These days there seems to be a yearning for simplicity. It's related in part to the economic collapse. Americans have awakened to the reality that basic assumptions just weren't so much of a sure thing after all. We all knew that putting money into a 401k or similar financial instrument would mean that it all would be sitting there once the gold watch is awarded and the rocking chair ordered. And now that has all turned to dust amidst a bewildering array of Ponzi schemes, insurance conglomerates, hedge funds, government bailouts, and multi-million dollar bonuses for failure.
It used to be that when something was thought to be a sure thing one would say that you could "take it to the bank." Don't look for that little catch phrase anytime soon.
I suppose most of us who mercifully don't feed daily on economic news just assumed that some smart people understood all this stuff. We certainly didn't, but neither did we care as long we knew those smart people were doing their job. We have now come to the horrifying realization that not only were they not doing their job, but THEY don't understand this mess either.
There is one thing that is clear from the Congressional hearings and the "expert" punditry of recent months. No one--I repeat NO ONE--knows what the hell is going on.
And now it falls to our new president, thankfully one both gifted and eloquent, to become the guy to make sense of this in terms that we economic simpletons can understand. In addition to the boatload of issues on his plate, Barack Obama has also had to become the Explainer-in-Chief. The irony is that few political figures in recent time have been as willing as Obama to talk about nuances and complexities and to eschew simple answers to deeper questions. But alas, simplicity seems to be the pathway to hope in these difficult times.
Stephen Covey, author of the Seven Habits books, often quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes thusly:
I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.I note that in using this quote more recently Covey has offered up only his "right arm" rather than his life in exchange for that elusive simplicity (Covey, The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness, New York: Free Press, 2004, page 103). I suspect this may be related to the devaluation of all things in our present climate. He's probably keeping the left arm under a mattress somewhere.
The quote, however, is provocative and useful. The crisis we are going through is devastating to millions of people. There is only one compensation that I can think of and that is the hope that we will be driven back to this country's fundamental values of respect, opportunity, justice, and a rule of law driven by a democratic spirit. In the name of free enterprise we have sanctioned greed and honored plunderers. They must pay their due, but we must learn their lesson.
In the end, it's the simple things that really matter, no matter how complex they may be.
I wonder, Grant, if this yearning for simplicity might not have something of the 'soundbite' about it in that people have come to expect that anything, no matter how complex, can be explained in 30 secs or so.
ReplyDeleteSome things literally take a lifetime to learn.
Well said. That's why I have admired Obama's efforts, even in the campaign, to acknowledge that many issues require deeper reflection than the soundbite allows.
ReplyDeleteYet now he finds himself forced to boil this economic mess down to bread and butter. He's getting pretty good reviews for how he's doing it, but it must drive him nuts to have to do so.
Grant, while I appreciate the general them of your essay, and I do not want to make it political, please do not confuse the President's ELOQUENCE with ECONOMIC THEORY. He has no education or experience in economics. I studied economics at a grad school level, and I find myself wincing even while admiring his eloquence. The simplicity of the President's explanations will no longer soothe or charm us during the Brazilian-speed inflation in our near future. It is as predictable as everything else that has crashed, and yet we are not talking about it because America is too simple. And it will be one wherein our president cannot pass-the-buck (albeit even at a lesser value).
ReplyDeleteAnd now we see that Freddie Mac CFO may have committed suicide. Complexity incarnate.
ReplyDeleteI take your point, John, although I probably disagree at a fundamental level. I realize Obama is not an economist, and frankly I'm glad he isn't. He has surrounded himself with the best and the brightest; that allows him to synthesize policy options, build consensus, and let the Explainer-in-Chief talk to people about it. He's smart enough to grasp the issues and eloquent enough to frame them in understandable terms.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that your historical background has demonstrated the difference between the academic historian and the so-called populizer (sometimes a disparaging term for historians who can write well). Both are needed in a diverse society.
Your prediction of runaway inflation stands on its own merits. I repeat the point I made in the post--no one knows what will happen. It's all new territory. We'll see where it takes us.
