Futurism has gotten something of a bad name. Serious thinkers think
about the past more than the future. It’s so much more real.
You cannot look foolish for wrongly predicting the past.
In his great book The Black Swan Nassim Nicholas Taleb argued that we are so convinced that the
past is bound to repeat itself—return of the repressed, eternal recurrence of
the same and such—that we fail to prepare ourselves for the future.
And yet, the most important and decisive historical events
are precisely those that we did not imagine. The events that are most likely to
define our lives are the most improbable.
Of course, the terrorist attack of 9/11/01 is a black swan
event. Everyone knew that Islamic terrorists were a threat to aviation. No one
imagined that they would fly hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center.
We think realistically; we prepare for what is likely to
happen. And then, we get blind-sided by catastrophic events like Hurricane
Katrina.
Of course, if you foresee a looming catastrophe and prepare
for it, it is less likely to occur or, if it occurs, to be decisive.
Predicting the future is dangerous for your self-esteem. You
will start sounding like a crackpot who gazes into crystal balls.
And yet, a prediction is like a scientific hypothesis. It
will be proved or disproved by events.
Apparently, people who value their professional reputations would rather not subject themselves to reality checks.
On the other side of the argument, policy makers always
prepare for future contingencies. Investors envision a future in which their
investments will be profitable. Traders who buy and sell futures contracts—paying
today for a commodity that will be delivered in the future—are focused on the
future.
Today, Bret Stephens lays out
a series of possible future events that could undermine the world order.
Stephens is telling us that the global order, the new world
order, if you wish, can very easily become undone. He is not prophesying as
much as he is recommending that we prepare ourselves for what might be ahead.
He is not quite saying how and why any of this might come
about, but the subtext of his article is that this is the way the world might
look under more failed leadership by Barack Obama.
The great unraveling might begin in the Middle East; it
might begin in China or in Southern Europe; it might begin at the ballot box on
November 6.
Stephens is being sane and sensible. We know, or at least we
think we know, the dangers posed by a nuclear Iran. We should be well aware of
the danger posed by the disintegration of the European Union.
Today, many people believe that the problems with Iran and
Greece can be controlled. Some people are not quite so optimistic.
And then there is the Arab Spring. Most people have come to
terms with the new reality in North Africa.
Stephens writes:
In a
kind of nightmare fulfillment of George W. Bush’s freedom agenda, millions of
Muslims are consenting to leaders who have long looked askance at the
traditions and types of freedoms familiar to the West: freedom of speech and
conscience, equality between the sexes, a tolerance for intellectual
provocation and dissent.
“It is
ultimately a cruel misunderstanding of youth to believe it will find its
heart’s desire in freedom,” says Leo Naphta, the totalitarian avatar in Thomas
Mann’s The Magic Mountain.
“Its deepest desire is to obey.” In today’s Middle East, Naphta’s dismal
proposition is being vindicated.
If those calamities are not sufficiently frightening,
Stephens invites us to contemplate another nightmare scenario: the re-election
of Barack Obama.
Here’s how he sees the day after an Obama victory:
On
Wednesday, November 7, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by more than 1,600
points, forcing an automatic shutdown of the New York Stock Exchange. By the
end of the month, the Dow had lost 30 percent of its value. The Federal Reserve
had little to offer: Its third round of quantitative easing had done nothing to
stimulate the economy. Hiring freezes became the order of the day. The
unemployment rate moved above 9 percent. Unchecked federal spending and a
weaker economy also appeared to guarantee a debt-to-GDP ratio well above the
100 percent mark. The economic shockwaves—instantly dubbed the Second Great
Recession—were felt throughout the world, but especially in countries with
export-dependent economies: Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China.
Perhaps America will become sufficiently futuristic to
foresee the consequences of an Obama victory in time. Perhaps it will not.
