O liberalismo russo não está apenas em crise, politicamente falando. Ele deixou de existir. Ele não está representado no Parlamento, desapareceu como foco de debates públicos, até mesmo entre os intelectuais, e reivindica ser uma ideologia confiável e politicamente atrativa. Agora parece vão, se não ridículo. Eu utilizo o termo "liberalismo russo" como um conceito abrangente que contempla as práticas e mecanismos políticos do tipo neoliberal e social-liberal, e que identificou a "saída do comunismo" russa com o estabelecimento do governo da lei, do pluralismo político e ideológico, da economia de mercado e de uma abertura ao Ocidente.Nem a natureza repressiva do atual regime nem a hostilidade inata da "tradição cultural" russa em relação ao liberalismo pode explicar esta calamidade. Estas são pseudo-explicações que servem aos liberais do país como pretextos para a sua própria inocência. Se o liberalismo está para renascer na Rússia, é preciso compreender as causas políticas de sua morte. O liberalismo falhou como ideologia na Rússia depois do colapso do comunismo. Agora, os liberais precisam se libertar do fardo do legado de Boris Yeltsin - o seu despudorado neoliberalismo - e confrontar o tipo de capitalismo exprimido pelo "capitalismo autoritário" do atual regime.

Até o fim dos anos 1990, o regime do capitalismo autoritário não havia sido consolidado. Os futuros autocratas ainda precisavam da elite intelectual liberal como um de seus suportes. Então, quando Vladimir Putin tornou-se presidente, foi cuidadoso ao preservar a aparência de participação dos liberais na política, até mesmo designando alguns deles como "conselheiros", "especialistas" e funcionários do regime. Aqueles que estavam determinados a colocar as suas crenças liberais em prática, mais tarde foram expulsos de seus cargos, e o resto foi assimilado na nascente e solidificante burocracia do capitalismo autoritário. A "hora da verdade" dos liberais chegou com o novo século, quando o regime percebeu que poderia, de agora em diante, perpetuar-se sem recorrer à elite intelectual liberal. Os liberais foram considerados politicamente desnecessários e o regime os abandonou, ao invés de perseguí-los. Sozinhos, os liberais não poderiam sobreviver politicamente. Foi isto o que predeterminou as falhas eleitorais em 2003 de partidos como Yabloko e a Union of Right Forces [União das Forças de Direita].

Os mesmos liberais, hoje, criticam o regime, e com boas razões. A ausência de um Judiciário independente, graves limitações da liberdade nos meios de comunicação de massa, corrupção extrema em todos os ramos da burocracia e a sistemática perturbação de quase toda a oposição são problemas genuínos. Entretanto, uma coisa é articular todo este descontentamento, e outra totalmente diferente é preparar uma ideologia atrativa e politicamente mobilizadora. Os liberais da Rússia têm que enviar uma mensagem que ressoe para um público mais abrangente, e esta ressonância não pode ser apenas algum tipo de repetição das "superstições" das pessoas. Significa produzir uma alternativa convincente.

O funeral da democracia de Yeltsin pode ter passado, de um modo geral, despercebido, mas os benefícios que as pessoas receberam da época de Putin são nitidamente visíveis. Eles não podem ser calculados exclusivamente em termos de vantagem material, e não é menos importante o fato de que a vida social na Rússia deixou de ser caótica, e a vida política não é mais insultantemente grotesca, mesmo que tenha se tornado tediosa. A "ordem" tem aparecido como a palavra-chave do dia - com todas as suas conotações conservadoras. A "ordem" não é de nenhum modo a mais moderna virtude política, mas é um pré-requisito indispensável de todo progresso político, e é apreciado como tal. Mas é questionável que, para muitos russos, o regime de Putin tenha algum valor intrínseco. Para eles, é, todavia, melhor do que a imprevisibilidade e a palhaçada que eram tão típicos do período de Yeltsin. Esta preferência racional não pode ser ignorada ou mal interpretada, mas condena os liberais russos a um estado de inexistência política. Os russos somente irão erguer-se em apoio a um tipo diferente de democracia, desde que ofereça um conteúdo social factível e que tenha uma influência nas suas vidas cotidianas.

Também seria injusto para com o período de Putin fazer vistas grossas à continuidade que trouxe em relação ao governo anterior. Esta continuidade experimentou um amadurecimento do tipo de capitalismo introduzido anteriormente, em 1992. Durante o governo de Putin, ele mesmo livrou-se das extravagâncias e irregularidades dos anos iniciais, quando o povo era o mais dolorosamente afetado. Mas, apesar disso, manteve suas características opressivas, corporativistas, oligárquicas e profundamente injustas. O abismo entre os ricos e os pobres da Rússia aumentou durante os anos de Putin e agora está exorbitantemente maior. Então, embora haja uma continuidade, é uma que tem preservado a simbiose entre a propriedade e o poder, mesmo que sua forma institucional tenha mudado. Sob o governo de Yeltsin, foi vista a privatização do poder político por vários oligopólios, que em sua mais pura forma declararam estar no "regime dos sete bancos", ou semibankirschina, que assegurou a reeleição do presidente em 1996, sob a condição de que ele deveria perder seu poder "soberano". Sob o governo de Putin, esta barganha foi abolida. Os clãs que controlam os altos escalões do Estado adquiriram controle sobre os principais recursos econômicos.

Para a maioria dos russos, estas mudanças provaram serem importantes. A autoridade baseada no Estado tende a ser mais sensível aos seus sofrimentos do que os oligarcas capitalistas do setor privado. A alta dos lucros do petróleo e do gás russos desde a virada do século tornou financeiramente possível as políticas para o compartilhamento da riqueza recentemente adquirida pelo país. O regime pôde, assim, reforçar o seu poder.

Se os opositores liberais querem escapar de seu confinamento aos salões políticos de Moscou e São Petersburgo, eles precisam arcar com a nova realidade política e econômica do país. Eles precisam revelar as tensões inerentes ao sistema atual, e necessitam tratar dos descontentamentos atuais através da proposição de estratégias políticas viáveis e populares. Não é suficiente reutilizar o mantra da violação dos direitos humanos, porque são necessárias ações radicais. Os liberais da Rússia talvez achem que valha à pena iniciar com o que o ex-presidente da República Tcheca, Václav Havel, apelidou de "trabalho em pequena escala" quando discutia como poderiam resistir ao comunismo no bloco soviético. Foi uma estratégia de pequenas ações muito concretas que, embora aparentemente não fosse ambiciosa, politicamente aprimorou uma moralidade pública alternativa, promoveu redes independentes de cooperação e deu lugar aos pretensos líderes do movimento reformista dentro de uma realista e não-elitista cultura democrática.

Na Rússia, a probabilidade de tal desenvolvimento poderia parecer pequena, a menos que uma dura crise econômica enfraqueça a estabilidade do capitalismo autoritário de Putin. Mas a dedicação e tenacidade humanas não mudaram ocasionalmente o fluxo da história? Afinal de contas, antes de 1989 pouquíssimas pessoas tomaram Havel como um clarividente.

Boris Kapustin*

Acesse o texto original clicando aqui.

*Boris Kapustin é um pesquisador sênior convidado no Instituto de Filosofia da Academia de Ciências Russa, e professor visitante na Universidade de Yale. Uma versão expandida deste comentário aparecerá na edição de outono da "Europe's World" (www.europesworld.org).

POR PEDRO BAÑOS, para ABC el Sábado, 11-10-08

La pírrica victoria de Putin

El 11 de julio, con el petróleo a más de 147 dólares el barril y con el pronóstico de llegar a los 200, Moscú se frotaba las manos y Putin anunciaba un incremento del presupuesto de defensa para 2009 del 27 por ciento, alcanzando los 67.000 millones de euros. Con fabulosos ingresos energéticos, el Kremlin se sentía poderoso e imbatible, y presumía de que en 2020 sería la primera economía europea. Creía que había llegado el momento de romper el acoso al que se sentía sometido por EEUU y la OTAN.

