Grief

I've started following 'The Book Bench," a short, smart little blog by the book review section of the New Yorker. There are many days when I don't pick up on anything in particular, certainly not anything worth writing a blurb about, but today is different.

Today, I noticed that Menachem Kaiser linked to a story about a man robbing a bank in a "Winnie the Pooh" shirt. Suprisingly, Kaiser, in the same breath, mentioned Bill Clinton's book list. Today, I learned a bit more about William T. Vollman, whose latest tour de force, "Imperial," probably would not have been possible if not for his many eccentricities.

But the post I enjoyed most was a link to a letter written by Kathy Rhodes. The best paragraphs are probably found in the opening and closing of the letter. In a way, the letter reminds me of Donald Hall's "Without," which is one of my favorite collections of poetry. In both pieces, grief's principal utility is to absolve the writer, which in turn makes the experience for the reader that much more profound.

Quick Links

From Stephen Walt, the case for empathy in foreign relations. (Well worth checking out, if only for the links at the bottom of the article.)

Via Ezra Klein, on what issues does the Supreme Court rule most often each year?

TNR sizes up the competition in "Taking Stock of the Intellectual Right in the Age of Obama."

Students, take note: Wikipedia has found favor with as venerable an institution as the London Review of Books.

Modern-day Stoicism

"The realm is in prosperous state, thy house is strong, flourishing under the smile of Heaven."

 The Nurse to Phaedra, shortly before the unchecked desire of the latter brings ruin to her household. 

- Seneca's Phaedra

Alain de Bottom, whose "The Art of Travel" once cheered me up quite a bit, makes the case against optimism:

"Attempts to trust that the worst is over and to stop frightening ourselves seem doomed to propel us into yet worse disappointment. We are not only unhappy, but—believing calm and happiness to be the norm—unhappy that we’re unhappy." 

Jonathan Yardley

I'm behind the times.  After reading this short, delightful interview of "Cleopatra and Antony," I decided to learn more about its author, Jonathan Yardley.  Unfortunately, it appears I missed the boat; Yardley retired from the Washington Post Book Review a few years ago.  On a side note, Yardley once received a Pulitzer Prize for his works in criticism, and he's credited with having dealt Michael Chabon a favorable hand early in Chabon's career.  But my favorite bit about Yardley?  He's a huge fan of Horatio Hornblower.  

Roberto Benigni

I love the simplicity of romance as it is portrayed in the movies of Roberto Benigni.  My dad took me to "Life is Beautiful" when it was first in theaters.  I must have been eleven or twelve, and even though I was still very much afraid of girls, which meant that I hadn't even begun to think about a family of my own, the film left an impression.  More recently, I saw the movie "The Tiger and the Snow," which, in its own way, is just as tragic and surreal as "Life is Beautiful."  Is it strange, then, that the real-life Roerto Benigni conducts himself as I imagine he would if he were one of his character on a visit to New York?   

Portland, OR

Times are tough in Portland.  An influx of young folks, hipster and otherwise, only makes finding a job that much more difficult.  But I love it here, and so I wanted to share some gorgeous photos from the Wall Street Journal.  An article on the city's demographics was also published in the print edition.  Lastly, the Frugal Traveler recently wrote a great (capital G) piece about the City of Roses for the New York Times.  

Oh Portland...     

Conservatism

Whether out of desperation or resolve, conservatives are grappling with their political identity in a way not seen since Goldwater or Buckley.  In point of fact, not a day goes by without some mention of Cheney and the media, Michael Steele and GOP infighting, or Gingrich and the glory days of Reagan.  The selection of Jon Huntsman as ambassador to China only served to demonstrate how much of concern the state of the Republican party is to those both within and without.

The most interesting movement within the party, at least to me, can be found over at newmajority.com.  Check it out.  Even though I might not agree with all of his talking points, I've been enjoying the work of David Frum.  Perhaps this article, in which Frum reviews three books on the end of the Roman empire, will serve as a interesting introduction.

On a side note, George Packer wrote a short article on General David McKiernan's forced retirement.  The Accidental Guerrila anyone?  Excellent background reading from the Council on Foreign Relations on Afghanistan and Pakistan can be found here.

