A Word from London

Herbert London

Herbert London is John M. Olin Professor of Humanities at N.Y.U., President of the Hudson Institute, and author of the recently published book Decade of Denial, published by Lexington Books. He can be reached at: www.herblondon.org.

Feelings

Recently I overheard a conversation in which a young man said to his friend, “Listen to your feelings.” Of course, even if you listen, there isn’t much you will hear.

Yet there is a growing belief that we must break the chains of rational thought and find the liberating light of our feelings. Notice how often people say “I feel . . .” instead of “I think . . .” Notice as well that feelings are worn as a hirsute, an attachment to sensibility. “I feel, therefore I am,” apologies to Descartes.

Even more extreme than the emphasis on feelings is forbidden feelings, the fascination with Hannibal Lecter, Dungeons and Dragons, and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche being classic illustrations of this sentiment. For avatars of this form of feeling, crossing normative boundaries is inevitable, a journey to the islands of perversity.

Then there is irresistible feeling, an inexorable impulse that one can do no other than what is done. Presumably this is a class of feelings built into one’s genetic disposition. “My genes made me do it,” a variant on the extra Y chromosome theory as an explanation for criminal behavior.

The utilitarians have their own version of feelings summarized by Yippie Abby Hoffman who said, “If it feels good, do it.” Alas, many have adopted a world view that subordinates morality to pleasurable feelings, even when seeking pleasure may cause others pain or promote social chaos.

No one can deny the existence of “higher” feelings, an aesthetic of enjoying the good, the true and the beautiful because they are examples of the best the human imagination can conjure. A cousin of higher feeling is spiritual sentiment, the reaching for the transcendent.

Keats gave form to these feelings in his words

I am certain of nothing but of the holiness of the heart’s affections and the truth of imagination. . . . I have the same idea of all our passions as of love: they are all, in their sublime, creative of essential beauty.

Although feelings can be treacly and saccharine, especially when over done, they are not unimportant. They give texture to our lives. Moreover, they offer harmony if used in conjunction with rationality. The problem is that in isolation they are not self-interpreting; they are certainly not the master of rational exegesis.

Feelings are unquestionably part of the human design. But they often go beyond design; rather than see them as part of the big picture of life, they sometimes become the big picture. The moral manifestation of feelings, for example, often rejects morality, just as feelings often oppose empirical evidence and even common sense.

How often does the teenager listen to his feelings rather than his parents? Why does the revolutionary rely on his feelings rather than understanding? Rebellion, as the clearest expression of feelings, has an intoxicating appeal. The rebel listens only to his feelings.

One would hope that insinuating itself into the panoply of feelings is virtue, a belief that there are borders which should not be crossed. This hope, of course, is challenged each day by the believers in forbidden feelings. The snipers who killed Virginia and Maryland residents, did so because of dark, morose, misguided and ultimately evil feelings. They are men without virtue.

It is instructive that feelings, framed by reason and ordained by the understanding of the common good, can address the concerns of the free individual and a sense of societal liberty. Feelings can set us free or imprison; they are the cause of our frustration and the call to a higher purpose.

Obi Ben Kenobi says, “Luke, trust your feelings!” But it is not clear if he should trust those feelings. Fortunately, he follows his heart rather than his mind and the Evil Empire in the “Star Wars” film is defeated. But is a morality of feeling all we should rely on? Far better to challenge the heart with the mind in a test of wills. Feelings will be all the better for it.

In a Postmodern Interpretation We Are All Unstable Vets

Walter Kirn, a frequent contributor to the New York Times, recently argued (NY Times 11/17/02) that “postmodern war has made unstable vets of us all.”

He contends that

Timothy McVeigh, the Beltway sniper suspect and Robert S. Flores Jr., the Arizona nursing student who gunned down his teachers then shot himself, were all Persian Gulf war veterans-a biographical detail that may or may not illuminate their motives but tends to jump out at armchair psychologists.

