Can The Centre Hold?

During my recent ten-day business trip to Europe (Netherlands-Germany-Romania), I took advantage of any opportunity I had to query my colleagues on what they thought of the current Eurozone crisis. What were the causes of it and more importantly, how did they think it would be resolved (assuming it could)? The sample size of the respondents was admittedly quite small, but it still was interesting to hear the perspectives of Dutch, Germans, and Romanians on this pressing matter and to note the differences and similarities between their responses.

The prevailing attitude among the Dutch was that while they were none too happy about having to bail out the Greeks, they still were supportive of the Euro and reluctantly accepted having to shoulder the burden to support less stable countries. This does make sense if you consider that the Netherlands is a small country that relies on exports for much of its growth. They would suffer if there were to be changes to the easy access to the European markets and shared currency that they now enjoy. But they did say that resistance to the Euro and further European integration was growing within the country and that the longer the current crisis dragged on, the stronger this movement would become.

This is reinforced in a front page article in today’s WSJ called Doubts Arise in Euro’s Birthplace:

The debt crisis convulsing the 17-nation currency zone has sown doubts even in a place regarded as the cradle of the euro.

The Netherlands' open and trade-based economy has long made it one of the strongest supporters of a more integrated European market. About twice the size of New Jersey, the country ranks as the world's 16th-largest economy, with global competitors like Philips Electronics NV and chemical giant Akzo Nobel NV. Fiscally healthier than even Germany, it has been a key proponent of budgetary rectitude among euro members, and supplied the European Central Bank with its first president.

Now, as financial anguish in the euro zone reveals flaws in the monetary union, the crisis is exposing deep divisions not only among Europe's national leaders but even within the consensus-minded and long-supportive Netherlands. A unified pro-euro position projected for years by the Dutch political and economic establishment has begun to crack.

If these cracks continue to spread and deepen, the entire proposition of a more united Europe could be in jeopardy.

The concern, he says, is that divisions over the common currency in traditionally pro-euro countries like the Netherlands make additional big and painful solutions to the crisis harder to achieve, and an eventual unraveling of the common currency more likely.

That’s why the longer this crisis continues, the more danger it poses to European union. If you lose the Dutch, it will make solving the current problems that much more difficult and would be a bell weather on the direction that Europe heads in the years ahead.

Of course, the country that matters the most to the future of Europe is Germany. The discontent among Germans about having to bail out and prop up their weaker Eurozone partners is well-known. One aspect of this attitude of being out upon that I had previously not appreciated is that how Germans in the western part of the country view the subsidizing of Greece, Italy, Portugal, etc. as a continuation of the sacrifices they had to make to rebuild the eastern part of the country after the Wall came down. For twenty-years, they’ve not been able to invest in their infrastructure because so much of their money went toward the east. Now that many of the roads, airports, bridges, etc, in the east have been brought up to or even surpassed their previous standards, they want to focus on their own back yards for a change. So when the PIGS come a callin’ asking for the German taxpayer to dig a little deeper to pick up their tab, you can understand their frustration.

The danger in Germany is the same as in the Netherlands. The longer the crisis drags on without resolution, the more this attitude is going to gain traction among the populace and to impact the political situation. Parties less enamored of the European project will gain strength and could tip the scales at some point soon.

Meanwhile, the Romanians I spoke to see the Euro as their path to growth and modernization. I was in the city of Cluj in the northwestern part of the country and the orientation among the people there is definitely to the west. For a developing country, the allure of the EU is easy to understand and they can’t imagine alternative paths to prosperity at this point.

One thing that almost everyone I spoke to did agree on was that Europe has reached a moment of decision. The current model is not working and can’t be sustained. There must either greater union or inevitable division. No one believes that the latter will occur, yet no one could really explain what the former would look like.

Mr. Klamer, the economics professor, was among the few in the Netherlands speaking out persistently against the project. "A monetary union without a political union is impossible to maintain," he wrote in a newspaper article in 1991. Some other Dutch economists voiced similar concerns but fell largely in line as monetary union became inevitable.

This is exactly what I would always challenge them with. Europe’s monetary union is not working and it’s obvious that it will only be successful with some sort of political union. So what will that political union look like and what will it mean for individual countries? This is where almost everyone became uncomfortable with the conversation and there was a lot of shrugging and puzzled looks. They all seem to believe that the only possible outcome is greater integration and political union of some flavor. And they all assume that somehow they will arrive at this solution although no one really has any idea of how.

