In “The Reluctant Leader” Bobo says President Obama’s obvious reluctance about expanding the attack on ISIS may be his greatest asset. Mr. Cohen, in “Auchtermuchty to England,” says it may not be a bad thing if the Scots go it alone. But it’s still uncertain whether an independent Scotland would cut it. Apparently he hasn’t been reading what Prof. Krugman has had to say… In “The Inflation Cult” Prof. Krugman says we’re still trying to figure out the persistence and power of the people who keep predicting runaway inflation. Here’s Bobo:
Moses, famously, tried to get out of it. When God called on him to lead the Israelites, Moses threw up a flurry of reasons he was the wrong man for the job: I’m a nobody; I don’t speak well; I’m not brave.
But the job was thrust upon him. Though he displayed some of the traits you’d expect from a guy who would rather be back shepherding (passivity, whining), he became a great leader. He became the ultimate model for reluctant leadership.
The Bible is filled with reluctant leaders, people who did not choose power but were chosen for it — from David to Paul. The Bible makes it clear that leadership is unpredictable: That the most powerful people often don’t get to choose what they themselves will do. Circumstances thrust certain responsibilities upon them, and they have no choice but to take up their assignment.
History is full of reluctant leaders, too. President Obama is the most recent. He recently gave a speech on the need to move away from military force. He has tried to pivot away from the Middle East. He tried desperately to avoid the Syrian civil war.
But as he said in his Nobel Peace Prize lecture, “Evil does exist in the world.” No American president could allow a barbaric caliphate to establish itself in the middle of the Middle East.
Obama is compelled as a matter of responsibility to override his inclinations. He’s obligated to use force, to propel himself back into the Middle East, to work with rotten partners like the dysfunctional Iraqi Army and the two-faced leaders of Qatar. He’s compelled to provide functional assistance to the rancid Syrian regime by attacking its enemies.
The defining characteristic of a reluctant leader is that he is self-divided. He feels compelled to do things he’d rather not do. This self-division can come in negative and positive forms.
The unsuccessful reluctant leader isn’t really motivated to perform the tasks assigned to him. The three essential features of political leadership, Max Weber wrote, are passion, responsibility and judgment. The unsuccessful reluctant leader is passionless. His actions are halfhearted. Look at President Obama’s decision to surge troops into Afghanistan at the same instant he announced their withdrawal date. That’s a reluctant leader undercutting himself. If Obama approaches this campaign that way then he will withdraw as soon as the Iraqi government stumbles, or the Iraqi Army fails to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria on the ground.
The successful reluctant leader, on the other hand, is fervently motivated by his own conscience. He forces himself to embrace the fact that while this is not the destiny he would have chosen, it is his duty and he will follow it to the end.
This kind of reluctant leader has some advantages over a full-throated, unreluctant crusader. Unlike George W. Bush in 2003, he’s not carried away by righteous fervor. The successful reluctant leader can be selfless. He’s not doing the work because it’s the expression of his inner being. He’s just an instrument for the completion of a nasty job.
The reluctant leader can be realistic about goals. President Obama can be under no illusions that he is going to solve the Middle East’s fundamental problems, but at least he can degrade ISIS the way we degraded Al Qaeda. Sometimes just preventing something bad — like the fall of the Jordanian regime — is noble enough, even if negative victories don’t exactly get you in the history books.
The reluctant leader can be skeptical. There’s a reason President Obama didn’t want to get involved in this conflict. Our power to manage history in the region is limited. But sometimes a reluctant leader can make wise decisions precisely because he’s aware of his limitations. If you’re going to begin a military campaign in an Arab country, you probably want a leader who’d rather not do it.
The reluctant leader can be dogged. Sometimes when you’re engaged in an unpleasant task, you just put your head down and trudge relentlessly forward. You don’t have to worry about coming down from prewar euphoria because you never felt good about this anyway.
The reluctant leader can be collaborative. He didn’t want his task, so he’s eager to share it. The Arab world can fully trust that Obama doesn’t have any permanent designs on their region because the guy is dying to wash his hands of the whole place as soon as possible.
Everybody is weighing in on the strengths and weaknesses of the Obama strategy. But the strategy will change. The crucial factor is the man. This is the sternest test of Obama’s leadership skills since the early crises of his presidency. If he sticks to this self-assigned duty, and pursues it doggedly, he can be a successful reluctant leader. Sometimes the hardest victories are against yourself.
