Jonathan Todd

I had this on Labour Uncut recently.

Francis Fukuyama is best known for confusing the period between the falls of the Berlin Wall and Lehman Brothers with the end of history. This was to be defined by the global triumph of liberal democracy and market economies. He recently conceded:

“The most important strength of the Chinese political system is its ability to make large, complex decisions quickly, and to make them relatively well, at least in economic policy”.

China is neither liberal nor democratic, but its state-directed model of capitalism is reshaping markets across the globe. Nonetheless, everyone from George W. Bush to Will Hutton is confident of the model’s limitations. It is thought that history hasn’t ended yet, but that it will, and on the lines that Fukuyama proclaimed.

“Trade freely with China and time is on our side”, said Bush. These economic freedoms will, ultimately, it is argued, require political freedoms. This is because per capita western incomes depend upon what Hutton calls the “enlightenment infrastructure” – pluralism (multiple centres of political and economic power), capabilities (rights, education, private ownership) and justification (accountability, scrutiny, free expression).

Hutton made this argument in a debate with Meghnad Desai in Prospect just before the credit crunch. Desai scoffed: “For you, there is only one road to capitalism – the Western one – and only one political system – ours”. The crunch must place at least a question mark next to Hutton’s Whiggish confidence.

Perhaps the most important way in which 11 September 2001 changed the world was in making more apparent what few had already perceived: the ambition of Al-Qaeda’s threat to the west. Similarly, the significance of China’s rise wasn’t widely understood before the financial crisis. Now it is more obvious.

Zhu Min, special advisor to the international monetary fund, coined the phrase “three-speed” recovery in the opening debate at Davos this year. This involves emerging economies growing at more than 6 per cent in 2011, the US by 3 per cent and Europe by less than 2 per cent. Negative growth in the fourth quarter of 2010 puts the UK in the slowest of the slow. China is among the quickest of quick. It isn’t a global crisis anymore. It’s a European crisis.

While Fukuyama applauds the efficient rapidity of Chinese decision making, the Eurozone is sluggish to confront its big choices. Not that the UK should be smug. We’ve allowed banks “too big to fail” to morph into banks that increasingly seem “too big to save” – without correcting the causes of these banks becoming too big to fail. We’re also guilty of failing to match lofty rhetoric on climate change with effective policy and of drifting towards dependence on Gazprom in an ever more resource-stretched world. To say nothing of our geriatric-paced policy response to demographic change.

Yes, a plan for growth is essential. But for this to be meaningful it needs to chart a trajectory for the state to stop being a featherbed for bankers and start being a catalyst to a more energy-efficient and innovative economy.

All of this is painfully clear, as is the inability of David Cameron to offer anything like an adequate response. All politicians are in the gutter, but Cameron isn’t staring at the stars. Hu Jintao is. Mark Leonard in Renewal credits him with leading a campaign of “asymmetric warfare” against the west: “finding and exploiting the enemy’s soft spots”.

After international financers, like George Soros, humbled the “Asian tigers” in 1997, Chinese intellectuals, Leonard notes, pondered: “If a lone individual like Soros could unleash so much destruction simply for profit, how much damage could a proud nation like China inflict on the USA with its trillion dollars of foreign reserves”?

China and America’s condition of mutually assured economic destruction means this theoretical proposition is unlikely to be soon tested. It does, however, expose the vulnerability of the west, particularly if the uber-pragmatists of Jintao’s generation are succeeded by a more assertive cadre. That the question is even asked shows that Chinese leaders are capable of doing what our leaders struggle to: coldly assessing strengths and weakness and, given these strengths and weaknesses, ruthlessly pursuing objectives.

Al-Qaeda are world leaders in asymmetric warfare as it is conventionally understood. Guantanamo Bay and Bagram are the weakest parts of the west’s response, because they compromise our defining values. Privatising the upside of banking, while socialising the downside, also rejects the fundamentals of capitalism. Chinese-style, forensic assessment of the West’s strengths and weaknesses would rank our values – the “enlightenment infrastructure” – as our greatest strength and anything that belittles them as corrosive weakness.

