State of the Union: What Does It All Mean?
The 2010 midterm elections have come and gone, and so begins the time-honored tradition of political observers of all stripes making an attempt at interpreting what exactly the results will mean for the government and, ultimately, the country. I find myself unable to resist engaging in said tradition; thus follows my own view of what the election means and what might happen going forward.
Before one makes that attempt, however, it is important to try to understand the general meaning of elections in this country. Structurally, elections are the point of contact between the people and the government that obviously has the most influence, and thus the most significant ramifications. Other lines of communication, such as letters and phone calls to your Congressman or Senators, pale in their impact on government policy in comparison to voters exercising their franchise, as this most recent election has clearly demonstrated. Given this point, there are several questions that should first be asked before one attempts this interpretive exercise.
To start, one must evaluate whether or not the electorate was determined to use that influence to send an explicit and mostly uniform message to those that govern it, or if voters were simply all over the place in their agenda. I think it is plain for all to see that Americans were largely aligned in their feelings about their own situations and the country in general, in that they see an economy sputtering through a so-called recovery, they see themselves and everyone they know struggling to make ends meet and to figure out the road forward, and, most importantly, they don't see the government doing anything that is explicitly designed to help them out. Now, there are plenty of folks, including many who were just voted into office, who will say this election was a rebuke of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, of the Democrats' Big-Government Agenda, of Out-Of-Control Spending and Taxes, of any number of things. These same people were probably saying over the last year and a half that Obama over-interpreted the voters' message from 2008 and pulled the country in an uncomfortably left-wing direction, and perhaps they're right; anyone who considers himself affiliated with the Tea Party, whether politician or voter, would certainly agree. But what about the broader electorate? Even in blood-red-conservative states like Texas and Oklahoma, only 1 in 3 voters identify with the Tea Party movement, so it would be rather disingenuous to try and pass this message off as that of the much larger bloc of less partisan voters. If I may speculate, I would say that most voters probably couldn't care less about what goes on in Washington if the states of their households were more on the level. But in times of economic upheaval, it only makes sense that the voting public would send the message that whatever the politicians are doing is not working to improve their quality of life, and thus they decide to give someone else a try. Trying to tackle issues of behemoth proportions like healthcare and energy are important, and would maybe even play well with voters under normal economic conditions, but Americans are, justifiably, too concerned with their wallets and retirement funds to believe that those issues are more important than bringing down unemployment.
So if the message voters are sending to Washington is one of frustration with their own economic situations and apprehension about the future of the economy, the second question one must ask is: what do the voters want the new office-holders to do about it? Just as Democrats over-interpreted the voters' message in 2008 (or perhaps miscalculated their response to that message), so must the new political order take care to avoid doing the same. If the Republican majority in the House makes it a top priority to repeal the new healthcare law (which is all but guaranteed not to happen with Obama wielding the veto pen), do they really think this is going to endear them to the broader electorate, outside the Tea Party folks? Will proposals to prevent "anchor babies" from gaining citizenship do anything to reduce unemployment? Unlikely. Therefore, wouldn't it serve them better to pursue legislation that puts job creation and economic growth at the top of the list, rather than undoing the (granted, decidedly liberal) legislation passed during the first two years of Obama's presidency?
Which brings me to the third question: what should the President and (the remaining) Congressional Democrats do, now that their ability to shape and pass legislation has been drastically reduced? The smart things would seem to be maintaining a laser-like focus on job creation and growth, then hammering the Republicans any time they get side-tracked from that (it would clearly have behooved Democrats to have done this from the start and tackled healthcare, etc. when the economy had gotten back on its feet, but what's done is done). Many Republicans, including soon-to-be-Speaker Boehner, have stated publicly that there are certain issues on which they will absolutely refuse to compromise. If Obama proposes any job-creation legislation that incurs new spending and/or raised taxes (of any kind), presumably those Republicans would keep that promise. Therefore, if the Democrats can push job-creation legislation that is deficit-neutral and only raises taxes by, say, eliminating corporate tax loopholes or increasing oil/excise/plastic surgery taxes, a lack of any nascent job creation can be hung effectively and genuinely on the Republicans.
I have maintained since January 20th, 2009 that Obama's reelection chances are better than even. I also think they will continue to march higher and higher as the 112th Congress goes about its business.
Before one makes that attempt, however, it is important to try to understand the general meaning of elections in this country. Structurally, elections are the point of contact between the people and the government that obviously has the most influence, and thus the most significant ramifications. Other lines of communication, such as letters and phone calls to your Congressman or Senators, pale in their impact on government policy in comparison to voters exercising their franchise, as this most recent election has clearly demonstrated. Given this point, there are several questions that should first be asked before one attempts this interpretive exercise.
