Monthly Archives: October 2008

In cowboy movies, there often comes a moment when somebody says “I don’t like it, it’s too quiet.” Then all hell breaks loose. If I was a member of the Obama campaign, I think I would be worrying that it’s too quiet. Of course, describing the frenzy of the last week of the campaign as “quiet” might seem a bit odd. But things still look unnaturally good for the Obama campaign. Poll after poll puts him ahead, some of them by double-digit margins. It’s been weeks since McCain led in any opinion survey. I don’t like it. It’s too good to be true.

I think my sense of foreboding on behalf of Obama feeds off two memories. First – the election four years ago. I went to bed in Britain around midnight with the BBC calling the election for Kerry. I woke up just before 6 am and turned on the radio. It was the middle of a discussion, but I could tell from the funereal tones of the BBC pundits that something had happened – Bush had won.

Then last January I was in New Hampshire for the primaries. Obama had a clear poll lead on the day before the election. We had all written our stories, predicting victory for him. Hell, Hillary had even cried on the eve of the vote. But – guess what – Obama lost.

Everything I read suggests that Obama has it all wrapped up – he leads in the polls, his campaign is more focussed, better financed and better organised, the McCain team are squabbling with each other, even diehard Republicans are endorsing Obama.

He can’t lose. Can he?

Every time I leave my house, I am on the look-out for signs of economic collapse. Empty restaurants, closing-down sales, middle-class men in casual clothes picking up their kids from school.

This may sound ghoulish. But frankly, I think the conversations I am having these days are less disorientating than they were three weeks ago. Back then – with the financial system on the point of collapse – I had a serious discussion with my wife about whether to pull all our money out of the bank. And how exactly how would you buy Krugerrands? Now, the conversations are much more mundane and centre around relatively hum-drum topics like, will we lose our jobs?.

But not all the signs on my personal recession-watch are pointing down. People are gossiping that half the hedge funds in London are in danger of closure. But on Friday I had lunch at Automat in Mayfair in the heart of hedge-fund land. The restaurant was full. We couldn’t get a table until 1.30. Lots of the clientele were in hedge-fund uniform: well-cut suit, open-necked shirt, deep tan. I tried to eavesdrop on neighbouring tables. And I did hear one guy confide to his lunch companion – “Sometimes I think I’m going insane.” But we all feel like that sometimes; even when the economy is growing.

The revelation that Jorg Haider seems to have been gay has been greeted with lots of “told you sos”, by colleagues at the FT. Apparently the rumours about Haider – a far-right Austrian politician, recently killed in a car crash – were rife in his home country.

But that isn’t what my colleagues seem to mean. I think they are just reflecting the widespread liberal prejudice that there is something about the rituals of the far-right – the uniforms, the macho culture, the youth wings, the songs around the camp fire – that is distinctly homo-erotic.

It is an appealing theory. But I’m not sure it is true. Yes, there were well-known Nazis who were gay (Rohm, for example) – but not noticeably more than you would expect in any political movement. Andrew Sullivan, a gay journalist, has his own refinement of the theory – which is that closeted gay men are particularly likely to be attracted to the far-right. Presumably, openly gay men are likely to be on the left.

I must admit that I’m personally surprised by the news about Haider. I had never seen him described as a “lover of musical theatre”, which is one of the British papers’ favourite euphemisms.

For the past week or so, I’ve enjoyed depressing all my Obamamaniac friends by arguing that Obama’s lead could still be pegged back. But even I have to admit that the latest batch of polls do look very promising for him.

So if and when McCain loses, who or what will be labelled as the main culprit for his defeat? Plenty of candidates, obviously – George W. Bush, the economy, McCain’s age, the liberal media (if you happen to be a conservative.) But I’m increasingly of the opinion that it was the choice of Sarah Palin that was the real turning point.

On the day of her nomination as McCain’s running mate, I wrote that choosing her was “bold, exciting, but also stupid” since it under-cut McCain’s argument that Obama was too inexperienced for the presidency. Then I spent the next couple of weeks worrying that I had got it badly wrong – and revealed myself as yet another liberal European pundit, out-of-tune with Middle America. She certainly gave a bravura performance at the Republican convention. And there was a definite Palin bounce in the polls.

