The difference between a “mere” president of a republic and a statesman is that the former is solely concerned with surveys of public opinion and how to remain in power; he himself - if this is permitted by legislation - or someone that he is inclined towards. This often means that he will continue, after the election, as a “half-president”, or some other kind of fraction of governor, according to the level of psychological dependency of the person indicated by him. On the other hand, a statesman, in the full meaning of the word, relativizes the reaction of his electorate because he knows that the population in general has a quick-results mentality (often somewhat immature), only thinking of its own good fortune, without finding the conditions or time necessary for making a more precise analysis of the country’s problems. It should not be forgotten that so-called “experts” can also be wrong, given that they base their predictions on human behavior, this mixed bag of caprice, venom, vanity, sympathy, antipathy and capricious calculations of personal interest.
I wish to make it explicit, without irony, that the above paragraph is not related in any way to the current political-electoral situation in Brazil. However, I involuntarily thought of the situation in Argentina, where a certain president, who could not be re-elected due to a constitutional impediment, was, in a manner of speaking, “re-elected” via his wife. When they refer to polemic decisions, Buenos Aires newspapers openly write, without any intention of satirizing, that one presidential decision or another was made by “the Kirchners”, instead of the president actually holding this position. As if there were two presidents in office. While on the subject, I think it is surprising that no legal prohibition exists (as far as I know), not even in First World countries, regarding the candidature of the wife of the president when the actual president cannot put himself forward as a candidate. Is it not the case that such an omission is proof of political-electoral ingenuity?
On the subject of Barack Obama, his fall in popularity is principally based on two factors, namely: i) unemployment has not dropped to the “normal” level that existed prior to the onset of the economic crisis, and is ever increasing in his country; and ii) a cruel doubt: is it really worthwhile remaining in Afghanistan, considering the high economic and political costs involved? How many billions of dollars and how many hundreds of corpses of American soldiers will be necessary to reduce (even slightly) the cultural backwardness - from the point of view of Western standards - of a population nurtured from the cradle on the “milk” of exceedingly rigid moral and religious norms that go against Western culture? Is it really feasible, without paying an astronomical price, to forcibly drag a people that still live in the Middle Ages into the twenty-first century? Would this cultural update “course” not be less expensive, less bloody, if it were given solely in the form of internet access, financial aid, non-hostile propaganda, study grants to young Afghans, etc, instead of uniformed “teachers” machine gunning and bombing their “students”, many unintentionally as innocent civilians who were near the targets attacked by manned and unmanned aircraft?
The average Muslim, watching American and European films, falls over backwards, shocked and sickened, on suddenly seeing ninety percent explicit sex scenes, with oral - but not verbal - variations, clearly suggested in the images and expressly mentioned in the soundtrack and subtitles. These are “raw” scenes that appear without any prior warning, making it impossible for rapid evacuation of the Muslim theatre where women and children are present. This distorted model of “Christian civilization” that so shames true Christians - and even those agnostics of greater modesty - certainly does not contribute to increasing respect for the “invaders”, who are present in the country without being invited. Given that Bin Laden is no longer in Afghanistan, many Americans ask themselves: “so why are our young soldiers dying over there?” And when I say “over there”, I am including part of Pakistan, which is becoming progressively involved in the conflict.
Besides the premature and unjust disappointment of his electors (jobs are not created by decree), Obama is now being attacked with greater vigor by the Republicans, excited with his fall in popularity. They detect the odor of the black sheep’s blood in the air. In this rejection, there is a certain amount, almost impossible to measure (or confess) of racial discrimination, an instinctive component that it is difficult to fully eradicate, given that it is an aspect related to the genetic inheritance of us all (this will a topic for another article).
A book recently published in the USA, the title of which I cannot remember, collects the indiscreet comments of politicians when talking freely, thinking that nobody is recording the conversation. In these conversations, they make an attempt to convince party colleagues. In one of them, ex-president Bill Clinton (a good natured, sympathetic, politician, but always a politician) puts pressure on his Democratic colleagues to support Hillary Clinton, instead of Obama, in the dispute for the party presidential nomination. According to the book, at the time of the Democratic primary race, Clinton is alleged to have said the following during a telephone call to the late Senator Edward Kennedy: “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee”. I do not know whether there was any racial or solely social prejudice in this statement, or a mixture of both, but one thing is certain: Obama’s race will have a degree of weighting in the guided artificial acceleration of his level of rejection. Many people wish to bring about his downfall, even though one is dealing with a man - almost a “youth” based on his appearance - who has everything necessary to honor a country that has had the good fortune to produce individuals like Thomas Jefferson, his colleagues who prepared the American Constitution, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Obama himself.
To date, at least Obama has shown himself to be a statesman proposing to the world a moral and intellectual model of how the statesman of the future should think. This cannot be limited to solely thinking of the benefit of his own country. An analogy would be a shepherd who cares for his own flock, but keeps a vigilant, collaborative and non-covetous eye on the flocks of others, avoiding, as far as possible, that any harm should come to them. It is this that is Barack Obama’s intention. I am not exaggerating. He may err, for an instant, but his error is well intentioned, the fruit of mature responsibility and foresight, free of the usual underhand subterfuge of all presidents solely concerned with their electorates. Presidents of the old guard believe that they have the right to shamelessly lie, if this benefits the country in question. They call this patriotism and sleep with a clear conscience.