It would seem that Mr. Kirn is one of those armchair psychologists since he asks whether involvement in war produces “a new generation of psychos.” However Kirn goes beyond that claim into postmodern babble by suggesting that “at some fundamental sensory level,” “we all are” war veterans.

In fact, so obsessed with the notion of killing is he that he inquires from a Vietnam vet whether he ever killed anybody and introspectively asks whether he himself is capable of killing someone. After some reflection, he decides that since the Predator is capable of long distance “immaculate destruction,” he already knows the answer.

On many levels this piece is an outrage. Can one draw the armchair psychologist’s conclusion that because McVeigh, the sniper and Flores were war veterans they engaged in the senseless murder of innocents? Moreover, if war leads to shell-shocked individuals, as it sometimes does, is it sensible to argue that the condition of a few applies to all involved? And by what leap in logic can one suggest that the nation’s participation in war has made us all shell-shocked?

It is one thing to have the conventional pacifists’ position against war; it is quite another matter to rely on the postmodernist conception that we are all in a state of psychological delusion because of war.

War is indeed hell. But not everyone comes out of it emotionally scarred. Some come to recognize that in order to preserve the peace, we must be prepared to fight and sacrifice. For many, war breeds a greater appreciation of the nation’s exceptional qualities.

Surely “immaculate destruction” alters the notion of killing. Dropping bombs from 25,000 feet or firing a Hellfire missile from a Predator are different from thrusting a spear into an enemy’s chest. Sensible people consider it necessary to take steps to reduce “collateral damage,” a cloaked way of saying unnecessary death. But high tech war also means that risk is reduced for military personnel put in harm’s way.

Simple philosophical solutions for and against war do not exist. However, simple-minded generalizations about the effect of war only produce gross distortions that are neither warranted, not useful. Unfortunately the Kirn article falls into this category.

It is conceivable, of course, that in a television age reliant on images, Americans may be desensitized to destruction. On the other hand, Americans are not so shell-shocked that they ignore either war as self-defense or the horror associated with lethal weapons.

We are certainly not all unstable vets and it requires a thoroughly perverse semiotic interpretation to arrive at that conclusion. Most Americans realize what military personnel mean for the preservation of liberty. There are the exceptions who call soldiers “killers,” as was the case during the Vietnam era. But even these demonstrators have been largely chastened by recent events.

Postmodernism has taken us down some strange pathways. But none may be more strange than a path that characterizes all Americans as unstable vets. As one of the masters of metaphorical thinking noted, “Don’t take it too seriously, I was only speaking metaphorically.” I would hastily note, to Mr. Kirn, don’t take it too seriously when I describe your argument as jejune and nonsensical; I was only employing postmodernist language.

The Predator Joins Buck Rogers

As Osama bid Laden’s chief associate in Yemen got into his car, local spies working with U.S. intelligence operatives tracked his every move and passed this information to American headquarters.

Abu Ali, a key suspect in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, had been under surveillance for months. As he pulled out of his farm in northeast Yemen, he and his associates were targeted with infrared lasers and struck down by a Hellfire missile fired from 25,000 feet.

Some have noted this may be the opening launch of “robotic warfare.” While this technical achievement is remarkable, it overlooks the history of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), specifically the Predator, which was employed so successfully in the war against Afghanistan.

For years the Pentagon, or should I say some members of the military establishment like the estimable Andy Marshall, discussed a revolution in military hardware. Military traditionalists scoffed, noting there is nothing that can replace a well-trained and well-armed infantryman.

Now, however, with the proven deployment of the Predator, the revolution is in full swing. Capable of operating with virtual impunity from 25,000 feet and higher for periods as long as 30 hours, the Predator can spot, chase and destroy a moving target at the behest of a control room thousands of miles away.

And this is merely the first phase of this 27-foot UAV. A new more advanced Predator, costing $10 million-a fraction of an F15-with greater firepower, the ability to fly at higher altitudes and with sensors that can track radioactive, biological and chemical traces from the clouds will soon be available.

