COUNTINGTHEWORLD’S REFUGEES:PAGE 8

Price:£3

APRIL2008

A CANDIDATE FLUENT IN POETRY AND PROSE Obama: the Democrats in person

Who Barack Obama is and what he represents is just as important in the US presidential nomination campaign as what he says or what he proposes by way of policy. He has come to embody everything the Democratic party has stood for and pursued for 50 years

To serve and protect KONRAD KLAPHECK – ‘The mean neighbour’ (1991)

In theory, the United States is all for free trade and is the leading advocate of the system. But, faced with a recession and a colossal trade deficit, it is reconsidering, as everyone knew it would. The US military contract for 79 refuelling tankers, co-produced by European Aeronautic Defence and Space (EADS) at a cost of $35bn, is no exception. US national interests are well protected. This “European” aircraft will be equipped with General Electric engines, produced in partnership with the US company Northrop Grumman and assembled in Alabama. More than half the added value will be generated in the US. Much of the equipment on offer from the main competitor, Boeing – less readily available, with a more limited refuelling capability and range – would not have been produced in the US. Editorials in newspapers and the business press assure us that it is wrong to take strong measures to protect national companies and their employees. But history shows that most developed countries owe their prominent positions to trade barriers. Britain, France, Korea, Japan and Prussia did not acquire their industrial power by obeying David Ricardo’s law of comparative advantage. And in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when the US had the highest growth rate in the world, its customs tariffs were around 50% (44% in 1913). President Ronald Reagan inveighed against protectionism but set limits on imports of cars, steel, sugar and textiles. His administration increased duties on cars with big engines (by a factor of 11) and on motorcycles, to rescue Harley-Davidson. And it pressured Japan to revalue its currency, just as President George Bush is asking China to do now (1). The monetary policy pursued by the Federal Reserve with the tacit approval of the White House, although not openly protectionist, has obvious

implications for trade. A weak dollar is good for exports and will reduce the impact of the current recession in the US. The European Union is almost alone in calmly allowing central bank policy on interest rates – high interest rates – to threaten major industries established with considerable injections of public money. Groups like EADS are relocating their activities to the dollar zone to escape the dire effects of revaluing the euro (2). The deal with the Pentagon also has political and strategic implications. What price did Europe have to pay for the honour of refuelling US aircraft with equipment co-produced in the US because the Federal Reserve keeps interest rates down? When it was announced that the contract had been awarded to EADS, Democratic congressman John Murtha complained that the Europeans were not pulling their weight in Afghanistan. By coincidence, President Nicolas Sarkozy is about to send 1,000 more French troops there. Celebrating his new diplomatic entente with Washington, Sarkozy said: “It would have been unthinkable for EADS to win the contract for refuelling tankers in the previous climate of tension between France and the US” (3). Enough said. The Pentagon decision is a superlative lesson in free trade. SERGE HALIMI TRANSLATED BY BARBARA WILSON

(1) The US has repeatedly asked China to revalue the yuan to reduce the US trade deficit. But there has been a 10% revaluation since January 2007 with no appreciable effect on its trade deficit with China. (2) In an interview published in Les Echos, Paris, on 10 December 2007, the French prime minister, Franççois Fillon, said France and Germany had not invested substantial sums in Airbus to see the project transfer to the dollar zone. The state, as a shareholder, would make every effort to persuade Airbus not to relocate production. (3) Interview with Le Figaro , Paris, 7 March 2008.

