Obama. Complexity. Doing. Etc.

Following this post the other day about my own muddle-headedness, I re-stumbled across this old David Brooks column about Obama when his candidacy was just getting going.

There are a thousand things to potentially disagree with this administration about. But Obama's ability to "get" or just better express that he "gets" that the U.S. can be both humble and bold about our place in the world—and that the world is complicated and ridiculous and not always a matter of good v. evil—is welcome relief (even if obvious), and why he gets people to listen (especially the enormous audiences abroad—he speaks to them as if they were adults). Brooks, a conservative-ish, certainly gives him the same respect:

Yesterday evening I was interviewing Barack Obama and we were talking about effective foreign aid programs in Africa. His voice was measured and fatigued, and he was taking those little pauses candidates take when they’re afraid of saying something that might hurt them later on.

Out of the blue I asked, “Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr?”

Obama’s tone changed. “I love him. He’s one of my favorite philosophers.”

So I asked, What do you take away from him?

“I take away,” Obama answered in a rush of words, “the compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away ... the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism.”

My first impression was that for a guy who’s spent the last few months fund-raising, and who was walking off the Senate floor as he spoke, that’s a pretty good off-the-cuff summary of Niebuhr’s “The Irony of American History.” My second impression is that his campaign is an attempt to thread the Niebuhrian needle, and it’s really interesting to watch.

On the one hand, Obama hates, as Niebuhr certainly would have, the grand Bushian rhetoric about ridding the world of evil and tyranny and transforming the Middle East. But he also dislikes liberal muddle-headedness on power politics. In “The Audacity of Hope,” he says liberal objectives like withdrawing from Iraq, stopping AIDS and working more closely with our allies may be laudable, “but they hardly constitute a coherent national security policy.”

At the time, in a failed experiment with my own human nature, I had decided to see if I could truly stay mentally uncommitted to a candidate until the last week of the election. But it was stuff like this that made Obama wildly compelling—and to me made his unconventional youth in places like Indonesia and Pakistan an enormous asset.

Thoughts?

David Brooks speaks to Americans as if they were adults*

I'll read every column David Brooks writes, and this is why:

In the age of Rush and Hannity, here's Brooks explaining his careful opposition to the economic approach currently being taken by Obama, without belittling, demonizing or polarizing those he's criticizing.

These experiences drove me toward the crooked timber school of public philosophy: Michael Oakeshott, Isaiah Berlin, Edward Banfield, Reinhold Niebuhr, Friedrich Hayek, Clinton Rossiter and George Orwell.

These writers - some left, some right - had a sense of epistemological modesty. They knew how little we can know. They understood that we are strangers to ourselves and society is an immeasurably complex organism. They tended to be skeptical of technocratic, rationalist planning and suspicious of schemes to reorganize society from the top down.

...

Readers of this column know that I am a great admirer of Barack Obama and those around him. And yet the gap between my epistemological modesty and their liberal worldviews has been evident over the past few weeks. The people in the administration are surrounded by a galaxy of unknowns, and yet they see this economic crisis as an opportunity to expand their reach, to take bigger risks and, as Obama said on Saturday, to tackle every major problem at once.
...

If Obama is mostly successful, then the epistemological skepticism natural to conservatives will have been discredited. We will know that highly trained government experts are capable of quickly designing and executing top-down transformational change. If they mostly fail, then liberalism will suffer a grievous blow, and conservatives will be called upon to restore order and sanity.

It’ll be interesting to see who’s right. But I can’t even root for my own vindication. The costs are too high. I have to go to the keyboard each morning hoping Barack Obama is going to prove me wrong.

Humble. Introspective. Respectful. Intellectually curious. Willing to be wrong. Aware of the limits of his understanding about the world. THIS IS HOW POLITICAL DISCOURSE SHOULD BE.

Read the whole thing. Thanks to Trey for the link.



*To steal from Jon Stewart. Seriously.. quit watching cable news, folks.

Moral Hazard

I think a lot of people have been struggling (myself included) with the "moral hazard" of the gov bailing out of those who either perpetuated the banking crisis and those who took on risky mortgages who had no business doing so. Obviously no one wants to reward mismanagement, stupidity and greed. And no one wants to enable or encourage such repeat behavior with prescedent for future government intervention.

But no one wants the entire system to collapse either, and this isn't an individual economic crisis.

So.. with housing plan and bailout II debates heating up, here are a couple good ones from over the weekend that added a bit of clarity to this.

David Brooks (more or less a conservative) who says dwelling on punishment isn't the answer:

Our moral and economic system is based on individual responsibility. It’s based on the idea that people have to live with the consequences of their decisions. This makes them more careful deciders. This means that society tends toward justice — people get what they deserve as much as possible.

...

Personally, I hate the idea of 10 guys sitting around in the White House trying to redesign huge swaths of the U.S. economy on legal pads.

But at least they seem to be driven by a spirit of moderation and restraint. They seem to be trying to keep as many market structures in place as possible so things can return to normal relatively smoothly.

And they seem to understand the big thing. The nation’s economy is not just the sum of its individuals. It is an interwoven context that we all share. To stabilize that communal landscape, sometimes you have to shower money upon those who have been foolish or self-indulgent. The greedy idiots may be greedy idiots, but they are our countrymen. And at some level, we’re all in this together. If their lives don’t stabilize, then our lives don’t stabilize.

And the New Yorker's James Surowiecki, who says the moral hazard isn't as big a risk as you might think:

Why might the effects of moral hazard be smaller than expected? To begin with, most bailouts aren’t like deposit insurance, which is certain and quick. Financial bailouts are uncertain and messy, and they typically occur only after institutions have already suffered extensive damage. Bear Stearns, for instance, was “saved” only after its shares had fallen almost ninety-five per cent from the previous year, and it seems unlikely that either its laid-off workers or its battered shareholders came out of the experience anxious to engage in more foolhardy behavior.

....

The patchiness of the moral-hazard argument doesn’t mean that we should simply rubber-stamp another bank bailout; that may be both unjust and a poor strategy for whipping the financial sector into shape. But it does mean that the failure of Lehman Brothers was an unnecessary and costly sacrifice to moral-hazard fundamentalism. It also means that we should not sit quietly by because we fear that government action today will lead to reckless market behavior years from now. Moral hazard has its costs. But, so far, our fear of it has proved much more expensive.

Anyway.. discuss.