Last but not least, a call for toleration by the controversial realist Stephen M. Walt.

Recommended

Every so often, I miss my New Yorker subscription - it was one of the simple pleasure left behind in my move to Portland.  I try to survive by following the magazine online.  But this week, more than most, I considered renewing:

• Steven Coll, one of my favorite foreign affairs commentators, on the Obama administration's Af. Pak. strategy 
  
  
• A beautiful, dark poem by Philip Levine
  
  
• A short story by the novelist currently at the top of my reading list, Jonathan Letham
  
  
• Lastly, perhaps provoked by Souter's retirement, a piece on Chief Justice Roberts by that most avid follower of the Supreme Court, Jeffrey Toobin

Perhaps

Bleeker Street, a poem by Phillip Schultz

Perspective on Europe

Russell Shorto, the author of the recently published "Descartes' Bones," has written a thoughtful little piece for the New York Times on his experience living abroad.  In the article, he compares and contrasts a European social model, in this case Holland, with his experiences back home in the states.  His argument isn't particularly novel.  T.R. Reid makes similar assertions in "The United States of Europe," and there are similar sentiments in Adam Gopnik's "Paris to the Moon."  But I think that Shorto's piece is still worth reading, not only because of its brevity, but also because I think the author does his best at an even handed approach.  

Given how often the word socialism has been tossed about by the right and left, I think it's worth our time to consider the implications of America's social model as it stands at the beginning of the 21st century.  Shorto's article is an excellent introduction. 

David Brooks and "The End of Philosophy"

David Brooks, a conservative columnist for the Times, recently published an article entitled "The End of Philosophy."  The apocalyptic title must have struck a nerve, especially after the Fukuyama debacle, because his article shot to the top of the most emailed list.  

The most interesting thing about this article, at least for me, was the author.  Here's a writer who some would describe as an errant conservative, who attended the University of Chicago, who even advocated military intervention in the Middle East.  But here's the funny thing: his conception of human nature is very different from most conservatives, the majority of which draw inspiration from Burke or Hobbes.  I think that's fascinating.  

Not everyone has responded kindly to Brooks' article.  Via bookforum, at least one philosopher responds.  The article by Hilzoy isn't exactly easy to read.  I wish I had taken a philosophy class or two, because the it confused me more than once.  Basically, I think that Brooks is arguing that unified theories of moral reasoning fail to taken into account the diversity of human reactions to events.  Meanwhile, Hilzoy defends moral philosophy on the grounds that we will continue to make reasoned decision on what consitutes right or wrong, regardless of the fact that we may act on snap judgments. 

In a way, both of the thinkers are responding to the headlines.  After all, Brooks is saying that even with the best intentions, the most intricate and well-reasoned of arguments, there are times when our world view crumbles.  We occasionally take a wrong path.  We justify our fallacies.  We err.  The financial crisis, the election, a surge in global violence - these events make us question whether our underlying beliefs are flawed.  

Hilzoy would probably argue that recent events simply reinforce the fact that moral philosophy has a place in academia and the public sphere.  In fact, the principal reason he attacks Brooks with such vigor is he believes that Brooks is trying to kill philosophy outright.  But I don't think that Hilzoy really get underlying argument behind Brooks' article.  Back in the day, I was taught by one my professors that the division between the science and the humanities stems back to the Renaissance, when intellectuals reinforced the division between inductive logic and deductive logic.  Today, scientists approach world deductively: they make observations, develop hypothesis, and test theories.  Humanists prefer a more inductive approach, one which attempts to capture the multiplicity of the human experience.  But philosophy is an odd duck, for philosophers tend to work within a circumscribed system of logic: A + B = C.  They, like scientists, enjoy the hard stuff - theories, laws, etc.  In others words, philosophers often end up being humanists masquerading as scientists, or vice-a-versa.

Interestingly enought, Brooks isn't trying to kill philosophy, one of the oldest disciplines in the humanities.  Instead, he's trying to reconcile the humanities with science by binding them tighter together.  Far from arguing that philosophy is dead, Brooks is attempt to revive it, at least in a sense, by arguing that it is time to move in a new direction.  He's arguing that philisophy, taking a cue from science, should embrace the humanities. 

And again, given his political background, I think the whole thing is fascinating. 

