Eric Hobsbawm's comments on liberal democracy. Wait, he is alive?

It was in the early part of my graduate student life that I went across town to UCLA to listen to a bunch of visiting academics, including Eric Hobsbawm.  He was old even then, and I had assumed that he would have been gone by now.

Turns out that not only is he alive and well at 93, he has even published a book:

Eric himself has changed. He suffered a nasty fall over Christmas and can no longer escape the physical constraints of his 93 years. But the humour and the hospitality of himself and his wife, Marlene, as well as the intellect, political incisiveness and breadth of vision, remain wonderfully undimmed. With a well-thumbed copy of the Financial Times on the coffee table, Eric moved seamlessly from the outgoing President Lula of Brazil's poll ratings to the ideological difficulties faced by the Communist party in West Bengal to the convulsions in Indonesia following the 1857 global crash. The global sensibility and lack of parochialism, always such a strength of his work, continue to shape his politics and history.

I wish I were this alive even now, while I am only half his age!

Even though I have always disagreed with his ideological framework, I am always humbled by how much he knows (and by contrast, how little I do!)  But, there is no disagreement with the following point he makes:

What I'm saying now is that the basic problems of the 21st century would require solutions that neither the pure market, nor pure liberal democracy can adequately deal with. And to that extent, a different combination, a different mix of public and private, of state action and control and freedom would have to be worked out.
What you will call that, I don't know. But it may well no longer be capitalism, certainly not in the sense in which we have known it in this country and the United States.

I wish that in the US we would get rid of the rigid political/ideological bottom-line that the partisans spout, and begin to explore a 21st century approach.  Which is why I hope the LibCons would be daring enough ...

Hotel California is bankrupt

More to add about California failing:

What went so wrong? The answer lies in a change in the nature of progressive politics in California. During the second half of the twentieth century, the state shifted from an older progressivism, which emphasized infrastructure investment and business growth, to a newer version, which views the private sector much the way the Huns viewed a city—as something to be sacked and plundered.

Joel Kotkin does not mince words here, does he!
And the state of the state now?

Between 2004 and 2007, 500,000 more Americans left California than arrived; in 2008, the net outflow reached 135,000, much of it to the very “dust bowl” states, like Oklahoma and Texas, from which many Californians trace their origins. California now has a lower percentage of people who moved there within the last year than any state except Michigan. Even immigration from abroad seems to be waning: a recent University of Southern California study shows the percentage of Californians who are foreign-born declining for the first time in half a century. For the first time in its history as a state, as political analyst Michael Barone has noted, California is not on track to gain a new congressional district after the 2010 census.

I am more in agreement than otherwise with Kotkin pointing the fingers at public employees and their unions gone amok; environmentalists gone amok; and would add one more to it: Republicans gone amok.  It seems like social conservatism is the one and only litmus test for Republicans running for office, which has eliminated any possibility of moderate and intelligent Republicans ever winning one, even if such a candidate could gain the plurality of all voters.  (Recent example: Meg Whitman, the Republican nominee for California's governor race has already stated her opposition to the Prop 8 verdict!)  Well, I could repeat the same lines for Oregon too.

What California needs is a healthy dose of Libertarian-Democrat politics.  This would combine the best of the Earl Warren and Pat Brown policies with the Reagan approach to a focus on budget (in California--not when he was in the White House).  Or, let us see, California needs its own Tory-LibDem government.

Speaking of LibDem here in America, yesterday I came across this site devoted to Libertarian Democrat perspectives.

A depressing read on economics and politics

Tell me if these two paragraphs don't make you bloody depressed even on a wonderful summer night with the full moon aglow:

My reading of contemporary Republican thinking is that there is no chance of any attempt to arrest adverse long-term fiscal trends should they return to power. Moreover, since the Republicans have no interest in doing anything sensible, the Democrats will gain nothing from trying to do much either. That is the lesson Democrats have to draw from the Clinton era’s successful frugality, which merely gave George W. Bush the opportunity to make massive (irresponsible and unsustainable) tax cuts. In practice, then, nothing will be done.

