Why Obama Should Read This Dead Greek Guy

I've decided to make anti-German jibes a regular feature of my blog posts, since it's such a relief. So, here we go again: If (and that's a big IF) Germans show any interest in their politicians, they are usually pondering serious qestions like "Does he dye his hair?", "With which TV anchor does he cheat on his wife?" or "Is it okay for the Bundeskanzlerin to wear a rose jacket when attending the Wagner Festspiele?"

And those philistine Americans? They ask: What should the next president read? Fancy that. I mean, c'mon, Gerhard Schroeder probably never got past the table of contents of "Macchiavelli for managers" and I bet, the only book he fully embraces is about the Soccer Worldchampionship 1974.

Anyhow, Dan Drezner has this advice for Obama:

I’d probably advise the president to read the uber-source for international relations, Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. (...) The entire text demonstrates the complex and tragic features of international politics, the folly of populism, the occasional necessity of forceful action, the temptations and dangers of empire, and, most importantly, the ways in which external wars can transform domestic politics in unhealthy ways.

And at that point my day job met my blogging pasttime head-on for the first time, since the other day, a member of the think tank I'm confined to sent me an essay to be posted on our website: Why President Obama Should Read Thucydides. (pdf)

Undecided? Dunno...

Color me an election '08 maniac. It'll probably end up with me living at Duesseldorf main station, mumbling curses at myself. Anyway, here we go again:

So here they are, three undecideds in one of the swingiest of swing states, just sittin' here, stewing in their undecidedness. What campaign canvasser wouldn't give her left arm to be here?

"Three Undecideds in a Diner" is a Cheever-ish, insightful little piece of literature. And then, there's the more prosaic take by Dane Stangler, who is torn between Obama and McCain, stating that the election has become "a referendum on Barack Obama" (obvy). A snippet:

As a matter of policy, I have great philosophical disagreements with Senator Obama. I and many other Americans do not think the tax code is or should be a vehicle for pursuing fairness. On health care, I tend to stand with Senator McCain in thinking that we may finally need to sever the link between health insurance and employment. McCain has consistently supported free trade, and while I can't believe that a man as intelligent as Obama would disbelieve the benefits of free trade, he has continuously made protectionist noise during the campaign.

But because of fiscal constraint and political reality, it is unlikely that either candidate will enjoy free rein to put his favored policies in place. So where should we look in evaluating what type of president Obama will be?

Finally, there are those who have already made up their minds (my emphasis):

So a canvasser goes to a woman's door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she's planning to vote for. She isn't sure, has to ask her husband who she's voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, "We're votin' for the n***er!"

Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: "We're voting for the n***er."

In this economy, racism is officially a luxury. How is John McCain going to win if he can't win those voters?

Well, the jury is still out on that one, as Dan Drezner points out:

While people with these kind of attitudes might be telling canvassers, pollsters, and reporters that they’re thinking of voting for Obama, I do wonder if that inclination will dissipate when they have to punch the ticket.

The other day, I got an, and I quote, "Einladung zum Election Breakfast". Do I want the race to be over by then? I'm undecided. An Obama landslide would be boring to watch. Then again, you can't swallow for-free food while biting your nails.

On Krugman Nobel Unhappiness

So, Paul Krugman was awarded the Sveriges Riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne aka Nobel Prize in economics - and Jess is "not happy". And she is not the only one. Then again, Megan McArdle:

One of the most interesting things that I've read in multiple commenters is that his most important insights seemed obvious. I think perhaps the deepest economics insights do--after someone has pointed them out. Everything from comparative advantage to the Coase Theorem makes you slap your head with the inescapable logic of it, and wonder how it can have escaped the human race for so long. And still, it takes a genius to reveal these obvious truths to the rest of us poor slobs. Krugman's math is far too impenetrable for this English major, but the conclusions are as clear and lovely as a bell.

And yesterday, I came across this:

(I also liked the "lukewarm sorta kinda dammit I hate to say this" presidential endorsement at the end of the session. Which did not exactly came as a surprise. I'd endorse a Drezner/Cowen ticket any time, btw.)