Pero el petróleo comenzó a caer. Moscú intuyó que también podía perder su posición privilegiada en el Cáucaso, y empezó a preposicionar sus tropas. Los servicios secretos más avispados estaban sobre aviso. Israel, no queriéndose ver involucrada, cesó la venta de armas a Georgia una semana antes del conflicto. Rusia, con el petróleo ya a 115 dólares, decidió pasar a la acción el 8 de agosto, para marcar su territorio. En cuatro días ganó la guerra a Georgia. Pero sólo fue una victoria pírrica.

El petróleo se desmorona imparable y la paridad rublo-dólar se hunde. Los valores de bolsa -índice RTS- caen en picado, arrastrados por las mermas de beneficios de las empresas energéticas. Los inversores extranjeros huyen de Rusia y se desprenden de sus acciones. Desde mitad de julio, desaparecen 620 millones de euros de los fondos de inversión. Sólo en los 10 primeros días de septiembre, se fugan 3,8 mil millones de euros.

Para intentar salvar el sistema financiero, el Kremlin se ve obligado a anunciar una inyección de un billón de rublos en octubre. La posibilidad de acceder a la Organización Mundial del Comercio está más lejos que nunca y en el Reino Unido incluso se habla ya de excluir a Rusia del G-8.

Un Moscú ya mucho más humilde ha pedido árnica a su principal socio comercial, la UE. Y las principales potencias europeas le han tendido la mano. Rusia les representa un aliado estratégico por su rol de suministrador de energía y por ofrecer un fabuloso mercado casi virgen, ansioso de consumo y lujo. Los Veintisiete envían una misión de 200 observadores que ratifica la postura separatista, y aceptan que Rusia duplique el número de su soldados (7.600) en los dos nuevos Estados. Considera que no hace falta violentar y humillar innecesariamente a Rusia. Para no agraviar a Georgia, la UE le compensa con 500 millones de euros para su reconstrucción.

La contención de la temida expansión política, económica y militar rusa se ha logrado a través de la geoeconomía, quedando Rusia más debilitada para llevar a cabo sus planes que si hubiera sido derrotada en una gran batalla sangrienta.

El artículo me parece sumamente acertado, pero también me parece incompleto. No solamente la baja del petróleo va a complicar los planes imperialistas de Putin y su juguete Medvedev, o como se llame,sino que también va a tirar al suelo y enterrar in a shallow grave los delirios de conquistador continental del macaco bolivariano, que el autor omite nombrar, así como también del patético Presidente de Irán, que se olvidó de los antipsicóticos y por eso habla como habla, y dice lo que dice.

Muchos auguraban que la crisis actual sería el fin del capitalismo, porque la veían como una consecuencia del libre mercado, cuando una de las principales causas de esta debacle son las famosos subprime, que el gobierno de Clinton obligó a los bancos a dar.

La única forma de salir de esta crisis, por más que la patética tilinga que estrena vestidos en la Argentina no lo entienda, es logrando que los gobiernos dejen de meterse en los mercados, dejando a los mercados regularse a sí mismos... pero sería mucho pedir de alguien que a esta altura no sé si terminó el secundario.

Citando a Ronald Reagan:

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.”

First Inaugural Address

He also maintained that the US was once again trying to return to a policy of containing Russia. "After toppling the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the United States started a series of unilateral actions," Mr Medvedev said. "As a result, a trend appeared in international relations towards creating dividing lines. This was in fact the revival of a policy popular in the past and known as containment."  >>>>>

Medvedev’s Plan

by Anna Arutunyan

President Dmitri Medvedev offered two five-point plans on getting the world out of the financial crisis and forging a new security treaty to maintain world peace, taking a tone that was anything but confrontational as global crisis overshadowed the controversy over Russian actions in Georgia. Speaking a the World Policy Conference in Evian on Wednesday, Medvedev sought to rebuild friendly ties with Europe even as he laid the blame not just for the financial crisis but for a "crisis of Euro-Atlantic policy" at the feet of a unipolar world order. Calling for more cooperation and dialogue, he was supported by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who urged Russia to join an emergency session of the G8 in order to find a way out of the crisis. The rapport witnessed before the two leaders met one-on-one following the conference suggested that Russia and Europe stood miles away from a new Cold War.

Medvedev outlined a series of steps that could lead the world out of the present malaise, but he also focused on forging a new system of security, arguing that the one created post-Cold War has proven to be a failure. The result, Medvedev said, was the conflict in Georgia and the financial crisis.

"Recent events in the Caucasus have demonstrated that it is impossible to appease or contain an aggressor based on bloc approaches," a grave, yet firm Medvedev said in his address, implicitly addressing the United States. "If irresponsible, adventurous actions by the ruling regime of a small country (Georgia in this particular case) are capable of destabilizing the situation in the world, is this not proof that the international security system based on unipolarity no longer works?

OK, this is a direct reference to the aggression of Saakashvili and the US using this to try to paint Russia as the aggressor.  Saakashvili was used by the US to provoke Russia.

"It is also evident that economic egoism is also a consequence of the unipolar vision of the world and of the desire to be its mega-regulator. It is a dead-end policy in terms of global economic development. I think that the origins of the current situation can be found in the events that took place seven years ago. After the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the United States started a chapter of unilateral actions which was not coordinated with the United Nations or even with a number of the United States' partners. It is enough to mention the decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and the invasion of Iraq."

Correct.

Two More Five Point Plans

Echoing a series of fiscal and monetary measures being implemented at home by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Medvedev pointed to regulation as a way out of the financial crisis.

"First, I believe that in these new conditions, we need to streamline and systematize both national and international regulatory institutions," he said.

"Second, we need to get rid of the serious imbalance between the amount of issued financial instruments and the real returns on investment programs. The race to compete fuels financial soap bubbles, while public companies' accountability before their shareholders is eroded.

There's that word instruments again, financial instruments.  He means derivatives.

You can't have an economy based on predatory financier gambling.  In the end, you're going to have to produce something... which means a real concrete product.  Wall Street has moved almost all of the US industrial base offshore for cheaper labor.

"Third, the risk management system must be strengthened. Each market participant needs to hold responsibility for his share of risks. There should be no illusions about the ability of any asset to rise endlessly in value. The world just does not work this way. It is contrary to economic laws.

A warning against economic bubbles..

"Fourth, we need to ensure maximum information transparency and full disclosure for companies, tighten supervisory requirements and increase the responsibility of rating agencies and audit companies."

One of the main problems of derivatives is that no one really knows how much there is.  Not only is it not regulated, it's not even reportable under the current system.  Estimates range from $1-2 quadrillion ($1-2,000,000,000,000,000).

"And finally, fifth, we need to ensure that everyone will reap the benefits of removing barriers to international trade and free movement of capital."

Basically saying we need some fairness in free trade agreements.

Later in the address, he focused on a new European security treaty as a key alternative the unipolar world order - one bent on eradicating military conflict.

"The Treaty should clearly affirm the basic principles for security and intergovernmental relations in the Euro-Atlantic area. These principles include the commitment to fulfill in good faith obligations under international law; respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of states, and respect for all of the other principles set out in the truly fundamental document that is the United Nations Charter...

"The inadmissibility of the use of force or the threat of its use in international relations should be clearly affirmed. It is fundamental for the Treaty to guarantee uniform interpretation and implementation of those principles...

"It should guarantee equal security, and I mean equal security and not any other kind of security. In this respect we should base ourselves on three ‘no's. Namely, no ensuring one's own security at the expense of others. No allowing acts (by military alliances or coalitions) that undermine the unity of the common security space. And finally, no development of military alliances that would threaten the security of other parties to the Treaty.

