So how does a nation, a community and a society react to uncertainty, scarcity and risk? Specially when the feeling of not having enough for everyone is something that it is not used to. A curious atmosphere prevails in the United States as I write this. The second summer of the great upheaval has unraveled and is about to end. Newspapers still carry pessimistic outlooks, report rising unemployment numbers and flattening economic activity. Economists hold their silence on what the near future holds, whether it is the upward climb of the V or the second drop of the W. Many commentators worry about the rising spending and many want more of it. Around the town in New Jersey where I stay, roads are being rebuilt or expanded, all under the aegis of the Obama Stimulus plan. It seems America worries. It has travelled a dark tunnel but is unsure whether to take the time spent walking as a sign of sufficient distance having been covered. It broods but does not want to show. It hopes but is not sure of the outcome.

Individuals and societies seek refuge in the familiar when uncertainty strikes. One of the most striking comments made by Hank Paulson, the Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush at the onset of the economic carnage of 2008, was that unless the government stepped in decisively, the crises had the potential to permanently alter ‘ the way of life’ as many Americans knew it. ‘The way of life’ – so what is that way of life whose alteration every American perhaps fears deep down? We all have our stereotypes of burger grilling, SUV driving, holidaying, moderately (and sometimes devoutly if it is the South) religious suburban American. But is that the familiarity that the American craves? Or does he search for a feeling of reassurance that, left to the world and his ability, things will take care of themselves?

On one of my rounds at a golf course close to my hotel, I meet Waldo. A middle aged American in his early 50s, Waldo is actually a Chilean, who spent all of his growing up years and some of his adult ones in his native country. At the risk of being slightly race and color conscious here, I would admit that on the ‘face’ of it, you would never imagine Waldo to be anything other than an American. So perfect are his features and his English. As we tee off and get more familiar with each other, a fascinating conversation commences. It begins with a trifle discussion over professional golfers keeping notes that they refer to when they play in the tournaments.

‘It’s a bit like Sarah Palin reading notes from her hand’, jokes Waldo. I respond with a light laugh, careful not to assume any political preferences, lest I am drawn into a right wing vs. leftist debate. ‘Did you see her speaking today in Washington?’ he enquires.

Sarah Palin spoke last Sunday at a rally organized at the Lincoln Memorial, a rally titled ‘Restoring Honor’, that was essentially a Conservative platform to discuss and outline what is wrong with America and what it needs to do. Palin wasn’t the main speaker – a Fox News conservative host named Glenn Beck was and the rally attracted a host of people with a common underlying theme of piety and patriotism. Politics appeared thickly disguised and any criticisms of Obama and the Democrats appeared veiled. Waldo though was not convinced – ‘I saw her speaking, I saw the others too. They talk of religion, of Christianity, but it is almost as if they think that it is the path to everything. It is almost as if they want us all to go back to Christianity’. He stopped here as I sinked in a 5 feet putt. ‘They almost sounded xenophobic. It was not really like this before…’

Waldo perhaps has reason to reminisce. His story, like many others, begins at an American University – Ohio to be specific, where he recounts the enormous diversity he saw and how it amazed and delighted him at the same time. He recounts the story of a roommate who was from Bolivia but had the facial appearance of a native Indian. That roommate did a Master in Physics and went on to work for the Pentagon, and went back home temporarily, only to be derided by his countrymen as his ‘clan’ was lower in the social hierarchy. ‘It is the land of opportunity’, Waldo concludes. ‘People still judge you by your accomplishments but we seem to be headed somewhere wrong.’ And what is that wrong?

If there is one reality that the economic crisis has brought to the surface, it is that income disparities are far wider in America than many of us sitting in the developing world believe to be. The top 0.1% of the American population took away 6% of the total wages for 2007. The top 10% of the population accounted for almost half of the total wages. These are levels believed to have been last seen only in the years preceding the Great Depression. ‘We do not realize,’ says Waldo, as we make our way to the 7th tee, ‘but we are going the way of the developing countries – something we always wanted to avoid. The unemployed do not have jobs and are struggling, the rich are getting richer.’ Waldo incidentally is an indirect beneficiary of the much maligned US banks. His wife works in one of those. ‘We never had any difficulty in getting access to funds,’ he admits, but goes on to add honestly ‘there are people who struggle. And then we see all the executives who lost millions of dollars walking away with the bonuses’.

One of the things Americans rarely do outside of their operating systems is ‘save’. The personal savings rate of the average household in the US slipped to as low as 1% in 2008 before recovering mildly on account of post recessions adjustments to 5% in 2009. Radio and television programming is filled with advertisements of agencies offering ‘debt reduction’ services. And these are not mortgage debts, but credit card debts. And the rider? The agency only wants you to contact them if your debt is over $10,000. Just to add some context, the per capita income of the United States is $46,000.

