"The Economic Crisis"

   Isn't it interesting that no one will claim the "d" word ("depression") for what is happening? Most people think this is because so-called experts on the economy do not want to frighten an already alarmed consumer public. But another reason, it seems to me, is just as likely:  experts do not want to use the "d" word explicitly because that is an historical reference, and God forbid that we should use lessons of the past rather than economic theory or modeling as our primary guide. But, where now are the theories of Milton Friedman, and his many legionnaires of the "Chicago School"? Where is the theory of "rational expectations" that he and his ideological followers claimed were the iron law of economics. They have gone the way that all ideological solutions go in hard times and times of profound change -- into the garbage. Ideologies are usually the luxury of good, stable times, or are held by persons and groups remote from holding power. Hard times call for using historical experience (although only insofar as historical experience is relevant -- and that is the trick, of course) and for applying practical solutions and for being flexible.  Ideology generally allows none of this. (One of the few exceptions to this might be the French Revolution, when an ideology of "liberty, fraternity, and equality" were the slogans. But it should be noted that "liberty, fraternity, and equality" themselves only work as general guiding principles rather than firm ideological strictures, and these principles all required practicality and flexibility for implementation -- something French Revolutionary ideologues failed to appreciate, thereby ruining prospects for those principles to thrive for a very long time).

   Yet, history is exactly what has insinuated itself into the "economic crisis" discussion despite the fact that "theory" has been the mother and teacher of almost all economic "experts." Ben Bernanke referred to the problem of the need to open lines of credit early on in the crisis, and his reasons, he admitted, flowed from his historical knowledge of the 1930s depression. Now the big issues of "restoring confidence" and eliminating "fear" and "stimulating" the economy and developing infrastructure -- all derived from our knowledge of the Great Depression -- are the watchwords of the recovery. History is useful in this crisis for the big reasons -- to determine how people might behave in either a rational or irrational sense, or how failures to face crises (e.g., Japan in the 1990s) can make things worse. The reason fewer people do not appreciate the use of history in a crisis like this is that technical details of the Great Depression, for example, do not translate readily for our more global economy today.  But it is just in the details that history is of minor use. History may not repeat itself, but large conditions remain the same. The "South Sea Bubble" crisis of the early 18th century has much in common with the depressions of the 1880s, 1890s, 1907, and the Great Depression. Only those who arrogantly assume that the present is superior to the past can foolishly think otherwise.

Obama and the Limits of American "Exceptionalism"

[This essay was published in the Lethbridge Herald on Dec. 1, 2008]   

   I enjoyed Professor Harrison's recent article (Herald, Nov. 27) on the prospects and dangers for Canada of an imperial Obama presidency. His concern about Canada being seduced by an Obama-led U. S. government only to see Canada, "crash on the shores of the faltering American empire," seems, at this time, more phantom than real. In any case, Canada has already generously submitted to American desires by taking on some of the "heavy-lifting" for a largely American war in Afghanistan. Can we be more seduced?

   It is worth noting that American military power and international influence is limited at this time. It is true that Mr. Obama's saber rattling in the campaign, in his pledge to have Bin Laden found and killed and in his threat to invade the Pakistan territories without Pakistan's consent, were the most troubling promises of his campaign. Tough guy rhetoric was necessary, of course, to combat Mr. McCain's exclusive claim to being firm in foreign affairs. But Mr. Obama is not alone in wanting Bin Laden killed, and incursions into the Pakistan territories have been taking place for several months already. In fact, as events of the past few months have strongly suggested, the impending end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by the United States and its "allies" will not be decided by the U. S. alone but by Iraqi and Afghan governments and by events beyond the power of any state, including the U. S., to control. If politics is "the art of the possible," international affairs and war in the current world are even more constrained by "what can be done" over "what any state, even the United States, wants to be done."

   Professor Harrison is most troubled by Mr. Obama's appeal to American "exceptionalism." Some of us who have taught American History have tried, over long careers, to eliminate the "exceptionalist" perspective in American History. The fact is, however, that I cannot think of a single American president or candidate, and regrettably only a very few American historians, who have not raised the banner of American "exceptionalism" to explain the American past and predict its future. Insofar as this mythic claim in American politics and history supports democracy and civil rights in the U. S., it has some small value. But "exceptionalism" has not been solely the handmaiden of empire; it was promoted in some periods of American History as readily by isolationists as it has been by imperialists in other periods. "Exceptionalism" is not, and never has been, primarily a foreign policy call to arms.*

   Professor Harrison is right that the United States is a "faltering" empire, and the vast majority of those who are writing on how this end will unfold are themselves American. There is no increasing support for empire in the U. S., and the Cheney-Wolfowiz-Perle crowd who promoted American exportation of these neo-con ideas is now disgraced (as these ideas were among all progressives long before now).