Leadership is required for this betrayal to be averted – most pressingly in relation to Egypt. True leadership would also see it as analytically inadequate and careless with the hopes of millions simply to presume that Hutton is right and Desai is wrong. Hutton is right insofar as the “enlightenment infrastructure” is the richest inheritance and the seed of the innovation that can allow the West to prosper in a century in which China will be much more globally consequential than before.

However, in addition to this infrastructure, leadership will be necessary for the west to so prosper. Real leadership isn’t just about rhetoric or grand promises to be fulfilled years hence, but about the policies that will concretely advance these promises: the prose as well as the poetry. In respect of the key challenges that confront them – banking, energy, climate change and ageing – western leaders provide little of either. In particular, they struggle with the prose, which comes so easily to the Chinese. This needs to change if history is, after all, to end.

I had this on Labour Uncut last week.

Tony Blair made adaptation to globalisation a Labour leitmotif. Yet the existence of the “squeezed middle” is a symptom that he did not finish the job. Today’s globalisation is more about the rise of Asia than was the case when Blair became party leader. Easing the squeezing requires better adaptation to this Asian age.

It will take more than David Cameron hawking UK PLC from one rising Asian power to the next. The prime minister is listless in the face of power seeping from the over-indebted West to the resource-rich East, so neatly encapsulated by FIFA’s world cup decisions. His PR smoothness is no substitute for leadership in urgent debates about the architecture of globalisation. It seems that his only reason for attending the G20 was, unsuccessfully, to press the flesh for England’s world cup bid.

Perhaps Cameron confused diary entries, and we lost the world cup after he confronted FIFA president, Sepp Blatter, on macro-prudential regulation. After all, the Tory-Lib Dems’ bail-out of the Irish demonstrates that we live in an interconnected age. It exposes their myth: that our economic predicament is solely Labour’s fault.

While Cameron cannot afford himself a robust response to Asia’s rise, leading centre left thinkers are looking at the bargain Labour struck with globalisation. On the one hand, it was relaxed about the filthy rich. On the other, it recycled tax revenues into public services and redistributions, like tax credits, at unprecedented levels. But the most striking feature of this economic model is its dependence upon secondary redistribution. The middle is squeezed because we have not got to a more equitable distribution of market rewards.

John Humphrys may find it bizarrely incomprehensible, but the squeezed middle is not just a British phenomenon. In the US, the annual incomes of the bottom 90 per cent of US families have been essentially flat since 1973. It used to be middle-class aspiration that Labour needed to tap into. Now the middling sort across the whole of the West is anxious. It is even possible to understand the tea party movement when you realise that at its core is anxiety, not guns and bibles.

Tea partiers, like Essex men, are more focused on keeping what they have than wanting more. They want to take their country back, not look for answers from the great beyond. They are resentful of any perceived threat. Whether that is losing their health insurance to Obamacare or their jobs to the oilfields and factories of the East.

Politicians across Europe are increasingly willing to bemoan minorities and immigrants, other governments and Brussels. There are many corners of foreign fields that seem forever Mrs. Duffy. Tackling the squeeze is a precondition of curbing this.

Globalisation will only go into reverse if an open currency war follows banks and states defaulting. Almost any amount of squeeze for the middle and anxiety for Mrs Duffys is worth it to avoid this 1930s scenario. And the more squeezed the middle becomes, the more politicians will struggle to resist protectionism and competitive currency devaluations. These would be the seeds of a cataclysm of 1930s proportions. We cannot sustain globalisation without improving social justice both domestically and internationally.

In the UK, we must recognise that income distributions that are skewed towards the rich minority are a practical menace, as well as morally questionable. Countries with lower Gini-coefficients (a measure of the inequality of a distribution – the higher the score, the more unequal) are more likely to increase consumer demand in sustainable ways. This means that median workers will not find their wages squeezed, and their maxed-out credit cards will not create booms and busts. Labour must find ways of achieving this while scaling back government to control the deficit. Here – after the public spending largesse of the Blair/Brown years – we start with a blank piece of paper.