Thank you to Nicolas Sarkozy for providing such a dramatic and timely re-enforcement of my Tuesday column (see below). No sooner had I subtly insinuated that he was going crazy, then he took to the stage at the European Parliament and gave a speech calling for the creation of a European sovereign wealth fund. Its mission – it seems – would be to buy up strategic chunks of European industry.

The global financial crisis seems to have liberated Sarkozy to give public voice to the kind of stuff that French politicians normally save for late-night drinking sessions - capitalism needs taming, the Americans are crazy, we can’t have the Asians buying up our businesses, why can’t the state subsidise more big industrial projects…etc, etc. It’s all coming out.

So let me point to a few obvious objections to this sovereign wealth fund proposal. First, these kinds of funds are generally set up by petro-states that are rolling in cash – Abu Dhabi, Russia, Norway etc. I haven’t noticed that the public coffers of the European Union are overflowing with funds that we simply don’t know what to do with.

Second, one of the things about SWFs is that most of them, have generally made sensible investments, for non-political purposes. Sarkozy seems to have something entirely different in mind: a fund that would be used to fend off unwelcome foreign investors, like that outrageous suggestion that Pepsico might buy Danone. Again, this seems a slightly dated concern. Give it a few months and we’ll be screaming for foreign investment.

Finally, small European states will rightly fear that any investments by an EU fund will be directed towards those nations with the most political muscle. And that is a recipe for a breakdown in the European single market – which is absolutely the last thing we need, in response to a recession.

“Europe wants the summit before the end of the year. Europe wants it. Europe demands it. Europe will get it.” So said Nicolas Sarkozy – president of France, and (until January) of the European Union – before jetting off to Washington over the weekend. There he persuaded President George W. Bush to agree to an international summit dedicated, says Mr Sarkozy, to nothing less than “re-founding the capitalist system”.

This trip to Washington was like a French fantasy come true: a successful attempt to push the US president into discussing global governance and the taming of capitalism. Now that visions of collapsing banks and soup kitchens are receding, the Europeans are enjoying the global financial crisis.

Mr Sarkozy’s energetic confidence has been bolstered by the conventional wisdom that Europe has had a good crisis. After a period of disorder, EU leaders pulled things together and came up with a plan that rescued the banks and restored a modicum of confidence.

Continue reading “Super-Sarko’s plans for the world“. Please post comments below.

It’s funny – only this morning I was saying to someone that one of the good things about doing a blog is that it “toughens you up”. I used to worry about personal abuse. But my blog generates so many abusive e-mails and responses that I now barely register it.

However, I must admit that even I have been slightly shaken by the various calls for resignation, lamentations about falling FT standards etc etc, provoked by my Oprah post.

So in response – what can I say:

1) I think the sentence – “It sounds ridiculous. It probably is ridiculous” - is a fairly strong hint that I’m not putting my full weight behind this “bona fide rumour”. As, for that phrase, it was meant to be light-hearted – sorry, if it has outraged the various guardians of journalistic integrity and public morals who seem to be policing this blog.

2) So why report it, if you don’t take it seriously? Because the idea amused me – and it’s a bit of fun. Again, apologies if that concept is alien to the various outraged posters. This is not a news story in the FT – nor is it written like one. It’s a blog post.

3) So why not name the source of the rumour, as somebody or other demanded? Well, I would love to be more specific. But it was an off-the-record lunch, and there are rules with these things. But it wasn’t a McCain operative planting a damaging rumour. I actually have no idea about the voting preferences of the people I was speaking to – I would guess Obama.

Tomorrow, I will make recompense by writing a column of unremitting seriousness.

As the US presidential election nears, so the game of “pick the next administration” will grow in popularity. I have been indulging in a little speculation of my own, elsewhere.

In London, the local interest centres around the question of who will be the next US ambassador to Britain. If Obama wins, the guessing-game centres around Caroline Kennedy – a prominent Obama supporter, who spoke at the Democratic convention in Denver. This would be an interesting appointment, given that the last Kennedy to serve as US ambassador to Britain – Joe Kennedy – did not exactly cover himself in glory. He was forced to resign in 1940 after injudiciously suggesting that “democracy is finished in England”.

But there is also a far more interesting name doing the rounds than Caroline Kennedy – Oprah Winfrey. This is a bona fide rumour, put about by “well-placed sources”. The argument is that Oprah is also a prominent supporter of Obama and that she might be looking for a “change of direction” – having got bored with her mega-star status.

