"Get on Your Boots" is the arena rocker of the album. It ranks right up there with "Vertigo" and "Beautiful Day." Catchy. Hooky. And a whole lot of awesome. The song's theme is about the sexiness of taking action to change the world. Nobody has made working for social justice as sexy and cool as U2 have over the years. Somehow they get people excited about fighting AIDs, poverty, injustice, etc. So this song might just be their own theme song. For all those who wish to "put on their boots" in Bono's army, he gives clear marching orders in this song: "Here's where we gotta be / Love and community." That's the ultimate goal. And women have a special place in this army. The lyrics read, "Women of the future / Hold the big revelations." Bono has long argued that women have a special role in transforming the world. As one example of this, Bono told the New York Times: "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Give a woman microcredit and she, her husband, her children and her extended family will eat for a lifetime." The big mystery in this song is what Bono means by "let me in the sound." One idea is that the "sound" is an analogy for an island. Bono sings: "Let me in the sound, now / God, I'm going down / I don't want to drown now / Meet me in the sound / Let me in the sound." Perhaps, the "sound" is an island of hope, safety, and action in sea of despair, danger, and stagnation. If this is true, let all of us "in the sound"!
"Stand Up Comedy" is a love song. But it's not a sappy, predictable one. It's a hard rock love song about the importance of enacting love in our lives. It's a call to action. It's a wake up call. After opening the song by chanting the word "love," Bono sings: "I got to stand up and take a step / You and I have been asleep for hours / I got to stand up / The wire is stretched in between our two towers." In these lyrics, Bono is saying we need to get off our butts and go live our love. It's not good enough for there to be a "wire" connecting us. We need to share words and deeds of love. Love is a verb. Love is to be enacted. Love is to be lived. Love is to be wild. Lukewarm passivity must be comedically absurd for Bono. In case we miss this point, the chorus says: "Out from under your beds / C’mon ye people / Stand up for your love." So what or who is this love? Bono answers by singing: "God is love / And love is evolution’s very best day." Love is nothing short of the most important thing in the world. Love is the culmination of human development. Love is divine. In fact, I John 4:15 says, "God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them." Obviously love is important for many reasons. But one reason is that love keeps our ideologies in check. In an interview, Bono says, "Zealotry and certainty are worrying for me. Love keeps religion from zealotry." Love reminds us to be patient and kind instead of boastful and arrogant (1 Corinthians 13:4). Love reminds us that people are more important than ideas. Love reminds us that God is love, and we're made in God's image. Love reminds us to honor the dignity of our differences. Love reminds us that our perspectives are just perspectives - not the Truth. Love reminds us we all "see through a glass dimly" and "know only in part" (1 Corinthians 13:12). Love reminds us to embrace paradox over certainty. All of these ideas are summed up by Bono in some of the coolest lyrics on the album: "While I'm getting over certainty / Stop helping God across the road like a little old lady." In these lyrics Bono is suggesting that we stop forcing God to be and think like us. God is God. We are not. God is enigmatic. God's name is "I Am Who I Am" (Exodus 3:14). There is mystery in that name. In fact, the Jewish name for God, "YHWH," even lacks the vowels needed to make the name pronounceable. Mystery is something to be embraced as an act of faith. In the words of Anne Lamott, "The opposite of faith is not doubt: It is certainty. It is madness. You can tell you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." Bono and Lamott invite us to enact love, perhaps, in part, by finding the comedy in certainty.
"Fez - Being Born" is an odd pair of songs, even for this album. It's U2 being experimental. These songs probably won't be a concert favorite, but it's fun to hear U2 try out new sounds. The first song "Fez," combines loops of Bono singing "let me in the sound," unique beats of Joujouka drummers, haunting sounds of Sufi devotional songs, ambient sounds from the street, etc. The influence of producer Brian Eno, the father of ambient music, is very evident in this brief, multi-layered song. The second tune in this duo of songs, "Being Born," continues the experimental flavor and Arabic theory of the previous song but morphs them into an avant-garde rock song. The influence of producer Danny Lanois, who specializes in artsy rock, is most evident in this song. The major difference between these songs is that "Being Born" has lyrics. Bono sings about a journey of birth that takes him around the world. This could be about the birth of this album, which was recorded in various locations around the world. But who knows!? All I can say for sure is that this song is beautiful in all of its alt-rock-Arabic-Moroccan glory.