Of course consumption is not bad per se and neither is the capitalist system, even if equitable distribution is not the greatest strength of the capitalist society. It still, compared to most other economic systems, rewards each accordingly to his/ her skill and ability. As we reach the green on the 7th, I tell Waldo about a term that was a favorite with my Economics teacher in school – Conspicuous Consumption. We have been quite familiar with it in India, with the socialist economy deriding the rich and the liberalized free economy now bemoaning it as a consequence of unleashed new wealth and that too not all legal.

‘I heard Osama bin Laden speak after 9/11 on TV,’ says Waldo. ‘His message and method was incorrect but you can see the frustration the Arabs feel. They have all the easy oil money and the only way they know to spend it is the Western way. The way of consumption. They are enraged at why even with the resources, do they have to follow the western way of life. ‘

‘Strangely,’ he summarizes, ‘it is a rage against money’.

I share with Waldo the Indian middle class concept of trying to live within one’s means, of the importance of savings and piggy banks instilled in Indian kids by their parents and how we spent the first forty years post our independence deriding both consumption and money. Gandhi, I tell him, famously said in the context of Western civilization, that he would keep the windows of his open so that winds could blow in from all directions but he would ensure the foundations of the house are strong enough to prevent it from being blown away.

‘He really made things difficult for you guys’, responds Waldo chuckling. We are now on the 8th fairway and I further learn that the golfer next to me was once an artist. ‘I realized over time,’ says Waldo ‘that I had spent many years of my life in fear. Fear of hell and post life. My paintings were an outlet, an expression of the fact that such fears should not exist. That our life is here. It is about what we decide to do with it here. A friend later told me that an Iranian man saw a painting of mine at a small exhibition I had and remarked that this was the message of his religion as well. I felt glad hearing that. At some level I felt I had managed to find a connect with someone from a completely different world and different culture.’

As we reach the 8th green, the light goes dark. The sun has set and it is just about 8 in the evening. We would play the 9th hole in dwindling dusk.

‘So I tell my kids,’ says Waldo, ‘that go out and see the world. Open your minds. Do not be xenophobic. You have nothing to fear. And the more you meet people and cultures, the more you would find similarities.’

‘You know,’ he says as we walk towards the 9th green, ‘when I was growing up in Chile, we used to identify neighbors by their political affiliations. The corner house belonged to a communist, the next door one was social democrat and so on. Now we identify people by the cars they own.’
I tell him that Gandhi once wrote that a man should be known by the quality of his mind and not by the quantity of his possessions. Waldo nods in agreement. We both make par at the 9th, shake hands and walk towards the parking lot.

‘Thank you, it was very interesting speaking to you. I hope I did not talk too much’, he signs off.
Our cars are incidentally parked alongside. He opens his boot, puts in his golf set and waves a final good night to me. As he does that, he points to his BMW SUV and says with a sarcastic laugh,

‘Conspicuous Consumption’

The next day I go to a golf store and buy a brand new set of golf irons for four hundred dollars.

|

So Barack Obama’s love affair (or rock star story, as cousin of mine in the US put it) with the globe continues. What began with a rapturous reception in Berlin in the summer of 2008, when he was still a candidate running for the Democratic nomination has now reached the hallowed halls of Oslo and culminated in a Nobel Prize. The Nobel Committee has cited the President’s effort at multilateral diplomacy and reconciliatory foreign policy as reasons for the prize. They have also stated that the award is not prospective (for what the current US President may achieve) but retrospective (for his diplomatic efforts over the last year). Based purely on cold logic and his presidential and senatorial resume thus far, Obama’s claim seems quite thin. But the Nobel has a patchy track record when it comes to peace awards. Many past winners have been awarded after decades of work – Jimmy Carter in 2002 after his two decades of trying to (and partially succeeding in 1978) promote peace between Israel and its neighbors; Nelson Mandela at the very fag end of apartheid in South Africa. But equally many other winners have been greenhorns - German Chancellor Willy Brandt in 1971 was awarded just after entering office like Obama, but his policy of engagement with Eastern Europe is said to have contributed, along with Mikhael Gorbhachev’s perestroika efforts (another Nobel Winner in 1990) to the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the eventual end of the Cold War. Many awards have gone to those who haven’t really been the symbols of peace (a belligerent Teddy Roosevelt in 1906, for example) and many true worthies like Gandhi have been ignored.