Even if social democracy means that the state consumes an ever-larger slice of GDP, it cannot mean it now, in such fiscally straitened times. That states, as well as markets, fail should not leave social democrats bereft of hope. It should inspire a radical pragmatism for whatever truly works. A pragmatism never abashed by cross dressing or reformers and one unafraid to deploy state or market wherever it is best suited.

Advancing social justice internationally won’t be achieved by Cameron’s glad handing. His G20 failure, which Brown would have avoided, was far more of a dereliction of duty than his failure to deliver, in contrast to Blair, a global sporting event. Not least thanks to Brown, world leaders were quick to come together effectively in the early stages of the global crisis.

The extent to which the fundamental causes of this crisis have been addressed is debatable. Global leaders must maintain their engagement in order to tackle these causes. Not just applaud what good chaps Prince William and David Beckham are. Cameron offers vapid PR stunts instead of leadership. Whereas Labour must find practical ways of advancing social justice here and internationally. Only then can the globalised middle end up slightly more eased than squeezed.

I noticed a trend flicking through the FT last month. I think the particular copy of the FT that I flicked through was published on 19 September. I noticed the following:

Emerging market targeted M&A volume is up by more than two-thirds to $575.7bn this year, while European volume has risen by barely 20 percent to $550.2bn. The latest Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI) not only finds that New York has closed in on London as the world’s leading financial centre but that Hong Kong has markedly closed in on both cities since March 2009. Beijing’s attempts to internationalise the use of the renminbi and rival the US dollar (to say nothing of the euro or pound) have taken a significant step forward through the purchase by Malaysia’s central bank of renminbi-denominated bonds for its reserves.

Perhaps, it is no surprise, therefore, that Wolfgang Münchau commented, “we are observing a loss in Europe’s global influence … Wherever you look in the EU, politicians have become more assertive in blaming minorities and immigrants, other governments and, of course, ‘Brussels’ … The problem is not so much that Europe might become irrelevant, but that Europe’s relative decline is going to both noisy and nasty.”     

The world is changing. But it never helps anyone to be noisy and nasty, least of all Europe in a changing world.

HSBC commissioned the Futures Company to report on the key considerations for European business of Asia’s rise. The final product,  Looking East: The Changing Face of World Business, tells a daunting story. Globalisation has entered a new stage and the sooner its lessons are absorbed by European businesses, politicians and policy-makers the better.

Globalisation brings opportunities and threats. While this observation has become cliché, it remains true. But the nature of these opportunities and threats is rapidly changing. Failing to keep pace with these changes threatens the health not just of European business but also European society. Mrs Duffy confronted Gordon Brown with some of the insecurities generated by globalisation. These insecurities may become more visceral if the next stage of globalisation is not properly responded to.

Asia’s role in this next stage is, to use a vogue word, unavoidable. Indeed, Asia’s continued rise is far more so than George Osborne’s budget; much of which was ideological choice, not unavoidable necessity. As we fret about whether these choices will reduce us to a double-dip recession, China grew at a rate of 11.9 per cent in the first three months of 2010 and India is expected to grow at 8 per cent this year and next. European growth rates may crawl from the wreckage of the credit crunch, but China and India, along with much of the rest of Asia, have rapidly returned to a gallop.

A key plank of the last government’s response to the credit crunch – the promotion of new industries and new jobs -  was a variant on a well-trodden European reaction to globalisation: stressing high skills, R&D and the fruits to be reaped by British industry on the innovation frontier. But what if Asia is reaching this frontier before Europe? While low value production may have shifted from places like Mrs Duffy’s Rochdale to Asia, Europeans have tended to seek reassurance in the view that cutting edge skills and technologies would save their bacon (even if ever less of it is consumed in places like Rochdale).

This view now seems, at best, a simplification. “Globalisation and the integration of the world economy isn’t turning out the way many people expected”, claims Joe Ballantyne of the Futures Company. Take some of the supposedly new industries proclaimed during Peter Mandelson’s tenure at the Department of Business: electric cars, nanotechnology, wind technology. No doubt these industries will continue to be eulogised by the coalition. But the HSBC report flags up examples of new technologies in each of these fields being pioneered in Asia.