Again, he's referencing Saakashvili and Georgia's aggression.

"It is important to confirm in the Treaty that no state or international organization can have exclusive rights to maintaining peace and stability in Europe. This applies fully to Russia as well.

"It would be good to establish basic arms control parameters and reasonable limits on military construction. Also needed are new cooperation procedures and mechanisms in areas such as WMD proliferation, terrorism and drug trafficking."

It's freely admitted that the Northern Alliance of Afghanistan is a major opium/heroin producer.  The taliban was actually anti-opium.

Meanwhile, Medvedev backed Sarkozy's proposal for an enlarged G8 meeting to deal with the financial crisis, but called for a more inclusive organization. "We must include other key economies: China, India, Brazil."

The Evian conference suggested much headway had been made in the Caucasus conflict, which had threatened relations between Russia and Europe since it erupted August 8.

Even while the Wall Street Journal opined Thursday that Medvedev had "dumped a truckload of vitriol" on the US, the conference served to fortify a reconciliation between Russia and Europe in face of criticism over Russia's actions in Georgia.

"Relations between Russia and Europe remain on solid ground," foreign policy expert Sergei Karaganov, speaking by phone from Evian, told The Moscow News. "Attempts to draw Russia into a new Cold War have failed. "Confidence... in America has fallen to a low that has not been experienced since the 20th or even the 19th centuries."

source: Moscow News

It turns out that Senator McCain actually stayed in New York that evening.  He actually interviewed with CBS's Katie Couric that same evening he was supposed to appear on Letterman.  Since then, Letterman has gone on the attack of the Arizona senator and his vice president, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.  He has been making jokes ranging from McCain's age to Palin's simpleton persona.  

My question is...Can David Letterman turn the tide of an election?  With this aggressive offensive attack on John McCain, the polls have actually gone in favor of Obama.  Could David Letterman stir the drink that puts Barack Obama in the White House?  If McCain cancels on Letteman, could he possibly cancel that abruptly on a person like oh lets say...Vladimir Putin?  Granted, McCain has rescheduled himself to appear on the Late Show so he can save face.  But putting aside Johnny Boy trying to save his image, can we trust him not to cancel that abruptly on someone of the likes of oh lets say....Vladimir Putin?  Letterman is doing a good job of sticking it to John McCain after his cancelation.  It is very possible that David Letterman could turn states like Virginia and North Carolina, strong Republican stalwart states, to the blue column come November.  Only time will tell.  We are 25 days away from the election.  Heres hoping he continues to echo the voice of change.

Vova throws his opponent to the mat. Do recall that judo is a martial art that uses the strength of one's opponent against them. Reflect on the fact that Mr Putin has a black belt...

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin marked his 56^th birthday with the launch of a new judo instructional DVD showing him throwing his opponents to the mat. The video is set to be a major hit as the PM, a black belt, shows off his skills away from the political arena. It reveals that Mr Putin is not only successful in defeating his opponents in debates, but, also able to accept battles on the mat and win. The video, presented to the public on Tuesday, was released in 12 countries with an accompanying manual with the same title. It's called Learn Judo with Vladimir Putin, but, during a ceremony in St Petersburg, Mr Putin admitted that the title is mostly an advertising gimmick. Japanese and Russian judo champions actually do most of the teaching.

Former World and Olympic judo champion Yasuhiro Yamashita is one of them. However, Mr Putin does demonstrate some holds and throws. The prime minister also talks about the history and philosophy of judo in the film. The video is based on a book with the same name that was written by three authors in the late 1990s, Mr Putin, RF Gosduma Deputy Vasili Shestakov, and Professor Aleksei Levitsky from the University of Physical Culture and Sports. Mr Putin's fitness and devotion to judo and skiing boosted his popularity among Russians, as well as the number of Russians keen on these sports. It is hoped that the recent video will encourage more Russians to lead healthy lives.

8 October 2008

Russia Today

http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/31511 (in English)

Jerry Graber sent this my way this morning, and I felt that everyone needed to hear about it. If you don't want to read the News Story (which I have to say you absolutely must) well then the gist of it is that Vlad Putin had released a Judo how to video. read on

Iceland, my dear, dear, Iceland has taken a loan from Russia in the amount of $5 billion dollars to help offset its potential banking collapse.

Dayamn.

Now let's be clear that this was an option of last resort for Iceland since its Western Allies weren't ponying up some dough. And this is a HUGE mistake on behalf of the US. I won't comment for the UK or the rest of Europe, but if we are in fact, and I think we can all agree on this, on the verge of brand spanking new Cold War, then militarily speaking, we should have found a way to help out Iceland. Period.

A quick review of the facts for a moment, shall we? As I've been writing about for over a year now, Russia has launched illegal flights over the island nation, claimed sea floor for Russia dangerously close to Iceland's territorial waters, and they're building a scary new submarine not all that far from the most strategic point of the North Atlantic. And now Iceland has been put in the position of having to borrow money from them?

Where the hell is the US strategic policy on this one?

As I previously quoted, Iceland is like a revolver pointed at the back of the head of the person not holding the gun.

And since America stepped out of Keflavik air base in Iceland in 2006, they are wide open. I hope that when Iceland is need of as second loan, and it is looking as thought it will be necessary, I hope the US smartens up and finds a way to help them out.

Among all the other things we can't afford right now, this is another item on the list.

And of course I speak as an American on the topic and what Iceland means to us strategically. Hildi, I hope you're out there. I'd love your input on this.

Here's the Transcript

McCain was on offense much of the time. Ahead of time, this is a plan I would have thought of in a positive light given the poll numbers and the belief that Obama doesn't do well when forced into a corner. Tonight, however, I thought Obama performed rather well. All he really had to do was appear stately, promote his understanding of the issues, and enhance a the public's perception of him as a leader. He would be able to accomplish this if McCain appeared too petty or too aggressive. In the end, I think this was a close debate, leaning slightly toward McCain, especially when viewed through the lens we had coming into the evening: that Obama has a clear polling advantage and an advantageous economic situation.

Insurance

McCain's response to the insurance question was very good.  He challenged Obama to describe the size of the "fines" included in his health care plan. When Obama didn't provide the answer, McCain called him on it. Very aggressive.

Foreign Policy and Interventionism Regarding Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia, etc.

This was a very broad question, one which will trigger various responses from different listeners. Obama had the first answer and gave a very appealing emotional response to what is admittedly an emotional question. McCain's response was both optimistic and rational. It was an exceptionally good response to a question that is difficult to answer second.

He offered a very notable insight on the limits of our ability to improve a situation and cited Somalia as evidence. Probably the most impressive answer of the evening from McCain (along with the Pakistan remarks).

Will You Bomb Pakistan?

I don't like hearing this question asked. What exactly do you want the candidate to say?

The question presupposes a hypothetical target in a very fragile country but doesn't discuss the reliability of our intelligence or any current political considerations. I think Obama gave the concise and effective answer, though it wasn't necessarily specific.  It included the term "encourage democracy." For my money, though, McCain provided the answer I think all candidates should be giving. If Pakistanis are listening to that debate...what are they thinking? We want them to cooperate with us, don't we?

Russia

My opinion: Our relationship with Russia for the past decade has been one of missed opportunities. Things were better in 1998 than they were in 2008. We've always known that they could elect a nationalist who would curtail their political progress. Sure, enough...it happened. Meanwhile, we've been expanding NATO into their backyard, opposing their foreign policy concerns, and criticizing them very publicly. All we have for them now is flamboyant rhetoric.