Stephens remains optimistic about America. He channels
Walter Russell Mead’s thoughts about America’s strengths and virtues:
Walter
Russell Mead has observed that the United States continues to hold most of the
good geopolitical cards—it’s just forgotten how to play them. Those cards
include North America’s fracking revolution in oil and natural gas, which over
time will mitigate (though not eliminate) the geopolitical risks in the energy
markets and create new opportunities for domestic manufacturing and industry.
They include America’s continuing appeal to hearts and minds in much of the
world, including the East Asian periphery that China is so keen to bring within
its sphere. They include the inherent weakness of all America’s principal
geopolitical competitors, not only Iran and China but also Russia and the
European Union. They include the natural resilience of the U.S. economy and the
continuing innovative nature of our people, whose products others may imitate
but whose soul, as it were, remains distinctively American. They include a
political culture that, thanks to our federalist structure, is immensely varied
and experiment-minded. They include popular attitudes toward politics that are
individualistic to the core and disdain conformity and taboo.
We’re holding all the cards. We have not been playing them.
It would be more accurate to say that Barack Obama does not
want to play them or does not know how to play them. He might think he is
managing American decline, but the consequences of his failure will reverberate
throughout the world, in ways foreseen and unforeseen.
5 comments:
"Walter Russell Mead has observed that the United States continues to hold most of the good geopolitical cards—it’s just forgotten how to play them."
Don't think so. It's the guy holding the cards doesn't want to play them.
Actually, I think the situation is rather worse than you have described. A large chunk of the American leadership class looks at Mead's list of strengths and sees instead flaws and deformations.
OT: Have you seen this interview with Pamela Geller regarding the new ad in NY subways? She was excellent in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkr9uDCuoEY
What if, instead of Obama playing a hand with the joker, he is the Joker?
Or, to use the metaphor, we all know the joker in a card deck is typically used as a "wild card."
The Wikipedia deinition of a wild card says: "A card that is fully wild can be designated by its holder as any card they choose with no restrictions."
Sounds like Obama's wild card is "a sound foreign policy." In his version of the game, he gets to designate it to be anything wants, with no restrictions. His foreign policy is whatever The One imagines it to be, and any consequential events get to be something other than what they actually are.
Therefore, there can be spontaneous civil demonstrations with participants carrying RPGs who post videos displaying the corpse of the first American foreign diplomat killed since 1979. You can have our nation's UN Ambassador go on five Sunday news programs and say a foreign policy failing was about a religiously offensive film on You Tube. You can say that it is unacceptable for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon when you allow it to happen anyway. You can call Egypt an "ally" while rioters are allowed to storm our embassy and haul down our most prominent national symbol with impunity. You can air State Department-funded apology advertisements on Pakistani TV while tha nation's government (again, our "ally") declares a spontaneous national holiday for riots about the same You Tube movie, riots that kills 19 Pakistanis. You can say you make no time to see the prime minister of Israel, our closest ally in the same volatile region, while simultaneously including Whoopi Goldberg in your schedule. You can have the White House Press Secretary on Friday describe the Libya events as "self evident" terrorist attacks, while having spent the earlier part of the week spinning that this was not the case. In fact, you can have your State Department Press Secretary stand at the podium that same day looking like a buffoon restating he Administrations "facts" about what occurred while the White House says something self evidently different.
Need I go on? That's just the past week! Our foreign policy with the Muslim world has become a self-indulgent self-esteem exercise posing as engagement. It gains us neither self-esteem nor engagement. It is seen as the culmination of almost four years of apology, "leading from behind" and other acts of weakness. It is not only ineffective, it is embarrassing.
And it's a joke. And so is a mainstream press corps that refuses to hold government officials accountable for the dangeous consequences of this fantasy of a foreign policy.
Tip
Wasn't there a poster that made BHO look like the joker in Batman? I don't know the story well enough, but I like the idea of Obama as the ultimate wild card.
Of course, the question then arises: who is playing the hand?
Post a Comment