These developments expose as outdated a view of globalisation that sees the West as the innovators and Asia as the producers. The outsourcing of production jobs caused the CBI to declare six years ago that by 2014 there would be no jobs for unskilled workers in this country. Asia’s growing innovative capacity places the skilled workers of Europe under the kinds of competitive pressures that the unskilled have known for a generation or more. 75,000 people graduate from Chinese universities each year with higher degrees in engineering or computer sciences; 60,000 in India. Given the ascent of a highly-skilled, entrepreneurial and innovative Asian middle-class, the extension of the CBI’s logic may be that in ten years time no jobs for unskilled or skilled people will exist in this country. But this zero-sum thinking wasn’t right six years ago and certainly isn’t right now.

Instead of fearing Asia, British firms should seize its opportunities. These exist both in terms of demand and supply. Sluggish growth in Europe and America means that if the low value of the pound is to fire an export-led recovery it will be via satiation of Asian demand. The HSBC report notes that half of Unilever’s sales come from developing markets and the company’s Indian branch – Hindustan Unilever – is one of India’s biggest consumer-goods companies and its biggest advertiser. Mumbai wants its champagne chilled. And rightly so.

But what else does it want? British firms, whether established global players like Unilever or much smaller concerns, should be asking this question. Markets have always been conversations. Our firms must now listen to and engage with new consumers. “Successful businesses will need”, according to Ballantyne, “to understand how the dynamics of cultural change play out across different markets”.

As well as servicing Asian markets, British firms should consider what impact Asia’s rise will have on their supply chains. It will be no surprise if demand for raw materials continues to rise. It may be more of a surprise to observe, as the HSBC report does, that Microsoft’s biggest R&D facility outside America is in Beijing. This facility continues an infusion of Asian and American knowledge heralded by an influx of Asian science and technology graduates to Silicon Valley. British firms that fail to structure themselves in ways that leave them open to the best new Asian thinking risk falling behind. “Innovation will need to become more global in focus”, says Ballantyne. This means seeking new kinds of partnership with Asian businesses and universities, as well as, pace Theresa May’s immigration policy, always being able to recruit the best Asian talent.

The HSBC report is not the only sign recently that globalisation is changing shape. Strikes have swept China. The low wages and poor conditions that gave Chinese production facilities an edge over facilities in places like Rochdale seem increasingly unacceptable to Chinese workers. This may limit future outsourcing to China. Equally, the HSBC report leaves a sense of China, like the rest of Asia, increasingly being less a repository for outsourcing and more a generator of new ideas, techniques and products.

This doesn’t mean that British business can no longer generate such things. But to do so they shall increasingly need to be abreast of Asian developments. The role of government is to support and incentivise firms to do so. For example, the competitiveness guru Michael Porter has recently argued that a carbon tax would drive innovation in the green economy. This drive is likely to build upon ideas pioneered in Asia. Smart government – not big government or small government – should unlock this potential. If David Cameron doesn’t deliver this, he’ll discover his own Mrs Duffy soon enough.

The striking thing about the most powerful person in the world, as he approaches one year in office, is how, err, lacking in power he appears.

Disappointed and, according to Mark Lynas, insulted by the Chinese in Copenhagen.  A Health Care Bill that isn’t yet on the statute; is much delayed on his original timetable; and, by his own admission, is only “nine-tenths of a loaf” - some would say that half a loaf is nearer the mark and it comes with lashings of pork barrel whatever way you look at it. An Afghan strategy that even he doesn’t seem wholly convinced by and the backdrop to which Andrew Sullivan commented upon by saying:

“Obama arrived in China last month as a fiscal supplicant, not the leader of the free world. He cannot corner the Iranian regime without Russian or Chinese support. He cannot even get Israel, a country receiving $3 billion a year in aid and protected by America’s veto at the United Nations, simply to cease its construction of settlements in East Jerusalem or the West Bank.”

