To all those who think they know how this election is going to come out, and what our world will look like in the near or long future, I have some advice: don’t bet whatever’s left of your farm. I’ve seen a fair amount of real change so far in my brief lifetime, and I’m an historian to boot, so I’ve studied a lot more of it. And the bottom line is that life has always been full of surprises. I’ve seen a lot of sure things come up losers, and I’ve seen the opposite.
Look at American politics: the two candidates are both highly unlikely. A year ago, nobody would have been confident that we’d have Obama vs McCain. Hillary was a sure thing, and Giuliani was just waiting around until the South and New York confirmed his candidacy. It’s easy now to look back and “explain” that Obama and McCain were inevitable, but they weren’t.
Ask W. about surprises, why don’t you? He came to Washington with a “realist” foreign policy, bound and determined to avoid entangling foreign alliances and adventures. The core of his political vision was domestic, certainly not international. And you know the rest of the story.
Look at the current financial crisis. I don’t think most people, including Nobel Prize winning economists, have more than an educated hunch about the true dimensions of the problems. I spent several hours this week with some of the smartest guys on and around Wall Street. Every one of them said he had only a guess about the dimensions, but he was sure it was in the tens of trillions of dollars, worldwide. If that is right, a “fix” that amounts to several hundred billion, or even a trillion or two, is, as he put it, “popcorn.” The consensus of these smart guys: this crisis will come in waves, we will try various solutions to each wave, eventually find one that works, then calm down for a while, and then face the next wave. Or not. Maybe the first-wave-solution will actually do the trick. Nobody really knows, they are all guessing.
So I’ve pretty much stopped reading the analyses. Obviously I dread what is coming, which is bigger and bigger government, much more regulation (yes, I know that regulation is a big contributor to the crisis, but any historian worth his Ph.D. will tell you that crises always produce bigger government, and we’ve got a double crisis now: the war, which will bite us again some day, maybe even tomorrow morning, and the economy. So governments will become more assertive, and most people want that. The Europeans have wanted it ever since their last “heroic” spasm, which was World War II and the various totalitarianisms. They have long since turned over their lives to their office-holders.
Given my ongoing worry about mass movements, I keep looking for one here. Much as I detest Obama, I do not yet see him as the leader of an anti-democratic mass movement. He may want that–I take very seriously his ongoing friendships with radical leftists–but I don’t see the movement. Yet. I hope not to see it, obviously, but I’ll keep looking for it. I don’t see how an anti-American ideology can capture the American people; it’s too counter-intuitive for me.
But we’re living in explosive times. As I’ve said from time to time, most every balloon of significance is up in the air right now. And that makes our world fundamentally unpredictable. All we can do is work as hard as we can to preserve our values, and hope that we will prevail.
We may.
Or not. But t’was ever thus. And that’s the way we want it, n’est-ce pas?
PJM Home
Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West
The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots’ Quest for Destruction
The War Against the Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How We’ll Win.
Tocqueville on American Character: Why Tocqueville’s Brilliant Exploraton of the American Spirit is as Vital and Important Today as it was Nearly Two Hundred Years Ago
Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago
Freedom Betrayed: How America led a Global Democratic Revolution, Won the Cold War and Walked Away
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
8 Comments
1. Alireza:“Ask W. about surprises, why don’t you? He came to Washington with a “realist” foreign policy”
This is 100% incorrect. He came to get rid of Saddam Hussein BEFORE 9/11. He had his agenda to get rid of a guy who wanted to kill his “daddy”. There is no BUTS, or IFs about it. Then you add people like Rumsfeld and few others and then you have a disaster waiting to happen. It is now so clear nano seconds after Afghanistan they could not wait to go to Baghdad. So he knew what he planned and now we are all paying for it.
“Look at the current financial crisis. I don’t think most people, including Nobel Prize winning economists, have more than an educated hunch about the true dimensions of the problems.”
This is 100% wrong too. I consider myself below average IQ, yet in 2005, I knew so well that bad things will hit the fan in matter of few years, AFTER sub prime rates were set to raise the interest rates. I’m no wall street brain and I was lucky to get a C in my Econ 101, yet I knew so clearly this thing is going to be so bad and wild fire will burn so many people.
Now those people (smart, insider and noble potential) that you talked to and PRETENDING not to notice this disaster, they were all in it for themselves, and the higher profile they have the more liars and criminal they are. So please…Give me a break!!! PLEASE! How long can we keep this self-deceiving ignorance? How many more trillions and zillions should be lost that many of the smart people say this loudly: WE F…CKED UP BIG TIME and WE KNOW S..IT. WE PRETEND WE KNOW THINGS, BUT WE KNOW SH..T. If people get to this point, I think there will be hope for us in the future.