Thanks for a thoughtful post, John.
Check out "Obamaman" ... :-)
ReplyDeletehttp://gregmorton.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/greg-morton-performs-obamaman-on-bob-and-tom/
We all need to laugh in the midst of this. "Obamaman" made me laugh out loud. Thanks for the link. :-)
ReplyDeleteIt was dissapointing last night, however, when Mr. Obama tried to make more complicated something which is actually quite simple - his position on the state secrets doctrine.
ReplyDeleteWhile he may not be an economist, he is a student of the US Constitution and it is shameful the way he is continuing and even expanding on GWB's theory of removing entire cases from the judicial branch merely because there may be objectionable items involved.
Then to act as if the only reason he's doing it is because he hasn't had enough "time", adds insult to injury. If this president starts lying as easily and readily as the last one, what have we achieved?
I think it's way too early to start accusing the president of "lying" or covering up cases for political expediency. If there has been any president in modern history more transparent than Obama (so far) I wouldn't know who it is.
ReplyDeleteI supported Obama quite enthusiastically. I don't necessarily agree with everything he has done, but there hasn't been a moment since inauguration that I have regretted that support. Let's give the guy a chance, eh?
I'm not sure what timing has to do with lying or not. The President said:
ReplyDelete"But keep in mind what happens, is we come in to office. We're in for a week, and suddenly we've got a court filing that's coming up. And so we don't have the time to effectively think through, what exactly should an overarching reform of that doctrine take? We've got to respond to the immediate case in front of us."
This statement is just false, and surely he knows it. That's the definition of lying. When a new administration comes in, they are given time to review current judicial positions. They were given more than enough time. In one notable instance where the Obama DOJ supported Bush's appeal, the judge surprisingly asked if they had taken the necessary time and was told they had.
He recently ruled against the Bush/Obama appeal (thankfully).
It's fine (well not really) if Obama agrees with Bush that the state secrets doctrine should prohibit any lawsuit the President finds disturbing - but say so. Don't make up a story about not having enough time.
And even if the the story were true (which it's not) that they didn't have enough time - then why err on the side of supporting the Bush position on secrecy that Obama spoke AGAINST when he was running for President?
One of the problems we've had over the last 8 years is the failure to point out lies when we see 'em. No need to make the same mistake now.
I support Obama and his agenda too. But not unconditionally.
As a follow up - here is an exerpt from a Feb. 9 NYT article reporting a transcript of the hearing when the Obama DOJ announced they were continuing with the Bush DOJ arguments on state secrets - to prevent a lawsuit which dealt with extraordinary renditions:
ReplyDelete"[A] lawyer for the government, Douglas N. Letter, made the same state-secrets argument on Monday, startling several judges on the panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
“Is there anything material that has happened” that might have caused the Justice Department to shift its views, asked Judge Mary M. Schroeder, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, coyly referring to the recent election.
“No, your honor,” Mr. Letter replied.
“The change in administration has no bearing?” she asked.
“No, your honor,” he said once more. The position he was taking in court on behalf of the government had been “thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration,” and “these are the authorized positions,” he said."
Now - does that sound like they didn't have enough time? The judges nearly said - "are you triple super sure?"
The article is here:
Obama Backs Off a Reversal on Secrets http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us/10torture.html?hp
My problem with Obama, who I voted for, is that he promised to get us out of war and instead has moved the war to Afghanistan. He has backed off of a few other campaign promises too. Why, I don't know. I am just holding my breath as to whether this president will be a one term president. So far, because of the Republicans, he hasn't been able to get much done at all.
ReplyDeleteI don't expect health care reform to pass. It has too much money/power against it...especially in an election year for congress.
I think the Republicans have framed it as a national disaster....just as the did Social Security and Medicare. Of course, if you're rich, you don't need either Medicare of Social Security. Without it, at 74 and 79, Bob and I would still be working. As it is, only I am looking for a job.