Meals From The Marketplace

            While President Obama devoted the first days of his presidency to the economic crisis he inherited from his predecessor, the rest of the world was waiting impatiently for his attention.  At the conference of the Association of American Law Schools earlier this month, Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, Dean of Sacramento’s McGeorge School of Law and former counsel to the CIA (among other government positions she has held), delivered a well-considered address in which she ranked the ten most pressing international problem areas facing the new administration.

            McGeorge (my professional home) is the law school of the University of the Pacific, but Dean Parker’s remarks were hardly limited to that part of the world.  In fact, she sees challenges, if not trouble, looming for Barack Obama just about everywhere. Here is the list she provided the 6,000 or so law school professors and administrators who attended the conference in San Diego.

            Dean Parker places Russia at the top of her list, citing that country’s economic resurgence (fueled by its oil reserves) and its obvious thirst for a return to co-equal status with the U.S. as a world power.  China is a close second on the Dean’s list, largely due to its capacity to become an economic power over the balance of this century, if not much sooner, and because of its wealth of human resources, which can be both a blessing and a burden, but which, in either event, poses a threat to the West generally and to the United States in particular.

            Afghanistan, Pakistan and India take up the three, four and five spots (in that order).  Afghanistan, the Dean notes, is essentially ungoverned at present, despite six years of U.S. military presence/dominance in the country.  But without a central government of any consequence, the country continues to be a land of distinctly independent communities where various forms of Islam may again provide sanctuary for terrorist camps, a la Al Qaeda.

            Pakistan may well rank higher in the near future.  In addition to currently serving as a principal base of operations for bin Laden’s organization, it may also be falling into ungoverned status months after the fall of Musharraf, whose iron-fisted control of the country has now been replaced with the presidency of Benazir Bhutto’s widower, who seems incapable of deterring the country’s radical elements from plotting the kind of terrorist attack on neighboring India that occurred last November.

            India is the democratic version of China, with all the potential for economic dynamism or catastrophe, depending on how well the nation’s human resources can be contained and directed.  With over 500 separate “castes” still seeking equality under the law, the potential for internal discord can never be ignored, nor can the fact that the country has a small arsenal of nuclear weapons, as does its potentially-belligerent neighbor.

            Iran only ranks sixth on Dean Parker’s list, which is probably more an indication of how seriously she views the five countries she places ahead of it than a suggestion that the theocratic state is somehow mellowing with age.  Iran still appears intent on gaining greater influence in the Middle East, both by maintaining a bellicose attitude towards Israel, by developing nuclear weapons, and by leveraging its abundant supply of oil reserves.

            Iraq comes next, ranked this low in spite of the uncertain future for the fledgling democracy the U.S. military has imposed.  Whether a withdrawal of American forces will lead to the long-anticipated civil war or allow the country to grow into a fully self-sustaining democratic beachhead for the rest of the region (or something in between) will determine where the country ranks on a future list.

            The decline in natural resources and food supplies (a pairing that could easily be separated into two distinct threats) holds the eighth spot on the Dean’s list.  As oil, coal and other non-renewable energy sources become scarcer and as food becomes harder to produce and distribute, political unrest is almost certain to increase, first in third world countries, then in emerging nations with over-population issues, and, finally, in industrialized societies with sizeable rural and inner-city under-classes .

            The current world-wide financial crisis comes in ninth on this list.  It could easily get worse, but with a country like Iceland already on the verge of bankruptcy, it is probably already bad enough.  A country going bankrupt, even a small one, cannot speak well for the global economy in a world that is ever-more interconnected and interdependent.

            Dean Parker closed her list with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which remains unresolved, even if the immediate military action taken by Israel in response to the missile attacks launched from Gaza has been halted (temporarily, at least).  But this hotbed of unrest has been recognized as a major trouble spot for over 40 years, (actually, since Israel gained statehood in 1948) and it will continue to be one, at least until a legitimate two-state solution can be achieved.

            The Dean then noted some “honorable mentions” that certainly require the new president’s attention nearly as much as the ten that made her list.  Leading this group is North Korea, which, despite some flickering indications of a softening of its defiance and belligerence, continues to be a threat to the nations in the region. 

The Dean also expressed concern for the growing incidence of piracy by Somalia-based renegade vessels; the ill-governed nation of Zimbabwe, now racked with a plague of cholera in addition to the dictatorial rule of Robert Mugabe; the ongoing starvation and probable genocide in Darfur; the question of Cuba after Castro; the growing corruption (much of it drug-related) in Mexico; the upstart and un-American regime of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez; and the constitutional crisis currently gripping Thailand.

            To this list she could easily have added perhaps a dozen other troubling areas of concern on the international scene, but, either because of time constraints or because the Dean did not want to alarm her audience any further, she stopped at that point.