To start, one must evaluate whether or not the electorate was determined to use that influence to send an explicit and mostly uniform message to those that govern it, or if voters were simply all over the place in their agenda. I think it is plain for all to see that Americans were largely aligned in their feelings about their own situations and the country in general, in that they see an economy sputtering through a so-called recovery, they see themselves and everyone they know struggling to make ends meet and to figure out the road forward, and, most importantly, they don't see the government doing anything that is explicitly designed to help them out. Now, there are plenty of folks, including many who were just voted into office, who will say this election was a rebuke of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, of the Democrats' Big-Government Agenda, of Out-Of-Control Spending and Taxes, of any number of things. These same people were probably saying over the last year and a half that Obama over-interpreted the voters' message from 2008 and pulled the country in an uncomfortably left-wing direction, and perhaps they're right; anyone who considers himself affiliated with the Tea Party, whether politician or voter, would certainly agree. But what about the broader electorate? Even in blood-red-conservative states like Texas and Oklahoma, only 1 in 3 voters identify with the Tea Party movement, so it would be rather disingenuous to try and pass this message off as that of the much larger bloc of less partisan voters. If I may speculate, I would say that most voters probably couldn't care less about what goes on in Washington if the states of their households were more on the level. But in times of economic upheaval, it only makes sense that the voting public would send the message that whatever the politicians are doing is not working to improve their quality of life, and thus they decide to give someone else a try. Trying to tackle issues of behemoth proportions like healthcare and energy are important, and would maybe even play well with voters under normal economic conditions, but Americans are, justifiably, too concerned with their wallets and retirement funds to believe that those issues are more important than bringing down unemployment.
So if the message voters are sending to Washington is one of frustration with their own economic situations and apprehension about the future of the economy, the second question one must ask is: what do the voters want the new office-holders to do about it? Just as Democrats over-interpreted the voters' message in 2008 (or perhaps miscalculated their response to that message), so must the new political order take care to avoid doing the same. If the Republican majority in the House makes it a top priority to repeal the new healthcare law (which is all but guaranteed not to happen with Obama wielding the veto pen), do they really think this is going to endear them to the broader electorate, outside the Tea Party folks? Will proposals to prevent "anchor babies" from gaining citizenship do anything to reduce unemployment? Unlikely. Therefore, wouldn't it serve them better to pursue legislation that puts job creation and economic growth at the top of the list, rather than undoing the (granted, decidedly liberal) legislation passed during the first two years of Obama's presidency?
Which brings me to the third question: what should the President and (the remaining) Congressional Democrats do, now that their ability to shape and pass legislation has been drastically reduced? The smart things would seem to be maintaining a laser-like focus on job creation and growth, then hammering the Republicans any time they get side-tracked from that (it would clearly have behooved Democrats to have done this from the start and tackled healthcare, etc. when the economy had gotten back on its feet, but what's done is done). Many Republicans, including soon-to-be-Speaker Boehner, have stated publicly that there are certain issues on which they will absolutely refuse to compromise. If Obama proposes any job-creation legislation that incurs new spending and/or raised taxes (of any kind), presumably those Republicans would keep that promise. Therefore, if the Democrats can push job-creation legislation that is deficit-neutral and only raises taxes by, say, eliminating corporate tax loopholes or increasing oil/excise/plastic surgery taxes, a lack of any nascent job creation can be hung effectively and genuinely on the Republicans.
I have maintained since January 20th, 2009 that Obama's reelection chances are better than even. I also think they will continue to march higher and higher as the 112th Congress goes about its business.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
A Period of Consequences
One person whose opinions on national and global affairs I tend to take quite seriously (and it is becoming increasingly rare that anyone from our chattering class can be taken anything close to "seriously") is Fareed Zakaria. While he may lean a little to the left (or is too liberal/progressive/socialist/et al., depending on who you ask), I find that his analyses and prognostications are often well thought-out, supported by worthwhile sources and historical comparisons. Yesterday I happened upon a very interesting article of his entitled How To Restore The American Dream, and it got me thinking about a number of things, things which I decided I wanted to commit to some sort of print medium if only so I could recall them later.
The article is absolutely worthy of a full read-through, as it touches on some very serious issues facing the United States, the foremost of which is the shifting structure of the global economy and America's place in it (or, more specifically, that of the American worker). The basic arc of it all is that globalization and technology have joined forces (or conspired, if the reader prefers), in a way not seen in the post-war era, to change global economic dynamics in a potentially irreparable fashion. Companies can make the same products (the article uses Coca-Cola as an example) at a much lower cost by opening up production in countries with developing economies, while simultaneously tapping the emerging markets of those countries. As a result, companies can become more efficient simply by embracing the lower costs of doing business in the developing world. Some of my more libertarian friends would put forth some variation on the theme that this is clearly due to draconian tax laws designed to perpetuate the American welfare state, and to the regulation of business geared toward the redistribution wealth to the masses. Zakaria delves considerably deeper than that, however, and I found myself agreeing with him at the very least on the scale of the problem. Yes, the tax code is a monstrosity, but the problem is far too complicated to merely espouse "cutting taxes on business" as a viable solution. After all, incomes were largely flat during the previous decade, even after the massive tax cuts were pushed through in 2001 and 2003.
