An interesting viewpoint from Dominique Moïsi, visiting professor at Harvard University and author of the forthcoming
The Geopolitics of Emotion: How Cultures of Fear, Humiliation, and Hope are Reshaping the World
- What the French Revolution Can Teach America
by Dominique Moïsi, Financial Times
“Eat the wealthy.” The ferocity of the words used by some demonstrators in London on the eve of the Group of 20 summit evokes the worst excesses of the French revolution.
Of course, America in 2009 is not France in 1788, the year before the fall of the Bastille (the prison that embodied the oppressive nature of the monarchical regime) and the symbolic beginning of the French revolution. The fall of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 has nothing to do with the fall of the Bastille; symbols of wealth should not be confused with symbols of oppression. There is no guillotine around the corner and it would take a lot of imagination to compare President Barack Obama to Louis XVI, or Michelle Obama to Marie-Antoinette.
Yet as a European living in America – watching news on television every night, talking to friends, colleagues or my students – I sense fear, anger and a deep feeling of injustice reminiscent of the climate on the eve of the French revolution. Just replace bread shortages with foreclosures, aristocrats with bankers, and privileges such as the right not to pay tax with stock options. Add to that support for the king but rejection of many of his ministers, and the comparison looks less far-fetched.
The problem with the economic team of the new president is that, like the court of the king of France in pre-revolutionary times, it has inherited all the bad reflexes of the ancien régime, mixing excessive sympathy for the outdated logic of the world of finance, which it helped to create, with insensitivity to the emotions of the ordinary people, which it tends to ignore. This sympathy is perceived to contrast with the harsh treatment of carmakers.
Bankers and financiers have to reinvent not only their trade but also their way of life and, above all, their value system. In the Madoff scandal, just as shocking as the crime of an individual was the behaviour of many of his rich customers, who combined greed with a lack of financial common sense.
The greed of some was tolerated as long as most of society continued to progress. But today’s combination of fear and humiliation with a deep sense of injustice leads to anger that is potentially irrepressible. The strength of the American republic has been bolstered by the popularity of its new president. This capital should not be squandered on reliance on a media-savvy communication culture. As can be seen so often in history, less is more. The president of the US simply speaks too much.
Revolution is not around the corner; at least, not in America. But there are lessons Mr Obama can learn from the French king’s failure to manage dissent. He must not fall prey to populism. His goal is to save the economy, not punish the bankers. At the same time, he must not be seen to have too much sympathy for the world of finance and its excesses or to cut himself off from the suffering of his people. If he fails, the corporate laws of today will face the same fate as the ancien régime rights of yesterday.
See the complete atricle on the
Financial Times web site.
* * *
Comments
The philosopher Thomas Moore noted that faith is continuing to believe even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Clearly, bad news tests our faith and by definition thus defines it. Moore wrote that "people consumed by their paranoia have lost their judgement and capacity to reflect and often see through a lens focused unerringly on evil." Unfortunately, this is a perfect description of modern society today with its lack of faith. Clearly, behind the face of evil, there is only fear. However, Moore also noted that because "we don't know the ultimate secrets of human existence that should give us hope, because this failure confirms that our efforts by themselves are incomplete." Therefore, we can know that the existential reality of life and its ultimate meaning tramples evil. Fear not.
Posted by: Matthew Laos | April 4, 2009 12:52 PM
This is what happens when one puts all his eggs in one basket. Governments, afraid to do their homework and take any risks, get lazy and put all their eggs into one basket (i.e., large economic sector) and sooner or later see their "eggs break" (i.e., investments become reduced to nothing). Just as no man can hear if all his body were an eye nor see if all his body were an ear, no national economy can retain stability and respond flexibly to global economic changes if it is made up of only 1 or 2 sectors. Variety is the spice of life - and diversification is the spice of commerce.
Zhuge Liang(?) in "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" once said, "It is of no concern if the people do not know their ruler, but it is a grave concern if the ruler does not know his people!"
I wonder if the US government would be willing to crack down hard on fraudulent bankers and banksters if its survival and hold on political power depended on it - despite risking quite of bit of economic damage in the aftermath. At least by punishing the evildoers and making an example of them so as to say they will not tolerate ANY fraudulent practices - and at the same time be responsible with how those tax dollars are spent - the US government can convince potential investors foreign and domestic that their investments are safe in America. This would go a long way to improve confidence in the US economy.
My guess is that the US government would have to make banking a part, not the center, of the US economy. Giving the finance sector too much (long-term) power for short-term gain was a grave mistake. By decentralizing control of the economy and reducing the influence of the financial sector, America will not be so severely affected the next time a big recession comes around.
Washington will have to "listen to the people" and restructure its taxation and regulation to allow for a less industrialized economy and more stable, sturdy economic framework within which corporations can prosper, albeit not as obscenely nor greatly as before. (Which also would preclude government intervention on any large scale.) With the current trend of rising oil prices, linking up mainly to global trade networks will not be so feasible. In other words, America's economy will have to "deglobalize" for a time - as cacophonous as it may sound to the ears of the American industrial élite.
Posted by: Arian I. | July 1, 2009 02:53 PM