Greece: The Economic Crisis Continues (Christodoulou)

Eleni Christodoulou writes for EA:

It was only last week, after panic and media outbursts over the financial crisis, that the words "good", "progress", and even "strong began to appear beside "Greece". This combination, almost an oxymoron to our ears, came after an assessment by a team from the European Union, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund, preceded by a two-week audit, in which the lenders said Greece had made “impressive” progress in revamping its economy, from restructuring pensions to overhauling the tax system.

This report cleared the way for Athens to receive the next installment of its bailout package. The New York Times described it as "the latest sign that the crisis surrounding European finances was starting to ebb". The BBC reported, "Greece's efforts to tackle its public deficit have had a 'strong start', the International Monetary Fund and European Union have said."

The report added that the Greek government had made "impressive" efforts regarding structural reforms, trimming pensions and continuing efforts to reform the labour market. "The programme has made remarkable progress," said Servaas Deroose, a representative for the European Commission.

Earlier this year, the media was flooded by negative waves of heavy criticism, fear of potential spread of the crisis, and even hostility against Greece –--- both the state and its people. Pessimism loomed, and it seemed that Greece’s default was inevitable, a financial disaster simply waiting to happen.

Gradually a decline in these media outbursts became apparent, reflecting perhaps a period of behind-the-scenes workings between Greek and international financial and political experts. Still, an editorial of The New York Times criticised European leaders for going "from panic to complacency" in a few months and warned that there is no time for such attitudes as "the eurozone crisis is not over".

Complacency was followed by optimism and relief, only for the short-lived nature of this euphoria to be exposed. Stories are once again placing Greece side-by-side with gloomy verbs and nouns: "shrank", "decline", and, of course, "unemployment".

The BBC, headlining, "Greek Economy Shrinks a Further 1.5%", says a further contraction of the Greek economy in the second quarter of the year suggests an accelerated rate of recession. Reduced government spending, an outcome of the aggressive austerity policies, accompanied not only a decline in Gross Domestic Product but also a continuing rise in unemployment figures.

According to the Greek Statistics Agency, there was a rise of 43.2% in the number of unemployed in May, compared with the same month last year. This effectively means 181,784 people who were employed in 2009 are now without a job. Even worse, unemployment is due to rise further.

Anyone who lives in Greece has a drama of job loss to tell, either their own story or that of a person related to them. More than one in three in the 15-24 age bracket are out of work: that should worry the social services, given that a high proportion of those involved in violence during the recent strikes were youngsters.

The latest strike, that of the Greek truck drivers, paralysed the country for almost a week. The strike, which began on 25 July at the height of the holiday season, protested planned reforms aimed at liberalising the freight industry. The havoc created by the lack of fuel not only affected citizens who could not get to their jobs but also destroyed food exports, such as the peach industry, and crippled the tourist industry, leaving thousands stranded at their destinations. The government was forcedin the end to call in the army to ensure supplies of fuel to airports, hospitals, and power stations and to halt the devastating effect on the already burdened economy.

Meanwhile, the editor of the Greek newspaper ‘H KAΘHMEPINH’ argues that ‘the intensity of true public discontent has been surprisingly low’. This statement, given the prevailing chaos and violence which resulted in the death of four innocent people working in a bank, seems overly optimistic. Even if there is relative tolerance of the existing austerity cuts, the long-term effects of reduced wages and pensions are more likely to be felt in the following months. The more the discontent, the greater the resistance. And the less that the state claims it can do, the more the people will turn to past offenders who are perceived to have led the country into the brink of bankruptcy.

Although many lists of tax evaders (including doctors and lawyers) have been published by the media, arrests for corruption, tax avoidance, and money laundering have yet to be made. And until the perpetrators are brought to justice, Greek society remains volatile, even during this holiday mood.

A popular Greek blog ‘Fimotro’ wrote about a telling event that occurred this week in a fish tavern in Paros, one of the Cyclades Islands). When a Greek couple finished eating, they took their bill to the nearby table where Dimitris Sioufas, the former President of the Greek Parliament under the conservative party of Nea Dimokratia, was dining with colleagues. The couple placed the bill in front of the politicians’ plates and shouted, "Take it, and pay it using the stolen money."

US v. Britain: History, Education, and "Big Ideas" in Politics (Haddigan)

Lee Haddigan writes for EA:

For me, one of the fascinations of US politics is the nation’s continual fight over the same issues using the same arguments. Contemporary disputes are fought on the ground of precedent and tradition, example and intent dating back 50, 100, 150, and, ultimately, the 221 years since the ratification of the Constitution. No other country pays as much attention to the relevance of historical events to current affairs than the United States.

And, contrary to some opinion in Europe, America’s reliance on the past as a guide to the future is not a smokescreen for hiding the country’s overriding preoccupation with material interests. The United States, unlike European nations, still believes that political differences rest on contrasting fundamental assumptions about the philosophical justifications for the ways an individual is governed. Thomas Paine wrote, as America sought independence from Britain, that "government is a necessary evil". That sentiment may have died out in Europe, bit it animates debate in the US.

Take, for instance, the contentious subject of education. In America, discussion nearly always reverts to the principle of who has the right --- the federal government or parents --- to provide for the instruction of the young. An argument is brewing right now over the proposed introduction in each state of a standardised curriculum designed by Washington.

