1. Used to quick results, Americans are impatient. Therefore, they wind up as sprinters in marathon runs. Additionally, the Yanks see themselves as being appreciated for services rendered and attribute a high value to “being liked.” The result is that credible threats, are ignored. Therefore, the average American underestimates the hostility directed at his system, his government and his person.
A hard to keep promise follows. Some candidates promise to restore America’s status from “disliked” to “liked” in the world – and especially in Europe. The problem with the project is that “they” say “Bush” when the “USA” is meant.
2. Obama’s Trinity Church declares its rejection of “middleclassness.” In its “10 Point Vision,” the #10 “economic parity” and a “non-negotiable commitment to Africa” (#4) stand out. One hopes that if elected, Obama discovers that economically successful democratic societies are characterized by their broadening middle classes. The bit about parity shows that the congregation might have imbibed too much Socialism. Therefore, equality is confused with justice and these two with general welfare. If these goals are achieved then the commitment to Africa will lack the means it needs.
3. To save his campaign, Barack Obama‘s delivered an address (18 March) about race. It might pacify those who only hear the candidate but missed his minister’s sermons. Obama should not have dealt with racism in general but also with black racism. Or is it racism to say that blacks can also be racist? PR that – like PC-talk in general – is designed to handle problems by making them unmentionable. This might not suffice in this case.
4. Obama claims not to have heard Wright utter those “embarrassing things.” The explanation must be that he slept through the reverend’s performances. Given the background noise of the incriminating tapes this is quite an accomplishment. This has a positive side. Ignoring the “voice of clericalism” mobilizes the secularists.
5. The EU was meant to provide stability by guaranteeing the security of its members. The kind of security was meant that small states can not provide. This purpose implies often ignored limits on the power of the association’s central organs. After all, the protection of unique systems expressing the values of their people was the pact’s purpose. This translates not into centralism but into a covenant designed to preserve Europe’s historically created diversity.
6. The Swiss system has an interesting oddity. It institutionalizes a popular right. The citizens can determine directly what elsewhere legislatures, staffed by the political class, decide. Some referendums are obligatory, others, being optional, must be initiated from below. Right now signatures are collected to extend direct democracy. Currently a referendum is obligatory only if an international organization is joined. The new popular vote stipulates that the referendum shall become mandatory in additional instances. The people are to be consulted if an agreement transfers to a non-national organ law making, the law’s interpretation, or when the automatic application of foreign ordinances is stipulated. You might wonder, in how many countries would this win endorsement.
7. German schools are advised to introduce classes in “Islam.” Because “anyone that wants integration has to provide Islam instruction.” Given the all-too-close relationship between church and state here, furthermore, considering the pressures behind the measure, detached and factual instruction is unlikely. So the question arises, who is integrating whom and into what?
8. Much is done at a great sacrifice born by the public, to facilitate the integration of the new type of migrants. Kowtowing to PC-thinking, the main obstacle is officially ignored. Some migrant groups do not want to be integrated into their host society. This is ignored by a “damn the facts” ideology.
9. The changes inherent in the flow of time can bring challenges that some feel they cannot cope with. Most likely the change interpreted as a threat scares because its causes and implications are not understood. Some national cultures are more crisis-resistant than others. Once the reaction amounts to the panic of the confused, the state is asked to intervene. This happens regardless of the role the state might play aggravating the problem. This is now happening in Germany. The rise of the cosmetically reconstructed Communists, labeled the Party of the Left, is the upshot.
10. If you have been on the wrong end of a massacre then Tibet creates concerns that are not universally shared. Even without an axe to grind, a statement by the Vice President of the Olympic Committee might sound shocking. He revealed that human rights – desirable as they might be – are not his business. The Olympics should not be politicized by dragging Lhassa into the antiseptic picture of the Peking games.
11. Today everybody is boldly against the 1936 Berlin games. How many decades must pass before the same standard is applied to the coming event in Peking? By then this will be a moot question as there will be, thanks to a local version of the Endlösung, no Tibetan left. Which might be quite convenient. Meanwhile it remains safer to protest (16 March) in San Francisco “Bush’s war” than to demand self-determination for Tibetans who are hicks and live without Gucci bags.
12. The Dalai Lama‘s handling of the Tibet crisis is remarkable. Many governments would be thankful to have such a morally consequent and strategically astute, reasonable opponent to negotiate with. It speaks badly for the internal and external policies of China’s rulers that they are unaware (or uninterested?) in their good fortune. (Luckily, South Africa had Mandela and he was, ultimately, used by de Klerk “to do business with” – to the advantage of all parties involved.)
13. A related matter is that the „68-ers“ are (again) celebrating themselves. Pride is taken in the fact that they had revolted against the Nazi past of their parents. They did so by supporting another – to them congenial – totalitarian world system. It is the one that, in the same year demonstrated the virtue of panzer-communism by crushing the Prague Spring. The antecedent was Budapest in 1956 and both moves are a warm-up for the Tiananmen square massacre in ’89. In all of these cases a genuine revolts against a dictatorship demanded the contrary of what the 68-ers wanted from a democracy. The irony is lost amidst the popping champagne corks.
14. It is reported that, responding to a Serbian attack, international forces have retreated in Northern Kosovo (18 March). Subsequently a counter-action recaptured the court-hose seized by a mob. This led to the arrest of the Serbs that occupied the building. Serbia called the action “uncivilized” and demanded the release of the captives. Representing the problems of extremist nationalism, right and wrong’s criteria hinges on the nationality of the perpetrators. Ethnicity often serves as a before-the-fact excuse of whatever a group might be up to. A grenade of the “demonstrators” killed a Ukrainian policeman. Kiev considers withdrawing her peace-keepers. If others follow suit, the Serbs will be left unprotected from the Albanian majority.
15. Lest we forget: regardless of Mr. Spitzer, not everybody who appears on the stage as a “Mr. Clean” is a hypocrite.
16. Some of its values and procedures made the West successful. It is losing ground today because it prefers to forget the connection. Also, these values imply obligations and demand some of Churchill’s “blood and sweat.” A relativism that accepts values that correlate with poverty has become a vote getter at a time when we insist that even the doors to our gym shall open automatically.
17. We often hear the phrase that “the Palestinian people suffers.” Retroactively there is also talk about the WW2 suffering of the German people, the Japanese, etc. It gets selectively forgotten that – alas – communities bear some responsibility for the governors they submit to. Would Berkeley-style softness moderate Hamas? Do its rockets avoid, by design, to hit those who might also be “suffering innocent civilians”?
18. Revealingly, some human rights advocates do not resent that Hamas rockets Israeli agglomerations. After all, the damage is limited. True. However, is this so on account of not wanting to hurt civilians or because of the primitive hardware? Presumably Israel’s retaliation is classed as immoral because her technology allows for sensitive hits. What will the moralists say once Hamas’ technology improves? (the Human Rights Council condemns Israel, 6 March)