But it looks like the terms of the agreement are even more strict than what they rejected in their popular referendum.
Well, it seems that being completely out of money will do wonderful things to focus the desire to make a deal. In reality, the Greek government had no choice. They could accept the deal and keep themselves afloat a while longer (until this money also inevitably runs out) and deal with the consequences of having to tell the Greek people "yeah, about that referendum..." later, or not take the bailout and simply collapse now. It is still my considered opinion that by continuing to kick the can down the road, they're just making the (inevitable) collapse worse. But those in power in Greece wish to remain in power for as long as they can. But mark my words, they're finished one way or the other. The people who elected and supported them will see this as a rank betrayal (and honestly, rightly so; you can't claim to run on rejecting austerity measures only to accept even harsher ones without consequence), and the ones who didn't support them in the first place are certainly not going to suddenly change their mind in favor of saying "I told you so."
So having turned to the far-left and having them fold, I now expect the Greeks to turn to the far-right, who will fare no better, but will at least give the people a scapegoat of Jews and foreigners to blame. And that will pretty much end as it always does. So, we still have that phase of this tragedy to look forward to.
They should have followed Farage's advice. They'd have been better off being poorer, but free.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're right -- this is a betrayal of the voters. This government deserves to lose power. I don't know why this is so difficult. You run on a platform, people elect you, you enact that platform. You don't sell out what your promises to your people in favor of loyalty to international agendas. That's what democratic legitimacy means. Does anyone still have a government where the elected parties do what they promised to do instead of what the IMF/UN/EU/Davos wants them to do?
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone still have a government where the elected parties do what they promised to do instead of what the IMF/UN/EU/Davos wants them to do?
ReplyDeleteGrim, this presupposed an informed electorate that doesn't exist anywhere except in people's imaginations. One that is willing to pay the price of what they say they want. Do you really believe the Greek electorate was willing to be, as you so eloquently put it, "poorer, but free"? If they were, they were betrayed. If they weren't actually willing to honestly face the pricetag, then they may not have been. I think this is the single best thing I've read on this topic:
The radical left-wing Syriza party started in January heroically declaring the Troika unwelcome in Athens and the final €7.2 billion ($8.04 billion) of the previous bailout unwanted. Now Syriza is asking for a new bailout worth more than €80 billion and accepting far stricter conditions to get it. Syriza supporters liked to complain that Greece was a debt colony under previous governments. The Syriza government has done its best to make it one.
During these five months, the party has resorted to a steady drumbeat of propaganda in order to convince voters Syriza is an improvement on its predecessors. Unlike previous governments during the crisis era, the story went, Mr. Tsipras and his team were willing to stand up to Greece’s creditors instead of bowing to their demands. But the way they did this was part of the problem: The Europeans wanted to hear detailed reform plans and to see how the budget numbers would add up. Instead they were inundated with talk of fiscal waterboarding and claims for Nazi war reparations. The prime minister triumphed in the July 5 referendum by convincing voters that a “no” to the creditors’ proposals was the only vote consistent with Greek pride and dignity.
... Pride and dignity can mean that we feel a sense of belonging to the world’s most developed club, not a constant insecurity about our place there and a suspicion of the foreigners we claim are the authors of our misfortune. From the feeling of belonging, there should stem a sense of shame at how we’ve flouted the rules and failed to prepare ourselves for the rigors of euro membership. Pride could then be reclaimed through the hard work of rebuilding our institutions and our economy so that it thrives in the demanding and flawed arrangement that is the eurozone.
If they're willing to forego using other people's money, they can (as you have observed) do whatever they want. What they can't do is demand the right to other people's money while refusing those people's entirely justified concerns regarding the terms of the loan.
Demogoguery is easy. Facing reality (or even knowing what reality demands) is far, far harder. Canada's an example of a country that faced reality and scaled back the welfare state to preserve its most critical provisions. Greece hasn't shown anyone they're capable of that yet. How much confidence do you have that (a) The voters who elected this government were voting for no further bailout? (b) The current government has a plan for going it alone?
