Exemplu de dreapta cumpanire

Stiu, stiu: nu-i frumos ce fac. Dar sa moara pisica tiparita daca nu o fac pentru un scop nobil. Ma gandesc la nepotzii viitorului (:p), cei care peste zile si saptamani si poate chiar luni vor arheologiza aceste semne ale trecutului recent si inutil, si ma tem ca daca pun doar link catre sursa, s-ar putea ca accesul sa fie restrictionat. Si atunci m-am gandit eu in nemernicia mea ca un caine balcanic turbat sa pun tot articolul. Ce blogul meu...

Promit sa nu mai fac (prea des). Doar de data asta, stimata redactie, da?

Deci, ashadar si prin urmare, sa intram in subiectul discutziei la soare. E vorba despre inca un exemplu, al nu stiu catelea, pentru care merita citita aceasta revista. Pentru retinerea de limbaj. Spre deosebire de alti isterici latini, ei nu sunt degraba varsatorii de epitete si de concluzii grabnice si de stihii verbale. Nu, ei trag aer in piept si in tastatura si ne indeamna: sa asteptam. Unele lucruri nu se intampla peste noapte. A facut si bune, si rele. Sa analizam nepartinitor. E vorba despre grija pentru nuanta si detaliu. Si mai ales si mai ales, e vorba despre puterea de analiza. Adica, doamnelor si domnilor, inteligenta si retorica.

Doamnelor si domnilor, The Economist. Sau cum ar trebui sa arate o analiza politica de etapa: Obama la un an de la investire.

Tz tz tz. Ce oameni. Ce creiere. Ce civilizatzie. Si ce iremediabil de balcanici si de isterici si de bicisnici suntem noi, prin comparatie.

:(

-------------------


Lexington
One year of The One

Oct 29th 2009
From The Economist print edition
He has achieved more than his critics claim, but the meat is yet to come


Illustration by KAL

WHEN he was elected president, Barack Obama made it plain that this was an event of some importance. His supporters, he said, had “put their hands on the arc of history and [bent] it once more toward the hope of a better day.” He promised to end the war in Iraq, sort out the Taliban, provide health care for all and erect a cap-and-trade system to save the planet. A year later, he has done none of these things, and some of his supporters are starting to grow impatient. “Saturday Night Live”, a comedy show, reckons his two big accomplishments are “jack” and “squat”. “Yes he can” proclaims the cover of Newsweek, “(but he sure hasn’t yet)”.

Mr Obama, for his part, is beginning to sound exasperated. “I never thought any of this was going to be easy,” he told a crowd in New Orleans this month. “Change is hard,” he said, “and big change is harder.” The crowd was friendly enough, but smaller than the crowds he used to attract during the campaign, and less starry-eyed. One young mother in the audience said she didn’t buy “all the hype of hope and change”. Generally speaking, she reckoned the president was “on the right path”. But she thought his bail-outs of banks and over-leveraged homeowners were “a slap in the face for those of us who are fiscally responsible”.

One reason why so many of Mr Obama’s fans are disappointed is that he promised the impossible and—such is the power of his oratory—got people to believe him. Time and again during the campaign, Lexington met voters who were convinced that he would deliver all the goodies on his wish-list without raising taxes on any but the rich. Mr Obama did little to dispel the idea that he could work miracles.

In his inauguration speech, he declared: “We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” Yet roughly once a week since that day, he has ordered the assassination of suspected terrorists. These assassinations, carried out with Hellfire missiles fired from hovering drones, are often messy. According to the New America Foundation, a think-tank, it took 15 attempts to kill Baitullah Mehsud, a Taliban leader in Pakistan who was finally blown to scraps in August. Hundreds of people, some of them children, have died in these drone attacks. Mr Obama would presumably include “not killing children” among his ideals. Sometimes, however, he sets aside this ideal in the interests of safety.

That may or may not be the right thing to do. But it is absurd to pretend that there is no trade-off “between our safety and our ideals”. Were that so, Mr Obama would already have closed the prison at Guantánamo Bay; yet nearly all the prisoners he inherited are still there. Meanwhile, he says he will continue “rendering” freshly captured terror suspects to third countries. And American soldiers are still being discharged for being openly gay. Is this “change we can believe in” or merely Bush with panache?

At home, far from ushering in a new era of chummy bipartisanship, he seldom opens his mouth without bashing his opponents or his predecessor. “I don’t mind cleaning up the mess that some other folks made,” he told a group of wealthy Democratic donors. “But while I’m there mopping the floor I don’t want someone saying: ‘You’re not mopping fast enough or you’re not holding the mop the right way’.” His handling of the media is aggressive, too. A recent attempt to exclude Fox News, a conservative network, from a pooled interview with the White House pay tsar was so crude that even liberal networks objected.

Measured against the expectations of those who bought pictures of him riding a unicorn, Mr Obama’s presidency has been a failure. Measured by a more reasonable yardstick, however, it has seen solid successes. For a start, the financial system appears to have stabilised. Continuing where Mr Bush left off, Mr Obama intervened to prop up ailing banks and insurers, thereby probably averting catastrophe. The bail-out may cost him votes, but it was necessary. And though the economy is still in a terrible state, it could now be through the worst.

Patience required

His big domestic reforms are taking time, but this is hardly surprising. He wants to reshape the one-sixth of the economy that is health care. This would affect almost everyone who expects to die someday. The details must be agreed on by a supermajority of senators, all of them opinionated and some of them nervous about re-election. Small wonder the deal has not yet been sealed. Cap-and-trade will be next, but since this would reallocate trillions of dollars and affect everyone who uses energy, it could prove even more contentious. Immigration reform, meanwhile, seems to be receding into the future.

Mr Obama’s election has dramatically improved America’s image abroad. That surely counts for something, even if it has yet to pay tangible dividends. He has unnerved America’s trading partners by caving in to congressional pressure for protectionism, but he has not sparked a full-blown trade war. He is pulling out of Iraq gradually and sensibly. His preference for talking to rogue states such as Iran and North Korea has so far yielded no substantial benefits, but diplomacy is seldom swift. His strategy for Afghanistan is up in the air. His indecision alarms hawks, but others contrast his cool deliberation favourably with his predecessor’s impetuousness.

The best test of Mr Obama’s presidency is not whether he changes things quickly but whether he changes them for the better. Perhaps, as the economy starts to recover, he will lay down a path towards fixing the budget. Perhaps his health reforms will curb costs. Perhaps he can reach a deal with Iran, and set up a cap-and-trade system. It is still too early to know any of this: but in the next few months, America and the world will start to see whether he can or he can’t.