"White As Snow" is a hauntingly beautiful song. It has a quiet, raw power that has to be experienced. The first time I heard it I was drawn into the emotional spirit of the song and couldn't stop listening. I knew it had to be about a particular event or experience. Thankfully I came across an article that described the context of the song. Bono said it's written "from the point of view of an active soldier in Afghanistan" who is "dying from a roadside bomb." The soldier is reflecting on his life in the moments just before her/his last breath. The lyrics start out with the soldier thinking about his home and family: "Where I come from there were no hills at all / The land was flat, the highway straight and wide / My brother and I would drive for hours / Like we had years instead of days." There seems to be a longing for those simple things we all take for granted. Then the lyrics turn to the soldier's thoughts on the immediacy of her/his death: "Now this dry ground it bears no fruit at all / Only poppies laugh under the crescent moon." The symbolism is powerful. Poppies are symbolic of death and are featured in the World War I poem, "In Flanders Fields." In that poem poppies became the symbol of remembrance of soldiers who had been killed. The first stanza reads: "In Flanders fields the poppies blow / Between the crosses, row on row, / That mark our place; and in the sky / The larks, still bravely singing, fly / Scarce heard amid the guns below." Bono is clearly emphasizing the soldier's sense of sadness by saying that poppies are the only thing growing on the ground. All of these rich lyrics are bathed in music that picks up on elements of the tune, "O Come O Come Emmanuel." This 19th century hymn is about God's promise to heal the world through the messiah. Part of that healing is taking away humanity's pain and death. The lyrics read: "O come, Thou Day-Spring, come and cheer / Our spirits by Thine advent here / Disperse the gloomy clouds of night / And death's dark shadows put to flight / Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel / Shall come to thee, O Israel." The move from death to praise in this hymn is mysteriously significant. Perhaps this hymn is Bono's hope for the soldier. Or perhaps it's the hymn that the soldier hears while entering Heaven. In either case, the musical elements of "O Come O Come Emmanuel" overlaid in "White As Snow," makes this meaning-filled U2 song even more arresting. In my opinion, this is one of the best songs of the album.
"Breathe" opens with dueling piano and guitar. It's cool. The song seems to maintain a feisty sense of hope musically and lyrically. According to an interview with Bono, the song is an upbeat ode to the sanctuary of his internal life - and lament about the rush of the external world. Bono begins his lament by singing about a traveling salesman selling "cockatoo" (i.e. crap we don't need). He continues the lament by talking about global stocks and viruses that affect everyone. Something external is always messing with his life. This makes him want to escape the "roar that lies on the other side of silence." It gets so bad that it "takes courage to walk down the street." But then Bono manages to discover the sanctuary of his internal life. For him, this means listening to his own song instead of the "roar" all around him. Again, Bono sounds like a Quaker, discovering the gift of the "inner light." The last part of the song is a testimony to the beauty of listening to one's own song: "We are people born of the sound / the songs are in our eyes / Gonna wear them like a clown / Walk out, into the sunburst street / Sing your heart out, sing my heart out / I've found grace inside a sound / I found grace, it's all that I found / And I can breathe / Breathe now." Salvation in this sing is about being saved from the craziness of the external world and being saved for living one's own life. This isn't about being selfish. It's about being centered.
Being centered means being attentive to one's authentic self and open to the divine inside us. Scripture says that the presence of God (1 John 3:24) and the Kin-dom of God (Luke 17:21) are both found within. Bono has found his center by listening to the sound within.
"Cedars of Lebanon" is spoken word poetry set to a continuously driving song. The poem is an intimate portrayal of the life and struggles of a war journalist. It's amazing how vivid and nuanced the picture is that Bono manages to paint with his lyrics. It's like you're there. Seeing the sights. Smelling the smells. Tasting the tastes. But it's war. It's ugly. It's not something you'd want to experience. And by the end of the song, I'm not sure whether to feel sorrier for the war-torn people themselves or the journalist that has to watch it all happen. Probably the journalist, honestly. He's the one who has to see it all happen and then force it all into some easy-to-read article for people who can't possibly relate to what's happening. Bono captures the scene like this: "Spent the night trying to make a deadline / Squeezing complicated lives into a simple headline." Bono also gets at the gritty differences between the various people affected by the war: "Child drinking dirty water from the river bank / Soldier brings oranges he got out from the tank / I'm waiting on the waiter, he's taking a while to come / Watching the sun go down on Lebanon." These kinds of lyrics magnetically draw listeners into the scene. But we don't just get to peek into the life of the war journalist. We also get to hear the wisdom that he gained from his reflections on the war: "Choose your enemies carefully 'cos they will define you." This is good advice. In our interdependent world, we are as affected by our friends as we are our enemies. Friends give us something to live for. Enemies give us something to live against. They both give shape to our lives. The journalist seems to be warning us not to give so much influential power to the things and people we are against. Jesus gave similar advice when he said, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44). Here Jesus seems to invite us to live graciously toward our enemies so that they might become friends. Apostle Paul calls this a "ministry of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:18). The ultimate vision of reconciliation comes from Micah 4:3: "They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore." This vision is that all people will be reconciled with one other. No more enemies. No more war. No more war journalists. I think that is the deeper message of "Cedars of Lebanon." Peace is cool. And so is this song.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Theology with U2: No Line On The Horizon (1 of 2)
