SACRIFICE:
It seems that this slogan (sacrifice) is starting to take hold among the Democrats of late, and I find it welcome.

I've heard it in at least two places recently. One was a Thomas Friedman column, in which, impersonating Saddam, he claimed that Bush was not prepared to lead America through the sacrifices necessary to win "the Mother of All Battles." The other was Al Franken, who justified his hatred for Bush by saying that after September 11th, when Americans were ready to start off the new century with new sacrifices, he gave them tax cuts and asked them to "go shopping."

"Sacrifice" is an odd angle from which to critique Bush, who has been willing to make considerable sacrifices, of soldiers' safety and lives, of the US fiscal position, for the sake of what he, along with most Americans, believes is right. It is especially odd for the Democrats because it is so un-Clintonesque: Clinton demanded nothing of Americans. He was the leader and the personification of a new Gilded Age of narcissistic prosperity. And the chief example of sacrifice that we have witnessed recently-- the ultimate sacrifice paid by a few hundred American soldiers for the sake of our safety and Iraqis' freedom-- was in a war which the leading Democratic candidate opposes.

But whether or not the Democrats are entitled to use it, "sacrifice" is an excellent slogan. That word, indeed, captures the moral advance which the Bush administration represents over the Clinton administration: Bush, who is liberating countries, increasing aid to Africa, promoting the Peace Corps, and so on, is calling on at least some Americans to turn their back on their lives of privilege and make sacrifices for the less fortunate.

The "sacrifice" that the Democrats chiefly demand is the repeal of the tax cut. I agree with them, and I would LOVE to hear someone make the link a bit more explicitly: if 20-year-old kids have the courage, the idealism, to make the ultimate sacrifice for freedom on the battlefields of Iraq, then we can ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a bigger tax bill too. In order to make this line of argument with any force, the Democrats would have to start by admitting, what the majority of Iraqis and of the American young understand, that the war in Iraq was a good thing.

The Democrats are confused and incoherent, and as I've said before, the Bush-hatred (as opposed to reasoned and sympathetic criticism) that is coming to constitute their vital essence is vicious, misguided, irrational snobbery, whose defeat and disgrace would be almost as welcome as that of Saddam Hussein. And yet their talk of "sacrifice" shows a streak of light amidst the darkness. If they are crushing badly enough in 2004 to be forced to do some deep soul-searching, they may even evolve, in time, into a force for good.

WHERE I DIFFER WITH BUSH:
I worry that in my scathing condemnation of Bush-hatred I will give the impression that I'm an across-the-board supporter of Bush. Not at all. Here are some critiques:

1. I do not agree with the black-and-white mentality of "You are either with us or you're against us." I prefer a subtler yet richer view of the world; not just shades of grey, but different colors, not just good and evil but different kinds of good and evil, and good-and-evil-mixed.

2. I do not think the suicide attackers of September 11th were cowards. I think they were very brave men, though misguided.

3. While I do not think the "axis of evil" was an overstatement, I would not have put Iran on the list. I actually kind of like Iran. This is a prejudice on my part, deriving from my admiration of Persian architecture when I was in Kabul and my fascination with the political experiment of a theocracy that holds elections. If I were president, the first thing I would do would be to engage Iran. I'd stun the world by showing up in Teheran the way Nixon did in China.

4. Bush is often praised for "moral clarity." I disagree. Bush has not risen above the moral compromises of power that perennially accompany the practice of politics. I don't blame him for that because no one else does either; on the contrary, I have an inkling that the Bush administration may have set in motion a moral transformation for the better, a moral transformation which has not run its course yet, but which I find fascinating, and the greatest source of hope for our world, even if it also poses some dangers. But "moral clarity" there is not, not by a long shot. I would rate Clinton higher on moral clarity than Bush: it was clear that his moral compass was a vacuum, and that goes for the zeitgeist of the Gilded Age America over which he presided as well.

5. The deficit. I oppose the deficit, and more generally I think Keynesian economics is obsolete. I oppose the tax cuts, and I oppose the increase in spending, but I care more about the solvency of government than its size.

6. Steel tariffs. I'm dead against them, but it looks like they're going to be dropped soon. Hurrah for the WTO! And three cheers for the Europeans, too!

7. Farm bill. Agriculture subsidies are a disgrace, a crime against humanity, ruining the livelihoods of millions of the poor. I loathe the farm bill.