The false choice presented to the electorate was, "We'll continue on as we have, and the Eurozone will continue funding our overspending with no troublesome tradeoffs." Anyone who voted for that is just plain nuts.
Link: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-two-kinds-of-pride-before-greeces-fall-1436811378
Grim, this presupposed an informed electorate that doesn't exist anywhere except in people's imaginations. One that is willing to pay the price of what they say they want. Do you really believe the Greek electorate was willing to be, as you so eloquently put it, "poorer, but free"?
ReplyDeleteSo that's it, then? Honest democracy presumes a kind of electorate that "doesn't exist anywhere." Therefore, we should accept the rule by an elite that lies to gain votes, then does whatever it wants (or, more often, whatever it is paid to do).
If those are the terms, what is needed is not another election.
Part of this depends on what you think the Greeks were voting for or against. The NYT sez this is the English text of the ballot proposal:
ReplyDeleteShould the deal draft that was put forward by the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund in the Eurogroup of June 25, 2015, and consists of two parts, that together form a unified proposal, be accepted? The first document is titled “Reforms for the Completion of the Current Program and Beyond” and the second “Preliminary Debt Sustainability Analysis.”
which is authentic Euro-gibberish, but when read literally just asks whether the deal should be accepted or not. You could vote No and still be willing to take a slightly different deal, or want to abandon the Euro and try to pay the loans back, or want to repudiate the debt and have Greece go its own way. (Or want to repudiate the debt and have the EU give Greece moar money in perpetuity.)
The point being that we can't tell from the vote what the Greeks wanted or thought they were voting on. Going back and negotiating a new deal is within the logical outcomes from a No vote.
(And as a side note: if we assume the Greeks actually do want the "moar money but not have to pay back the debt" option, I'm not sure what you do as a representative if your electorate wants the impossible and won't hear reason. Electorate: "We want a flying pony in every garage!" Representative: "Buh?")
Electorate: "We want a flying pony in every garage!" Representative: "Buh?"
ReplyDeleteI suppose you run on the promise to pursue flying-pony technology. However, you don't run promising the pony even though you know you can't possibly deliver it.
We see the same thing in America, these days, especially from Republicans: it's what some on the Right are now calling "failure theater." "Oh, of course we oppose Obamacare/Mass-Immigration/whatever! We'll take every step possible to stop them, except the ones that would work. Those we'll somehow fall just short of achieving."
Syriza promised flying ponies, because that was the sure way to get elected. And I don't even doubt that they actually MEANT to get flying ponies for everyone... until they actually got put in charge. And suddenly, they are given the reins of power and discover... shocker... there are no flying ponies to be had. Now, at this point, I think all of us agree that the responsible thing for such a government to do is have an open an honest conversation with the electorate. "Look, we know we promised flying ponies, but all those years our opposition said there were no such things, we just assumed they hadn't looked hard enough, or that they were keeping all the flying ponies for themselves. But honestly? It really looks like they were telling the truth. Sorry."
ReplyDeleteInstead, they looked around, saw no flying ponies and said, "Hey everyone, we're working REALLY hard on getting those flying ponies out to you, just remember, those mean folks who told you there were none? They were just lying to you like we said. Those ponies are coming any day now." And it just made the whole situation worse.
Now, honestly, if all they had done was promise something that didn't exist, that would just be ridiculous. Instead what they promised was much more insidious. They promised unlimited amounts of other people's money that would never come due. And if it's one thing socialists truly believe in, more than anything else, is that the supply of other people's money is endless. So to them, it was a reasonable lie to tell.
Part of this depends on what you think the Greeks were voting for or against. The NYT sez this is the English text of the ballot proposal:
ReplyDeleteShould the deal draft that was put forward by the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund in the Eurogroup of June 25, 2015, and consists of two parts, that together form a unified proposal, be accepted? The first document is titled “Reforms for the Completion of the Current Program and Beyond” and the second “Preliminary Debt Sustainability Analysis.”