            No matter.  However long the list could have been, the message was clear: President Obama needs to focus as much energy on the world scene as he is devoting to the domestic economic crisis.

            The story of last week’s “miracle on the Hudson” is almost unbelievable.  The sudden loss of all power in both jet engines within minutes of takeoff from New York’s LaGuardia Airport left pilot Chelsey Sullenberger III (Sully) with few options, none of them particularly promising.  His Airbus A320 was loaded with 150 passengers, three flight attendants, and his co-pilot: one hundred fifty-five souls, all in his hands.

            His air traffic controllers suggested returning to LaGuardia, but Sully knew he’d never make it.  His plane was “too low, too slow” and there were “too many buildings, too populated an area.”  A nearby small craft airport, Teterboro, in New Jersey, presented the same problems.

            Only one solution presented itself.  Sully would have to attempt a water landing in the Hudson River. 

            Now, as the pilot himself later stated, and as other pilots would affirm, this kind of emergency is what they train for – sort of.  Simulators can provide a similar circumstance, but no pilot actually trains for a water landing by actually landing a large jet in the water, and certainly not in a waterway that is bordered by the largest city in the country.

            But this pilot navigated a perfect landing, right in the Hudson River, which in another hour would have been busy with marine traffic as commuters made their way home from the work day.  End of story?  Not hardly, for this day just happened to be the coldest of the winter, with air temperatures in the single digits and the water a frigid 36 degrees.

            So, just to count the number of minor miracles that added up to an aeronautical milestone, we had a plane that could easily have crash landed in the middle of a major metropolitan area or crashed in a ball of fire into the river or crashed into a sea vessel that got in its way.  None of those disasters occurred. 

            Instead, Sully brought the plane down into the water with a picture-perfect landing.  The next miracle was that the craft didn’t sink immediately.  Indeed, it stayed afloat, as if it had landed on its own life raft. 

            And, somehow, the passengers managed to maintain their cool, enough that everyone got off the plane and onto the wings or into the few life rafts that were quickly unloaded and floated.  How all of this happened in the face of what must have been a combination of shock and panic for all on board is something only those involved will ever know, but it did.

            Still, the likelihood would have been that some of the passengers would die of hypothermia.  Just a few minutes of exposure in water that cold can result in death, and several passengers had fallen into the river on evacuating the cabin.

            But, all were rescued, thanks in large part to the fact that those same commuter vessels that were going to transport all those workers in less than an hour were available to become rescue vessels.  In less than three minutes a dozen had surrounded the plane and were taking on passengers.

            In the end, no one died, and no one suffered severe injuries beyond the mild hypothermia suffered by a small number and the leg laceration suffered by a flight attendant.

            Flash forward less than a week to the other miracle, albeit this one was not of the life-saving variety.  Rather, on Washington’s Capitol Mall, over a million Americans (and more than a few non-Americans as well) gathered to witness the inauguration of America’s first African-American president.

            What makes Barack Obama’s inauguration a miracle are the many obstacles he had to overcome to arrive at this point in his life.  Only four years earlier, he was being sworn into the Senate for his first term, having just been elected the junior senator from Illinois, where he had been a three-term state senator.

            His thin political resumé hardly suggested a presidential run, but a stirring keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention had given him a bit of national exposure, and with only two years as a U.S. Senator, he had announced his candidacy for the presidential nomination in February of 2007.

            At the time, it will be recalled, the field of contenders was crowded (nine at one point), and it was dominated by a power-house woman who was the presumed nominee just because of her name. 

            Hillary Clinton proved to be a formidable opponent, but Obama beat her, despite a campaign that included a kitchen sink full of charges, some of which tacitly played the “race card” (by suggesting a Muslim connection, emphasizing his middle name – Hussein).

            Those same charges were plied during the fall campaign by the Republicans on behalf of John McCain.  McCain, the Viet Nam war hero, had chosen an unknown for his VP, but Sarah Palin immediately became a unifying force for the ticket, bringing the religious right back into the fold.  As September began, the polls had tightened to a veritable dead heat (with a couple even showing McCain/Palin ahead).

            And then another piece of the miracle fell into place.  The economy crashed.  And it crashed in such a big way that everyone (i.e. the voters) suddenly got very scared.  Visions of four more years of incompetent presidential leadership (following the debacle in Iraq, the Katrina disaster, and allowing the economy to get to this state) suddenly made voters look at the race differently.

McCain seemed old, unsure of himself, while Obama was cool, confident, the kind of person who could lead a nation through a crisis.  Never mind his slim resumé; he seemed smart, competent, and he had that vision thing.  He stayed away from specifics, and talked constantly about change, which was just what the electorate wanted to hear.

            And so, this week, the nation collectively rejoiced the inauguration of its first black president, a guy with the odd sounding name of Barack Hussein Obama, whom a sizable block of voters still believe is a Muslim.