Concerning the debate: Consider what Russians are thinking when they watch this debate and when they read the headlines tomorrow. You can bet that the question of most interest to them isn't the one about the Peace Corps. This doesn't even need media spin. "Do you think that Russia under Vladimir Putin is an evil empire?"

More opinion: The correct answer, if I may suggest one, is to highlight the fact that there is nothing in the Russian DNA that would make that country an "evil empire." Also, make the point that you are not interested in fomenting trouble between two nations that should be seeking better relations. McCain very barely spoke to that effect, but neither candidate was able to put a positive spin on the topic.

Style

Usually McCain does rather well in a town hall format. He forfeited much of his advantages and decided to go on the attack on a night that probably would have witnessed a non-aggressive opponent. McCain remained on the issues, which certainly helped his case and mitigated the risk of seeming excessively divisive. Obama was well composed and neutralized much of this as well.

McCain made some typical McCain moves: pacing, chuckling, and tossing in some odd jokes. We accept it, though -- he's like that uncle you can't really criticize...

Unfortunately, these debates are very often about style (or maybe the color of Nixon's jacket). In that regard, Obama displayed his comparative advantage and kept a good countenance and composure throughout the event.

What Don't You Know?

Every candidate should be prepared for this one (and certainly is). Both responses were good and , though similar, exactly what should have been said. Both of them, however, devolved into a monologue about their respective backgrounds. Personally, I'm not interested in an emotional sales pitch from a presidential candidate, especially when time is at such a premium. Keep talking about the credit crisis.  Perhaps more annoying is that this is one of the first things that the ABC analysts wanted to discuss afterwards.

Alright, we're now starting.

Allen Shaffer: "What's the fastest solution to bail out" citizens, from economic turmoil?

Obama: We're in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and many of you are worried.  This is the final burden on the failed economic policies of the last 8 years.  McCain agreed with Bush, and stripped regulations, and now we're paying for it.  Step 1: Make sure last week's rescue package succeeds.  Come on Obama, it won't - the package sucked!  The focus group is liking this.  Step 2: Tax cuts for citizens.  Help people stay in their homes.  Help states create jobs.  Health care.  Have politicians thinking about middle class.  Women really loved him, and men were pretty high up there too.

McCain: Americans are angry and upset and fearful.  I have a plan to fix this problem: energy independence.  Don't send money to countries who don't like us.  "Let's not raise taxes on anybody--today."  What was that - what was that "today" - that sounded bad.  "We're gonna have to do something about home values."  People can't afford mortgage payments (well, that's mainly their fault).  Have government buy up bad mortgages so people can pay them off - come on McCain - that plan sucks.  People had been liking him a lot there (more men than women), but it dropped down a bit toward the end.

Brokaw: Who would you appoint to Treasury Secretary?

McCain: Not you Tom.

Brokaw: With good reason.

McCain: Somebody who people can connect with.  Meg Whitman - CEO of some company - oh - Ebay.

Obama: Warren Buffett would be a good person, but there are others as well.  McCain said, "The fundamentals of the economy are sound."  That's because they are.  The principles of our economy, and the American work ethic is sound.

Oliver Clark: How will the bailout bill help people?

McCain: "You described bailout, I believe it's rescue."  I left my campaign to go back to Washington to make sure that there were protections for the taxpayer - oversight and a way to pay back taxpayers.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are what lit this thing on fire, and many hadn't heard of them before this crisis.  Democrats in Congress defended what Fannie and Freddie did while they got money from the two.  Obamagot the second highest amount of money from Fannie and Freddie.  Fannie and Freddie started this forest fire.  And he's not doing to well with the focus group during that, although it came up toward the end.

Obama: Right now, the credit markets are frozen, so small businesses can't get loans, and can't make payroll, so they may have to lay people off.  "That's why we had to take action."  The biggest problem in this whole thing was the deregulation of the financial system.  I argued for more regulation, but nothing happened.  I never promotedFannie, but McCain's somebody on his campaign--was something with Fannie Mae (I didn't catch the whole statement).  The President has to make sure that the homeowners are protected.  He got pretty good ratings there.

Brokaw: Are you saying it'll get worse before it gets better?

Obama: No, I am confident in the American economy.  Isn't that what McCain said when he said the fundamentals are strong?  HYPOCRITE!  He got great ratings there.

McCain: It depends on what we do.  If we stabilize it and buy up bad loans, and get rid of special interests in Washington, we can fix our economy.  Our workers are the best in the world.  They're the fundamental aspect of our economy.  "We gotta give them a chance to do their best. ... They're the innocent bystanders of" this crisis.

Teresa Finch: "How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got us into this global economic crisis?"

Obama: I understand your crisis and cynicism.  "You're right, there is a lot of blame to go around. ... But remember, when George Bush came into office, we had a surplus ... now we have a deficit."  We've almost doubled our deficit.  Nobody is completely innocent.  I'm going to spend money on key issues that we have to work on, health care and energy.  Ratings are really high here.  Invest in college affordability.  "I'm cutting more than I'm spending."  And men just plummeted in their ratings there.  And what exactly is he planning on cutting?

McCain: "The system in Washington is broken."  I've been a reformer and crossed the aisle, working with Senator Feingold on campaign finance reform.  "The situation today cries out for bipartisanship. ... Let's look at our records as well as our rhetoric."  Obama is proposing 860 billion dollars of new spending, and voted for every increase of spending that came across the floor.  He voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel spending, including a projector for a planetarium in Illinois.  We need to get Americans working again, and get more jobs for Americans.  We need nuclear power.  We need to stop depending on foreign oil.  Ratings were pretty bad there, but came up at the end.  McCain was right - Obama's earmarks are just atrocious.

Brokaw: Health care, energy, and entitlement reform - order of priorities?

McCain: Do all 3 at once.  We won't be able to provide same benefits for future retirees as we are able to today.  I've worked across the aisle.  We can work on nuclear power plants, create new jobs.  We need alternative fuels, wind, tide, solar, natural gas, clean coal.  Health care - everyone is struggling to make sure they can afford their premiums.  We can do these all at once, and we have to do them all at once.

Obama: Your list of priorities.  Energy, we have to deal with today.  Gas is expensive, and it may go up.  Some countries like Russia, Venezuela, and Iran are gaining from high oil prices.  In 10 years, we need to be free of foreign oil.  Just like Kennedy said we can go to the moon in 10 years, this can be done.  That was a great analogy!  I missed what he just said.  I want to go line-by-line and eliminate programs in the federal government, and eliminate programs that don't work, and make others cheaper.  Women are rating him really high now.  Money given to big oil companies, which McCain wants, takes money out of the system.  Don't mislead, Obama, he wants to give tax cuts to ALL companies, but that doesn't exclude oil companies.

Brokaw: What are you gonna ask Americans to sacrifice to get out of the depression?

McCain: Talking about defense contracts that were done corruptly.  Get rid of earmarks, and some of those are "good" projects, but they have to be eliminated still.  Except for Defense, Veterans Affairs, and other crucial programs, we will have to have a spending freeze.  Keep everything transparent.  Don't allow for the government to hide earmarks.

Obama: After September 11, everybody came together, and President Bush did some smart things at the outset.  We need leadership to focus on problems inside and outside of government.  We need to think about how we use energy - we need to tell oil companies to start drilling and invest in clean coal technology.  We need to think of ways that we can conserve energy, and provide incentives to buy American cars that are fuel efficient.  The young people of America want to serve, and we need to increase the Peace Corps.  Ratings were really high there, especially among women.

Brokaw: President Bush last summer said Wall Street got drunk.  Now many think that both Washington and consumers also got drunk.  How do you get people to reduce easy credit and overspending?

Obama: We have to cut spending and increase revenue.  There are $18 billion in earmarks, but McCain wants to give tax cuts to CEOs, and that's not sharing the burden.  Actually, it IS sharing the burden - it's sharing it equally.  All of us need to contribute and make sacrifices.  We don't need an across-the-board freeze.  That way, we only help those who need it.