Are you suggesting that voters may not have actually read both documents before voting???? :)
/running away
To Grim's point:
So that's it, then? Honest democracy presumes a kind of electorate that "doesn't exist anywhere." Therefore, we should accept the rule by an elite that lies to gain votes, then does whatever it wants (or, more often, whatever it is paid to do).
The second sentence does not follow from the first.
It's hardly irrational (much less surprising) for the average voter not to possess an in-depth understanding/knowledge of complex policy proposals for the restructuring of debt.
It does not logically follow that if most voters aren't that well informed, we must accept lying and demagoguery. And such critiques of representative government were well known in the time of the Founders (as well as widely acknowledged).
Syriza promised flying ponies, because that was the sure way to get elected. And I don't even doubt that they actually MEANT to get flying ponies for everyone... until they actually got put in charge. And suddenly, they are given the reins of power and discover... shocker... there are no flying ponies to be had. Now, at this point, I think all of us agree that the responsible thing for such a government to do is have an open an honest conversation with the electorate. "Look, we know we promised flying ponies, but all those years our opposition said there were no such things, we just assumed they hadn't looked hard enough, or that they were keeping all the flying ponies for themselves. But honestly? It really looks like they were telling the truth. Sorry."
ReplyDeleteOops! :p
The Spousal unit and I have been listening to Gates' book on CD. We just got to the part about the turnover from Bush to Obama, and he talks a lot about all the folks in the incoming administration who were just SURE closing Gitmo was a simple task... until they got into office and found out everything that was involved in the real world implementation of their pipe dreams.
Turns out it was a LOT harder than they thought. Who could *possibly* have foreseen such an outcome? :)
Cass:
ReplyDeleteThe second sentence does not follow from the first.
OK, let's go over this and see where I'm going wrong in following your argument. I said this:
I don't know why this is so difficult. You run on a platform, people elect you, you enact that platform. You don't sell out what your promises to your people in favor of loyalty to international agendas. That's what democratic legitimacy means. Does anyone still have a government where the elected parties do what they promised to do instead of what the IMF/UN/EU/Davos wants them to do?
You replied:
Grim, this presupposed an informed electorate that doesn't exist anywhere except in people's imaginations. One that is willing to pay the price of what they say they want.
Now to me, that sounds like you're saying that (1) a government should only be expected to try to keep its promises to the electorate if the electorate is informed, and (2) that no such electorate exists. That sounds to me like a justification not only for this betrayal of the electorate by the Greek government, but a much more sweeping claim about democracy. It would justify the 'failure theater' thing here at home, for example: the Republican party knows better than the voters, but since the voters can't be expected to be informed, it's fine to play-act that you're going to do what they want while actually enacting a completely separate program.
In that case, why not dispense with the business of asking for voter approval via elections entirely? The point of elections is democratic legitimacy for a government that draws its authority from the will of the People. If what the People ratify by elections is to be dispensed with as ill-advised and uninformed, democracy is a waste of time at best. Why not give control to wise and unelected technocrats as the EU is doing? Then you wouldn't have to lie or demagogue because you'd not have to get permission from the ignorant citizenry at all.
My sense is that this is exactly where we are headed -- not just in the EU as regards Greece, but the United States as well via sovereignty-ceding instruments like the TPP and T-TIP. I can understand why President Obama and certain others on the internationalist Left would want to do it, given his and their view of America. I can even understand why Republicans in Congress would want to go along with it, given their ties to their donor base which stands to gain in sovereignty what the citizens lose.
I have to regard it as a crisis, however, that so many in power seem so inclined. It means that those of us who oppose it cannot effectively oppose it through elections, as we find time and again that those we elected to oppose it turn right around and impose it once in office. That calls the legitimacy of the entire system into question, and makes democratic means of opposition ineffective.
Grim, I will come back when I can to respond more fully, but it seems to me that you're doing a rhetorical "Saudi Sweep". This isn't a binary choice between demanding that officeholders rigidly fulfill their election promises to the letter, even if circumstances change, the option they promised simply isn't available, or - Mirabile Dictu! - they learn (once in office) that what they promised simply isn't feasible.
