A basic belief on the left is that the war in Afghanistan will continue only so long as the U.S. and its allies choose to wage it.  If the allies pull out, the war will be over.  Leaking these Pentagon documents compromises the allied forces, undermines political support for the combat operations and therefore makes the end of the war nearer. 

Things aren't always as they seem...

This is a simplistic and minority liberal view.  The obvious risks of a withdrawal now are that anti-western terrorist elements once again will be able to organize 9/11 type attacks, while supporters of democracy in Afghanistan will be overrun and murdered, as happened when United States forces left Vietnam in the 1970s.

The release of the leaked information was carefully staged.    Three reliably left of center, anti-war publications were purposely selected to spread it – the New York Times in America, the Guardian in the United Kingdom and Der Spiegel in Germany. 

This media manipulation raises further concerns about the efficacy of traditional news organizations.  True, public relations professionals target media organizations with tailored information every day, some of which is “embargoed” to give journalists time to prepare copy before the rush to publication.  However, in the case of WikiLeaks, the objective behind the targeting of just three newspapers, combined with the careful management of the dissemination process, was to try to force changes to the policies of sovereign governments. 

In short, WikiLeaks was manipulating the media to drive its political ambitions.  If its objective was simply to allow the Pentagon documents to be read, it would have made them available to all journalists without favor.  But WikiLeaks is accountable to no one and has deliberately obscured its operations to evade possible criminal prosecution. 

Some liberal journalists are reaching extraordinarily self-serving conclusions from this episode.  Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post believes the choice of the three liberal, anti-war newspapers by the liberal, anti-war WikiLeaks actually demonstrates the superiority of the mainstream media over bloggers and other internet news sites that do not have the capability to analyze complex Pentagon papers.  She portrays it as a defense of journalism. 

In fact, the new media has proved itself more able, and more objective, than the mainstream media.  Uncovering Dan Rather’s attempt to undermine President George W. Bush’s reelection campaign with phony draft documents is one of the most glaring examples of bloggers trumping the big guys. 

A true test of WikiLeaks’ objectivity would be for it to publish details of Iran’s nuclear weapons program or China’s cyber-attacks or Russia’s political corruption.  But don’t expect to see that anytime soon.  WikiLeaks is essentially a clearing house for the left to inflict damage on western and capitalist interests. 

Ultimately, the danger for western democracies is that this type of liberal self-indulgence undermines freedom itself. It negatively impacts national security both in terms of the immediate threat it presents to individuals (which WikiLeaks has no expertise in evaluating) and the willingness, or otherwise, of nations and people to risk joining with western democracies when future conflicts arise.  And it makes restrictions on free speech more attractive to politicians. 

Portraying WikLeaks as a defender of journalism, or a bastion of free speech, is nothing short of risible.  For all its novelty and Napster-like posturing, it is at its core another far left group trying to further leftist objectives.  It is not a newspaper or broadcaster.

The three newspapers may argue that others would have published this information had they not done so.  That may be true, but the fact remains that it is they who have willingly allowed themselves to be manipulated by a secretive and unaccountable third party organization.  And they are proud of it.  Their audiences should take this as an accurate measure of their objectivity.

Spend, spend, spend

Still, this doesn’t stop the White House team from claiming that the economic equivalent of weapons of mass destruction are actually all around them.  Christina Romer, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Obama, claimed yesterday that the stimulus has “created or saved” 2.5 million – 3.6 million jobs. 

To come to this conclusion, the White House uses modeling and statistical projections that are reliant on assumptions and input data.  In other words, they are not actual figures.  “By this estimate, the Recovery Act has met the President’s goal of saving or creating 3.5 million jobs — two quarters earlier than anticipated,” she said.  George Orwell’s “newspeak”, in which officials make proclamations that ignore the facts, is alive and well in Washington, DC.