It sounds ridiculous. It probably is ridiculous. But she would certainly cause a stir.

I thought even the candidates looked a little bored tonight. This was their third match-up – and it was as inconclusive as the last two; and slightly duller. In fact, the boredom of hearing the candidates trudge through their positions on education, health etc etc, was only matched by the drama of what is going on in the outside world. As the candidates looked sincerely at the camera – or grinned fixedly at each other – my eyes kept drifting to the news-ticker at the bottom of the screen, showing that the Nikkei had just fallen by more than 10%. Anybody expecting to hear anything useful on that subject tonight will have been disappointed.

I can now predict what the pundits will say about this debate – “McCain needed to land a knock-out blow, but he didn’t. Overall it was a draw – which was better for Obama. Obama looked calmer and more presidential.”

I don’t hugely disagree with any of that. But, personally, I thought this was McCain’s best performance of the three. The constant invocation of “Joe the plumber” was admittedly cringeworthy. And Obama swatted aside the stuff about his association with Bill Ayers with almost embarrassing ease.

On the other hand, I thought McCain landed some genuine hits on policy. In particular, he made Obama sound shifty on free trade. And I think he was also right on the substance. If the Great Depression taught us anything, it must be that going protectionist in the middle of a slump would be a huge mistake. Obama’s policies do sound protectionist. Unfortunately for McCain, the American people are probably also fairly protectionist at the moment. So I doubt he’s going to win many votes on that one.

Although, the debate overall, was on the dull side, it did give me two laughs – and one piece of valuable information.

Why do countries suddenly start producing great novelists? When I was in Russia recently a friend complained to me that the transition to capitalism had killed Russian literature – under communism they had had Solzhenitsyn, Pasternak, Akhmatova and Bulgakov. But modern Russians, my friend lamented, seem to be too busy consuming to read or produce great literature.

In India, however, an economic boom has gone hand in hand with a literary boom. Once again a novel by an Indian-born writer has carried off Britain’s leading prize for fiction. Last night Aravind Adiga won the Booker Prize with his first novel – “The White Tiger”. He follows in the footsteps of Salman Rushdie (1981), Arundhati Roy (1997) and Kiran Desai (2006). (And lots of people think that Vikram Seth should also have won with “A Suitable Boy” in 1993.) In the 1970s, a couple of novels about India – written by British authors (Paul Scott and Ruth Prawher Jhabvala) – won the Booker. But now Indian authors are regularly winning the prize in their own right.

Perhaps that is because, there are truly historic social and economic changes underway in India? Critics have described Adiga’s novel as Dickensian – and modern Indian cities do feel like something out of Dickens – seething with people, and with the middle-class and the economic under-class jostling up against each other.

The White Tiger – which I haven’t yet read – takes the form of letters written from a Bangalore businessman, Balram Halwai, to Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister. Halwai writes: “Out of respect for the love of liberty shown by the Chinese people, and also in the belief that the future of the world  lies with the yellow man and the brown man now that our erstwhile master, the white-skinned man has wasted himself through buggery, mobile phone usage, and drug abuse, I offer to tell you, free of charge, the truth about Bangalore.”

This sounds like a book I should definitely read. I was in Bangalore recently – but only got to see the GE and Infosys offices and the Taj hotel. I’m not sure that qualifies as “the truth”.

The World

with Gideon Rachman

About this blog About Gideon Blog guide
Gideon Rachman and his FT colleagues debate international affairs. Read more on the authors.

Gideon became chief foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Times in July 2006. He joined the FT after a 15-year career at The Economist, which included spells as a foreign correspondent in Brussels, Washington and Bangkok. He also edited The Economist’s business and Asia sections.

His particular interests include American foreign policy, the European Union and globalisation
To comment, please register for free with FT.com and read our policy on submitting comments.

All posts are published in UK time.

Contact gideon.rachman@ft.com about The World blog.

See the full list of FT blogs.

FT World News page

Read FT world news coverage from our network of international correspondents.

The FT’s Brussels blog

For views and opinions on the European Union from Peter Spiegel, Joshua Chaffin, Alex Barker and Stanley Pignal, follow the FT's Brussels blog here.

Tags

The blog day by day

« Sep Nov »October 2008
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031