All of which simply serves to illustrate my point: How devoid of power the most powerful can be. That’s not to excuse any disappointments that President Obama may have caused or to defend his record (though, there is much more to defend than the increasingly naysayer conventional wisdom suggests). It is simply to place his presidency in context.

This is a context in which his power is more obviously finite and constrained than has been the case for most modern US presidents. Internationally, this is the consequence of the “unipolar moment”, first proclaimed, I think, by Charles Krauthammer in 1990, waning (or, perhaps, being more obviously exposed as the hubristic delusion it always was). Domestically, this is the bitter fruit of what appears to Paul Krugman to be an increasingly dysfunctional Senate. This is a dysfunctionality that means that the Democrats control the presidency and both Houses but are still held to ransom by (dilute to taste) filibustering, partisan, pork barrel-seeking Republicans.

The international dimensions of this are well illustrated by Philip Bobbitt.

“What if Iran simply agrees to limited inspections, and continues enrichment to the point where weapons-grade nuclear material is created? What then? … Israel has resumed the construction of settlements in the West Bank, and it seems clear that Abbas cannot sustain domestic support in the face of the challenge from Hamas if he goes back to the negotiating table without even a temporary freeze on settlement expansion. Obama has little leverage on this issue—as his predecessors also found—but has committed himself to the proposition that “talks must begin and begin soon.” Or what? … Having previously announced it would not renew talks in the six-party format, North Korea has now indicated to the Chinese that it would re-engage in that forum, provided the US simultaneously opens bilateral talks. The US has insisted, quite sensibly, that regional multilateralism is the best way forward. But what if North Korea continues to refuse?”

The growing worry is that the Iranians, Israelis and North Koreans – not to mention the Chinese, Russians, the Taliban and others – have concluded that “nothing much” is the answer to every “What then?” In other words, as the Economist notes:

“The doubters argue that, however decent and articulate, Mr Obama is gaining a reputation as someone who can be pushed around. This month, after the president pandered to China by refusing to meet the Dalai Lama, China pushed for more by banning questions at his Beijing press conference with Hu Jintao, its president. When Mr Obama demanded that Israel stop all work on its settlements in the occupied territories, Binyamin Netanyahu, its prime minister, defied him and still, staggeringly, won praise from Hillary Clinton.”

It is even said that this praise from Clinton lays the groundwork for her to run against Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012. This argument goes that she will need an issue on which to split with Obama to do so and support for Israel would fit this bill. It is to be hoped that this argument is nonsense. But the mere suggestion that the President does not command the absolute and complete loyalty of all of his team implies weakness in a manner as profound as the swipes and pushed envelopes that have come his way via China, Israel et al.

The counter to this line of argument is also provided by the Economist:

“Mr Obama has pulled off the urgent tasks of starting to withdraw troops from Iraq and resetting America’s dysfunctional relations with Russia. He has boosted the G20 as a new global forum. This week Israel announced a partial settlement freeze. With health-care reform under his belt, he will soon be able to turn to world affairs with his status enhanced. Besides, you could hardly accuse Mr Obama of timidity. In three speeches in Prague, Cairo and Accra, he set out a new foreign policy that rejects the Manichean view of his predecessor. He means to negotiate deep cuts in nuclear weapons, make peace between Arabs and Jews, engage Iran, heal the climate and establish America as the strongest and most upright pole of a multipolar world. Yes, this work lies ahead, but how much can you ask in a year of war and recession?”

Health care reform is, just about, under his belt and it is hard to argue with the view of the Obama camp that this reform needed to be taken on in the first year of his presidency before mid-term elections which are likely to further undermine his ability to impose his will upon Congress. His presidency moves into a new phase with this reform behind him. However, perhaps, there are lessons to be learned for this next phase from the protracted way in which this reform was secured.