8. Education. The No Child Left Behind Act, as far as I understand, was more of the depressingly dirigiste same. I've read that it may be working well as far as it goes. But we need a revolution: we need vouchers.

I disagree with Bush on a whole range of domestic policy, in fact in that regard I generally prefer Clinton; still, complaints about "the worst economy since the Great Depression" from the Democrats were insultingly false. Anyway, we're doing fine: a brief recession, and now booming growth, and hey, we haven't gotten any poorer since the late 1990s, we've just gotten richer at a slower pace, and we were already quite rich then. In foreign policy I have been inspired and dazzled by what Bush has achieved. He was right about Kyoto, whose economic harms far outweighed the environmental gains. His position on the ICC is fine by me, too: why set up a court for war crimes before you have the guts to consistently hunt down the people who commit them? And the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were the most inspiring, beautiful events since the fall of the Berlin Wall. I think Bush is clumsy at times, and a lousy negotiator. There are plenty of valid criticisms to be made. But no one should be allowed to criticize Bush until they have entered into, have comprehended, his full vision for the world. Most of Bush's critics can barely argue the case against him at all. If you're reading this blog and think you can justify Bush-hatred in an honest argument, please, BRING IT ON!

WHY "A GOOD SAMARITAN WORLD?"
All right, I want to say a word about what I mean by the title of this blog.

In our world, there are a fortunate few and an impoverished and destitute many. Some say that economic inequality is worse now than it has ever been. I am skeptical about this, but anyway, it's pretty bad. I've travelled a lot myself. I've been inside the apartment of a tour guide in southern China who had only two pairs of shoes, who could never listen to music, who had nothing to adorn her walls, only a bed, who had not been able to get a high school education because it was too expensive, who spent all her days walking the streets of the village looking for customers, who could hardly ever afford to go to the local internet cafe. I probably can't convey how profoundly I understood the difference between her opportunities and mine, and mine are less than some people's; there are plenty of statistics about economic inequality that might convey the point better than this story. I just wanted to say, it's personal.

Now let me describe two typical attitudes, each, let's say, "ideologically conditioned," towards this poverty.

The first is the arch-capitalist attitude. Yeah, they're poor, but don't guilt-trip me, it's not my fault. In some cases, it's their fault, for not working hard enough and taking advantage of opportunities, and for the corrupt and backward way in which they have structured their societies. Anyway, the market is the best solution; everyone will serve his own self-interest, and the invisible hand will create the best of all possible worlds. Greed is righteous.

The second is the post-Marxist attitude, personified by student demonstrators. We are rich because they are poor. From colonial times to the present day, the Europeans have exploited the rest of the world, first through colonial empires, now through the neo-colonial operations of multinational corporations, supported by the IMF and the World Bank. Our burden of guilt is heavy. We should pay out generous foreign aid as a small penance for what we've done.

Now I like the compassion of the second attitude, of the student demonstrators, but they have their facts wrong. Today's rich countries did not get where they are through exploitation, but through their own hard work, ingenuity, intelligent policy and social cohesion. Colonialism is badly misunderstood if it is seen as exploitation; while exploitation happened, the Kiplingesque ideal of the "white man's burden" to civilize the world also captures important truth. As far as their interpretation of the causes of wealth and poverty, the arch-capitalist is right.

But if we are not guilty of the poverty of poor countries, why should we help them? Why can't we just say, it's none of our business?

That's where the idea of the "Good Samaritan" comes in. In the Bible, a man is robbed and left lying wounded on the road; a priest and a Pharisee pass, and walk by on the other side of the road pretending not to see him, but then a Samaritan (despised neighbors of the Jews) comes and finds the man, brings him to an inn and pays for his room and board to make sure he recovers.

If we (rich countries) stand by and do not help poor countries, we are guilty not in Marxist fashion, as exploiters, but because, like the priest and the Pharisee, while acting dignified and high-principled, we are unfeeling towards our fellow men. We have an obligation based on our common humanity to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," as the Good Samaritan did.

What I want to see, or even to pioneer, is a "Good Samaritan ideology," which systematically applies to policy and public morality the idea that we have an obligation to help the poor of the earth. Some policy points:

-- Foreign aid. I support large increases in foreign aid. I oppose tying foreign aid with conditions that countries that use it purchase from American firms, (although, on the other hand, I don't mind biasing foreign aid in favor of US allies; that's another argument which I won't go into here.) I want to see foreign aid conducted carefully, with the recipient countries' interests truly in mind. In two years studying development I have seen plenty of the pitfalls of foreign aid, so I don't want to be interpreted as some uncritical enthusiast.