   I predicted in an earlier submission to the Herald that we should hope Mr. Obama embraces a pragmatic progressive approach to politics. So far he has suggested that he will do so. As Canadians we should hope, as our best ally against imperialism, that truly pragmatic progressive politics become the fashion both south of the border and in all political states.

________________________________

*On my position see, James Tagg, "'And, We Burned Down the White House, Too':  American History, Canadian Undergraduates, and Nationalism," The History Teacher, 37 no. 3 (May, 2004). Also, the same as James Tagg, "American History, Canadian Undergraduates, and Nationalism," in Carl Guarneri and James Davis, eds., Teaching American History in a Global Context (New York, 2008).

Obama and Progressive Pragmatism

The following article was published by me in the Lethbridge Herald shortly after Mr. Obama's election in early November:

   "The election of an African-American to the U. S. presidency has now been rightly celebrated, and the media has begun to re-write the election narrative in order to make the defeat of racial disadvantage the critical story, thereby allowing themselves to congratulate their subscribers, the American public, for a virtuous awakening. But the fact is that while Mr. Obama gained votes on because of his race, and while race may have lost him a few votes in states already lost to moderate or progressive candidates of any race, Mr. Obama never put a racial face to his campaign himself nor did race become a central issue on its own. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell stated in a recent interview, "Mr. Obama has not run for the presidency as an African-American candidate but as an American."

  Evidence suggests that Mr. Obama understood that his primary political appeal lay in his administrative competence and his even, reflective, unflappable temperament. Successful American presidents, from George Washington onward, have most often been elected and most often succeeded because of their temperament, providing that temperament matched the problems of the day. Despite the scorn that some of his opponents heaped on Mr. Obama for his background as a "community organizer," that experience gave him the capacity to sort through different ideas and opinions, to seek compromise and cooperation among disparate participants, and to squeeze the most out of a varying constituency of advisers. Mr. Obama won because he convinced the American people that he possessed the temperament to succeed with these skills. His election suggests, therefore, a return to pragmatic politics and governance.

   That promise stands in contrast to the last quarter century of American politics. Beginning with Ronald Reagan in 1980, so-called conservative politics (in fact, they conserved very little) placed fixed ideological beliefs at the forefront of politics and governance. These fixed, fundamentalist beliefs included resistance to any interference in the free market, the elevation of the needs of the "economy" over the needs of "society," the encouragement of excessive individual consumerism to keep the "economy" going, and even advancement of the extremist idea that there is no public interest, no public good worth considering, not even societal interests, only the private interests of individuals and families.

   Mr. Obama's election combined with the current economic crisis may allow a new politics, politics less bound by ideological rigidity. It should lead to a political environment similar to the progressive era of the early 20th century. From the late 1890s until World War I, reckless capitalism economic crises in 1893 and 1907, and the bad conduct of irresponsible corporations and business magnates, force politicians from all parties and government at all levels to seek practical and workable solutions to those problems. Those solutions sought to place the interests of the public good first, and satisfying the public good was seen to depend on pragmatic responses to changing problems. We may be entering an era infused with a similar re-discovery of society, the public good, and workable solutions. Both the current economic crisis and the new political environment suggest this may be so, and reasonable people should hope so.

   It is no exaggeration to see history as the steady continuance of things as they are -- until the moment everything suddenly changes profoundly. This may be one of those moments. Ideological issues -- free market capitalism, so-called family values, anti-abortion advocacy, pro-gun rights, and other uncompromising beliefs -- did not resonate in this election. Defeated Republicans, who are already claiming that the Bush administration was the sole cause of their defeat, believe that they will be restored to their proper places in government once they have cleaned house and found a new right-wing Reaganesqu messiah to reinstall what they think are the fixed principles of unfettered, free-market economics and libertarianism. If history is a guide, they should not hold their breath.