A thought or two on poetry.

I used to write a bit of poetry here and there.  It was all terrible.  But every now and then, I like to dig through my disorganized collection of books, brush off the dust gathering at the back of the stack, and read a poem or two.  Maybe it's just the cherry blossoms, but I think April is a wonderful time to introduce oneself to new voices, or even rediscover old favorites.  And, after reading a few lines, maybe we'll discover that poetry isn't quite as bad as Jon Stewart would have us believe.  (Skip ahead to 7:00)

Who knows?  Perhaps there might even be a bit of utility hidden behind the lines.

Trends: Where will the Republic party go?

Salon magazine has published a fascinating "State(s) of the Republican Party." It might a tad bit too statistical to be of much use to the laity - but the anecdotal part of the survey makes it a great read!

Food and Violence

Michael Klare, who teaches courses on international peace and security studies in Massachusetts, has a long record when it comes to studying violence in developing countries. In a recent article posted on Foreign Policy in Focus, Prof. Klare argues that an economic contraction in developing countries will have a catastophic effect on a global scale.

As private capital and foreign direct investment continues to dry up throughout the third world, countries near the poverty line will have an even more difficult time providing basic needs: food, shelter, and security. Even advanced countries, such as Brazil, Argentina, and China, face food shortages. Forty-Six million people may be pushed below the poverty line. And no less than Dennis C. Blair, Director of National Intelligence, predicts that many governments in the developing world face political volitilty, even regime change.

Prof. Klare's article is even more interesting when juxtaposed with a speech delivered to the Carnegie Council by Thomas Barnett, the author of the recently published “Great Powers: America and the World After Bush.” Mr. Barnett, with over fifteen years of service in Defense Department, has an interesting way of presenting his ideas. He doesn't mince his words: his presentation is choppy and to the point. Even more interesting are his prescriptions for the future: accelerate globalization, exercise control of cultural content exported to the world, increase transparency, and embrace “cultural separatism.”

Mr. Barnett clearly has a respect for American history. And underlying his argument is the idea that America should act to win back respect throughout the globe. The problem is that Mr. Barnett doesn't address the way in which the economic crisis in enfolding worldwide, and, by neglecting this fact, his argument loses much of impetus. After all, if globalization is getting a bad name for developing countries who believe they've hamstrung by transparency and international aid – how can it be repackaged to win the faith of suspicious trade partners? More importantly, should it?

Books - - -

- An interesting review of "Clintonomics: How Clinton Reengineered the Reagan Revolution" should interest liberal and conservative alike.

- American Exceptionalism Redux

- Understanding Paul Krugman

Obama trades war on drugs along the Mexico border for trade war?

My friend Marc has posted an article on the recent row between Mexico and United States over trucking access. It's a great post, and Marc does an excellent job of defending free trade. If one has to take issue with the piece at all, it could be said that it leads one to believe that the Obama administration was the cause of the crisis, rather than Congress. In point of fact, the Congressional measure that ignited the conflict has been smouldering throughout the Clinton and Bush administrations. But I do think that Marc get's it right when he says the Obama administration should act.

This is an important issue for the Obama administration. First, the conflict represents a test piece for his administration – reconciling the interests of those supporters opposed to NAFTA with the administration's commitment to free trade will require delicacy and a strong hand. Unfortunately, as Justin Webb points out, if the Obama administration does attempt to establish a new program facilitating trucking between the countries, it will force him to spend politial capital at a precarious point in his administration. Perhaps Mr. Webb is correct when he claims that “the trucks won't roll.”

Although Mr. Webb may capture the difficulties at home, I think his post fails to consider what the implications of inaction would have internationally. Here, I agree with Marc's contention that a failure to act decisively would represent a mistake on the part of the administration. Even if the sanctions don't escalate into a full trade war between the United States and its neighbor to the south, the Obama administration should be cautious: if the United States fails to nip protectionism in the bud, it sets a dangerous precedent for the G20 summit next month.

The summit should be interesting to watch. Members of the G20 met for a preliminary meeting last weekend in London, and talks of rifts between the industrialized countries have already made rounds on the blogosphere. Trucking, Mexic, Nafta - how will this crisis in North America plays itself out abroad?