            It isn’t the kind of dramatic miracle that saves 155 lives, but it may well be the kind that saves a nation’s soul.

            As presidential transitions go, this one has lasted about as long (11 weeks) as most.  It just seems like it has lasted forever, kind of the way the last two months of school used to drag on before summer vacation finally arrived.  (And why did that vacation period then always fly by like some kind of super-sonic jet?)

            Any election of a new president (as opposed to the re-election of a sitting president) brings a sense of excitement, even optimism.  This feeling is especially so when the new president is from the other party, since changes of party in the White House usually mean new policies, which the voters apparently wanted (otherwise, they would have kept the old president’s party in power).

             But with all that said, this transition period has been marked by two very strong perceptions.  The first is that it has lasted far too long, and the second is that in spite of dire economic conditions, hope and optimism abound. 

            Both of these perceptions are generated by the energy that Barack Obama has brought to his work.  From the moment he secured his victory, he has been a study in preparation for the biggest job his country has to offer.  Yes, he did take a holiday vacation, but even then the sense was that he was working on the plans he has for his administration.

            Prior to and since that brief break, he was and has been all business.  He picked his cabinet faster than any of his predecessors, he fashioned an economic recovery plan that he wants on his desk shortly after he takes office, and he has created a sense of confidence about himself that is inspiring, even in the face of a few slips and the inevitable glitches that were bound to occur.

            And so, as the days of Bush finally dwindle down to a precious few, and as the ascendency of Obama is all but upon us, here’s a review of the actions taken so far by the new guy and what they may portend for his presidency.

            The Cabinet – Say what you will, Obama has chosen an impressive group to administer the federal government.  All have solid resumes and obvious talent.  The questions are whether he has chosen the right people for the right jobs and whether they reflect his intentions regarding the directions he wants to pursue.

            Obama says he wanted the best people he could find for each position and that he will set the policies he expects them to carry out.  But some appointees (Tim Geithner for Treasury, Larry Summers for Economic Council, Robert Gates to continue in Defense, for example) seem to represent the policies of the past, leading liberals to wonder just how liberal Obama really is. 

            Others (Hillary Clinton for State, Leon Panetta for CIA, Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff) may have great talent but be ill-suited for the specific assignments they’ve been given. 

            Obama sloughs off these concerns with an air of confidence that suggests he knows what he’s doing, and to this point, the country (as indicated by the editorial page, OpEd and blog coverage he is getting) is giving him a lot of latitude.  Chalk it up to that sense of hope and optimism he has generated.

            The Economic Crisis – Obama has tackled the current crisis like he owns it.  In this area, he has upstaged the current president in both energy and intellect.  His stimulus plan may be too timid (as Nobel Prize recipient Paul Krugman has been shouting for weeks), but it is impressive if for no other reason than that it far exceeds anything Mr. Bush and his team have put forth.

            Obama is intent on building bi-partisan support for his plan, and he is likely to get upwards of 80 Senate votes for it, which will certainly reflect Republican and Democratic ownership of it. 

He is also, of late, urging release of the remaining TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) funds, which, coupled with his $800 billion plan will make $1.15 trillion in deficit spending he will create in his first 100 days in office.

            That kind of ambitious plan will either kill the patient or cure it.  Again, though, the energy and the focused commitment are drawing praise, even if the specifics raise eyebrows.

            Foreign Policy – Here Obama has been far more low-key in his public acts and statements.  “We only have one president at a time,” is too logical to be a cop-out, and the sense is that the President-elect is just biding his time, not wanting to send contrary signals to the world community while the country is still led (ostensibly, at least) by Mr. Bush.

            Still, world crises will be waiting for him.  If he’s lucky Israel’s assault on Gaza will have been resolved by then, but the scene will be hot nonetheless, as will the unrest in India and Pakistan and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, just to name a few areas that will demand his immediate attention.

            Damage Control – He lost his Commerce secretary before he even appeared for his Senate hearing.  His choice of a minister to deliver the invocation at his inauguration enraged a key constituency group.  His Senate seat may have been offered for sale by his state’s governor, who has now been impeached.  All of these events have been potential land mines, but Obama has eluded their impact.

            Mainly he has done so by exuding a cool confidence that suggests he has no reason to be defensive and has nothing to hide.  He just seems to be above the fray, and to this point, the press and the public seem content to let him stay there.

            And so the record for this President-elect during this seemingly interminable period of transition has been good.  If he gets an incomplete in some areas, it is only because he hasn’t been tested in them yet.  As for the rest, he gets an A for his effort, an A for his optimism, and an A for the hope he inspires. 

            As he likes to say, “Yes, we can.”

            Both Vice-President Cheney and his puppet, er, boss, have given media interviews over the last few weeks in which they have attempted (Cheney more blatantly, Bush more quixotically) to revise the record of their administration’s accomplishments.

