Cassandra

WILL the voters of South Carolina in tomorrow’s Republican primary add momentum to Mitt Romney’s quest to be the GOP presidential candidate? Or will they spoil that measured progress by giving a boost to Newt Gingrich (the conventional wisdom being that neither Rick Santorum nor Ron Paul will be in the top two)? Cassandra’s hunch is that, whatever tomorrow’s result, Mr Romney will eventually be the nominee—but in the meantime there will be lots of entertaining exchanges between the candidates that verge on the insulting or the scandalous. This is partly because Mr Romney, a member of a religion considered by many Americans to be a heretical cult, is a wooden-mannered multi-millionaire paying lower taxes than ordinary voters. And it is partly because the intellectually brilliant Mr Gingrich is a much-married hypocrite (he was calling for Bill Clinton’s impeachment while simultaneously indulging in an extramarital affair) who has become rich through activities more-or-less identical to the lobbying that he affects to despise. But most of all, of course, it is because American politics is a hardball game. At which point, Cassandra recommends that you watch this video of Mark Penn, formerly an adviser to both Bill and Hilary Clinton and now CEO of Burson-Marsteller, giving his thoughts in December at the World in 2012 festival in New York. Doubtless, he may be biased, but he’s surely right when he talks of the importance of the independents. And I rather like his notion that for the Republicans it must be “Romney or suicide”.

THE countdown to the French presidential election—just 94 days to the first round on April 22 if Cassandra has his maths right—is getting interesting. Poor Nicolas Sarkozy is finding that becoming a father (in October) and toppling a tyrant in Libya (one day later) are no guarantee of popularity. The latest opinion polls predict that his Socialist opponent, François Hollande (on the left in our picture), will be ahead of the president in the multi-candidate first round and, assuming a run-off between the two on May 6, will win decisively. Meanwhile, France has just lost its cherished AAA rating from Standard & Poor’s, which, of course, reminds voters that Sarko once said:

If France loses its AAA, I’m dead.

But is the president’s demise inevitable? In a rather obvious attempt to boost his fortunes, Mr Sarkozy today unveiled a €430m ($550m) back-to-jobs-and-growth package (the unemployment rate is now almost 10% of the workforce). He will emphasise that only he—and certainly not Monsieur Hollande, who has never held ministerial office—has the experience to guide France through the crisis of the euro zone. Most of all, he will campaign with an unmatched energy and instinct for his opponent’s weaknesses (in 2007 he ran rings around the Socialists’ Ségolène Royal, who at the time was Mr Hollande’s partner).

Perhaps all that explains why, according to Le Nouvel Observateur, Mr Hollande, who looks more like a provincial bank manager than a world leader, is refusing to count his chickens. Throw Marine Le Pen, of the far right Front National, into the electoral mix and anything could happen: she could damage both Sarko and Mr Hollande in the first round. For an interesting reflection on how both men are plotting their campaigns, I recommend this article in today’s Guardian by Christine Ockrent, a very distinguished French journalist whose partner, Bernard Kouchner, served as health minister in a Socialist-led government and then as foreign minister in Mr Sarkozy’s government. As Mme Ockrent points out, Messrs Sarkozy and Hollande are both looking to the late François Mitterrand for strategic and tactical inspiration. After all, the wily Mitterrand served for 14 years as president of the French Republic.

PS: The Economist’s marketing people, who love to bombard Facebook and Twitter, would love to know what you think of The World In…and so have devised a special survey. Apparently, the survey comes with the chance to win a “luxury Ettinger Cotswold weekend bag valued at £450”. Bonne chance…and just click here.

HAIL to the Golden Globes—the awards just handed out by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (interested, it seems, only in the movie business despite the title) at their annual jamboree in Beverly Hills. It is hard to criticise their choices: for example, “The Descendants” as best drama; “The Artist” as best comedy or musical; George Clooney as best actor (drama), for “The Descendants”; Meryl Streep, playing Margaret Thatcher, as best actress (drama) in “The Iron Lady”; and so on.

Ricky Gervais, the British comedian hosting the event for the third time and always happy to provoke his audience, described the awards as like the Oscars but without the esteem:

The Golden Globes are to the Oscars like Kim Kardashian is to Kate Middleton—a bit louder, bit drunker, bit trashier, and more easily bought…Allegedly.

But the film business is, of course, perfectly happy to play along with all the razzmatazz: stars on the red carpet, glamorous dresses, live television coverage, etc. The whole point, after all, is to garner as much publicity as possible.