Herein the real danger to Europe unity lies. The reality is that other outcomes are not only possible, but become more likely when there is no common understanding among those who favor a more unified Europe of what that next stage of unity will look like. They assume that’s the direction that the countries of the EU will move in, but if they can’t articulate a vision of what they would really mean they aren’t going to be able to make the case for it.

One thing that you hear people talk about a lot in Europe is culture. Americans are sometimes accused of being obsessed with race and you could say the same thing with Europeans and culture. But they do grasp more than most Americans do just how important culture is.

Reynier van Bommel, the ninth-generation CEO of a family shoe company that bears his name, says the finishing process on its shoes has benefited from training he received in Italy. But he has concluded that cultural differences within Europe, and a resulting disparity in productivity, make a common currency unrealistic.

"How are we going to explain to the Greeks that they need to work longer hours there because they are less productive than the Dutch?" says Mr. van Bommel, 38, walking through his factory in Moergestel. "So we have one currency, but there is no one Europe."

There is no one Europe today. And it’s hard to see how there will be one in the future. If you look at the history of movements that attempt to unify people politically, you will usually find strong leaders that drove that unity with a purpose and a vision of what it would mean. Where are the current leaders in Europe who could do that today? Or tomorrow?

Brains and Brawn

Brit Gerard Baker turns coat and embraces the beauty of real football (WSJ-sub req):

It's none of the usual explanations: lots of scoring being better than endless nil-nil draws—I've been to cricket matches in which 1,000 runs were scored and you could hardly call them riveting. It's not the hoopla or the sport-as-family-entertainment thing either which soccer fans accustomed to English hooliganism are supposed to appreciate. (Have you ever been to an Eagles game?)

Baseball fans will have to forgive me here, but the answer, I think, is that football is the quintessential American sport. It's no accident it hasn't really caught on elsewhere (the annual NFL game in London notwithstanding) whereas baseball and basketball have at least a claim to a global following and participation.

In its energy and complexity, football captures the spirit of America better than any other cultural creation on this continent, and I don't mean because it features long breaks in which advertisers get to sell beer and treatments for erectile dysfunction. It sits at the intersection of pioneering aggression and impossibly complex strategic planning. It is a collision of Hobbes and Locke; violent, primal force tempered by the most complex set of rules, regulations, procedures and systems ever conceived in an athletic framework.

Soccer is called the beautiful game. But football is chess, played with real pieces that try to knock each other's brains out. It doesn't get any more beautiful than that.

That's one of the best explanations of the appeal of football that I've ever come across.

The Bland Leading The Bland

With so many sharks among the conservative commentariat joining the feeding frenzy by attacking Newt Gingrich, it’s refreshing when one of the most respected conservative pundits puts the matter in its proper perspective. Thomas Sowell on The Past and the Present:

In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama -- and better than Mitt Romney.

Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don't accomplish much, you don't ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?

Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.

Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich's past, rather than on the nation's future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means lost big time.

If one chooses to, it’s easy to find flaws with Gingrich’s candidacy just as is with any of the other possible alternatives to Romney. But tearing down Newt doesn’t make Mitt any more palatable to conservatives. It seems if the strongest case for Romney is that he’s not as bad as Gingrich with this or Perry with that or Bachmann with another thing. And it’s true that Romney’s carefully calibrated positions and cautiously worded statements have allowed him to make his way through the campaign while making few waves or offending anyone. The question remains whether that’s what voters are looking for right now or if instead they’d prefer to take their chances with a candidate who’s not afraid to upset an applecart or two along the way.

Competing Versions of Sanity

Angelo Codevilla asks IS THERE A REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT THAT DIFFERS FROM AND IS ANTAGONISTIC TO PEOPLE WHO VOTE REPUBLICAN?:

Want names? Just google attacks on Newt Gingrich over the last week. Gingrich is neither Goldwater nor Reagan. But he is the only person left standing to challenge the certainty that, as the New York Times’ Bill Keller put it, the 2012 elections will be held between two “certifiably sane” people (Obama and Romney). The folks who come up on your google search deem themselves the arbiters of sanity. It does not occur to them that the American people have the right to decide for themselves between COMPETING VERSIONS of sanity.

Today as in the last two generations, the Republican Establishment’s message for Republican voters is something like “shut up and do as you’re told.”

You can probably figure out how he answered the question.