So did Barack Obama, the individual – Harvard graduate, lawyer, community worker and first time Senator from Illinois, deserve a Nobel Peace Prize? No. But ponder this a moment – Did Barack Obama, the elected President of United States, deserve a nomination, if not the actual award for what he has stood for over the last two year since he threw his hat into the ring of the Democratic primaries? Perhaps yes. Here’s why –

Obama’s Nobel is as much his as it is of the Office he occupies and equally as much of those who voted to put him in that office. He is effectively, at the moment, a symbol of reconciliation of both the United States as a society and United States as the pre-eminent political power in the world. For a nation, that till four decades ago, was battling riots in the streets of its Southern states over whether blacks should be allowed to enter the same universities as whites, it is a reflection of America’s evolution as heterogeneous society and its final acceptance of ability over identity that Obama, an African American representing 13% of a segment of the population that till a few generations ago was officially existing as slaves, is now occupying the highest executive office in his land. Of course, you can turn around say that simply belonging to a disadvantaged community is no criterion for a Nobel prize. If tomorrow, Mayawati was to move into Race Course Road, we wouldn’t be petitioning the Nobel Committee for rewarding her in Oslo – we would perhaps all be applying for Norwegian or any other visa ourselves! 

But Obama’s significance, as I had mentioned in a post just after his victory in November last year, lies not in the fact that he won because he was black but in the fact that he won without putting himself forward as the ‘Great Black Hope’; he pitched himself as the Great American Hope and when the issue of race did present itself in the form of some embarrassing comments by his pastor in Chicago, the Democratic candidate went ahead and made a remarkably delicate but prescient speech outlining why race as an issue was a problem of not just whites but also of the blacks. On most domestic issues that tend to divide America down the middle, Obama has adopted a non-partisan approach, shying away from the arrogance that control over both houses of Congress can breed into presidents. On abortion, the president gave a brilliant address at Notre Dame University during summer outlining why despite being pro-abortion, he was willing to acknowledge that the other side has relevant arguments of consideration. On healthcare, he has been critiqued by left wing Democrats of trying too hard to get Republican backing for his legislation and thus opening the gate for irresponsible fear mongering being spread by the conservatives.

This approach has replicated itself into foreign policy where multilateralism is back into the dictionary of US foreign policy. Obama has held to his promise of reaching out to both Europe and more importantly to the Muslim world as well as to Iran. Has it borne fruits? Where are the results during the first ten months of the President’s term? On the ground, Obama’s ‘change’ has been limited. Washington remains partisan domestically in the Congress, North Korea still thumbs its nose at the US and Afghanistan is still a quagmire. So where is the peace and the world without nuclear weapons? Of course, it’s a bit unreasonable to expect Obama to solve all our problems.

The difference is in ‘perception’ and ‘recognition’ – intangibles which the George.W.Bush years in the White House have proved can swing global opinion and create nuisance for tasks undertaken, to give Bush (but not Dick Cheney) the benefit of doubt, with good intentions. Obama has attempted to change the global perception of United States both towards its allies and towards the conflicts it faces in Muslim nations. He has re-emphasized the importance of engagement over belligerence that rides rough shod over any opposition. More importantly, he has lent an ear to a world that had started to believe that America had put cotton in its ears as it undertook a cowboy march through Iraq and Afghanistan. We may not agree with Obama’s policies but we certainly can’t ignore that he himself acknowledges that he and his administration do not have all the answers and that he is willing to listen.

That approach is refreshing breath of honesty coming out of a White House that claimed to know all for the first eight years of this decade. In that sense, Obama has shifted the moral compass of the United States and its outlook towards the world from the vision of Alexander Hamilton to that of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, perhaps the most erudite man ever to occupy the White House, believed that the United States would be a beacon of leadership in the globe not because of its commercial and military strength but on the basis of the moral strength of the vision of its founding documents – the most significant of which (The Declaration of Independence) was authored by Jefferson himself. Jefferson, while being inward looking on occasions, favored engagement over belligerence and had a constructive global vision of his nation. Obama’s popularity to an extent is because of his recognition of the limits of Hamiltonian diplomacy and the requirement on part of the United States to urgently correct that perception.

As he faces three more certain, and four more potential years in the White House, Obama would do well to use the Nobel as means of momentum to a vision he has articulated. He would do well to remember the weight of expectations that he now faces as the honeymoon starts to get stale by the pressure of passing time. He would do well to treat the Nobel as a call to action. The prize is an endorsement of what he stands for but Barack Obama faces a challenge to leave a justification for posterity. For that, he would do well to read the words of another great US president – in the summer of 1864 as the American Civil War neared a battle of attrition and the Union started to gain a sustained advantage over the Confederacy, Abraham Lincoln admitted honestly in a letter that “I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me”, - in a justification of how he had married his personal vision of abolition of slavery with his higher responsibility of preserving American unity as the President; an accomplishment which historians often cite, came about only by the President’s sustained and deep commitment to the vision of a united America even in the deepest times of despair when the conflict seemed never ending and unity a lost cause. If Barack Obama sustains his marriage to his professed vision, he would do well to live up to a premature global honor that on this occasion has rewarded ideals and vision over factual accomplishments.

 

|