So the intriguing question is whether the Golden Globes are a good indicator of the Oscars that the grandly named Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will award next month (nominations will be announced on January 24^th). Only once in the past seven years have the Golden Globes and the Academy agreed on the best picture (for “Slumdog Millionaire”), even though the Golden Globes, with its separate categories for drama and for comedy or musical, has two shots at the choice. Last year, the Golden Globes chose “The Social Network”, while the Oscar went to “The King’s Speech”. Will there be a mismatch again this year? Frankly, Cassandra is unconcerned. But Steven Spielberg may think differently: his “War Horse” was nominated at the Golden Globes, but failed to win. Still, if the statistics amassed by The Hollywood Reporter are accurate, he may well have better luck next month.

CASSANDRA is a great admirer of Google. Indeed, his wife constantly berates him for not taking advantage of its IPO in 2004 (I claim it would have compromised my journalistic integrity). And, as The World in 2012 points out, this year is going to be a fascinating battlefield as Google and the other giants of the internet fight each other both for new territory and for each other’s territory. But I wonder whether Google, in seeking to invade the land of Facebook, is making some tactical errors. 

Frankly, I find Google+ irrelevant—and so do many hundreds of millions of others still committing far too much of their time to Facebook. But my real beef is with Google’s sudden integration with “personal results” of social media such as Facebook and LinkedIn into its search engine. When I put a name into Google’s search engine, I don’t necessarily want a top result to be their Facebook page, and I certainly don’t want it to be their Google+ page. Yet it is clearly Google+ that the geniuses of Mountain View are trying to boost…Still, enough of my displeasure (with its possible Luddite overtones). For a much better critique of the Google battle plan, I recommend that you read this diatribe from Slate’s excellent Farhad Manjoo (and don’t forget to Google him…).

IN THESE dire economic times for the Western world, it is comforting to see Asia—in particular, China—as our saviour, with its economy forever growing (8.2% for 2012, we predict) and now in the process of becoming less mercantilist. But let’s not get too relaxed…For a sobering look at what is happening in the credit-profligate People’s Republic, Cassandra advises you to read an excellent article in the China section of The World in 2012 and then to listen to Carl Walter, an investment banker in Beijing, who shared his thoughts on China’s future at The World in 2012 festival in New York.

THERE is a fascinating article in The World in 2012 on how scientists will this year begin mapping the human brain. The author, Alun Anderson (one of Britain's most distinguished science writers) asserts that the brain is the most complex object in the universe—and who is Cassandra, whose knowledge of science is abysmal, to disagree? However, one of our readers does disagree, hence this very well argued letter.

Sirs -

In your "The World in 2012" issue, the statement is made (in "Brain work," Alun Anderson, p. 153) that "[h]uman brains are the most complex objects in the known universe."

With due respect, this statement is silly - for two reasons. First, we lack any rigorous definition of "complexity," rendering comparisons by that measure meaningless. Second (even if we ignore the lack of quantitative measures) there are countless examples of systems which surpass the putative "complexity" of the human mind. From the quantum interactions of the constituents of even a small protein molecule - which are sufficiently computationally intractable to be essentially incomputable by any known human technologies - to the deeply enchained interactions amongst living amongst the vast numbers of living beings in, say, a 10-liter bucket of living seawater - and through the fluid dynamical behavior of superheated gases at the surface of our Sun, the "visible universe" is in fact replete with exquisitely "complex" systems at all scales and groupings.

Instead, what the assumption that our primate brains are the apex of complexity in the known universe tells us, perhaps, is something much less proud (though perhaps all the more important): the one thing at which humanity unquestionably excels is a solipsistic worship of its own, self-declared primacy in the universe (and on our living planet). In other words, we're exquisitely good at coming up with metrics by which we can claim ourselves to be the most, greatest, or biggest inhabitant of our perceived surroundings. That's a far cry from being, in fact, any of these things; self-delusion is not equivalent to genuine primacy.

Respectfully,
D.B. LeConte-Spink

(Douglas Bryan LeConte-Spink
founder, Deep Symbiosis Institute) 

And here is Alun's elegant riposte:

From: Alun Anderson
To: World InEditor <WorldInEditor@economist.com>

Subject: Re: Letter (on behalf of Douglas Spink)

Thanks for this letter from the Deep Symbiosis Institute.

I understand the purpose of his argument, which is to get away from human "exceptionalism" by arguing that on some measure, a bucket of sea water is as complex as a human brain (maybe you would measure the number of viruses it contains or something). This kind of argument leads you to respect all things as somehow equal, which is a nice enough sentiment, and perhaps even to believe that everything is conscious.

I think the bucket of sea water is not an "object" in the same way a brain is, nor is it as complex in terms of "interconnectedness" as used as the measure in the article. So although I don't t think his argument is correct I don't mind at all to see it aired in Cassandra, as there are lots of people aruging for oness with everything in the Universe!