While the dysfunctionality of the Senate bemoaned by Krugman may make it all the harder for Obama’s will to prevail, it is important, no matter how great this dysfunctionality, that Obama exerts a will. In other words, he needs to lead. The tactics of how he does so can be debated, but the President does need to show genuine leadership. As Clive Crook writes:

“Mr Obama promised to strive for consensus. On issues such as energy policy, healthcare, education and immigration, there is no reason why moderates on both sides cannot make common cause. That is something many Americans long for. It was the great hope independents had of Mr Obama. In his first year, he rarely even tried. He simply chose not to exercise this kind of leadership.”

I must confess that I am both surprised and disappointed by the absence of such leadership. I anticipated that it would be forged on the radical centre (or center). Crook is right to worry that the absence of leadership that works towards such radicalism threatens “a drubbing in 2010 that will do for Mr Obama’s agenda what the wipe-out of 1994 did for Bill Clinton’s”.

While a drubbing can be averted, it is likely that the mid-terms will weaken the Democrats in Washington. This underlines the importance of strong leadership from the centre, of the kind which Crook described thus:

“On health, on energy, on public spending, independent voters want him to exercise centrist leadership, as he promised he would. Can’t he even pretend? For the sake of his Democratic majorities, he had better show voters he is listening, even if his allies in Congress are not.”

But there are plenty of willing allies for Obama in Congress who want the Democrats to behave in this way. A key example being Mark Warner, excellently profiled in the Washington Post this week. That he defines his philosophy as “radical centrism” should be a massive hint that this is the kind of Democratic Senator that Obama needs to work with and through to build consensus, bi-partisan if at all possible, for his agenda. It may be indicative of where things have gone wrong for the Democrats and Obama in the past year that the sense that Warner feels a little left out in the cold by his party pervades the Washington Post profile. It cites John J. Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executives of large U.S. companies, saying of him:

“Obviously, in 2008, America voted for change. But they are maybe finding out now that they didn’t want to vote for big government spending that’s unchecked, or government intervention to a very, very low level into the economy. Mark Warner really represents that kind of middle ground that wants government to help solve problems but not so much interfere with all areas of the economy.”

There is nothing that Democratic Senators like Warner would like more than to work with the President on this middle ground to get America’s economy growing as strongly as it can do in 2010, control public debt and to seriously correct the US’ disturbingly high unemployment. These are causes which, if approached in the right way, these Senators are likely to be able to build bi-partisan support for. Moreover, in terms of the Democrats avoiding mid-term meltdown, we really are looking at a case of “it’s the economy, stupid”.

Obama should be Bill Clinton-like in recognising the political centrality of the economy and also take some lessons from another great Democratic pragmatist: LBJ. While we can all join Anthony Painter in hoping that Afghanistan does not see Obama transformed into Barack B Johnson, Obama should seek to be - pace E. J. Dionne Jr - LBJ-like in terms of working Congress and building up support for his policies amongst Congressmen.

So: insofar as his domestic agenda is concerned, the course which I would recommend to President Obama in 2010 is to reach out to the nation and Congress, particularly colleagues like Warner, through centrist leadership, with a strong focus upon improving America’s economic outlook. This will be the best way to be economical with (indeed, grow) his political capital (which is now dangerously low after the ending of his all too brief honeymoon in the White House). Furthermore, the policies of true radicalism are invariably to be found in policies that are that are the stuff of such leadership, rather than the stuff of Democratic or Republican sacred cows. Essentially, independent voters remain the key demographic (and the biggest threat to Obama being a two term President would come if the Republicans selected a candidate more capable of reaching out to them than someone like Sarah Palin) and the policies which appeal most to these voters are also the policies which will do most to change America in the ways that it should change.

Improvement in America’s economic prospects is a key linkage point between his domestic and international agendas. Niall Ferguson claims that noting that “the yawning US current account deficit was increasingly being financed by Asian central banks, with the Chinese moving into pole position, was, for me at least, the eureka moment of the decade”. He’s right to see this as such a moment and to see this as “the decade that tilted east” and away from the supposed uniploar dominance of the USA.