On the drawing board at General Atomics, the San Diego Company that manufactures the Predator, are miniature UAVs that can carry cameras and fly into buildings, as well as a UAV that can carry a 3000-pound munitions payload. In addition, General Atomics is planning to equip the Predator with a look-down self-defense weapon.

At the moment each Predator costs $2 million and is arguably the most cost effective item in the Pentagon’s arsenal. First used in Bosnia, it has flown in every engagement since then and has been an extraordinary surveillance tool, an aerial eyes and ears.

Now it is also a seek and destroy weapon. With new capabilities being attached to the Predator, it will be a reconnaissance platform operating at 65,000 feet and flying to targets more than 3000 miles from the point of departure.

Buck Rogers is alive and well and fighting for the United States. Drone technology is evolving so quickly that the battlefield scenes of WWII are rapidly fading as anachronisms. Moreover, the Predator has significant application in other fields. For example, it could be a monitor for highway traffic; it could serve as the technical counter to domestic terrorist activity; it could be a crime fighting tool. Wherever surveillance is needed, the Predator could conceivably have a mission.

What UAVs demonstrate is the extraordinary mastery of technology by American scientists. Surely General Atomics Aeronautical Systems deserves a lot of credit. But there is an unsung group of heroes in this story. I am referring to those in the Pentagon like Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who, despite the negative assessment of some military traditionalists, persisted in pushing for an expansive role for the Predator.

It is abundantly clear that the Predator will save American lives, increase precision in targeting and destruction and offer men on the battlefield over-the-horizon vision. The dream of military leaders since Napoleon to anticipate an enemy’s moves is a reality and Americans should be thankful that our side has the technological edge and the visionaries who made that advantage possible.

The Euro’s Coming Demise

The grand plan to create a united Europe, a land like the United States, is coming apart at the seams. Perhaps the statement that best exemplifies this view came ironically from Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission.

Prodi has rendered the pact impossible to police; the penalties imposed on those nations that violate the common accord are a dead letter. He notes: “The Stability Pact is stupid, like all decisions that are rigid.”

The rules for the new Europe were designed by Germans to stop Latins from borrowing too much, breeding inflation and forcing up interest rates. But what is now all too evident is that the rigid rules forces overspent governments to retrench in mid-recession thereby encouraging a deflationary spiral.

Even stolid Germany-the nation representing European backbone-has now breached the three percent deficit ceiling established with the Maastricht Accord. Prodi’s “courageous” comment was a welcome reflection on reality that simply brightened European spirit.

Of course Prodi wasn’t exactly firm in his conviction. A week after his initial comment he said, “I defend the pact’s spirit, even if the letter is stupid.” Perhaps there is a European astrologer who can decipher his logic.

If the system is stupid, will a tweaking here or there restore it to sanity? Could the system be reborn with voluntary acceptance of the rules? If so, why have rules? Can European corpulence be excused away as “necessary borrowing” or as an “investment” strategy? Can the European Central Bank establish generally accepted, medium range inflation targets? Is there any way to guard against “free riding”?

Even if all of these questions could be answered affirmatively, the symptoms of the disease might be mitigated, but the disease would endure. Nationalism and the political mechanism that accompanies it cannot be wished away.

The money people use is a function of political power. And no matter how one considers it, power resides in the various nations, not in the European Union. The euro’s introduction was a calculated step preceding political union, but it is obvious that the twelve disparate economies in the union cannot cope with a single interest rate and uniform fiscal constraints.

Any comparison with the United States is faulty. The U.S. had political union before monetary union. The U.S. can employ federal spending or restraints as an economic shock absorber. Most significantly, the U.S. has a representative government from which power for political action is derived.

The European Union doesn’t have integrated political power; it doesn’t have a lender of last resort and it doesn’t have a representative political assembly.