As I said weeks ago, Greenspan must be investigated and prosecuted for his INCOMPETENCE and dereliction of duty. IT looks like NY Times now published a story about Greenspan (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html?em) that says something close to it, but still they are part of the problem and don’t want to admit their incompetence either.
Oct 10, 2008 - 9:25 pm 2. Nick Guariglia:Alireza, you’re clearly smarter than everyone else.
Dr. L, what worries me is the public standard for selecting a Pres. has been lowered to such an extent that I wonder if we’ll ever get back to what is used to be. Sen. Obama has about 8-12 “stories” from his past which, if further explored — and with any other candidate — would not only cost him the election, but probably coerce him to resign from his seat in the Senate.
I don’t see McCain as the savior. I think he’d be a good caretaker of the country until 2012. But I think far too many of Obama’s supporters see him as something he is not, and this will usher in the Europeanization of the U.S.
Unless I’m wrong. It took four years of Carter to get Reagan, right?
Oct 10, 2008 - 10:36 pm 3. Pete Siracusa:Hello Michael:
Thank you for a very sensitive message. I remember a few things you have taught us that cause more concern…”Don’t think things are so bad they can’t get worse”; “Be careful what you wish for”.
I’m afraid we may be in for four years of finding out just how true those statements are.
Aloha to Barbara, Gabe and Daniel
Oct 11, 2008 - 1:00 pm 4. a Duoist:From China’s ancient ‘I Ching’ to Heraclitus’s river walk to Hegel’s “movement,” much that is notable about humans is ‘change.’ Perhaps if Mr. McCain had stressed “reform” more, he might have better countered Mr. Obama’s call for “change.”
And you’re exactly correct, Dr. Ledeen, the ‘unintended consequences,’ the ‘unknownable results,’ the ‘unexpected setbacks’ make human existence to be a constant test of our natural optimism, without which we’d all vote socialist.
Perhaps Mr. Obama’s presidency will be a watershed, like Mr. Roosevelt’s: the high point of socialist thought, later to be rolled back–if not totally–by a sustained burst of freedom-thinking.
But the issue of what he will do about theofascism acquiring nuclear power in Iran is likely to be the unintended defining feature of his presidency. ‘Realism’ or ‘idealism’ is not going to be of any help in making a decision, whatever he decides. If he decides not to decide, the issue will be forced upon him by 2012.
I’ll not vote for the man, but I sincerely wish him well. However, it would help his governence in the name of “change” if he knew the I Ching, and Heraclitus, if not Hegel.
Oct 11, 2008 - 8:37 pm 5. Ann:Huh?!
Oct 12, 2008 - 7:52 pm 6. Ira Zad:A President B.Hussein Obama will mean surrender to Islamist-Fascists camp, especially, it will mean kneeling with both knees before its main headquarters in Tehran.
B.Hussein’s presidency will mean more than just a radical leftist, Islamist sympathizer agenda; it will be a de facto Coup d’etats in the US. And yes, if he extends himself too far and goes over the threshold of treason; He may suffer the same fate as JFK, ultimately.
His regime’s reign will be so bad and drastic that will pave the way for a Palin presidency landslide in 2012.
Oct 14, 2008 - 12:49 pm 7. narciso:That’s ridiculous Ali Reza; one could argue that Rumsfeld’s team was more aligned with
Oct 14, 2008 - 6:45 pm 8. Alireza:the Iraq liberation than most, but the military was certainly nor in favor. State from Powell to Armitage and Haas, certainly were opposed. The CIA, certainly were against
most activity in Iraq; having washed it’s hands of the situation after 1998. Most followed the line set by Bill Timmons, trying
to accomodate the Saddam regime; through the oil for food program. Schueneman, the great new bugbear of the paleos wasn’t even in the
Administration.
Ira Zad,
Come down! You are an embarrassment by what you saying here. The difference between you and Ahmadinejad is just few nano DNA.
Most probably you shave and he doesn’t. Under the skin, he is an Islamo-facist and you are a pure clean-cut neo-fascist. Financially you spend money on shaving cream and Ahmadinejad doesn’t. He believes in Imam Mehdi, and you dream of meeting Mussolini and having his autograph.
Oct 15, 2008 - 7:09 am