Given that the Chinese are re-cycling the massive trade surplus that they are running against the US to finance the US current account deficit, part of the correction to this – and an end towards which Obama can work with the likes of Warner – is to reduce the Chinese trade surplus by growing American exports. Another part is to control public debt. There are great opportunities for the American (and British) firms that come to satisfy the wants and needs of the rising middle classes of the BRIC economies, who have got rich (or richer) by producing the exports that are the stuff of the trade deficits (and maxed out credit cards, etc) experienced by both the US and the UK.

But the imbalances in the “Chimerica” economy are too substantial to be corrected by the innovations and efforts of American exporters alone. We’ve have all, allegedly, become Keynesians in the past year or so, but while there has been much talk of fiscal stimulus, there has been much less of the deep concern which Keynes had about surplus economies, which lead to the creation of the Bretton Woods system (though, this system did not conform to the plans Keynes actually had).

There is, perhaps, no better indicator of the way the world has changed than that today the relationship between the Chinese economy (running a massive trade surplus) and the American (running a massive trade deficit) directly parallels the relationship between the American (running a massive surplus) and the British (running a massive deficit) at the time in the 1940s when Keynes’ concerns about surplus economies fed into the debate which resulted in Bretton Woods. 

It is no coincidence that what Derek Scott has described as the “re-emergence of genuine capitalism, including large-scale private sector capital flows” has come about in the decades after the demise of Bretton Woods. This development has been broadly welcome, lifting millions of people in places like the BRIC economies out of absolute poverty. But Bretton Woods increasingly seems something that if it doesn’t exist, as is obviously now the case, is in need of (re)invention. What is required, in essence, is some global mechanism to correct for the imbalances between surplus and deficit economies that are the real story of the economic crisis. 

Andrew Sullivan is, of course, right to lament that ”Britain in the late 1950s had a friendly superpower to whom she could surrender global hegemony. America has no such luxury”. In contrast, the future seems one of contested modernities, with values and visions that would please most Americans and Europeans being ever more marginalised. One of the great dangers that I perceive in coming decades is that the ”west” will react to this by lashing out in ever more ill-advised and dramatic ways. It is again hard to argue with Niall Ferguson’s argument that great episodes of violence occur at the end of empires and the end of America’s empire seems much closer than its beginning.

This would seem much more likely if the “right nation” were to swing back to the right under a President Palin or similar in 2012. The alternative to World War III under Palin, given the absence of a friendly superpower, is to now fashion a multilateral world in which it is much more likely than otherwise that American (and European) interests and values will be best served in the decades to come during which the notion of a unipolar world will be as laughable and out-dated as the excesses of the British Empire now seem (or, at least, the notion of an American unipolar moment may be so, but the Chinese Charles Krauthammer may be closer than many would wish).  

The creation of the global institutions that will form this multilateral world and attempt to steer our Chinese century, now a decade old, is one of the great tasks of Obama’s presidency, and will most probably be passed on to the next president, whether they are as under-qualified or ill-prepared to execute this task as Sarah Palin or otherwise. Obama has made a solid start in this regard, not least through the beefed up role of the G20, but there is much more that remains to be done and, given the significance of the imbalances within the “Chimerican” economy to literally almost everything else, I would commend something along the lines of a Bretton Woods Mark II as a prime candidate for the next round of global institutional building.

The window of opportunity for success in such building is rapidly closing. While the Copenhagen conference itself may be the stuff of such a multilateral world, the outcome of this conference suggests that the Chinese are more interested in looking forward to a very different kind of unipolar world from that envisaged by Krauthammer than working in and through multilateral institutions (i.e. one that would be the stuff of the Chinese Krauthammer’s world view). As one developing country foreign minister said to Mark Lynas: “The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans.” The obvious way to change this dynamic is for the Spartans to have more to offer the Athenians, which, to my mind, takes us back again to the importance of strengthening the American economy, and in turn to Obama working productively with the likes of Warner.

It might seem inane and obvious to propose that America seek to strengthen its economy, but Niall Ferguson is also right that this will require a serious plan for the management of public debt, which may very well require the slaying of some spend-and-tax, Democratic sacred cows, meaning that strong centrist support and leadership will be needed to carry through such a plan. Not least as China’s population is more than four times that of the USA, in the longer-term, it also seems likely to require a immigration system that both provides the labour needed by the American economy and commands the broad support of the American electorate. Such a system is again something which centrist leadership is best able to deliver. 