In the comments “ScottW” from Chapel Hill, NC had this to say: “What we really need are more “reluctant columnists” who realize since they were so wrong about the Iraq war 11 years ago, they should put away their pens and not comment about the current situation.” Oh, if only… Now here’s Mr. Cohen, writing from Auchtermuchty, Scotland:
“Conservatives only come to Scotland to shoot grouse, do they not?”
That was the withering verdict of John Latham as he enjoyed a pint in the Cycle Tavern in Auchtermuchty. Locals say southerners have trouble with the name, which means uplands of the wild boar, flattening the guttural “chhh” to a “k” and failing to deploy “plenty of spittle.” Be that as it may, Latham’s dismissal of English Tories is near universal in Scotland, where just over four million voters will decide next week on whether to opt for independence and cast Great Britain into the dustbin of history.
The news would trend on Twitter. Great Britain has had a pretty good run since it was formed by the union of Scotland and England in 1707.
David Cameron, the British prime minister, is a Tory, of course. That is part of the problem. To Scots he is the spoon-fed “rich toff” from Central Casting who never knew the price of a loaf of bread. He’s the emblem of a money-oozing London that has lost touch with the rest of the country.
Scotland wants to do things another way. It sees itself as a Scandinavia-like bastion of social democracy in the making: Norway with whisky. That, at least, is the vision of Alex Salmond, the charismatic leader of the Scottish National Party. Whether an independent Scotland would have the money for comprehensive welfare is another question. Salmond is skirting that for now. A mist of vagueness hovers over how an independent Scotland would cut it. He has a new favorite line in these frenetic last days: “Team Scotland against Team Westminster.”
“Team Westminster,” it has to be said, is giving a convincing impression of panic as the Sept. 18 vote approaches. Several polls now show the referendum as too close to call. Cameron’s complacency over a comfortable “No” vote has vanished. The pound is slumping.
The Saltire, or Scottish flag, was abruptly hoisted over 10 Downing Street, the prime minister’s residence. Cameron zoomed up to Scotland to declare it’s not about “the effing Tories” but love of a country he would be “heartbroken” to lose. Ed Miliband, the opposition Labour leader, also discovered his inner Scotland. He hurtled north to deliver an impassioned appeal. Nick Clegg, Cameron’s Liberal Democrat sidekick in the coalition government, said something; just what nobody can remember. Gordon Brown, a Scot and former prime minister, was wheeled out to say maximum devolution of powers would begin on Sept. 19 if Scotland only sticks with Britain.
All of which has caused amusement in Auchtermuchty and beyond. “If we’re going to fail on our own, why are they so concerned?” said Stephanie Murphy, as she poured another pint. “Aye,” said Latham, “If they want us so bad, maybe we should go.” The sudden Westminster flurry smacks of too little, too late.
Still, going it alone is a risk. “I have a pension, I don’t want to lose it,” said Andrew Dewar. “You’ve got 16-year-old first-time voters watching ‘Braveheart’ and believing we’ll be fine. Salmond says we’ll be like Norway. Well, in Norway a pint costs nine pounds — so hopefully not!” Debbie Marton suggested that, “Maybe we could have a trial period!” That won’t happen: The decision will be binding.
Some Scots have not forgotten that the union of 1707 came about in part because Scotland was bankrupt, having embarked on a mad-cat scheme, now known as the “Darien Disaster,” in a Panamanian malarial swamp.
Scots poured money into the Darien Company believing the Panamanian outpost would turn the country into a giant of global trade. Instead, many met a quick death — as did the project.
My non-scientific survey of voters in St. Andrews, Auchtermuchty and Edinburgh found many people still undecided, torn between a heart that says “yes” and a mind that says “no.” They’d love to “set England afloat” but worry what would happen to pensions, the National Health Service, jobs, the currency and membership in the European Union. Latham, a wine salesman, is hesitant himself, but says, “It’s one of those wee chances in life you may just have to take.”
The truth is nobody knows the answers to all the questions because nobody thought it would come to this. Cameron and Salmond have both been reckless. Now there is an almost surreal quality to Great Britain’s possible demise.