Keynes’ theories from the 1930s have been critiqued over the years and the general consensus today is that increases in government spending, paid for by borrowing or taxation, offset or “crowd out” private investment.  Since governments are less efficient at spending money – they lack the profit motive of private enterprise – this tends to cause a net reduction in productive economic activity.

Unemployment in the late 1920s and early 1930s carried huge social costs.  Keynes tried to understand why economic activity was not increasing when such large numbers of unemployed were willing to work.  He believed that in the absence of private investment, government could stimulate demand by paying these idle workers to undertake productive projects. 

Fast forward to modern times, where Keynes would have immediately realized that the problem that caused the financial crisis in the U.S. in late 2008 was structural.  In the name of providing affordable housing, lenders had been compelled by Congress to provide mortgages to people who otherwise would not have qualified for them – a market distortion – and had packaged these loans and sold them on as mortgage-backed securities to spread the financial risk.  The biggest players in this market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were implicitly backed by the U.S. government, giving investors confidence that their financial transactions were secure.  The result was falling house prices, loan defaults and failing banks. 

As an expert on structural economic issues, Keynes would have seen the need to correct this obvious problem, in much the same way that he was the catalyst for the establishment of fixed exchange rates after World War Two.  He believed that uncertainty was a key cause of economic problems.   

Keynes would also have pointed out the differences between the unemployment rate of around 6 per cent in 2009, when the so-called stimulus was passed by Congress, and the long-term unemployment rate of 20 per cent and more during the 1920s and 1930s.  This difference is all the more stark given the change in the jobs market over the last eighty years, where the much larger numbers of skilled workers today find it difficult to transfer between sectors of the economy. 

Keynes would also have been dismayed that the bulk of the stimulus money went to non-productive ends, such as providing social benefits, and on yet more market distortions such as investments in “green” energy.  Keynes had little faith in socialists being able to run economic policy intelligently, writing of Britain’s Labour Party that, “too much will always be decided by those who do not know at all what they are talking about”. 

Keynes believed governments could act as intelligent manipulators of economies, increasing and decreasing demand, investment and savings.  His legacy is that a swathe of politicians from Europe to America and beyond have taken to spending money on social programs, which they incorrectly call “investments”.  Experience has shown that this government manipulation model creates its own uncertainties through inflation and market distortions.  The financial crisis of 2008 and the lack of investment in America today are clear examples of the latter. 

Would Keynes have supported the supposedly “Keynesian” economic policies of Barack Obama and this Democratic Congress?  The answer is almost certainly “no”.   Sixty-four years after his death, it is shocking that so many in the political elite have put their own interpretations on his writings and invoke his name simply to justify profligate spending.

The font of all knowledge...?

For the left, the basic precept is that dialogue – an intellectual activity – can be applied to resolve diplomatic differences without recourse to military-backed solutions.  Failure to follow this clever and enlightened approach implies a lack of intellect which, of course, is a label that has been applied to Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. 

Leftist political theory also has it that the basic problem with the world is the United States. According to this narrative, if it weren’t for exploitation and bullying by the world’s superpower, and the capitalist system it promotes, people in the developing world would enjoy higher living standards and there would be a more peaceful coexistence. 

Barack Obama has put both of these ideas to the test.  Indeed, the word “reset” was deliberately applied (although embarrassingly mistranslated into Russian in the infamous button stunt) and Mr. Obama promptly embarked on what American conservatives refer to as his apology tour, in which he pointedly criticized the historical application of U.S. influence in speeches in the Middle East and Europe.  So, have the dialogue and pull back on power produced any substantive foreign policy gains or breakthroughs?  

