U.S.: Extremism and Appeasement
Published in El Universal
(Venezuela) on 4 August 2011
by Alfredo Toro Hardy (link to original)
(Venezuela) on 4 August 2011
by Alfredo Toro Hardy (link to original)
Translated from
by Arie Braizblot .
Edited by Jenette Axelrod.
According to a survey that appeared in the July 30, 2011, edition of The Economist, 70 percent of Republicans believe that their representatives in Congress should stick to their principles without regard for consequences, while 70 percent of Democrats believe that their representatives should seek a compromise by pragmatic mechanisms of action. This correlation constitutes the perfect formula for ideological extremism to dominate common sense. To the extent that sensible people tend to give in to avoid the materialization of extremism, radicalism can operate freely. This creates a relationship sustained by binomial blackmail or appeasement. The same, certainly, that led Chamberlain and Daladier to bow before Hitler in Munich.
The White House and Senate, when confronted with a test of force against the House of Representatives, as occurred with the rising of the debt ceiling, would be logical to assume that the balance is in favor of the former. The host of institutional power represented by the sum of the Executive Branch and half of the Legislative Branch would suggest this. Nevertheless, it was the House of Representatives that triumphed.
Certainly, the irrational act of default could have been avoided through compromise, but compromise alone did not represent more than the complete transfer of negotiation posture from one side to the other. From the strongest to the weakest. Moreover, within the Republicans of the House of Representatives the position of the more radical sector imposed itself.
What the United States lacked in this opportunity was the same that was missing in Munich in 1938: leadership. Obama, who exhibits the brilliant rhetoric of a Churchill, is represented by the facts like a reprint of Chamberlain. Of course, his sensibleness is presented to us like an oasis after Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and compared to Palin, Beck, Limbaugh or Bachmann. What good is so much reasonableness, however, if it is devoid of strength of character? The obsession with caution and the search for compromise by the tenants of the White House made them the ideal prey for ideological predators.
What would a president with leadership have done? Simply avoid blackmail and raise the stakes on his side. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution stated: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned.”
With a legal weapon of this caliber in his or her hands, a real leader would have launched a constitutional confrontation with the House. Especially when you have the gift of speech.
One could argue that the sensible thing to do was to not stir the hornet’s nest at times when the global economy held its breath against the risk of an American moratorium. However, for all of those in the world that depend on what happens in the United States, much more important was leadership of a rational president that would not yield to blackmail. In the future, the economic world will find itself at the mercy of the tea party.
The White House and Senate, when confronted with a test of force against the House of Representatives, as occurred with the rising of the debt ceiling, would be logical to assume that the balance is in favor of the former. The host of institutional power represented by the sum of the Executive Branch and half of the Legislative Branch would suggest this. Nevertheless, it was the House of Representatives that triumphed.
Certainly, the irrational act of default could have been avoided through compromise, but compromise alone did not represent more than the complete transfer of negotiation posture from one side to the other. From the strongest to the weakest. Moreover, within the Republicans of the House of Representatives the position of the more radical sector imposed itself.
What the United States lacked in this opportunity was the same that was missing in Munich in 1938: leadership. Obama, who exhibits the brilliant rhetoric of a Churchill, is represented by the facts like a reprint of Chamberlain. Of course, his sensibleness is presented to us like an oasis after Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and compared to Palin, Beck, Limbaugh or Bachmann. What good is so much reasonableness, however, if it is devoid of strength of character? The obsession with caution and the search for compromise by the tenants of the White House made them the ideal prey for ideological predators.
What would a president with leadership have done? Simply avoid blackmail and raise the stakes on his side. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution stated: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned.”
With a legal weapon of this caliber in his or her hands, a real leader would have launched a constitutional confrontation with the House. Especially when you have the gift of speech.
One could argue that the sensible thing to do was to not stir the hornet’s nest at times when the global economy held its breath against the risk of an American moratorium. However, for all of those in the world that depend on what happens in the United States, much more important was leadership of a rational president that would not yield to blackmail. In the future, the economic world will find itself at the mercy of the tea party.
Previous article![]( "Amazon: A Company without Limitations")