It's The Little Differences

After spending ten days in the Netherlands and Romania (with a brief incursion into Germany as well) on business, I couldn’t wait to get back home to savor the hoppy pleasures of good ol’ American craft beers again. Don’t get me wrong, the European beers are plenty tasty, but it’s more difficult to find the variety that you do on this side of the pond. This might not have been the case had I been able to find my way to Belgium or spend more time in Germany. As it was, I did have a chance to add the following beers to the ratings list:

BELGIUM
Palm Belgian Amber
Westmalle Dubbel
Westmalle Tripel

GERMANY
Brinkehoff’s Number One Pilsener

NETHERLANDS
Bavaria Premium Pilsener

ROMANIA
Ursus Dark
Ursus Unfiltered
Ursus Pilsener

The two beers from Westmalle were the best of the bunch while Palm’s Belgian Amber is a nice alternative that’s pretty widely available in the Netherlands. I did try a couple of other good Dutch beers that I didn’t have a chance to rate. In general, they seem to not stray far from the Heineken, Grolsch, and Amstel type offerings. And if you show up in Amsterdam expecting to find twenty-four hour party people quaffing Amstel Light (as in the commercials), you’re going to be disappointed. The regular version is all you see. I was pleased to notice a bar in Amsterdam boasting of having over twenty American craft offerings on tap, although I didn’t get to see what they were. The Romania beers were decent and the bear logo employed by Ursus is sharp.

If you too have a need to satisfy a craving for hops, there’s no time like the present. Glen Lake Wine and Spirits is offering a special on cases of Surly Furious for $55.99. Having twenty-four sixteen ounces cans of Furious on hand can help ensure that this is indeed a most merry Christmas.

Plastics

Shale's Bounty Goes Beyond Oil and Gas (WSJ-sub req):

HOUSTON—The U.S. shale-oil and natural-gas boom has cracked open another lucrative market—gas liquids used to make plastics.

The same drilling technologies that have unlocked vast amounts of crude and natural gas from previously unproductive shale formations across the U.S. also are reaping large stores of ethane, propane and butane, known as natural-gas liquids.

This growing bounty has resuscitated the U.S. petrochemical industry, which just a few years ago was being strangled by the high costs of the raw materials.

Processing ethane into chemicals is 50% cheaper than using crude oil-derived naptha and its availability has made U.S. petrochemical companies the envy of overseas competitors. It also brings the prospect of lower prices for auto parts, Styrofoam and other products.

Lower costs for US petrochemicals companies means more investment, more production, and of course more jobs. The shale energy boom could be the best thing that has happened to the US economy in years.

The Reason Rye

Kevin Sintmumuang on the why you should Do the Rye Thing (WSJ-sub req):

The explanation for the rabid following is stupid simple: Rye is damn good stuff. Think of it as bourbon's edgier cousin. Where bourbon is primarily made of corn, giving the whiskey a smooth and sweet flavor profile, rye is at least 51% of its namesake grain, lending it a spicier, fuller bodied, angular taste. If you like bourbon, but want to try something with more muscle, you need to get yourself some rye.

Although it's America's first whiskey—George Washington distilled it and bottles were as good as cash in 18th-century Pennsylvania—rye steadily fell out of popularity after Prohibition. It wasn't until the early 2000s that it became repopularized thanks mostly to craft bartenders who liked rye's robust flavors in cocktails, as well as its historical accuracy—rye was the original whiskey in classics like the Manhattan and the Sazerac.

Finding a little rye under the tree can help ensure a merry Christmas for any whiskey lovers you my know.

Destroying Democracy In Order to Save It

From an under utilized section of the wacky Minnesota Congressman file, this note from James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal:

The resolution to propose a constitutional amendment abolishing most limits on government power has seven co-sponsors in the House. In addition to the four we listed yesterday--Reps. Ted Deutch and Alcee Hastings of Florida, Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Jim McDermott of Washington state--they are Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Peter Welch of Vermont and Rick Larsen of Washington.

I think Taranto is intentionally using some hyperbole with that characterization of the bill, but the concerns about its propriety are legitimate. Here are some key excerpts from the so called “Saving American Democracy” bill that Ellison is co-sponsoring (H.J.RES 90.IH) to amend the Constitution:

Section 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

Section 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

Section 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.

Section 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.

As with any modern legislation, lots of obfuscation and self-aggrandizing gobbledygook there. But even among the high minded rhetoric about democracy and freedom, the sinister nature of this bill oozes out from between the lines. Any time someone wants to enshrine into the highest law of the land words like “rights do not extend” and “subject to regulation” and “prohibited from making” and “set limits on,” when the target is the citizenry rather than the government itself, that’s trouble, Mister.