I blame Cameron above all. His deluded rhetoric about possible withdrawal from the European Union, his lack of feel for ordinary people and his glib marketer’s patter over matters great and small have all smacked of little-England smugness — so Scots have every right to make England as little as it often acts. The union’s history is a great one. Its end would be sad. But Scotland has what it takes. The good sense and tolerance that marked the union would in the end prevail across the new border.
Now here’s Prof. Krugman:
Wish I’d said that! Earlier this week, Jesse Eisinger of ProPublica, writing on The Times’s DealBook blog, compared people who keep predicting runaway inflation to “true believers whose faith in a predicted apocalypse persists even after it fails to materialize.” Indeed.
Economic forecasters are often wrong. Me, too! If an economist never makes an incorrect prediction, he or she isn’t taking enough risks. But it’s less common for supposed experts to keep making the same wrong prediction year after year, never admitting or trying to explain their past errors. And the remarkable thing is that these always-wrong, never-in-doubt pundits continue to have large public and political influence.
There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear. But as regular readers know, I’ve been trying to figure it out, because I think it’s important to understand the persistence and power of the inflation cult.
Whom are we talking about? Not just the shouting heads on CNBC, although they’re certainly part of it. Rick Santelli, famous for his 2009 Tea Party rant, also spent much of that year yelling that runaway inflation was coming. It wasn’t, but his line never changed. Just two months ago, he told viewers that the Federal Reserve is “preparing for hyperinflation.”
You might dismiss the likes of Mr. Santelli, saying that they’re basically in the entertainment business. But many investors didn’t get that memo. I’ve had money managers — that is, professional investors — tell me that the quiescence of inflation surprised them, because “all the experts” predicted that it would surge.
And it’s not as easy to dismiss the phenomenon of obsessive attachment to a failed economic doctrine when you see it in major political figures. In 2009, Representative Paul Ryan warned about “inflation’s looming shadow.” Did he reconsider when inflation stayed low? No, he kept warning, year after year, about the coming “debasement” of the dollar.
Wait, there’s more: You find the same Groundhog Day story when you look at the pronouncements of seemingly reputable economists. In May 2009, Allan Meltzer, a well-known monetary economist and historian of the Federal Reserve, had an Op-Ed article published in The Times warning that a sharp rise in inflation was imminent unless the Fed changed course. Over the next five years, Mr. Meltzer’s preferred measure of prices rose at an annual rate of only 1.6 percent, and his response was published in another op-ed article, this time in The Wall Street Journal. The title? “How the Fed Fuels the Coming Inflation.”
So what’s going on here?
I’ve written before about how the wealthy tend to oppose easy money, perceiving it as being against their interests. But that doesn’t explain the broad appeal of prophets whose prophecies keep failing.
Part of that appeal is clearly political; there’s a reason why Mr. Santelli yells about both inflation and how President Obama is giving money away to “losers,” why Mr. Ryan warns about both a debased currency and a government that redistributes from “makers” to “takers.” Inflation cultists almost always link the Fed’s policies to complaints about government spending. They’re completely wrong about the details — no, the Fed isn’t printing money to cover the budget deficit — but it’s true that governments whose debt is denominated in a currency they can issue have more fiscal flexibility, and hence more ability to maintain aid to those in need, than governments that don’t.
And anger against “takers” — anger that is very much tied up with ethnic and cultural divisions — runs deep. Many people, therefore, feel an affinity with those who rant about looming inflation; Mr. Santelli is their kind of guy. In an important sense, I’d argue, the persistence of the inflation cult is an example of the “affinity fraud” crucial to many swindles, in which investors trust a con man because he seems to be part of their tribe. In this case, the con men may be conning themselves as well as their followers, but that hardly matters.
This tribal interpretation of the inflation cult helps explain the sheer rage you encounter when pointing out that the promised hyperinflation is nowhere to be seen. It’s comparable to the reaction you get when pointing out that Obamacare seems to be working, and probably has the same roots.
But what about the economists who go along with the cult? They’re all conservatives, but aren’t they also professionals who put evidence above political convenience? Apparently not.
The persistence of the inflation cult is, therefore, an indicator of just how polarized our society has become, of how everything is political, even among those who are supposed to rise above such things. And that reality, unlike the supposed risk of runaway inflation, is something that should scare you.