Indeed, nothing may be done even if a genuine fiscal crisis were to emerge. According to my friend, Bruce Bartlett, a highly informed, if jaundiced, observer, some “conservatives” (in truth, extreme radicals) think a federal default would be an effective way to bring public spending they detest under control. It should be noted, in passing, that a federal default would surely create the biggest financial crisis in world economic history.

That is from Martin Wolf's lengthy examination of the political aspects of supply-side economics. (ht)
If that does not depress you enough, here is how Wolf concludes his post:

The danger does not arise from the fiscal deficits of today, but the attitudes to fiscal policy, over the long run, of one of the two main parties. Those radical conservatives (a small minority, I hope) who want to destroy the credit of the US federal government may succeed. If so, that would be the end of the US era of global dominance. The destruction of fiscal credibility could be the outcome of the policies of the party that considers itself the most patriotic.

In sum, a great deal of trouble lies ahead, for the US and the world.

There is only one word to describe the situation ... fucked!


The Tory/LibDem alliance seems all the more attractive now.

The wonder woman down under

I am rooting for Julia Gillard, the current Australian prime minister, and her Labor Party to win the upcoming elections.  Primarily because of the freshness she brings to politics.  Just as the Tory/LibDem alliance, if successful, could begin to change politics even outside the UK, Gillard's victory could have significant effects.

And it is not merely because of the gender, which itself is a huge positive development.  Gillard, unlike politicians all over the developed world who strut around with their spouses and children, and talk about family values, is, well, not married.  Has never been married.  She has, as it once used to be said, shacked up.  And with one who is a hairdresser.  She has no children.  What a contrast from all the politicians we are used to, particularly here in the US.  A wonderfully fresh take on political life.

And the ultimate clincher: Gillard has openly said that she does not believe in god.  Hey, GOP, when do you think you might evolve enough to have such  person among your leadership?  For that matter, hey Dems, how about you?

One of my many observations (editor: to whom?) is that the ultimate test for "democracy" would be for a country to elect as its leader a childless lesbian Jew, who is is also an atheist.  Because, this will be such a contrast to the past conditions when such characteristics have even meant death sentences from societies.  If Australia elects Gillard to power, then it will be a remarkable victory for democracy itself--that we have progressed beyond the stereotype of bible-holding white male married to a woman, and with children in tow.  Of course, countries have elected women leaders, but not a childless, never-been-married atheist.

Gillard's story is that she was born in Wales.  I have known two women who are Welsh.  Both are competent and strong-minded women.  I picture them in my mind when I try to imagine Julia Gillard's personality.  Good for the Welsh, and good for the Aussies, eh.

And, Gillard is from Melbourne, which is where my brother and his family live.  So, yet another reason to cheer for Julia Gillard :)

A ht to this piece for making me think more about all these

Quote of the day: on politics

In opposition Mr Cameron vowed that, were he to become prime minister, politics and government would not be "some demented branch of the entertainment industry". So far, he has been as good as his word. This seems to be a government that speaks up when it has something to say, but when it hasn't, or when keeping quiet is more sensible, it doesn't. It is both quiet and dramatic at the same time.

Awesome, that the British prime minister actually described politics and government as "some demented branch of the entertainment industry" ... Good you, Mr. Cameron.
In that same posting, Bagehot of The Economist also notes that

Right-wing British newspapers are often every bit as shrill as the American media. Leaping on the chance to display some easy, knee-jerk patriotism, several urged David Cameron to stand up for “British Petroleum” and rebuke Barack Obama for demonising the company. Instead, the line has been that the government neither owns nor will disown BP—and quietly to point out that the firm has lots of American shareholders and employees too. Ministers saw Mr Obama’s rhetoric for what it was: the flailing of a politician in a desperate fix. By saying very little in public, they defused what threatened to become a juvenile spat.

I really, really hope that this Tory-LibDem coalition will work out ...