McCain: Obama wants to raise taxes.  The last President who raised taxes during hard times was Herbert Hoover.  We've lost 700,000 jobs in America, but300,000 jobs have been created by small businesses.  Obama's tax increases will increase taxes on over 50% of small businesses, meaning that jobs will have to be cut.  Obama said he'd fore go his tax increases if the economy was bad.  The economy is bad.  I don't want to increase tax cuts.  I want to leave tax cuts alone, but give tax credits to people, and give credits for health care.  Let's get our economy going again.

Obama just tried to keep going and Brokaw shut him up!  YEAH!

Brokaw: Would you tell Congress to do something about Social Security and Medicare within 2 years?

Obama: We won't solve Social Security and Medicare without solving tax problems.  I want to provide a tax cut for 95% of Americans.  THAT'S A LIE!  ONLY 90% of Americans even make enough money to PAY taxes!  We provide a 50% tax credit to small businesses to buy healthcare.  And the ratings are really high here, again, especially with women.  McCain wants to give tax cuts to large corporations and the rest going to CEOs.  "That is not fair, and it doesn't work."  If we reverse the policies of the last 8 years, then we can deal with Social Security and Medicare, because we'll have a health care plan that works for you.

McCain: "Hey, I'll answer the question."  It's not that tough to fix social security - we have to sit down and fix this together.  Reagan and Tip O'Neill sat down and worked together.  Have a commission come together withrecommendations.  Then have Congress vote up or down, and not fool with it.  Obama has voted to increase taxes and voted against tax cuts.  I have fought to reform government.  "We'll get our economy going again, and our best days are ahead of us."

Ingrid Jackson: Congress moved pretty fast with the economic crisis.  How would you make sure they move fast with environmental issues?

McCain: "When we have an issue that we may hand our children a damaged planet--I have disagreed strongly with the Bush Administration."  We brought this issue to the Senate.  We need nuclear power.  Nuclear power is safe and clean, and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.  My liberal roommate's getting mad that the focus group doesn't like this: "These voters suck."  And the ratings went up a bit at the end there.

Obama: "It is absolutely critical."  We need to create a new energy economy.  We need to understand that this is a national security issue.  I favor nuclear power as one component.  OK, the focus group does suck.  They're now rating him high, and he's saying basically what McCain said.  The focus group seems kinda biased.  McCain's problem withenergy is that he hasn't done anything with alternative fuels.  It's easy to talk about this stuff, but McCain hasn't done anything.  McCain talks about drilling, and that's important, but there's not enough here at home to "drill our way out of the problem."

Brokaw: Do we need a Manhattan-like project to deal with the energy crisis?

McCain: We need government involvement initially, and then once it's started, release it to the private sector.  Obama (this is where he said "that one") voted for a bill that Bush/Cheney backed with lots of money for oil companies, and I voted against it.

Lindsey Trella: Health care has become a profitable industry.  Should health care be treated as a commodity?

Obama: Health care is a very important issue.  Premiums have doubled over the last 8 years, and co-pays have increased as well.  We have a moral and economic imperative to do something about this.  Here's what I would do: you can keep your plan if you like it, and we'll work with your employer to lower your premiums.  We'll work on making forms electronic, instead of on paper.  You'll be able to have the same health care plan that Congress gets.  McCain has a different approach.  He'll give you a $5,000 tax credit, but then tax your employer health care benefits.  He'll then take out regulations that states have that make sure that you get certain things covered under your insurance.

McCain: You've identified one of the major challenges that America faces (directed to the audience member).  We need to impose efficiencies.  There's a fundamental difference between me and Obama.  Obama will pose mandates.  If you're a small business owner or parent, and you can't afford health care for your employees or children, Obama will fine you.  How does that help the situation?  He's ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!  How will that help you if you can't afford health care already?  95% of Americans will have increased funds to get health care under my plan, except the really rich people.

Brokaw: Is health care a privilege, right, or responsibility?

McCain: Responsibility.  The government shouldn't mandate that health care must be provided to all.  There shouldn't be fines for these companies or parents, and Obama hasn't said how much the fine is yet.

Obama: Right, for every American.  Talking about his mother dying at 53, and arguing with insurance companies.  He's really rating high right now.  If you have a plan that you like, you can keep it, I'll just help lower the premium.  Small businesses won't have a mandate, they'll get a 50% tax credit.  We don't want kids going to ERs for treatable illnesses like asthma.  McCain voted against (something dealing with children and health care).  Crack down on insurance companies cheating their companies.  The problem with going across state lines is that companies will go to states that have laxed laws and cheat their customers, like banks do in Delaware.  DID HE JUST USE HIS RUNNING MATE'S STATE AS A BAD EXAMPLE!!!

Phil Elliot: How will our economic distress affect our position in the standing of the world militarily?

McCain: Much of the criticism of our foreign policy is justified.  We are peace makers and keepers.  We need to know when to go in and when not.  That question can only be answered by someone who understands these things.  We need to prevent the spread of genocide.  He's rating really high here.  My opposition to sending Marines to Lebanon, and my stance on Bosnia, Russia, and others show that I understand these things.  Obama has been on the wrong side of some of these issues.

Obama: I don't understand how we invaded Iraq when bin Laden is still free.  McCain said that Iraq would be quick and easy.  We're spending money in Iraq when Iraq has a surplus.  We need that money more than them, and they have a surplus.  We are the greatest nation in the world, but we can't maintain our military superiority if our economy continues to decline.  He is right about that.  We need to fundamentally change our foreign policy.

Brokaw: Let's establish doctrines for using force when national security isn't at stake, but in humanitarian issues?

Obama: Would've stopped Rwanda and the Holocaust.  When we stand idly by as genocide occurs, that diminishes us.  We should intervene when possible, but we can't be everywhere all the time.  We need to work in concert with our allies, such as in Darfur.  We need to lead the international community.

McCain: If we had withdrawn from Iraq when Obama wanted to, it would have been a travesty.  Genocide is terrible, and we never want it to happen again.  We need a person who understands the limits of our capabilities.  We went into Somalia being peace makers, but had to withdraw in humiliation.  I stood up against Reagan with Lebanon.  We have to be able to beneficially affect the situation, realizing that we're sending Americans into harm's way.  I won't make these decisions lightly.  We can't have another Holocaust or Rwanda, but we can't make the situation worse.

Katie Hamm: Should we respect Pakistani sovereignty and allow terrorists to stay there or invade like we did with Cambodia during Vietnam?

Obama: We got distracted from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, and went to Iraq.  They're now stronger now than any time since 2001.  They're plotting to kill Americans right now.  We need to end the war in Iraq, put troops into Afghanistan, eliminate drug trafficking, and change policies with Pakistan.  We need to encourage democracy, and if we have bin Laden in our sights, and Pakistan won't or can't take him out, we will take him out.  That's our number 1 national security priority.

McCain: Obamawants to announce when we're going to attack Pakistan.  It'll turn public opinion against us.  We drove Russians out of Afghanistan with Afghani freedom fighters, and that led to bin Laden coming to power.  General Petraeushad a strategy of getting the support of the Pakistani people, and working with them to get Al Qaeda.  Don't threaten to attack them, but talk with them.

Obama: Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan, but to strike inside of Pakistan if bin Laden is available to be taken out.  And I agree with Obama here on this one.  McCain IS twisting his words, and not taking bin Laden out when Clinton happened is one of the things that led to September 11th.  Pakistan was not promoting democracy, and it undermined our fight on the war on terrorism.

McCain: I have supported efforts that the U.S. had to go in militarily, but opposed it when it wasn't necessary.  I was joking with a veteran about Iran (Obama used McCains "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" quote).  I will act responsibly as I have through my military career.