(NB The  Deep Symbiosis Institute works towards expanded awareness and appreciation of truly bidirectional, reciprocal, respectful relationships between Homo sapiens and other sentient, self-aware species)

Best, 

 

Alun

SO MICHELE BACHMANN is the first casualty of the primary season, withdrawing today from the Republican race after a dismal showing yesterday in the Iowa caucus (Cassandra leaves aside Herman Cain, who has technically only “suspended” his campaign). Doubtless there will be more soon enough (my bet is that the hapless Rick Perry will not last much longer, and Jon Huntsman must surely give up if he fails in New Hampshire next week. Meanwhile, America’s TV screens will be filled ad nauseam with all the expensive cacophony of election year: shrieking pundits, disingenuous politicians and misleading commercials.

But what does it mean for the rest of the world? I sense an attitude of bemused European bafflement. Why do so many Americans feel alienated from President Obama, apparently feeling ill at ease with his obvious intelligence? And why do the Republicans insist on putting up so many flawed candidates, some of whom make a point of denying science (Jon Huntsman, you may remember, was pilloried for saying that he believed in science…and now is belatedly trying to backtrack)? 

Cassandra, who does not have a vote in America (though he has twice been a resident), will not venture an opinion—save to say that while America is the world’s pre-eminent power, the man (there will be no woman nominee) it elects in November will matter to everyone in the world. Perhaps what we really want is the fantasy president nominated by The World in 2012—a mix of Franklin Roosevelt, Reagan, Washington and Lincoln. Sadly, he’s not available.

CASSANDRA has fond memories of the occasion, ten years and one day ago, when he first took possession of euro notes (I was living in beautiful Paris at the time…). Fond, because Europhiles such as I foresaw a glorious future in which the EU’s single market would be more-or-less completed with the free flow of capital, goods, services and people. It has not, of course, worked out quite as we had hoped—there is still plenty of subtle protectionism, especially in services—but until Greece woke us up to the sovereign-debt crisis it seemed as though the euro was as solid as, well, the dollar.

Now, of course, we know better, with Chancellor Merkel of Germany and President Sarkozy of France struggling—against plenty of people’s odds—to save the euro zone from a split, if not a collapse (hence the miserable new year’s messages from the two of them). The thing is, of course, that we should have known better long ago. I remember when I was based in Brussels being slightly amused that a vengeful European Commission had sacked one of its senior civil servants, Bernard Connolly, for rubbishing the euro project as long ago as 1995 in a well-argued book, “The Rotten Heart of Europe”. Poor Mr Connolly was pilloried by the Brussels elite for noting that perhaps the emperor would end up with no clothes. In contrast, some other Britons were praised rather than pilloried in what the French call the "Anglo-Saxon" press because they were journalists working for some rabidly Eurosceptic British newspapers (notably, though not invariably, those owned by non-Britons…).

Frankly, I have no idea whether the euro zone will survive 2012 with all its current 17 members, but I do hope that the euro itself survives. Obviously, as the critics delight in pointing out, there are inherent flaws in the euro project (how can you have a single currency without some single body to determine fiscal and monetary affairs, etc?…), but in terms of what eases travel for ordinary European citizens and eliminates exchange risks for European businesses the euro has clearly proved its worth. Long may it live!

“LIES, damn lies and statistics”, as Britain’s Benjamin Disraeli supposedly said—and Mark Twain definitely said. The phrase came to Cassandra’s mind when ruminating on the “world in figures” section of The World in 2012, in particular when looking at the predicted rankings for economic growth in the year ahead.

I have no quarrel with the figures themselves, all drawn from the acknowledged number-crunchers at the Economist Intelligence Unit. But as Bobby Kennedy famously said in his 1968 speech at the University of Kansas: 

Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. 

"Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

With Kennedy’s words in mind a 15% growth rate for Macau—a tiny gambling haven for punters from Hong Kong and China—is meaningless. And should we really be impressed by the figures for Libya and Iraq, since they so clearly reflect a virtually automatic bounce-back from war? Much more significant in Cassandra’s view is the healthy 8.2% prediction for China. That may, of course, reflect a boom that eventually must burst (The World in 2012 worries about China’s growing debt), but with the  economies of the western world in the doldrums we had better keep our fingers crossed that the prediction proves right.

WILL 2012 be the year in which Israelis and Palestinians reach a final settlement, with a state for each? Though the outlines of such a settlement have long looked clear enough—the “Clinton parameters” are surely the most feasible solution—Cassandra is pessimistic. The politicians of both sides seem unableto rise to the challenge.