            Mr. Cheney defiantly, if somnolently, asserts the invasion of Iraq was fully justified; Mr. Bush continues to claim it was “necessary,” to the extent he understands that word.  (He was initially miffed when asked whether the war was one of necessity or choice.) 

Both men are, in part at least, trying to rewrite the history of their record. 

            I’d be inclined to let them get away with it but for the fact that they were (take your pick here) either war criminals, criminally negligent, incompetent, arrogant to a fault, disinterested in the extreme, or just lousy at their jobs.  In fact, check all of the above. 

            And so, before they are allowed to ride off triumphantly (or even quietly) into the sunset of their poorly-earned retirement, let’s set the record straight on at least ten things Bush and Cheney did wrong.

1.      They started a war that was neither necessary nor justified.  The invasion of Iraq was not just a poorly conceived military incursion, as might have been the case with Clinton’s decision to keep “peace-keeping” troops in Somalia in 1993.  It was an act in violation of international law that has cost the lives of over 4,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis.

2.      They prosecuted that war as ineptly as any America has ever fought, starting with the lack of concern as Iraqis looted their museums and national palaces and continuing to an occupation that quickly made the “liberators” the enemy in the eyes of many of the “liberated.”

3.      They ignored intelligence warnings in the months leading up to the 9/11 attacks, thereby leaving the country completely unprepared for the terrorism of that day.  Never mind whether the attacks could have been prevented.  The lack of diligence, indeed the lack of interest, was epitomized by Condoleezza Rice when she described the President’s Daily Briefing that warned of imminent al Qaeda plans to attack the U.S. as only having “historical information.”

4.      They failed to find bin Laden and emboldened al Qaeda.  Whether bin Laden could have actually been “eliminated” might never be known, but Bush and Cheney clearly took their eye off of the ball when they reduced the military effort in Afghanistan in favor of Iraq.  And, of course, by fomenting hostility to the U.S. in Iraq, they made al Qaeda’s recruitment efforts that much easier.

5.      They discounted the value and importance of the federal government.  This failing is partly due to their absurdly misguided dogma, which is that all government is bad and that the federal government is the worst of the bad.  As a result, Bush put a crony in charge of FEMA and the country got the Katrina disaster.  He put another crony in charge of the Justice Department, and the country got political tests for its prosecuting attorneys and torture for its detained “enemy combatants.”

6.      They deregulated the financial markets and gave the major players in those markets the ability to swindle investors and, ultimately, bring the nation to the brink of economic collapse.  Let’s remember here that Bernard Madoff is not a new phenomenon.  He follows a long line of Bush/Cheney-approved swindlers like Kenneth Lay of Enron fame.  This administration so loved the rich and super-rich and so believed in the wonders of wholly unregulated capitalism that it has just about killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. 

7.      They betrayed the rule of law.  Bush set out to deny the balance of powers that makes the Constitution such a brilliant document when he introduced “signing statements” as a means of changing the legislative intent in the bills he signed into law.  That approach easily led to redefinitions of executive power, including Cheney’s outrageous claim that his office was not bound by the constitutional definition of the executive branch because he is a “legislative” officer.

8.      They ignored the Middle East for all but the last few months of their administration.  The current flare up of hostilities in Gaza may well have been inevitable, as the history of that part of the world is replete with hatred, violence, terrorism and tragedies such as the world is now seeing again.  But this administration made a point of disengaging from the peace process after Bill Clinton had all but sealed a lasting deal between the Palestinians and Israel in the last months of his tenure.  Instead of picking up the ball from that five-yard line, Bush directed his State Department to punt it the other way.  The results of that decision are now all too evident.

9.      They diminished the image of the country in the eyes of the rest of the world.  By essentially telling the United Nations to “go f—k” itself, as Cheney so nonchalantly instructed Senator Patrick Leahy in the Senate cloakroom one day, the administration turned itself from the world’s champion to the world’s pariah.  World leaders can barely contain their lack of respect for Bush, and the shoe throwing incident last month in Baghdad will long be remembered, fairly or not, as the event that best expressed the view of much of the world towards the president and his administration.

10.  They increased the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots.”  Under these men, America has become a nation of extreme wealth of the few and struggling-to-get-by of the many.  As that latter group grows in size, and as the future seems ever bleaker, crime, divorces, and suicides increase and, ultimately, depression looms.  Without a prosperous middle class, America is just another industrialized nation, one that is probably in decline. 

In sum, this administration, led by these two men, will be remembered as the worst of the post World War II era, and when you are comparing Johnson’s Viet Nam disaster, the Nixon Watergate years, the Reagan Iran-Contra subterfuge and the Clinton sex scandals to name just a few, that’s saying a lot.