Brokaw: In Afghanistan, the senior British Commander has said that we're failing in Afghanistan.  The Afghans need to take over.  We need an acceptable dictator.  What's your opinion?

Obama: We need to withdraw from Iraq responsibly, and make the Iraqis take control so that we can put more troops into Afghanistan.

McCain: The same overall strategies between Afghansitan and Iraq are the same.  We need more troops, like Obama is saying.  Obama still won't admit that the surge worked, and that's the same strategy that we will need in Afghanistan.  Once they feel secure, they can lead normal lives, the same thing that's happening in Iraq today.  And he's absolutely right here.

Brokaw: How can we get Russia to behave better without starting another Cold War?

McCain: We won't have another Cold War.  I warned about Vladimir Putin a long time ago - I saw a "K," a "G," and a "B."  He was wrong with Georgia.  Ukraine is in Russia's sights now (it's in the sights of the Somalians too - that whole pirate thing is just weird).  We need to talk, such as in the G8 summits.  Russia must realize that this is not acceptable, and we need economic and diplomatic means to show that that this is not acceptable.  Really high ratings there, and he's absolutely right.

Obama: Russia will be an issue that we'll have to deal within the next 4 years.  I agree with Senator McCain on most of that.  We can't just have diplomacy.  We need to support, financially, former U.S.S.R. countries, such as Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, etc.  Georgia is suffering, and that's probably what Putin wanted to happen.  Russia was trying to obtain territories, and this is unacceptable.  We need to be proactive, not reactive.  He is right here - we have to be a step or 2 ahead of Russia.  Energy will be key in dealing with Russia, that's one of the things that happened in Georgia's situation.

Brokaw: Is Russia under Putin an evil empire?

Obama: No, but their actions are sometimes.

McCain: If I say yes, it reignites the Cold War.  If I say no, it seems like I'm ignoring it.  Energy is a key issue.  My liberal roommate just said that both want to say yes, but it'd be political suicide to do so.

Terry Shirey: If McCain attacks Israel, would you send troops or wait for UN Security Council approval?

McCain: We wouldn't wait, because Russia and China would pose obstacles to sending troops.  Iran with nukes is a threat to the stability of the Middle East - other countries would acquire nukes.  Obama would meet with them without preconditions.  I would impose tough sanctions, and we can abridge their behavior, and hopefully they'll abandon this quest for nukes.  We can never allow a second Holocaust to take place.

Obama: We cannot a nuclear Iran.  "It would be a game changer in the region."  It would threaten Israel - one of our strongest allies.  As well, it would lead to nukes in the hands of terrorists.  I will never take military action off the table.  If we can work more effectively with more other countries to tighten sanctions, we should.  He's getting rated higher, but said the same things as McCain - the focus group is biased folks.  Neither of them answered the question about if Iran ATTACKED Israel.  When we stopped talkingwith Iran, their nuclear pursuance increased, as did North Korea's when we stopped talking.

Brokaw: What don't you know, and how will you learn it?

Obama: It's the challenges that we don't expect that consume most of our time.  I wouldn't be standing here if my country hadn't given me great opportunity.  The question in this election is will we pass on this same American dream?  That dream has diminished - people are losing health care and going bankrupt.  Kids can't afford college.  We can't keep doing the same for the next 8 years.  We need fundamental change.  Really good ratings there!

McCain: I think what I don't know is what's gonna happen both here at home and overseas.  What I don't know is what the expected will be.  I know what it's like in dark times.  I know what it's like to fight and hope through dark times.  "I know what it's like to have your comrades and neighbors reach out to you and put you back in the fight.  That's what America's all about."  It's been my privilege to serve this country, and I'm asking for an opportunity to serve you more.  I've always put my country first.  Good ratings at the end, but not as good as Obama's.

Brokaw, thank you... "You're in the way of my script."  Thank you, and goodnight from Nashville.

Alright, overall, I thnk that both candidates performed pretty poorly.  Overall, I can't really pick a winner.  I hate doing this again, like I did after the last debate, but I'm going to have to call this one a tie.  McCain wasn't as strong on foreign policy as he could've been (and that's his strong point).  On economic issues, he had some good plans but he didn't seem to appeal to the average Joe citizens.  The media has been commenting on McCain calling Obama "That one" when he was talking about Obama voting for money given to oil companies (and I've put it in italics in the text above).  Apparently it caught some people as awkward.  The consensus on CNN was that it was intended as "that one" versus "this one" (meaning "me" from McCain's stand point).  Sure it was maybe bad wording, but I don't think it was anything to get worked up about (and again, my liberal roommate agrees here).  Look, politicians use poor choices of words all the time.  I'm not saying McCain should've said it, but it's nothing that people need to complain about.

Also, Obama seemed to get a little overconfident at the end, and he was stuttery at times.

Both candidates wanted to violate the rules of the debate, and just keep talking.  I think Brokaw needed to do a better job of moderating.  Instead of just saying, "You didn't stop when the red light turned on," he should've said, "Your time is up."

At some points, some of McCain's humor was just sucky (kinda like my fathers at times - he'll tell these lame jokes when he's doing announcements at church that he's got this reputation, and people just kinda laugh to humor him, and the fact that he's tried to tell a joke becomes the joke - it's not always a bad thing, but it was with McCain).

Again, I do think that this was a tie, and this was one that McCain could not afford to lose.  McCain is going to need a couple small miracles to actually come back from where he's at now.  I'm not giving up hope, but it's definitely Obama's race to lose at this point.

CNN just released a poll - Obama gained favoribility and lost unfavorability, but McCain stayed the same on both.  Overall, those polled thought Obama won (56%-30%).

Done Analyzing,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

Russia is closer to our American homeland than it ever was, with Putin rearing his head right into Alaska's borders. Mark that Sarah Palin's words! He may not be the official president anymore, but KGB taught him a thing or two about wrecking havoc with the power of his own thoughts.

We must not loose track of these thoughts, not while Putin still has the nerve to hunt tigers in Siberia.

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia - Vladimir Putin is out on video as a judo master. Russian state-controlled media already have shown the powerful prime minister at the wheel of massive racing truck, shirtless on a fishing excursion, and tracking a tiger through the Siberian forest — just a few of the he-man presentations designed to boost his public image.

On Tuesday, he presented an instructional judo DVD that bears his name and shows him throwing an opponent to the mat.

I'm... kinda speechless.  He'd be approaching Kim Jong-Il proportions of hilarious propaganda if I wasn't somewhat sure he COULD do this.

C'mon, really?" I asked the Id when it prompted me to write another weighty treatise on political injustice, "But haven't we all had enough of that already?"

So lest we miss the chance, let's throw this switch and divert this train down some new tracks.

If those links don't cut the mustard, perhaps Repliee R-1 can help. [also see 'The Uncanny Valley']

sri lankan rebels, afghan refugees, thailand riots, markets, iran and the imaginary fighter jet, zee germanz, uk, diy judo, kosovo legitimized?, evolution

Tranquilizing tigers, manning monster trucks, fly fishing, flying fighter jets are but a few of the things Putin has done, and now we can add teaching judo to the list,
Macho Putin in yet ANOTHER display of masculinity as he releases 'Let's learn judo with Vladimir' DVD

I think Volodya is ready for MMA

According to the story, Putin said,

'Without sports, it's impossible to speak of a healthy way of life, about the health of the nation as such,' he said.

Good for the 56-year-old leader for choosing not to live a sedentary lifestyle, and it does make one wonder if someone slipped him a copy of John Eldredge's Wild at Heart (below)

Unfortunately, people are still laughing at his surname in México...