-- Immigration. Ultimately, I think migration should be not a privilege but a right. I support legal immigration and illegal immigration; illegal, because I consider immigration laws to be unjust laws to which civil disobedience is appropriate. I would like to see the US explore mutual open-borders treaties. The right to migrate should be reconceived as a human right, an essential part of freedom, and if revolutionary means are necessary to achieve this, so be it.

-- Balance the budget. Heavy borrowing by the US treasury drives up interest rates worldwide, which is damaging to development. Fiscal conservatism is part of development. If this seems to clash with my support for more foreign aid, I think plenty of revenues could be generate by a small tax hike for the rich, high inheritance taxes, Social Security reform and other measures...

-- Regime change. Stupid, wicked, malevolent tyrannies are a cause of poverty and suffering in many countries. These are legitimized by the UN and the sort of international law over which it presides. That's why I'm so enthusiastic about Iraq.

Now George W. Bush is not exactly the incarnation of this Good Samaritan ideology. But he's doing a lot of things right-- aid to Africa, liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan, a humiliation of the UN and then an effort to lure it back to the good path-- and he seems to be moving closer to it, as evidenced by his excellent pro-democracy speech a couple of weeks ago. In fact, "compassionate conservatism" is not such a bad label for just the kind of Good Samaritan ideology I'm advocating. So while my allegiance is by no means fixed fast, for now, as a humanitarian, I cast my lot with George Bush.

OUR ECONOMY ENCOURAGES TOO MUCH DEBT
Student loans, housing loans, credit cards... Americans can borrow money more easily than anyone in the world it seems to me, and for the most part, it's a blessing. But we're taking it too far. Debt is bad, not just in the obvious way of being negative property, but because it makes us more vulnerable, which in turn constrains macroeconomic policy. Our profligacy spills over into an unsustainable trade deficit.

I'm not sure how much policy can do to influence people's borrowing habits. But at least the government should drop certain pro-borrowing policies. Take the mortgage-interest tax deduction. It's a benefit that goes to the wrong people-- the middle class-- and it makes the saver a sucker. Why should I save up to buy a home and lose all those juicy tax deductions? Same goes for studying.

We should phase out the mortgage-interest tax deduction, as well as similar tax deductions for student debt etc., and make people save more. This applies to Social Security and retirement a fortiori.

SOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT
People at the World Bank are always wondering: Are we really doing any good? Are we improving the lives of the poor, for all the work that we do? Non-Bank staff asked the question, too, in a rather different tone: Why should World Bank staffers get to manipulate policy in the developing world? Isn't that an infringement of sovereignty? If it leads to better policies, that's an argument, but does it? Are those World Bank people really so much smarter than people in the countries where they work? Can't locals run their own countries better than foreign technocrats? This bothered Bank staffers too. Implicit in our job, in the way we earn our bread and butter, is a presumption that we are smart enough to recommend policies better than what poor countries could recommend for themselves, and because of this superior intellect we are justified in using financial leverage to control what they do. Naturally this leads to self-doubt, particularly at a time when the "neoliberal" "Washington Consensus" of policy prescriptions has been somewhat discredited: Are we really as smart as all that?

So, I wanted to say a word on the role of an institution like the Bank. I think the Bank has already moved a long way in this direction, so this is partly further exhortation, partly information for outsiders.

The philosopher Socrates, as portrayed by his disciple Plato, claimed to know nothing. But his searching questions, which displayed at least a restless and incisive mind, stimulated his disciples to reason, to draw conclusions, to question their assumptions as they would never have been able to do without his influence.

I see the role of "technocrats" like those at the World Bank something like this. Because there is no magic policy formula for prosperity, because good institutions should be rooted in local traditions and conditions, and because local people will understand those better than foreign Bank staffers can, it is not really appropriate for us to be prescribing policy. Even if our financial leverage or our prestige, combined with a lack of self-confidence on the part of Third World policymakers, leads them to willingly accept our prescriptions, policies which they did not develop themselves are likely to be mis-adapted. No, we should be like Socrates, not dictating but asking probing questions, guiding the reasoning, drawing upon the store of knowledge which local people have and helping them to analyze their way to policy solutions.