Francis Mer, Finance Minister of France, calls the European pact a Procrustean bed, “too small for some, too big for others and torture for all.” If this description is accurate, as recent events suggest, the key issue is not cohabitation but divorce.

Yet how does one engage in divorce when the European banks have invested their future in the euro? No matter how “stupid” the euro may be, there are interests to be served.

Then again collapse of European economies may be just over the horizon. Either governments ignore the rules and adjust policies to the reality of individual circumstances or they abide by the rules and see their governments fall. The choices are equally unappealing.

History is a unyielding master. It is one thing for politicians to exhibit their hubris by defying the reality of separate states; it is quite another thing to maintain a position that is ruinous and ultimately unsustainable.

Only time will tell how this matter will evolve. As of this moment, it wouldn’t be wise to bet long on the euro. Stupid ideas have a way of failing.

Will Germany Catch the Japanese Disease?

In September 2002 the Monthly Economic Review asked, “will the world follow Japan?” What was being suggested is a world of banking crises, prolonged recession and a deflationary cycle.

My own response to this poignant question is “no” since the United States, the economic engine for the globe, despite a downturn in capital markets, has solid fundamentals and a well-capitalized banking system. But it is also true that the U.S. cannot possibly bolster the world’s economy.

It would appear based on recent estimates that the globe’s third largest economy, Germany, may be sliding into a Japanese scenario. Germany’s working population is declining; after 2015 it will start dropping by over 1 percent a year, reducing the trend rate of output growth, which even today is not much more than 1 percent annually.

Moreover, the bear market in German equities has been worse than industrialized nations with 60 to 70 percent reductions from the peak of 2000. Markets in commercial and residential housing have been depressed for several years and the banking system’s loan collateral has been heavily eroded.

As the Japanese example has shown, adverse demographics (an aging population entering the ranks of the pensioners and a low birthrate below replacement level) along with a crippled banking system make it difficult to revive the German economy even with a zero interest rate.

German banks are presently suffering from poor operating profitability with loan losses in 2002 that will be the highest in over 50 years, exceeding operating profits by a fairly wide margin. The lack of capital in the banking system has been accomplished by a collapse in new credit extensions. Small and medium sized companies often complain of tight credit terms.

In principle, any discussion of German banking, money supply and inflation rate must consider Germany as a member of the Eurozone. Money assets held by German citizens are part of the Eurozone money supply. Similarly, the German deficit is presumably pegged to the limits established in the Maastricht Accord for the European Union, albeit the Bundesbank, which once insisted on the 3 percent debt limit, will exceed that rate this year.

After a period of relative affluence, the risks of deflation have only now penetrated the German psyche. The introduction of the euro created the false illusion that prices had increased, in large part because the ratio of money to GDP had risen, as was the case in other European nations.

But a new reality is setting in. Not only is deflation on the near horizon, but the working age population is starting to shrink. As a consequence, investors are giving careful consideration to the long-term implications for yields on assets such as equities and property, a factor that has contributed to the general market weakness.

The collapse in asset values has also been accompanied by a sharp increase in personal bankruptcies. Needless to say, this condition has adversely affected banks’ collateral at a time when the banking system does not have a cushion of healthy operating profitability to absorb these losses.

Is this the Japan malaise European style? It is too soon to say, but the numbers and trend lines are ominous. Moreover, Germany’s leadership in the European Union is a notable impediment for its economic recovery. For all its woes, Japan is relatively free to run a budget deficit or inflate its currency. Germany does not have the same room for maneuver.

By any standard, the German banking system is in serious trouble. Germany may not have caught the Japanese disease yet, but it is vulnerable to it in ways that were unthinkable five years ago.

For bankers sitting in Brussels’ offices contemplating monetary policy for the European Union, it would be wise to cast a watchful eye on the heavy losses in German banks. These losses could foreshadow a dramatic systemic failure from the most important E.U. member state, thereby bringing down the entire Eurozone like a house of cards.