From MSNBC:

REYKJAVIK, Iceland - Iceland nationalized its second-largest bank Tuesday under emergency legislation and said it had negotiated a 4 billion-euro ($5.4 billion) loan from Russia to shore up the nation’s finances amid a full-blown financial crisis.

A Russian official, however, said a loan had not been agreed upon.

The bailout of Landsbanki came a day after trading in shares of major banks was suspended, the Icelandic krona lost a quarter of its value against the euro and the government rushed through emergency legislation giving it sweeping powers to deal with the financial meltdown.

“As declared by the government, all domestic deposits are fully guaranteed,” the Financial Supervisory Authority said. “Landsbanki’s domestic branches, call centers, cash machines (ATMs) and Internet operations will be open for business as usual.”

Within hours of the government move, the Samson holding company, which held a 41 percent stake in Landsbanki, went to the district court seeking temporary protection from its creditors.

Iceland’s central bank said in a statement that it had been informed by the Russian ambassador, Victor I. Tatarintsev, that Iceland would be given a loan of 4 billion euros ($5.4 billion), and that this had been confirmed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

[...]

A collapse of the Icelandic financial system could reverberate across Europe, given the heavy investment by Icelandic banks and companies across the continent.

One of the country’s biggest companies, retailing investment group Baugur, owns or has stakes in dozens of major European retailers — including enough to make it the largest private company in Britain, where it owns a handful of well-known stores such as the famous toy store Hamley’s.

Perhaps Alexander Dugin should have added Moscow-Reykjavik to his list of Eurasian axes. The Icelanders are a mix of serf and Viking aristocrat -- similar to Russians, and they are a virulently secular people with a state church (Lutheran) and a multiculturalist elite -- similar to Russians. Icelanders and Russians share  substantial anti-American/Communist/Green segments, the love of money-laundering, and socialism. Meanwhile, America has shut its Keflavik base over Iceland's objections, leaving Iceland defenseless in the face of increased Russian aggression. What could be better?

The question first caught my attention when I read Henry Kissinger's Does America Need a Foreign Policy? A short excerpt (pg. 35) will suffice to illustrate the broader point:

Even more worrisome is the loss of human contact between the two sides of the Atlantic, which is occurring despite unprecedented travel. More Americans and Europeans are visiting the other continent than ever before. But they move about in the cocoon of their preconceptions or professional relationships, without acquiring a knowledge of the history and intangible values of the other side of the Atlantic.

A lot has changed since Kissinger's book was published in 2001.  What follows is a personal account by a European intimately familiar with America. As last time, I invite all readers to engage with the text (and the author), by sharing your reflections in the comments.

The official byline is below, followed by the guest post itself.

Annika M. Hinze is a PhD candidate at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Her dissertation deals with the identity formation of women of Turkish immigrant background in Berlin, Germany, and their interaction dynamics with local politicians and Turkish community representatives. She enjoys drinking beer, cheering on the German national soccer team, eating American hot wings and living in Chicago.

--------------------

I was only 6 years old when I set foot on American soil for the very first time. Ever since, I have always enjoyed traveling.

This is not surprising given the context in which I grew up. We are all products of our era: I was born and raised in Berlin – West Berlin, an island in the midst of communist East Germany. You may not know this, but we actually did not have German passports. Our passports were “provisional passports” of the Federal Republic of Germany, as we were not officially living on German soil. West Berlin was under allied control – divided up into a French, a British, and an American sector.

I was born at the end of the cold war – in the last months of the 1970s, after the beginning of Ostpolitik, and before Reagan’s Star Wars program, before Glasnost and Perestroika and Solidarność .

My parents grew up in West Berlin. They loved America. I mean that. It’s not like they were never critical, obviously. (I remember how my mom was close to tears when Dukakis lost the election to George H.W. Bush by a landslide in 1988. “No, not another Republican!” she would say, wary of everything Reagan had stood for.)

My parents were scared to death by the way that Reagan revived the Cold War by significantly (and irresponsibly) enlarging the military-industrial complex in the face of Russian willingness to significantly reduce their nuclear weapons arsenal. (Remember Richard Perle, the Prince of Darkness?)

I remember how my father first tried to explain the principle of nuclear deterrence to me in a beach bungalow somewhere in San Diego in the summer of 1987. I was only 7 years old, but I remember the fear – his and mine – amid the irreducible fact that if the Cold War ever became hot, it would become hot right where we lived - in Berlin.

We would be the first to die.

Friendship

My parents still loved America. They loved Kennedy’s America. They loved the Americans that were in Berlin after World War II and all the culture they brought along: movies, music, dancing, lifestyle. They loved that because it gave them something to identify with, as there was nothing left in Germany to identify with when my parents were young.

All there was was what left of the Nazi ideology in the heads of their parents’ generation – something they wanted nothing to do with, but something they were identified with by the rest of the world.

My parents were grateful to the Americans for putting up with the Germans after everything they had done. They were grateful for the protection they offered us during the Cold War. And they loved them for not giving up on Berlin.

It was never talked about that the Americans did a lot of that in their own national interest, and not because they felt charitable towards the Germans, or how different things went between the soldiers and the host populations in countries like South Korea.

The warm feelings and admiration my parents had for America strongly influenced my world views as a child and a teenager. I was strongly encouraged by my dad to spend a year in the U.S. in high school as an exchange student (which was quite the experience since I stayed with a born-again Christian family in a tiny town in Western Pennsylvania).

When I, years later, decided to get my PhD in Chicago, my mom cried and blamed my father.

“You’re making your father’s wildest dream come true!” she said, angry tears streaming down her face.

It was all his fault. I was now doing what he had always wanted to do, but could not. And he could live vicariously through me.

Only the America I arrived to on a hot August afternoon with two suitcases and much hunger for adventure was a different one than the America my dad had been wanting to visit in the 1960s, the America he had eventually seen in the 1970s, and the America we had visited as a family throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

Change

September 11, 2001, the day that changed everything, is to this day the most influential world-political event of my lifetime. Maybe more important, in a way, than the end of the Cold War, as bad events sometimes have a stronger impact on us. We get used quickly to the good things, but we have a harder time with the bad things, and it was mostly bad things that followed 9-11.

At first we were all in shock and awe, not just for the Americans, but for us as well. We were Westerners and consumers, and we felt close to America.

I remember the sea of flowers on the street in front of the American embassy in Berlin, and the Amerika Haus - an American cultural center downtown. I remember the American flags in the windows, and thousands of Berliners singing “Amazing Grace” in front of the Brandenburg Gate in memory of the victims, just two or three days after 9-11. I was one of them. [the world's reaction to 9/11 in a photo essay -ed.]

I remember how George Bush chocked up on television, and I remember the shocking pictures of what was left of the twin towers.

“Today, we are all Americans,” a German newspaper’s headlines read. We really were.

I think all of us understood that something had to be done. Most people I knew disagreed with the strikes on Afghanistan, because Al Qaeda could not be linked to a country, and we were doubtful about whether attacking Afghanistan’s Taliban as “collaborators” would achieve anything but render millions of poor people homeless.

Despite the disagreement, however, we understood that something had to happen. America had to react – the world knew that and kept quiet. We let Afghanistan happen.

When Iraq was put on the table, however, we were outraged. In Germany, we were so outraged that in 2002 we re-elected our chancellor based on one issue only: We would not join the Coalition of the Willing and help attack Iraq.

It strikes me that some Americans still seem to believe that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9-11. He was a criminal and a murderer and a dictator, that’s for sure. But, the Iraq War started because of 9-11, and Saddam Hussein had not a single proven connection with Osama Bin Laden. Iraq was not in possession of any weapons of mass destruction at the time of the invasion. The whole war was based on lies. This is a fact.

I think a lot of Germans lost faith in America during that time.