ReplyDeleteGovernment simply CANNOT work if the electorate demands rigid fulfillment regardless of the circumstances on the ground. Few plans survive contact with the real world.
It absolutely does not logically follow that if public servants can't fulfill all their promises, we must blindly accept flat-out lying. The average citizen has NO idea what's involved in actually doing most of these things. They're not privy to all the information, and even if they were they don't have time to master it all.
That is why we have public servants in the first place - because we can't do it all ourselves. There are a host of common sense options when plans are rendered infeasible by real world conditions. Or we can go high and to the right and claim we've been betrayed.
I have ALWAYS understood candidates to be layout out their priorities with the obvious understanding that they don't have all the info either AND not every promise has equal priority.
And priorities can and will shift with conditions.
So I don't understand how you get from a to z in under 5 seconds. Are voters sometimes betrayed? Sure. Is every compromise a betrayal?
No. Clearly. And such a serious charge demands more supporting evidence than a simple assertion.
Please forgive the many typos - am fighting a migraine off and I'm not firing on all cylinders this week.
ReplyDeleteOne more thought: what happens when voters change their minds over time (as they often do once more information becomes available, which is generally after the election)?
ReplyDeleteMost governments have a mechanism in place for removing officials who commit gross dereliction of duty. If voters *don't* remove them, what does that say about their true level of outrage?
It's fine, Cass. We can talk about it when you don't have a migrane. I'm not sure what a "Saudi Sweep" is, rhetorically or otherwise, though. :)
ReplyDeleteBefore 9/11, the Spousal One was assigned to the Joint Staff anti-terrorism office at the Pentagon. I'm sure it has a name but I've long since forgotten it.
ReplyDeleteHe traveled all over the US and Europe, conducting security assessments of ports and other government/civil installations.
A Saudi Sweep is a term I suspect was coined during his Middle East travels, when he observed that the Saudis drive like they're batsh** crazy. To make a lefthand turn from the far right lane on a 4 lane highway, for instance, one does NOT use a turn signal to change lanes (or, in fact, signal one's intent in *any* way). One simply veers suddenly and without warning with no diminution of speed across all 4 lanes and turns left in front of rapidly oncoming traffic in the opposite lanes.
And there you have it: the Saudi Sweep :p
It need not be said (but I'll say it anyway because I'm tiresome like that) that your argumentation style does not actually resemble the Saudi Sweep.
ReplyDeleteHope you understand I was wildly exaggerating for comic effect :)
My point was that I couldn't see how you got from one alternative to the opposite, not that you're crazy. I wouldn't argue with you - or affectionately, if ineptly tease you - if I thought that.
And now I have a Boring Staff Meeting to prepare for. Egad.
ReplyDeleteOh, I see. Well, it wasn't meant to be a reckless maneuver.
ReplyDeleteMy point was that I couldn't see how you got from one alternative to the opposite, not that you're crazy. I wouldn't argue with you - or affectionately, if ineptly tease you - if I thought that.
I've been pretty angry lately, which probably influences the clarity of the points I'm trying to make. Not at anyone in our community, to be sure. I'm working on trying to think strategically about how to address the vast set of problems that seem to be in front of us. However, I may have not been as clear as I meant to be (or thought I was being) due to the haze.
On the other hand, this is an area -- banking, whether international or national -- in which I generally find myself alone, or nearly alone. It would be usual instead of unusual if the dread subject produced a 180 difference between my opinion and that of my very good friends who stop by the Hall. :)
I can sense that anger, and it grieves me greatly.
ReplyDeleteIf I've been insensitive to it (not that you require sensitivity, but that quality is hardly inappropriate between two old friends and I do try to pay attention regardless of what others may expect), please forgive me.
No forgiveness is necessary. I am sorry to have grieved you. It is much harder than I expected, watching the country I loved die. All the things I knew how to do to participate in government, all the things that made one a good citizen, they don't work anymore. The anger is appropriate, but it isn't helpful. I'm trying to get on with finding new ways for us to assert the authority over the government that is proper to citizens.
ReplyDelete