by David Steven | Sep 19, 2007 | Influence and networks, North America
Eric Alterman on the role of narrative in election campaigns:
For the people who cover them for a living, elections are not about issues or evidence or even truth; they are about the narrative. Campaigns struggle to define it long before voters are paying attention–because once the narrative is determined, it’s virtually impervious to revision…
Each year’s election narrative is determined by the bigfoot correspondents and the top tier of the punditocracy and then reinforced by everyone else.
by David Steven | Sep 18, 2007 | Off topic, South Asia
The filming of Kite Runner is causing trouble in Afghanistan…
Ahmad Jaan [father of an actor whose character is raped in the film] says his fears are two-fold – that the film will worsen relations between Hazaras and the dominant Pashtuns (both the boy rapist and the principal character Amir are Pashtun); and that his own family may be in danger when the film comes out, because of Afghan concepts of dishonour.
“Of course I’m worried about it,” he says. “My own people from my own tribe will turn against me because of the story. I am so worried they may cut my throat, they may kill me, torture me.”
His son has been quoted as saying he fears his friends will shun him because they think he really was raped.
by David Steven | Sep 18, 2007 | Conflict and security, Global system, Influence and networks, North America
Over at Foreign Policy, there’s an interesting debate about Pakistan’s army. Sameer Lalwani, a policy analyst at the New America Foundation (and a democracy promotion sceptic) kicks it off with a love letter to President Musharraf and the military:
Despite all the talk of elections and civilian rule, meaningful democracy will not emerge in Pakistan anytime soon, nor will the military abandon its grip on government. Pakistan’s military possesses much greater staying power than most U.S. analysts assume, and it will remain the most potent and important political institution in the country for the foreseeable future.
Lawlani disses Pakistan’s democratic pretenders, Nawaz Sharif (on whose abortive return from exile we blogged from Pakistan last week) and Benazir Bhutto (still manoeuvring towards a deal with Musharraf that could leave him President, her Prime Minister):
Far from building democratic institutions, their governments—bereft of competence and riddled with corruption—consistently undermined them. Bhutto was run out of the country for skimming millions off the top of government contracts; Sharif orchestrated the storming of the Supreme Court by street thugs as he was being tried for contempt. In an effort to efface their legacies, both former prime ministers are hoping to duck the legal charges that await them upon their return.
Lalawani’s piece has provoked an angry response from Benazir’s party – the PPP (the letter comes via their US public relations company):
True that democracy has been weak in Pakistan, largely because it has never been allowed to flourish in the country. The answer lies not in dictatorship but in more democracy. Every democratically elected official has been overthrown by the military, not out of the army’s sense of loyalty to the state, as Mr. Lalwani suggests, but because of the army’s thirst for power… The military regime has destroyed the very fabric of society for its political survival.
(more…)
by David Steven | Sep 17, 2007 | North America
It’s hard to underestimate how buoyed Republicans have been by Petraeus’s testimony last week. They’re pleased by his reports of progress in Iraq, of course, but mainly they’re happy to see domestic political opponents on the back foot.
Allow three pieces from the Weekly Standard to illustrate the point.
Fred Barnes is giddy at the ‘air of defeat’ that surrounds Democrats after the ‘wrenching ordeal’ of listening to Petraeus testify. Fred Kagan and Bill Kristol, godfathers to the surge, meanwhile, contrast the ‘serious men’ (Petraeus and Crocker) with their ‘children at play’ in the Congress and Senate.
But they’re just playing nice. It’s left to their colleague, David Gerlernter (who had the misfortune to open a parcel from the Unabomber) to really go for the jugular. Polls be damned, he believes Democrats are on the verge of losing any right to govern:
America’s political spectrum a decade or more in the future will be defined by two parties both born of today’s GOP after a natural and painless mitosis…
Americans traditionally like their two opposing parties to differ on domestic affairs but agree on basic foreign policy–not because things are nicer that way; rather because foreign-policy arguments are good for our enemies, bad for our friends, and hugely dangerous to ourselves–especially in an age when swarms of maniac, murderous jihadists blacken the Middle East like toxic locusts.
All this reminds me of the good old days. You remember. 2003. When the mission had been accomplished…
by David Steven | Sep 17, 2007 | Global system, North America
It’s one thing for an ex-newspaper editor to engage in panic-for-publicity (see Alex’s post below), another for the ex-head of the US Federal Reserve to do the same.
But Alan Greenspan has done just that. Greenspan has mounted a major media offensive with three main messages.
First, you’re all screwed. Second, it didn’t happen on my watch. And third, buy my new book (he has a reported $8.5m advance to pay back).
Greenspan, who never mentioned the word bubble when leading the Fed, now expects single digit falls in the US housing market, but thinks a double digit collapse would be unsurprising.
He compares asset-backed securities to cocaine and describes the current crisis as a ‘disaster waiting to happen.’ Perhaps most interestingly, he predicts long-term upward pressure on inflation, as deflationary pressure from China eases off.
All in the all, though, the ex-Fed chairman comes across as one of those shy and retiring types who is desperately missing the limelight:
“Why am I penalised for effectively coming out of government? Do I abandon my profession? What do I do? I understand that [my statements have a market impact], and that’s the reason why when I speak in public I don’t talk about monetary policy. I do talk about the economy.
“Do I become an anthropologist? I don’t know what to do about this. It’s like putting me in jail. I didn’t do anything!” But while he remains fascinated by the goings-on at the Fed, he harbours no desire to be back there in the driving seat.
“I spent a considerable time there. I learnt a great deal, I enjoyed working with the people, but I’m really more a private economist. I’m essentially introverted, and being out in the open the way I became was very disconcerting to me. I’m a private person.”
