Greed, Gall, God, and Government, Part Two
Prologue: At the G-20 Summit just concluded, the AP reports "Obama has acknowledged that U.S. regulatory failures contributed to the crisis in the financial system, but urged a focus on solutions, saying ‘we can only meet this challenge together.’" What might this mean? In part that "‘We will begin to crack down on cowboys in global markets,’ said Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd."
The George w. Bush team (2001-2009) rightfully landed a second term because we trusted Mr. Bush on the international front with the war on terrorism even if his domestic policies with regard to the finance sector came up way short. Ironically, it turns out that, as his tenure showed, domestic policies with regard to regulating the cowboys on Wall Street are so entwined with international policy that the old capitalist mantra of mere self-interest as pushed to the limit by Bush suddenly appears poor beyond recovery
"Whoopee Ti Yi Yo," the cowboy’s days are numbered—again.
Let me explain
Just days ago the Los Angeles Times profiled "a fourth-generation cowboy working in a region where being a cowboy no longer makes sense," the paper says. The cowboys in San Diego County, California, are riding off into the sunset.
In fact, there remains a mere handful of working cowboys in the entire U.S. Workers in "animal production support roles" number about 9000 all told." These include farm hands, stockyard workers, more than 3200 rodeo workers, and all working cowboys. Do the math—real working cowboys are a rare, disappearing breed.
So too, Kevin Rudd promises, the cowboys on Wall Street just might be parting with lassos, bullwhips, and spurs to take up with green eyeshades, quill pens, and double-entry accounting ledgers. They will be trading rodeo-like rollicking for detailed accountability. It may be that the cowboy economy, first labeled such by economist Kenneth Boulding back in the 1960s (See "Why Santa Took Off the Cowboy Boots," this blog), like cowboys in San Diego, just no longer makes sense.
Not all agree. For example, "Adam Smith must be rolling over in his grave," lamented Lawrence Eagleburger, a noted global free market advocate from the days of the elder George H.W. Bush. Smith is stirring, Eagleburger thinks because we are "walking very far away from capitalism."
Or, at least the sort of capitalism envisioned by Eagleburger.
Yet, Eagleburger’s one time boss, then President George H. W. Bush declared in a speech to Congress on September 11, 1990, exactly 11 years before the infamous 9/11 destruction of New York’s Trade Towers, "The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation…. Out of these troubled times a New World Order can emerge…."
For a short time back then Eagleburger was Secretary of State. But apparently he did not apprentice well under Bush I; his unbridled, unregulated free market vision just doesn’t mesh with "historic…cooperation" of the type meant by Bush.
Eagleburger contends that the "regulators…don’t want freer markets," meaning by regulators specifically France and Germany; further, that in attempting to form some sort of agreement with these "regulators," President Obama "has done us a great deal of damage." By this Eagleburger explains that the President has pushed the U.S. "left of center, in the ditch over there" because "he’s a regulator himself."
Hmm.
It may be that in Eagleburger’s mind, Obama just does not have the gall it takes to maintain U.S. presence in a world of Eagleburger-anointed, Adam Smith-oriented, free-market capitalism; Eagleburger may think that, in fact, Obama is a European-type socialist in disguise intent on leading America into socialism. Eagleburger did refer to Obama as a "charlatan." When asked to define this, Eagleburger could only mention Obama’s fund raising methods, very weak evidence to support such a charge. In fact, Obama’s fund raising seemed very free-market oriented, highly capitalistic.
So there has to be more going on here.
The real rub more likely comes from Eagleburger thinking Obama is a real throwback to the elder Bush and a New World Order. The elder Bush’s international vision certainly included France and Germany, and could not be imagined apart from some sort of regulation. What sort of "left of center" push Republican Bush had in mind is not clear; if not socialist-oriented, it would have placed American sovereignty at risk.
In stark contrast to this, Eagleburger was one of the first to verbalize the doctrine of the sovereign unilateral preemptive strike employed by the second Bush in the invasion of Iraq. In a CNN interview on 9/11/2001, Eagleburger stated plainly that striking back at terrorists "…does not necessarily mean that you have to strike back only at those that you know were the perpetrators of this thing. We know terrorists around the world and we know a lot of governments that have financed and supported terrorism."
Iraq, it was thought after 9/11, was one of these.
And with the invasion of Iraq it was, "Bye, bye, New World Order." The cowboys ride again. Charge! Gall and all to the gates of Baghdad and beyond!
Of course, we soon found out this could be sustained only for awhile. Gall can only take you so far and then you have to govern. Bush the Elder knew this and had no desire to make Baghdad a suburb of DC. He refused to take the Gulf War—Iraq War I—to Baghdad’s gates.