With the insurgents in Iraq largely defeated and political progress there in place before Barack Obama entered the White House, the administration’s biggest foreign policy decisions have been made on the on-going conflict in Afghanistan.  President Obama took several months to decide on a policy of preemptive withdrawal – a surge of military force accompanied by a commitment to begin drawing down the additional troops by July 2011.  The delay, the discord and the decision have all fed negative perceptions.  Today, the White House and U.S. military leaders resemble the French soccer squad at the World Cup – where a lack of coordination between talented players and officials produced performances that lacked purpose, ingenuity and success.  General McChrystal worked within the parameters dictated by President Obama but it is widely known that he wanted greater resources and more political support.  Following the publication of the Rolling Stone article, it is clear that McChrystal and his staff had no respect for the president. 

Obama has compounded this management problem by righteously creating a rift with the imperfect Afghan leadership.  This now threatens to undermine the entire mission.  The resulting distrust, coupled with the promised withdrawal, reportedly has led President Karzai to seek deals with insurgent elements.  Doubtless Obama will blame McChrystal and other military leaders if setbacks follow on the ground. 

President Obama’s campaign promise to personally talk to Iran never materialized but his ’softly softly’ approach has had no impact on Tehran’s efforts to produce nuclear weapons.  The criticism of America’s past, the scolding of Israel, the nuclear summits, the silence in the face of brave public demonstrations by the green movement and the quiet diplomacy have gone nowhere.  While the administration has congratulated itself for securing United Nations sanctions, the final measures carry little weight.  They are about as hard hitting as an agreement to suspend trade in blue cheese.  It seems that the White House valued the appearance of consensus with the permanent members of the Security Council over substance.  The bottom line: there is no reason to suspect that Iran is taking any steps to limit its nuclear program, a fact underlined by CIA Director Leon Panetta who gave his assessment that Iran will have two weapons in two years’ time and that the UN sanctions probably will make no difference at all.  All of this makes some sort of military action by Israel more likely. 

In the world’s other hotspot, a North Korean submarine torpedoed and sank a South Korean warship in March 2010, killing 46 sailors.  So far there has been no convincing reaction from the Obama administration. 

Away from these big issues, the administration has struggled to identify and promote any consistent principles, or demonstrate leadership, in its own turbulent backyard.  It failed to support the removal from power of President Zelaya in Honduras after he attempted to subvert his nation’s constitution.  Secretary of State Clinton mystifyingly called this lawful and peaceful process a coup.  The U.S. has also allowed President Ortega to appoint an Ambassador to Washington who has not been confirmed by Nicaragua’s Congress, further encouraging constitutional democracy to be disregarded.  And it stood on the sidelines as its southern neighbors established a new organization, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, designed to weaken the Organization of American States (OAS). 

Rather than setting the foundation for achievements, President Obama’s self-deprecation of America has fueled contempt overseas and resentment at home.  Eighteen months on, it is difficult to discern any notable benefits from Obama’s foreign policy.  Liberals point to polls that purport to show that some countries now have more favorable opinions towards the United States.  But this is grasping at straws – foreign policy has never been a popularity contest and polls can go up and down.  What matters in the long-term are the actions of world leaders and America’s enemies.  By this measure, Obama’s foreign policies are not producing desirable outcomes. 

Just as they argue that today’s economic stagnation is the result of George W. Bush rather than the anti-investment policies of the White House and Congress, liberals retort that it will take time for the world to forgive what they regard as America’s past indiscretions.  But at some point tangible benefits have to materialize for a policy to be validated.  As with the failure of the so-called economic stimulus, it is not sufficient to say that the medicine isn’t working properly because the dose isn’t big enough.  Leftist theories are being tested under Obama.  And they are failing.

Followers of these columns will know that we have a fair record of predicting soccer outcomes (and a less distinguished one when it comes to baseball).  Barcelona and Inter Milan both won their league titles, while Manchester United came a close second to Chelsea.  Two of the three English clubs predicted for relegation duly succumbed. 

Romantics may be dreaming of an African breakthrough but none of the continent’s teams are good enough to win the ultimate competition.  There are only seven countries that can win in South Africa: Brazil, Spain, Argentina, Germany, Italy, Holland and England.  