A dark chapter

What ensued was a dark chapter in the transatlantic relationship. Liters of French wine were poured down sewers and sinks throughout the United States. French fries were renamed. The Europeans not only protested the lingering invasion of Iraq – they danced against it, partied against it, laughed and cried against it.

It became an image, a personality trait to be against the war in Europe, as much as it became a statement of patriotism in the United States to be for it.

Instead of being based on discussion, negotiation, and diplomacy, the transatlantic relationship became thesis and antithesis, black and white, right and wrong. As we all know, however, things in this world are never that easy.

I have condemned the invasion of Iraq myself many times. It was a huge mistake, based on lies by an administration that was hungry for money, oil, and war. I have seen the hollowness of the term patriotism exposed in the United States in a shocking and disgusting way regarding the War in Iraq.

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government,” Edward Abbey, an American writer once said. With regards to the war in Iraq, it seemed that everything said against the war or against the administration was considered unpatriotic. Any kind of criticism was dismissed by the patriotism argument.

Robert A. Dahl, one of the most prominent American social scientists would call the actions of the Bush administration in the years and months leading up to the war in Iraq an example of manipulative persuasion (i.e. when an agreement of the people is obtained through manipulation, lies, and misleading information). In the end, this false information, and the actions that it resulted in could only be questioned at the expense of one’s own patriotism.

Does this make it better what happened on the other side of the Atlantic? Hardly. The single-issue-based re-election of the German Chancellor Schroeder illustrates the polarization around the Iraq-debate.

While condemning U.S. aggression in handling Iraq, Germans had no problem with a close alliance with Russia. Did we not care about what the Russians were doing in Chechnya if we were, at the same time, so passionate about Iraq?

We waved our flags and danced our dances of peace. We were so outraged by war – “never again” we wrote on our transparencies, demonstrating that we knew –from our own history- what useless violence could do. We had experienced it. And we had learned from it.

But, it somehow seemed that while being critical of what was going on in the West, we were blind towards the goings-on in the East: Russian oil, Russian gas, Russian business. Who cares? Look at the terrible things the Americans are doing in Iraq.

We defended France’s agricultural policy privilege against our neighbors in Poland? Why? Would it not benefit Germany as well if an EU member state, which depended (in 2003) by roughly 80% on agriculture, was able to properly compete within the EU? Well, that did not really matter.

It mattered to keep France on board as the German ally within the EU, and it mattered to keep Russia on board – a valuable reserve of natural resources and shady business contracts. If Bush was going to Iraq for oil, Schroeder was sleigh-riding to Moscow for the same reasons.

It seems like with the coming of the public debate around the Iraq invasion, all arguments on both sides of the Atlantic turned into silly absolutes. Rumsfeld’s provocative “old Europe”-lingo was matched by a comment made by the former German Minister of Justice Herta Daeubler-Gmelin in the Schroeder cabinet, who, during a campaign rally in 2002, compared Bush’s tactics in domestic policy to those of Hitler.

Daeubler-Gmelin opted out of her spot in the new administration, which was elected in 2002. Rumsfeld, in turn, who made far greater mistakes during his tenure than insulting the French and the Germans, stayed with the Bush administration until 2006.

Lingering tensions

Although the immediate animosity over Iraq has dissipated over time, there are residues of it floating around in Germany.

They are mostly sublime, and they don’t make headlines anymore, except for when the Americans seem to be interested in starting another war, or ignoring a food crisis, or causing climate change, or electing a new president, or when their economy takes a downward-spin.

I had been living in Chicago for only a few months at the time of the 2004 presidential elections, but I had a number of American friends all over the country. When John Kerry lost the elections and it became clear that George W. Bush was going to serve as President of the United States for another term, it was not only the Germans that were devastated.

I saw Americans shed angry tears as well - very few people in Germany seem to understand or acknowledge that.

If you live in a country for a while, if you expose yourself to it entirely, you will become more sympathetic to it – regardless of your political convictions. I have become neither more nor less liberal or conservative while living in the United States. What has changed is the fact that I now better understand the categories in which Americans think. The frames through which they look at politics, and that politics is never black-and-white, neither in the U.S., nor in Europe.

My sympathy does not work well with the lingering angry sentiment against the United States on the other side of the Atlantic. I have been away from Germany for 4 years now, and while nothing changes in the first year, by year three a lot has changed.

For the first time I heard people tell me that I had become “Americanized”, or that my loyalties had shifted. Most assumed that I “never wanted to come back”, that I “liked it better over there”.

I have never suggested any of the above. I don’t boast my English in Germany, or openly and ruthlessly support American politics. I don’t wear T-shirts with American flags on them; I don’t chew gum, and I don’t drink Coke.

Actually, I prefer to drink a cold German beer and complain about the neoconservatives in Washington. Yet some people tell me that I “look like an American”.

What does an American look like, I wonder? White, black, brown, yellow?

Others pity me. They look at me wide-eyed and say “How can you live there? How can you stand it?” This is shocking to me. I hear myself talk about how well-informed Germans are about politics, how they are so much less ignorant about what is going on in the world than Americans and hence have a lot less stereotypes about people from other countries.

In light of this conviction, I have been disturbed by the fact that my husband, who is Canadian and proud of it, has been repeatedly called an American by German acquaintances.

I mean, come on. Should you not know that Vancouver and Calgary are Canadian cities?

Recently, I have found a lot of Germans to be a little too high and mighty for my taste when it comes to American politics. During the summer of 2007, I visited Berlin for my best friend’s wedding, and brought along my American roommate from Chicago, a well-educated, fun, friendly, intelligent, tolerant person.

I was so ashamed at the way that she got blamed for George Bush’s policies by a German one night when we were out. Another friend of mine suggested that Americans were “stupid” right to her face. My roommate has never voted Republican in her life, and most Americans I know are very intelligent people.

Does it make us Germans better people that we have been reformed by being confronted with our Nazi-past? That we say, point blank, that we don’t like war and armies and imperialism? I mean, these are good opinions to have, but it seems that we just take them a bit out of context.

I like being a pacifist, but I am also a realist. I understand that sometimes we need armies to defend those who cannot defend themselves, or to defend ourselves against others. We have been relying on the United States, the country we so passionately bash, to “fix” things for us – even in Yugoslavia, our own backyard.

We need to keep in mind that if we want to have opinions on a world stage, we need to let actions follow as well, such as vowing protection to our NATO allies and defending other EU members against threats from other countries.

Just as importantly, we should not be blind on our Eastern eye. We should criticize the United States for making mistakes, but if we do so, we need to apply the same standard to our other “allies”, such as Russia.

Things have gotten a lot better on that front since Schroeder was voted out of office in 2005. They are not perfect, though. Partly because, as Der Spiegel stated in August 2008, around 40% of German households are dependent on Russian gas. It seems that not only the U.S. needs to look into alternative energy sources.

Robert F. Kennedy once said that “Only those who dare to fail greatly can achieve greatly.” Throughout the Pax Americana, the United States has done both, achieved greatly and failed greatly. Since the end of the Cold War, since Germany has become an independent, free, sovereign and powerful country at the center of Europe, us Germans have just watched and whined.

We should not and must not withhold criticism at what the U.S. does around the world. Quite the opposite – we should make our voice heard and share our opinions. But we can share them like a friend instead of slamming our doors shut like an upset child. And we must become actively involved – and maybe sometimes even lend a hand.

Photo credits:

• Kennedy, Brandt, Adenauer photo was recently released by the Kennedy Museum; author: Will McBridge; the picture is presumed to be owned by the U.S. government and hence falls in public domain category
• Freedom Fries photo by André Mouraux (aka spigoo); licensed under cc-by
• Schroeder and Putin photo located at Robert Amsterdam's blog; used here under "fair use"
• Der Spiegel magazine front covers (c) located at Medienkritik blog; used here under "fair use"