But should politicians be the only directors of this tragic drama? In The World in 2012 the conductor Daniel Barenboim suggests a very different approach. Mr Barenboim (who holds not just Argentine, Israeli and Spanish citizenship but also, thanks to his efforts to promote cultural exchanges between the young of Israel and the Arab world, Palestinian citizenship too) calls for “public intellectuals” to take a leading role.

The conductor (pictured) writes: 

We need a complete rethinking of our approach. Rather than leaving the fate of the region to politicians and diplomats who’ll only become further entangled in a web of false political correctness, we need to empower the individual citizen to take a stand. The Egyptian people have shown us how they were prepared to take their fate into their own hands, and even though the outcome of their uprising is still uncertain, we must salute and encourage them. Positive civic action can arise only from enlightened citizens. To foster this, a new generation of public intellectuals must develop.

Whether this is at all realistic is something about which, frankly, I have my doubts, but I salute the wish—as does one of our readers in this letter from the Netherlands: 

I refer to Mr Daniel Barenboim's essay on "A way ahead for the Middle East".

I do not have any stake in the relation between the Palestinians and the Israelis, except as a citizen of this world, I would like peace in this world.

I understand very well Mr. Barenboim's considerations of the failures of "political correctness", and how it prevents solutions for the future, if all it does is to protect mistakes from the past. Being over 65 years of age, I wonder if I have sufficient time left to see historians addressing the issue of Zionism in an independent way. I understand the desire of Israel for 'safe borders', but I do not think safe borders can be achieved by concrete blocks, barbed wire and guns. Also societies that have been relying on constructed and controlled "vassal states" have all but disappeared. Safe borders can only be achieved by creating friendly states around. Israel has long been looking to South Africa as an "example" of how to do things, and maybe now they should take a lesson from what eventually had to happen over there.

I have read Mr. Barenboim's essay with interest, and I could add a great number of details, But they are just that: additional arguments and details. Condensing my view, it just comes to exactly what the essay is all about. So in short my view is that mr. Barenboim's "way ahead" is the "way to go". 

Johannes Mutsaers
Amstelveen, The Netherlands

THE ECONOMIST is famously anonymous—not for us the egotistical search for the limelight (or so we tell ourselves…). However, let Cassandra draw back the curtain of secrecy just a touch. Simply click on this link and you will see two of our stars discussing the political prospects for 2012, a year that is almost upon us, from elections around the world to the ramifications of the Rio+20 Earth Summit. Fascinating stuff, and you will note that they sensibly—such is the uncertainty—refrain from naming the Republican nominee in the US election. Less sensibly, Cassandra still thinks that, in the end, GOP voters will choose Mitt Romney…

TODAY’S news of coordinated—and very deadly—bomb attacks in Baghdad clearly augurs ill for Iraq in the coming year. As The World in 2012 presciently observed, with a fair degree of understatement:

Iraq will disappoint, as the once-ruling Sunni minority and the Shia majority now in charge fail to accommodate each other’s demands. The prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, will tighten an authoritarian grip, albeit that he was democratically elected in 2010. 

But who is to blame, and what will be the consequences? Suspicion automatically falls on Sunnis, since most of the bombs were planted in Shia areas, and some will argue that the attacks are in retaliation to the recent charges of terrorism laid by the Shia prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, against Iraq’s Sunni vice-president, Tariq al-Hashemi. The vice-president has sensibly fled north to the virtual autonomy and security of the Kurdish area of Iraq. 

On the other hand, suspicion must also fall on al-Qaida: it has a history in Iraq of attacks on Shia communities; it has no interest in a stable Iraq (not least because Shi’ite Iran now wields great influence on Mr al-Maliki’s government); and, with American troops having finally left Iraq last weekend, it would love to underline the failure of American ambitions for the country.  

But what of the consequences? In Cassandra’s view, the American neo-con dream of a post-Saddam Iraq spreading democracy throughout the Middle East was always a delusional fantasy. The risk, now that there is no American presence to hold the ring, is that Iraq will fall into sectarian chaos (just as neighbouring Syria may). That in turn will strengthen the argument that in the absence of a Saddam-like strongman Iraq, with its Sunni and Shia Arabs and Sunni Kurds, can never be a coherent state and must, at best, become a loose federation. That, however, is much easier said than done, not least because some of Iraq’s richest oil fields are in the Kurdish area…One respected Washington analyst, Anthony Cordesman, says it is too early to predict the break-up of Iraq, but then adds:

A nation that does not have a functioning government, or one that favors a single faction, whose people are divided and cannot in practice think of themselves as Iraqis - as distinguished from their ethnic and sectarian identity - is a very serious problem and that problem is worse because of what has been happening over the last week.