It might also seem inane and obvious to argue - as I do when I argue that the US should seek to improve its economic performance relative to China and the importance of American exports to Chinese growth - that the negotiating position of American is improved by increased American strength and prestige, but this cuts to the core of many of pivital exchanges confronting America. It is as true around the G20 table as it is in the counterinsurgency battle with the Taliban or battles of will with Iran, North Korea or anyone else. 

The way in which these exchanges are likely to play out could be walked through in game theory models (and such models probably exist in the State Department and elsewhere) but, as any game theorist knows, threats are only of consequence if they are credible. It is clear that American strength is declining as compared with the heady days of the alleged unipolar phase and it is also clear that Obama seems less eager to use force than a Palin or a Dubya (which might be what, ultimately, leads us to the nightmare of a President Palin). However, it is equally clear that America is not without force and influence. To bring this to bear in the great exchanges that confront Obama, a willingness to use this force and influence has to be credible. That’s to say real and seen to be real. In other words, as Obama himself put it in a section from one of his speeches citied by the Economist: “Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.”

So: insofar as his international agenda is concerned for 2010, I suggest that President Obama continue to work through and towards the kind of multilateral institutions that will best protect American (and European) interests and values when the world is very much less unipolar than it has been, but without having this faith in multilateral institutions confused with American weakness and seeking to ensure that American strength is brought to bear credibly on all the vital engagements with China, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan et al ad infinitum that confront the US.

This is an agenda that Europe should warmly support. However, it has all too sadly been the case that, while Obama is the President that Europe dreamed of, European governments have been far too slow and unwilling to support Obama in material ways.

If Europe really wants the change that Obama promises, this must change. If liberal America (or liberal anywhere) really wants the change that Obama promises, it too must change. It should stop moaning about Obama and start supporting him. Indeed, all with a stake in the change that Obama seeks (i.e. everyone), should come to genuinely be the change that they want to see in the world. After the poetry of his victory, the prose of the presidency can seem a painful hangover, but change never did come easy.

 ”We tend to think”, as Michael Tomasky notes, ”that Rosa Parks sat on a bus, Martin Luther King gave some great speeches, decent Americans recoiled at racist violence on the nightly news, and boom, change happened. The reality was that nine long years passed from Parks’s act of civil disobedience until Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights bill – nine years of often mundane and inglorious work.” (That is, of course, by no accident or coincidence the same LBJ that I praised earlier in this blog). “And even then, the civil rights bill didn’t really fix the problem of African Americans being denied the vote, so Congress had to go back the next year and pass the voting rights act.”

Change is tough. But change is already here. “Measured against what different groups of voters thought he had promised – everything they desired – the administration’s performance looks poor”, argues Crook. “Measured against what voters were entitled to expect, it looks much better.” That provides much for liberals to take solace in as they redouble their support for Obama and the Democratic candidates in the mid-terms, but it is what is at stake in terms of the future that should really motivate them in seeking to fortify their President. I am scared of the climatic scenarios painted after the failure of Copenhagen and would be very scared indeed if I came from the Maldives, but the prospect of World War III should scare us all very much more no matter where we come from.

In making recommendations that seek to avert this outcome and bring about the most possible positive change under President Obama, I have probably argued for things which may annoy some liberals or people on the left: “radical centrism”, focusing on the economy, controlling public debt, not being afraid to be prepared to use force to enforce the rules of a multilateral world. I’m sorry if I’ve upset anyone in these ways, but, may be, one lesson of Obama’s first year in office, contrary to what his campaign may have left some people thinking, is that it isn’t possible to please all of the people all of the time.

No one would read Max Weber’s Politics as a Vocation and ever think this possible. However, if this classic text were as widely read and understood as it should be, then, possibly, the kind of leadership from Obama and support for this leadership, which I have argued for here, would be more readily forthcoming. Perhaps, this might be a little worthwhile reading for many of us in what remains of the Christmas holidays.