For a more learned and detailed criticism, check out UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh’s analysis here and here.

James Taranto distills Volokh’s thoughts and adds some of his own here, including this projection of the possible effects of Keith Ellison’s Constitutional amendment:

It would deny all constitutional rights to business corporations and disfavored nonprofits. Among other things, that would mean that the government (federal or state) could subject such entities to bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, impose criminal or civil penalties on them without due process, search their premises without a warrant and seize their property without compensation.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment wouldn't apply either, so that the government would be under no obligation to exercise these powers fairly. Thus what [this bill] is proposing amounts to a lawless regime of crony capitalism in which political officeholders would have unchecked power to enrich their corporate friends by persecuting competitors.

This all refers to that little “rights of the Constitution do not extend to” part of Section 1 of the bill, aimed at corporations and private entities that “promote business interests”. Granted, Taranto’s suggested consequences seem extreme. But the only thing that would prevent such a thing from happening if this Amendment were passed are the tender mercies of who ever happens to be President and who ever happens to be making judgments in America’s court system. Anybody here want to trust their freedoms to those illustrious institutions?

The good news is that this bill is, as Harry Reid is fond of saying about GOP efforts to cut spending, Dead On Arrival. As Taranto’s notes:

The [Saving American Democracy] Amendment is never going to become law. Even proposing a constitutional amendment requires two-thirds votes in both houses of
Congress … Still, it's a bit disturbing that such a monstrous idea does not make its proponents persona non grata in one of America's two major political parties.

That’s the real scandal of this Amendment. Keith Ellison is in such a protected position in Minnesota’s political and media culture that he can make goofy, extreme proposals like this and know that there won’t be any negative consequences.

Roll 'Em

By the time many of us will get a chance to actually cast a vote, the GOP primary could very well be decided. You have a chance to make your voice heard now and vote in the 2012 Townhall.com National GOP Primary December 13-15, 2011.

Do you want to go big, bold, and possibly bust with Gingrich or play the safe bet with Romney? Or one of the other remaining contenders? In my view, the odds may be longer with Newt, but the payoff could also be bigger.

Field Of Dreams

The Republican field is so weak that the party is poised to blow an opportunity that seems to come once in a generation: the chance to soundly defeat an incumbent President in a manner that fundamentally realigns the role of government in the United States.

At least that’s the narrative than many in the media have presented this year. Of course, most of the people presenting that narrative are partisan liberals that work for partisan outlets, including the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, CNN’s James Carville, NBC’s Chris Matthews, and Time Magazine’s Mark Halprin to name a few. I would argue that advancing the proposition that the opposing party cannot field a decent candidate certainly advances a partisan agenda. It also reveals a kind of partisan myopia. If one doesn’t respect an opponent’s ideals, it is difficult to see how a group of leaders sharing such ideals really aren’t worthy of respect.

On the other hand, Charles Krauthammer and other partisan conservatives have also criticized the field as weak. Krauthammer commands enough respect that I believe he really feels that way. However, when lesser pundits criticize the field, I’m reminded that lazy members of the media seem to enjoy pursuing easy narratives that make them comfortable. And the narrative of a weak opposition field is tried and true. In more than one election year you have heard of a slate of candidates referred to as “the seven dwarves.”

I disagree with the characterization of a weak Republican field. In fact, I would suggest that this Republican field is the strongest slate of candidates the party has seen since 1980. Each candidate brings unique qualifications to the table. Let’s take a quick look:

Speaker Newt Gingrich was the architect of a Republican revolution that significantly changed the course of American government. Under his strategy, the party took over Congress after decades as a minority party. Then under his leadership, the federal budget was balanced, welfare was reformed, and America entered into an era of growth and prosperity.

If Gingrich doesn’t capture the party’s nomination, then the nominee will likely be one of two governors. Governor Mitt Romney is a Republican who won election in a deep blue state, proving that he can garner the votes of moderates and some liberals. Governor Rick Perry is entirely different, the chief executive of a deep red state that has had been strong on job creation and economic growth. Additionally, Romney boasts extensive private sector experience.

Congressman Ron Paul offers Republicans a real libertarian choice that has been missing from many presidential campaigns. Love him or hate him, one must acknowledge that Paul represents an ideology that holds influence over significant thinking on the right side of the political spectrum.

While Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are not likely to win the Republican nomination for President, they represent powerful factions of the Republican party whose ideas merit consideration. Bachmann is a Tea Party darling, and the Tea Party has energized the Republican base with the simple message that federal spending and taxes are too high. Santorum is the typical religious conservative that has traditionally seen regular representation in Republican campaigns, but he’s a much more effective messenger than past standard bearers such as Pat Robertson.