As it turns out, then, Eagleburger is much more in tune with younger Texan cowboy Bush that the elder Kennebunkport, Maine, aristocratic Bush. Now if Mr. Obama’s international vision seems even somewhat akin to Bush I, well Eagleburger’s ire aimed Obama’s way makes sense. He is a charlatan Eagleburger thinks because he does not take America’s self-interests serious enough. Like Bush I, Obama would never have mistaken Baghdad for Baltimore or camels for cows and preemptively ordered a roundup.
The cowboy or the charlatan—this is the choice we face in Eagleburger’s world. In the 2008 campaign Eagleburger’s instincts yearned for one last ride, roundup, and jaw-boning session back at the bunkhouse with the boys. Whoopee Ti Yi Yo! Get along little doggie! Eagleburger thought he would get that one last ride on the McCain wagon train, endorsing McCain early on. Now with Obama’s election, his presence on the world stage, and talk of international regulation, it has to turn out that Obama really is a charlatan; or Eagleburger and folk like him are just plain wrong.
So how will it turn out? Are we headed for socialism and one world government under Obama? Are the days of greed and gall gone forever? Do the cowboys stand a chance?
Not to worry; pray yes, but worry no; rhetoric on the world stage is one thing; regulations to reign in the cowboys in the global markets another; a new world order something else still; and the actual outcomes of any or all of this probably not even close to anyone’s most studious or panicked prediction.
Man proposes, it has been observed, but God disposes.
The One we all ought to pay mind to is the One who has the final say.
He reminds us that greed is not good; money is never enough; and a focus on profits is not the bottom line. Government or governments that do not reign in greed will fail. To Babylon, the prototype of greed run amok, the prophet shouts, "You praised the gods of silver and gold; of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which cannot see or hear or understand. But you did not honor the God who holds in his hand your life and all your ways…you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting" (see, Daniel 5:23-27).
It follows that gall—brazen boldness coupled with impudent assurance and insolence, says Webster—falls under the same condemnation; it is nothing more than the narcissistic moral blindness that assumes entitlement and thereby drives unrestrained greed which is a good description of the cowboys on Wall Street.
So while we are not equating them with working cowboys, the bunch that ran amok at AIG certainly fall into a category of Wild Bunch cowboys like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
With this clarification we draw a conclusion: to the extent he gathers a posse to pursue the New Wild Bunch and requires regulations to do so, even global regulations if agreed to legitimately—meaning, for U.S. citizens, within the framework of our Constitution,—we say, “Go for it!”
On the one hand, none of this repudiates the younger President George W. Bush’s foreign policy. We believe history will tell a different story of the Iraq war than the liberals tell now, as compared to the Middle East, especially Israel; and the war on terrorism has kept us safe on the domestic front in the U.S. for nearly eight years. On the other hand, greed and gall has run amok. Increasingly unregulated, unbridled, old fashioned King George-type elitism marauding as capitalism has enabled a chosen few at the top to create their own type of one world government with themselves as kings and the people as peasants; this top-weighted, one-sided system has enriched a handful of international hedge fund managers while abusing millions of innocent people on the domestic front. To call such crime a "free market" does not excuse the fraud and make it right.
But the self-serving ideology of Eagleburger aside (he sets on the board of Halliburton and has every reason to root for global capitalism dominated by a handful of corporate gurus such as himself), and the rhetoric of the Elder Bush seen for what it was (an appeal to Europe and Russia in terms only they would applaud; American politics resisting even a polite nod of agreement), our course for the future seems clear enough. The enormous proven risk of Eagleburger’s cowboy capitalism blazoned indelibly in the conscience of the American public via AIG expunges the fear of possible, not even close to probable smearing at the fringes of American sovereignty by a nebulous new world order of Barack Obama. This frees up Obama to do what is right, not merely as measured by capitalism’s mantra of corporate America’s self-interest, but in the best interests of people wherever they are.
Can he follow though? Depends in part, at least, on how convincing he can be with the American public which will require clear enunciation of transparent regulations that actually accomplish in the next couple of years what he tells us they will. It remains that his team has its own day of accounting coming round, too, in 2010 and 2012.
In fact, U.S. self-interest has never stopped at the border; it has been shaped always in one way or another by international interests. But those international interests have been shaped always by conservative or liberal ideology, depending on who was in charge domestically (which can be seen most clearly perhaps in comparing Jimmie Carter’s presidency with Ronald Reagan’s). The question now is whether Barack Obama’s presidency will go down in history as having transcended ideology well enough to take to heart the interests of all people for whom Christ died, not just the capitalist or socialist elites—even if Mr. Obama does not have an evangelical bone in his body (you tell me). Greed, gall, and government just cannot escape the judgment of God.
Mr. Obama, we are praying for you.