Fortunately, America is still home to the most coveted market in the world. "None of [the global corporations] will ever give up on the American market — it is too large, too profitable and too central to their businesses," the article grants. However, Zakaria asserts that the mostly robust economic times that Americans enjoyed prior to the Great Recession were largely an illusion created by the availability of easy credit. He cites the eye-popping statistic that American household debt rose from $680 billion in 1974 to a staggering $14 trillion in 2008. Despite this massive increase in consumption, which has been the primary driving force behind the American economy for decades, incomes remained stagnant throughout much of this period. And in post-Recession America, neither is credit likely to be as available nor consumption to be as rigorous as before, and thus America's economy will continue to lag and sputter along, causing immeasurable pain for millions.
So what is the solution? How does America once again become the preeminent global economic leader? I'm sure I don't need to disclose that there is no silver bullet to this situation, and that it will require some particularly difficult decisions, which in turn will warrant considerable fortitude of political leadership, fortitude which I am resigned to saying our political class as a whole lacks, nay, abhors. Zakaria believes that one essential ingredient to any resurgence of the American economy is a massive expenditure for investment generally (in lieu of merely mass consumption), research and development more specifically. This makes logical sense: if the things Americans once did better than anyone else in the world are now being done better and more efficiently in so many other places, why not boost innovation to a high enough level that it allows the American business community to embrace unseen ideas and products, ones which have yet to be found anywhere else in the world? Other nations (South Korea exemplified in the article) are making huge investments in new industries like green energy technology; why shouldn't America?
To return to my libertarian friends for a moment, the response from that portion of the spectrum is sure to feature the phrase "free market" alongside some kind of argument that the government should stay out of the private sector and let business do what business feels is best. While I am certainly nowhere near liberal enough to instinctively reject that argument, I do wonder what would have happened in 1940 if FDR had decided to leave the rapid, massive (necessary) mobilization of industry up to the leaders of the private sector. Would they have been more concerned with the long-term security of the nation? Or their own short-term profit margins?
The article is absolutely worthy of a full read-through, as it touches on some very serious issues facing the United States, the foremost of which is the shifting structure of the global economy and America's place in it (or, more specifically, that of the American worker). The basic arc of it all is that globalization and technology have joined forces (or conspired, if the reader prefers), in a way not seen in the post-war era, to change global economic dynamics in a potentially irreparable fashion. Companies can make the same products (the article uses Coca-Cola as an example) at a much lower cost by opening up production in countries with developing economies, while simultaneously tapping the emerging markets of those countries. As a result, companies can become more efficient simply by embracing the lower costs of doing business in the developing world. Some of my more libertarian friends would put forth some variation on the theme that this is clearly due to draconian tax laws designed to perpetuate the American welfare state, and to the regulation of business geared toward the redistribution wealth to the masses. Zakaria delves considerably deeper than that, however, and I found myself agreeing with him at the very least on the scale of the problem. Yes, the tax code is a monstrosity, but the problem is far too complicated to merely espouse "cutting taxes on business" as a viable solution. After all, incomes were largely flat during the previous decade, even after the massive tax cuts were pushed through in 2001 and 2003.
Fortunately, America is still home to the most coveted market in the world. "None of [the global corporations] will ever give up on the American market — it is too large, too profitable and too central to their businesses," the article grants. However, Zakaria asserts that the mostly robust economic times that Americans enjoyed prior to the Great Recession were largely an illusion created by the availability of easy credit. He cites the eye-popping statistic that American household debt rose from $680 billion in 1974 to a staggering $14 trillion in 2008. Despite this massive increase in consumption, which has been the primary driving force behind the American economy for decades, incomes remained stagnant throughout much of this period. And in post-Recession America, neither is credit likely to be as available nor consumption to be as rigorous as before, and thus America's economy will continue to lag and sputter along, causing immeasurable pain for millions.
So what is the solution? How does America once again become the preeminent global economic leader? I'm sure I don't need to disclose that there is no silver bullet to this situation, and that it will require some particularly difficult decisions, which in turn will warrant considerable fortitude of political leadership, fortitude which I am resigned to saying our political class as a whole lacks, nay, abhors. Zakaria believes that one essential ingredient to any resurgence of the American economy is a massive expenditure for investment generally (in lieu of merely mass consumption), research and development more specifically. This makes logical sense: if the things Americans once did better than anyone else in the world are now being done better and more efficiently in so many other places, why not boost innovation to a high enough level that it allows the American business community to embrace unseen ideas and products, ones which have yet to be found anywhere else in the world? Other nations (South Korea exemplified in the article) are making huge investments in new industries like green energy technology; why shouldn't America?
To return to my libertarian friends for a moment, the response from that portion of the spectrum is sure to feature the phrase "free market" alongside some kind of argument that the government should stay out of the private sector and let business do what business feels is best. While I am certainly nowhere near liberal enough to instinctively reject that argument, I do wonder what would have happened in 1940 if FDR had decided to leave the rapid, massive (necessary) mobilization of industry up to the leaders of the private sector. Would they have been more concerned with the long-term security of the nation? Or their own short-term profit margins?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)