Finally Jon Huntsman’s lack of success may be attributable to the fact that he’s a Republican who seems to have a good grasp of the issues, but is very comfortable working with Democrats to advance a pragmatic vision. Republican voters tried that with John McCain, and don’t like what that brought them.

In summary, the field is deep and talented. I believe that any of the losers of the nomination would make excellent choices for cabinet posts, and I didn’t even mention erstwhile candidates Herman Cain or Tim Pawlenty. So why do so many Americans that aren’t liberal partisans long for the next Reagan instead of embracing the riches before them?

I believe it’s due in most part to the inane format of the debates. It’s hard to look good when put on the defensive, be it by the liberal media or by a handful of challengers. We all remember how good Ronald Reagan looked when rededicating the Statue of Liberty or mourning the crew of the Space Shuttle Challenger. We forget how testy and argumentative he looked when he yelled about how he paid for his microphone or how confused and old he looked trying to cram his story about a time capsule into a tight debate timeframe.

I am sure that once a candidate is nominated and he can get on message, he will run circles around a President whose actions have destroyed jobs, whose policies have reduced America’s ability to produce energy, and who has redirected tax dollars to his corrupt friends who promise environmentally friendly fool's gold.

The Answer Is Out There and It’s Looking For You

Newt Gingrich’s candidacy has suffered a withering barrage of friendly fire in the past few weeks. Many conservatives whose opinions I respect have come out ardently against the man who I’ve been touting as the best available option. It’s not easy to believe in something the likes of George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and VDH have counseled against. But at this point in the race, I still prefer Gingrich over the only other presumably viable GOP candidate, Mitt Romney.

Today, another of the conservatives I respect, Jonah Goldberg, provides some much needed support for the idea of a Gingrich candidacy. I think this analysis is spot on:

Inside D.C., it sounds very strange to say that Gingrich is an "outsider." Gingrich has eaten from just about every trough imaginable inside the Beltway. And yet, he's always been very clear that he wants to ("fundamentally," "historically," "categorically" and "radically") overturn the existing order. Some critics always thought, plausibly, that such pronouncements were part of his act or a sign of his megalomania.

But there's another possibility: It's true. Moreover, the times may be ripe for precisely the sort of vexing, vainglorious and all-too-human revolutionary Gingrich claims to be. That's the argument a few people have been wrestling with. Gingrich, after all, is the only candidate to actually move the government rightward. While getting wealthy off the old order, he's been plotting for decades how to get rid of it. To paraphrase Lenin, perhaps the K Streeters paid Gingrich to build the gallows he will hang them on?

That remains a stretch. Mitt Romney is still the sensible choice if you believe these are rough, but generally sensible, times. If, however, you think these are crazy and extraordinary times, then perhaps they call for a crazy, extraordinary — very high-risk, very high-reward — figure like Gingrich.

This helps explain why Newtzilla is so formidable. In order to stop him, you need to explain to very anxious GOP voters that the times don't require him.

Some months ago, Nate Silver analyzed the prospects of various GOP contenders, based on historical data of general election results relative to ideological extremism of the challenger, approval ratings of the incumbent, and overall economic conditions. His conclusion was that Newt Gingrich would have a harder time winning than Romney. But that Gingrich could certainly win, in an atmosphere of more rapidly declining economic trends and/or low Obama approval ratings. That’s just another way to say, as Goldberg does, that Newt is a high risk/high reward proposition. Greater chance of being a transformational conservative and greater chance of cratering in the general election.

In terms of electability, if the voters perceive we are living in historically turbulent times and in need of a major course correction, Newt is the man. If, on the other hand, the more traditional dynamics of a Presidential race are in effect, and that Republican brand of business as usual is going to be good enough, Mitt is a better fit.

Where will the nation’s head be 11 short months from now?

This choice GOP voters have to make now kind of reminds me of The Matrix, where Neo was offered the chance to return to a comfortable, but false consciousness or strap in and get ready to take the reality ride of his life:

You take the blue (Mitt) pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red (Newt) pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."

OK, not a perfect analogy (Ron Paul is the real red pill in this scenario), but close enough for blogging work.

Separated at Birth?

A SAB unearthed by our own JB Doubtless that he was apparently too lazy to post hisself.

Actor George Kennedy...

and...

...Human Events scribbler Audrey Hudson?