Financial institutions will exercise a high degree of influence in order to diminish the prestige of the American president. With the necessary insistence, Obama intends to regulate the activities of banks and, as a consequence, that of their CEOs, with a view to preventing any repetition of the immense crisis, initiated in 2008, which did not result in a complete collapse of the global economy for the sole reason that the American government injected trillions of dollars in the bail-out of banks and large corporations. Such bankers - people of all kinds, in all areas - want to see a return to gratifying irresponsible profits, pocketing enormous bonuses, “facilitating” loans and other operations, but leaving the government to cover losses, if and when the “bubble” bursts. This is something that is completely within the realm of possibility, and they know it, but they are not very concerned as it is highly unlikely that they will have to return their self-granted gains.
A currently popular and very wise saying states that “If you owe the bank a thousand dollars, you are at the bank’s mercy. If you owe the bank $100 million dollars, the bank is at your mercy”. In other words, the bank is not going to press you for repayment. It is going to treat you with a gloved hand because, if it does not, you could say that you are not going to pay, leading the bank to insolvency. An the saying should be amplified, as it has been already: if a bank is imprudent, granting loans that are unlikely to be paid back, the government, thinking of the well being of account holders, finds itself obliged to effect a bail-out. It is not going to leave millions of depositors in the lurch. Governments are thus “at the mercy” of sufficiently large irresponsible banks. Hence the expression that “banks cannot grow to a point where they become “unbreakable”.
Obama is now stirring up a financial wasp’s nest that will perhaps put his very office in danger. He wants to separate two banking activities: that of safeguarding the rich source of small cash of the current account holder (with limited remuneration) and the activity of high-risk investment. You, the reader, have likely already received telephone calls from bank managers suggesting that such and such a deposit should be invested one fund or another, or other similar applications, with a nomenclature that varies from bank to bank. There are so many funds and other acronyms that the client becomes confused, not being a specialist in the area, as is usually the case. The client ends up accepting the suggestion put forward by the manager who, even if he is an honest employee, is not a holder of the Nobel Prize in Economics. And just why does the manager make such offers? Because it is required of his immediate superiors who, in turn, follow the guidance of the handful of individuals who are at the top of the organizational hierarchy and are perhaps interested in being awarded their bonuses.
The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that such advice given to current account holders ends up facilitating the practice of banking activities that could result in a danger of generalized collapse, followed by cries for substantial aid from the government, i.e., from the tax-payer in general. It is edifying, at first sight, to find current account holders being warned that if they want big profits (involving significant risks - there is no “free lunch”), they should approach the investment banks. If they lose a lot of money, the government will not feel morally obliged to intervene, given that it is not its moral obligation to save casinos and those who frequent such establishments. Summing up, deposit banks deserve assistance, whereas investment banks do not. And, as a rule, deposit banks (I am not sure about regulations in the USA) cannot invest the resources existing in such financial institutions, given that, in the event of large-scale losses on the part of investment banks, the money of depositors would evaporate in the same way. In all certainty, what I am saying is obvious, but I am saying it just because, in the world of high finance, the obvious is somewhat evanescent and mysterious.
The Obama administration has created a commission to address the issue of reforms in the financial sector. Here one is dealing with the Angelides Commission, so-called because it is chaired by Democrat Phil Angelides, an economist of good moral and technical reputation, who was formerly “treasurer” of the State of California. The vice-chairman is a Republican and the ten-member commission is comprised of representatives from both parties. It is to be hoped that it functions, despite the fact that it is a commission. It is a pity that the result will only be presented in December 2010. In the meantime, many things could happen. I only hope that Obama is still alive and in office, and that he has also made a significant leap forward in the development of techniques to combat terrorism.
There is no space here to speak of international terrorism. It is sufficient to affirm, without fear of erring, that it is being fought in the wrong way, superficially. It is not that the USA and the European Union should not defend themselves from sporadic attempted attacks. These are the symptoms, the consequence, the fever arising from an infection. It is necessary to examine the deep-rooted motives for terrorism. It is erroneous to imagine that the problem will be resolved by killing the terrorists. Others will replace them, perhaps with an even greater degree of resentment.
It is my hope that, very soon now, Obama will realize that it is not practical to scan all people travelling by plane to the United States. Neither is it practical to oblige all the world’s airports to examine the political ideas, appearance (i.e., Arab) and the private parts of all those heading to the USA by plane. It is too bureaucratic and partially useless and will only serve to isolate the powerful American nation. How many aircraft, coming from abroad, land in the USA each year? Millions or billions? I am left wondering whether there could be some kind of economic interest behind these measures on the part of companies specializing in security. In addition, there is a need for a response by air transport companies in the form of a vigorous lobby for the cessation of an erroneous, ingenuous policy, which is going to end up ruining their business. If this idiotic policy against terrorism continues, Osama Bin Laden will smile in a satisfied manner, thinking: “How easy it is to force the enemy to be self-disrupting...”
(25-01-2010)