"No Line on the Horizon" is the first song on the album. It's a different kind of sound for U2. But it's a rocker with philosophy! So I gotta love it. Some of the lyrics include: "One day she's still the next day she swells / You can hear the universe in her sea shells / She said 'Time is irrelevant, it's not linear / Then she put her tongue in my ear." The "she" in these lyrics could be referring to a woman, a female personified thought, God, etc. Who knows with U2! In any case, Bono gets his kicks from the sense that time is not linear. In non-linear time, there is no such thing as past and future. There is only a continuous flow of "now." The "past" is simply a former "now." The "future" is simply a coming "now." The only time that exists is "now." There is no great origin that we're moving from. There is no final conclusion we're moving toward. There is no coming eschatological time on the horizon. Or said in a different way, "there is no line on the horizon." There is only "now." Living fully in the "now" is ultimately important. Now is the only time we have. Now is life. Now is our home. Now is the time to enjoy life. Now is the time to fall in love. Now is the time to live life to the fullest. Now is when God is. Now is sacred. Marty Haugen emphasizes the theological importance of "now" in his hymn, "Here In This Place." The lyrics read: "Not in the dark of buildings confining / Not in some heaven, light years away / But here in this place the new light is shining / Now is the Kin-dom, now is the day." When Haugen and U2 agree on something, it must be right! Time is truly irrelevant when the only time that matters is right now. And that is a sexy thought. I can see why it feels sensuous like someone licking your ear.
"Magnificent" is a dance-rock song. Yup, there is some dance flavor to it. Not to worry, though. Edge adds plenty of the cool guitar riffs that are typical of U2. Lyrically this song seems to be about how magnificent God is. It's a praise song about singing praise. Bono sings: "I was born to sing for you / I didn't have a choice but to lift you up / And sing whatever song you wanted me to / I give you back my voice / From the womb my first cry, it was a joyful noise." The phrase "joyful noise" is distinctly Judeo-Christian. It's in many hymns, songs, prayers, etc. as a form of praise. The phrase is especially prevalent in the Psalms: "Make a joyful noise unto God, all the earth" (Psalm 66:1). "Sing aloud unto God our strength: make a joyful noise unto the God of Jacob" (Psalm 81:1). "O come, let us sing unto God: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation. Let us come before God's presence with thanksgiving, and make a joyful noise unto God with psalms" (Psalm 95:1-2). "Make a joyful noise to God, all the earth! Burst out and sing for joy, yes, sing praises" (Psalm 98:4). "With trumpets and sound of the ram's horn, make a joyful noise before the Holy One, God" (Psalm 98:8). Make a joyful noise unto God, all the earth" (Psalms 100:1). Why do the Psalms and this song by U2 talk about making a joyful noise to God? Because God is...well...magnificent. God is so magnificent that people of faith, like Bono, can't help but sing for joy. God's gracious love, abiding presence, and guiding wisdom are worth singing about. Out of gratitude Bono sings: "you and I will magnify / the Magnificent." Clearly this song is a modern doxology - and rockin' song of praise.
"Moment of Surrender," is another dance-rocker. But this one is a little more haunting. The combination of chords played on an organ and lyrics cried out by Bono give this song a deep, brooding intensity. This mood intensifies the lyrical theme of surrendering to God's gracious love. Bono sings: "It's not if I believe in love / But if love believes in me / Oh, believe in me." Here Bono seems to be testifying that God's love for him is more important than Bono's love for God. Faith is not about us loving God - and then earning God's love. That is a works-based faith. Instead, faith is about God loving us - and God's love inspiring us to love God and others. That is a grace-based faith. As I John 14:9 says, "We love because God first loved us." The gracious love of God overwhelms us with gratitude and evokes our love. In short, Bono's singing about God's grace and our response. And "in that moment of surrender" to God's love, Bono "falls down to his knees." The second theological theme that spoke to me is that of rediscovering and returning to one's authentic self. The lyrics read: "I've been in every black hole / At the altar of the black star / My body's now a begging bowl / That's begging to get back, begging to get back / To my heart / To the rhythm of my soul." After searching the dark places outside of himself, Bono now wants to get back to the essence of who is inside. His search has gone from external to internal. He wants to bet back to his own heart and soul. These are significant words, Scripturally. "Heart" (lebab, kardia) means the core of one's being and "soul" (nephesh, psuche) means the life-energy of oneself. So Bono wants to get back to the core of his being and the rhythm of his own life-energy. He wants to let his authentic, true self re-emerge. After searching everywhere except within, he finally surrenders to the wisdom of his own heart and soul. Quakers may say Bono began listening to his "inner light" and "sacred center." In the end, Bono may agree with Parker Palmer, "Wisdom comes from a voice 'in here' calling me to be the person I was born to be, to fulfill the original selfhood given to me at birth by God." After Bono began living according to his authentic selfhood, he recognizes himself, singing: "I could see in the reflection / A face staring back at me."