Africa is crazy for soccer

Each of these teams is solid, experienced and disciplined and will be difficult to beat in regulation time.  Extra time and penalties can, of course, lead to less predictable outcomes. 

Of these seven, Argentina, Germany, Italy and Holland are fielding teams that, while very good, are not comparable to their best teams of the past.  Argentina, with Lionel Messi on the field and Diego Maradona on the sidelines, are the wild card here.

This is not only the best Spanish team to play in the World Cup, it is also a proven winner having triumphed in the European Championships in 2008.  It is no wonder they are so many people’s favorites.  But while they have the ability to destroy many of the teams in South Africa, these columns believe that Spain’s defense is a weakness that other strong teams can exploit.  And Spain has underperformed many times in the past. 

With the World Cup set to be played in Brazil in 2014, a win in South Africa would put the competition’s most successful team in a dominant position in world soccer.  Brazil will entertain as usual but we think they will be upset by a lesser team.  Which will it be?

South Africa’s climate will suit England’s style of play more than many recent venues.  For once, England will be able to field a team with top class players in almost every position, with the weakest links being at right back and in goal.  The loss of captain Rio Ferdinand is a blow and the defense looks a little short of pace but the side has good balance and every outfield player is capable of scoring.  England has a top class coach in Fabio Capello.  The key will be to maximize the playing time of star goal scorer Wayne Rooney.  If he avoids injury and discipline problems, England will be able to win its first World Cup since 1966. 

South Africa is buzzing with excitement and, whoever wins the tournament, this is sure to be a wonderful event!

From bad to worse...

BP has a sorry history when it comes to standing up for its core product.  Not so long ago it was cozying up to the green movement – the political philosophy most opposed to economic development – with its “Beyond Petroleum” public relations campaign.  Yes, oil is a nasty business, it seemed to say, but please, please view us as something more acceptable. 

Was the “greenwashing” approach really necessary?  After all, oil is vital to everybody who doesn’t live in a self-supporting commune.  Even there, the impact of oil will pervade in plastics and synthetic clothing.  Oil exploration and extraction involves difficult engineering and the management of complex risks.  Despite this, it is the primary force behind higher living standards and it powers the vehicles that provide us all with so much freedom. 

But the best Mr. Hayward could offer in a Wall Street Journal opinion column on 4 June were tales of woe.  He told Americans that this type of accident was not anticipated by the industry or government.  Well, that makes us all feel much better.  So nobody could conceive it could happen and nobody had even thought about how to deal with this type of situation.  Great. 

As the extent of the problem “became more apparent” (they didn’t know what was going on), BP reached out for additional scientific and engineering help.  Fantastic.  So BP was so clueless as to what to do that its best solution was to ask if anyone, anywhere had any good ideas.  There’s reassurance. 

Mr. Hayward then describes three failed attempts to stop the flow of oil, saying that they were “eventually abandoned on May 30.”  Your opponents couldn’t have found more dismissive language, Mr. Hayward.  

It gets worse.  Having thus emphasized that BP has failed to find a solution that works, he goes on:  “Based on what we have learned from the approaches taken thus far…” (oops, clearly next to nothing!) “… we now believe…” (we aren’t sure) that the answer is a lower marine riser package, “which should enable us to contain and collect a majority of the oil and gas flowing from the well” (but might not).  If the system works “as expected” (unlike the three failed approaches so far) “we plan to enhance the system” (we certainly don’t think it will stop the flow completely). 

There’s more.  Mr. Hayward then explains how difficult this will be from a technical perspective by comparing it to, “the astronauts aboard Apollo 13 who had to build a CO2 filter from whatever was available in their capsule” (wow, so that’s the desperate state of affairs we’ve come to). 