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

The slow and disjointed struggle against Chinese rule in Tibet page 2

Miami’s Cubans don’t have the floor to themselves any more page 4

Mexico’s farmers emigrate as Naftastarts to bite page 5

Italy’s left hunts for a new and electable identity page 7

Missile defence:prudent precaution or disguised aggression? page 10

How philosophers focused on freedom but forgot to free the slaves page 12

Getting IVFtreatment in Iran;one couple’s story page 14

Treachery,slaughter and peerless prose:the bard’s Histories page 16

BY JOHN GERRING AND JOSHUAYESNOWITZ

Barack Obama’s candidacy is a movement as much as it is a campaign, with boisterous rallies, many volunteers and over a million small donors. This movement has mobilised many new voters into the democratic process, particularly the young and independents (citizens unaffiliated with either major party). As a result of this enthusiasm, as well as the closeness of the race, turnout in Democratic primaries and caucuses across the nation has reached historic highs (1). And yet there are wide differences of opinion over what the Obama candidacy represents. To supporters, he is a fundamentally new force in US politics, who rises above partisanship and tells people to “turn the page” on the political gridlock inside Washington’s Beltway. To opponents within the Democratic party (those supporting the candidacy of rival senator Hillary Clinton), he is nothing but bombast, coupled with youth and inexperience. And to Republican partisans, he is beguiling but not mysterious: an old-fashioned taxand-spend liberal, scarcely different from those who have come before. Each of these perspectives has an element of truth. The newness of this man, his freshness and vitality have provided plenty of material for the commentariat. With a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas, Barack Obama was raised in Hawaii and in Indonesia, where his mother had moved to pursue her research for a doctoral degree in anthropology. (She eventually re-married, providing Barack with an Indonesian stepfather.) He attended college in California (Occidental) and New York (Columbia), then moved to the south side of Chicago to serve as a community organiser before receiving his law degree in Massachusetts (Harvard). Barack Hussein Obama is a useful screen on which the world has projected many themes. He is a messenger but not an architect of the modern Democratic party. Novelties aside, Obama’s candidacy is defined by many now-traditional Democratic themes. From the end of the 19th to the mid-20th century, the party was defined by its opposition to a perceived concentration of power and money in American society. Democratic candidates for president – including William Jennings Bryan (candidate in 1896, 1900, 1908), Woodrow Wilson (1912, 1916), Franklin Roosevelt (1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944) and Harry Truman (1948) – campaigned for the “people” and against the “interests”. They had a plebiscite-based vision of political power in which the common people were enjoined to rule directly (or as directly as possible),

John Gerring is professor of political science at Boston University and author of Party Ideologies in America, 1828-1996,Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 1998;Joshua Yesnowitz is a doctoral candidate at Boston University

and “private” conclaves of power were assumed to be corrupt and self-interested. They inveighed against the concentrated power of capitalists, called “trusts” or “big business”. Against the privileges enjoyed by elites, Democrats championed the rights of the common man – assumed to be white and of European origin. This was the Populist era of Democratic party ideology (2). After the second world war and beginning with the campaigns of Adlai Stevenson (1952, 1956), and continuing with those of John Kennedy (1960), Lyndon Johnson (1964) and Hubert Humphrey (1968), the vitriol of the Populist era diminished. Social class antagonism was de-emphasised, and in its place came a different self-image and policy objectives. Post-war Democrats defended the social reforms of the Progressive and New Deal eras, and often sought to extend the scope of these policies (especially social security). But in their public appeals, they avoided all connotations of class warfare and instead adopted an ideology of universalism embracing all races, creeds, and classes. One objective of this rhetorical strategy was a desire to escape from the perceived dangers of a creeping communism (this was the height of the cold war) and an increasingly unpopular labour movement. Post-war Democrats rarely issued forthright calls for government to regulate the private sector, and never attacked big business. Yet the adoption of a universalistic, all-together-now ideology was not simply a rhetorical tool by which to avoid accusations of socialism and unAmericanism; it also articulated a new policy objective for the Democratic party. Beginning in 1948 with the adoption of the first civil rights ideas, Democrats came to support the active engagement of government in establishing rights for women and minorities. At first, the meaning of minority was restricted to African-Americans. Later, as the precedent of civil rights for blacks became established, the party also embraced women’s rights, Hispanic rights, gay rights and many other, smaller ethnic- and issue-based constituencies. The philosophy of rights was extended. It might be argued that the party shifted, during the 20th century, from an ideology of majority rule to an ideology of minority rights. One step on this march toward fraternal and sororal unity remained. The party’s standard-bearers for the presidency had so far been white and male. Women and minorities were encouraged to vote for Democrats, but they were not granted the top job (though several tried, including Geraldine Ferraro and Jesse Jackson). Now, after talking the talk of inclusion for half a century, the party is poised to walk the walk. This year, whichever is chosen, Barack or Hillary will embody the quest of the modern Democratic Party in his or her lifestory. The only other serious contender with a white face

Continued on page 3