Opponents of the reform question the measure on many fronts, but the foundation of their disquiet with the policy is the claimed opportunity for the federal government to "indoctrinate" pupils against the wishes of local communities. Parents, it is argued, have the right to decide what their children learn in school, with the tradition in the US that schools are paid for by local property taxes and controlled by locally-elected school boards. One of the Tea Party’s policies for returning America to its vision of a limited government is to eliminate the Federal Department of Education, leaving education completely in the hands of local elected officials.

The right of the State Government in deciding how the young receive their instruction underlies all debates on the issue. The recent "Textbook Wars" in Texas, where state administrators acrimoniously debated in an open forum the correct teaching material, was a bewildering spectacle for many in Europe.

In Britain, the choice of what is taught in classrooms is left to an unelected bureaucracy in the Government and, except for a few brave souls, any deviation from that assumption is regarded as heretical delusion. The State takes almost complete control of the curriculum and the standards that assess student achievement. No mainstream party, or political persuasion, opposes on principle the right of the Government to dictate how and what students are taught. This leads in Britain to incredulity that greets the news that Creationism is taught in some classes in America and included in the curriculum because parents want it there.

Last week I discovered that a judge in Virginia is allowing the state’s legal challenge to Obama’s healthcare legislation because it raises constitutional concerns about the legitimate scope of the Commerce Clause (unless you are forced to do so, never --- trust me --- try to understand the Commerce Clause). One newsletter in my in-box proclaimed Virginia as having no case, citing numerous constitutional experts; another argued that the state had an ironclad argument, quoting (you guessed it) several experts on the dreaded Commerce Clause.

I also learned that conservatives are questioning the "equal protection", under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, of so-called "Anchor Babies". These are children who are granted citizenship in the United States because they are born here, even if the parents are illegal immigrants. Some websites agreed with the contention that not all babies born in the United States are entitled to equal protection of the laws; inevitably, some opposed this view. But both, side justified their opposing opinions with the extensive use of quotations from individuals involved in the decision to ratify the 14th Amendment in 1868.

I found out that some Tea Party organizations are calling for repeal of the 17th Amendment. This change to the Constitution (1913) allowed citizens to directly elect senators to Congress, replacing the tradition of state legislatures deciding who represented voters’ interests in the upper house in Washington. More a philosophical dispute over the power of the majority in a democracy than a strictly constitutional matter, this debate was accompanied by discussion of the intent of the authors of the Federalist Papers, written in the late 18th century, against the "progressive" impulse that led to the passing of the Amendment.

And then I was informed by Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, that my help was needed to stop Democrats from using the forthcoming session of Congress to pass controversial liberal legislation. Gingrich did not refer the reader to recent examples; instead, he directed attention to the Federalists passing the Judiciary Act in 1800 to handicap the incoming administration of Thomas Jefferson.

The United States still, and almost unconsciously, centres political debates around ideas, big Ideas about democracy that involve the "rights" of the people and the "responsibility" of the individual and that rely on explanations of the nation’s past to supply their context. I received more political discussion based on historical concerns this morning than I would get from watching the BBC for a year.

When I explain to friends in Britain that I study American history they generally reply along the lines of "Why? They don’t have any history." And when I was studying in the US, the usual response of American friends was, "Why? When you have so much more history to appreciate over there."

In Britain, history is an antiquarian pursuit that does not affect contemporary affairs. We have old buildings, a Queen, some quaint social traditions, a venerable if ineffective State religion, and more old buildings.

Last year, the Conservative member of Parliament David Davies resigned his seat in protest at the Labour Government’s encroachments on Britain’s traditional liberties, including the right of habeas corpus, the cornerstone of legal rights of British (and American) citizens. For his principled and legitimate stand, he became a laughingstock in the British media, criticised for wasting the time and money of his constituents who faced the "ordeal" of having to stage another election for the now vacant seat. (Davies stood for election again on the principles over which he resigned. He won, but with the result raising barely a murmur in news reports.)

The parlous condition of politics as a philosophy in Britain is indicated by the fact that the last two books of worth, "The Case for Conservatism" by Quentin Hogg, and George Orwell’s "1984", were published in 1947 and 1948 respectively. Ironically, 1948 also saw the publication of Richard Weaver’s "Ideas Have Consequences" in the US. It was a book that helped to introduce to intellectuals in America the importance of ideas in political change, at the same time that Britain, unknowingly, ended its proud contribution to the tradition of political theory.

In America, history and political philosophy are still a vibrant part of political discussion vital to how --- for those who are interested --- an individual chooses a position on the validity of universal healthcare, welfare, electoral reform, taxation, and all the issues that appear again and again as the subject of political contention.

Whether that is an admirable trait in America’s enduring attempt to determine how to construct a virtuous society is debatable. Race and religion, for instance, still influence American politics in ways that many find perplexing. And the role of a partisan media in provoking dissension, especially to those who see the "neutral" standards of the BBC as the correct way to present the news, also disturbs many.

But for good or ill, history, or more accurately the individual American’s conceptions of the past, determines the content of contemporary US politics in ways that other countries have discarded. As a result, that American politics possesses a depth of philosophical argument about the role of the government in our lives that Europeans, for all their dismissals of the shallowness of opinion in the US, would do well to learn from.