After establishing this dismal picture, Mr. Hayward bounces into lessons that we – society, not BP (which the Washington Post is now saying failed to comply with safety and environmental rules) – can implement: better safety equipment and procedures; better preparations for subsea disasters; and less outsourcing to contractors.  Why wait for the White House to come up with onerous new regulations?  Let’s begin the negotiations on new regulations in advance, by establishing the weakest possible industry bargaining position.  Let’s give away what we can now, so that the administration can really screw us!   

In a freer market, BP wouldn’t have to drill in 5,000 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico to obtain oil.  Plenty could be obtained in other parts of America, on and offshore, where drilling presents fewer geological challenges.  But, as with the financial sector, government interference has created the conditions where catastrophes happen. 

Yes, we should carefully consider how to avoid and minimize the extent of oil spills.  But Mr. Hayward appears to have learned little watching this administration take over health care, banks and car companies.  In an article that might have been shadow written by a former Greenpeace campaigner with a penchant for Tom Hanks movies and Democrat politics, Mr. Hayward has already capitulated in favor of the next damaging layer of market distortion.

Accurately defining politicians is essential

Part of the reason that political labeling is currently in vogue in America is the unwillingness of the left’s political elite to be defined by this universal terminology.  Reacting to their tarnished brand, some on the left prefer to describe themselves with the relatively inoffensive term “progressive” and to use words like “justice” to promote their policy goals since this communicates something that is generally thought to be intrinsically good or desirable.  Surely we all want justice!

However, in our modern Orwellian doublespeak, “social justice” really means wealth redistribution and “environmental justice” means curtailing economic development.  These code words are used widely by “civil society”, which is the vast array of mainly progressive interest groups that campaign on these issues and whose leaders are, of course, unelected and have no greater claim to the moniker than any other societal grouping. 

Compare all this to the United Kingdom’s victorious post-war Labour Party which pursued similar policies to the Obama Administration but carried no qualms about its socialist credentials.  The National Health Service was introduced by socialists in an avowedly socialist government and industries were nationalized because Labour’s  “Clause 4” committed the party to “common ownership of the means of production”. 

President Obama shuns the labels but pursues the policies, leaving many voters unsure about what his “change” really means.  Such is the American left.  It was also the case with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society.  With so much smoke and so many mirrors obscuring the political convictions of America’s progressive political elite, how are voters to understand what is happening in Washington?  

Nearly fifty years after Johnson began his war on poverty, the battlefield is a mess.  Experience shows that the power of government can be used to take vast sums of money from the middle classes in the form of taxes, but that it is unable to significantly raise living standards among the less well-off.  The evidence is especially visible in low income areas in any major American city.  

But the appetite of the modern left for ever greater state encroachment into the personal lives of citizens, carried out under the noble sentiment of compassion, is a movement with no end.  There is no clearly defined limit to the government’s role expressed in terms of economic statistics or income levels that no longer need support.  No one knows, or pretends to know, what represents enough intervention.  Only this month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi regaled nationalized health care for allowing creative individuals such as budding musicians to give up their day jobs and develop their hobbies without having to worry about what happens if they get sick. 

Economic “hope” comes from the ability to secure a better life through social mobility, not through blunt tax instruments.  Rather than propelling the poor into better circumstances, government-managed wealth redistribution often condemns them to a lifetime of dependency, while reducing incentives to work.  The widely accepted need for societal safety nets has been prostituted into a drive by progressives for government to eliminate all personal risk and responsibility. 

Social mobility is neither measured nor venerated by liberal intellectuals because they think in terms of a largely static model of society that contains (greedy) haves and (suffering) have-nots and a fixed amount of wealth that must be shared more equally. 

Accurate labels are deemed essential for food products in grocery stores so that we can monitor what we eat, but are renounced in politics where they could shed light on what politicians really believe.  We live in an era where political leaders seem to live in fear that pundits will seize on any whiff of ideology to destroy their governments.  Voters are left confused.  For those politicians who aim to conceal their convictions, we are reliant on the media to try to make honest evaluations about what they really stand for.