"Unknown Caller" is a postmodern delight. It journeys through a slow start with chirping birds, to choppy singing in the middle, to a culmination that features one of Edge's most outstanding recorded guitar solos. The story of the song is about the transforming work of God calling humanity out of "midnight" and into "sunshine." Seems straightforward enough. But the lyrics tell this story in a postmodern, non-linear way that adds to the intrigue of the song. There are many possible ways to reconstruct this song in a linear way. So my reconstruction is just one take on the story. The story begins by talking about being lost in life. Bono tells this part of the story by singing about being "lost between the midnight and the dawning," "at the top of the bottom," and "on the edge of the known universe." During this time of being lost, the "Unknown Caller" (i.e. God) invites the person to change their life. Bono sings, "3:33 when the numbers fell off the clock face." It's at the darkest time of the night, 3:33 a.m., that God calls and time stops. The symbolism of "3:33" can be carried even further if we connect it with Jeremiah 33:3. In this text God is portrayed as saying, "Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things that you have not known." In the plot of the song, God calls the person to tell them "great and hidden things" that can change their life. To emphasize the importance of God's message, the lyrics say, "hear me, cease to speak so I may speak to you." The message is clear: the person needs to new life - a new start. In Biblical terms, the person needs to become a "new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17). This idea of change is expressed through a computer analogy in the song: "Force quit and move to trash...Restart and reboot yourself." In the song, God says the junk in the person's life needs to be removed, so s/he can begin anew. The reboot changes everything. The person moves from "midnight" to "sunshine." The lost becomes found. Transformation occurs. Perhaps this is a song about John Newton, who went from being a slave trader to an abolitionist after he began listening to the voice of the "Unknown Caller." Newton went on to write a song of gratitude that testifies to the transforming work of God the Caller, "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound / That saved a wretch like me / I once was lost but now am found / Was blind, but now I see." Both songs - "Amazing Grace" and "Unknown Caller" - describe the life-transforming work of God in all people who are open to the call of God in their life. Hallelujah! Or, to quote this song, "Go, shout it out, raise up."
"I'll Go Crazy if I Don't Go Crazy Tonight" is typical U2. It sounds like a song that could have been on either of their previous two albums, "All That You Can't Leave Behind" and "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb." Lyrically, the song is about resisting fear. Bono sings: ''Is it true that perfect love casts out all fear? / The right to appear ridiculous is something I hold dear." Here Bono is talking about his willingness to look "ridiculous" because of his choice of love over fear. This idea is based on I John 4:18-19, where it says, "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. We love because God first loved us." God's nature is about spreading love, not fear. By participating in God's nature, we participate in spreading love. This may look strange to some people, but Bono is saying that divine love is better than human fear. Yet choosing to resist fear doesn't mean ignoring the real obstacles in life. Resisting fear means finding the hope in the midst of struggle. Bono expresses this hopeful realism by singing, "It's not a hill it's a mountain / As we start out the climb / Listen for me, I'll be shouting / Shouting to the darkness, squeeze out the sparks of light." The "we" implies that the journey over the mountain is undertaken in community. And it's not just any community. It's a group of people who encourage each other by making "sparks of light" in the darkness. These sparks end up being enough to make a way through the dark. As John 1:5 says, "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it." This Scripture reminds us to use Christ, the light of life, as a guide through the darkness. But Scripture also hints at another important guide that we should welcome: children. In Matthew 19:14, Jesus says, "Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the Kin-dom of God belongs." Bono also urges that we welcome the youth of the world - and listen to their ideas. He sings: "Pity the nation that will listen to your boys and girls / 'Cos the sweetest melody is the one we haven't heard." The first line is a sarcastic warning to people who don't listen to new voices. The second line is what he really believes: the light of hope shines brightest in the youth of the world. In an interview Bono says, "The solution to the problems we find ourselves in will have to be found by the new generation." Let's let the children come. Let's let the light shine. Let's let the hope rise. Let's let ourselves be crazy enough to think that "every generation gets a chance to change the world."
"Magnificent" is a dance-rock song. Yup, there is some dance flavor to it. Not to worry, though. Edge adds plenty of the cool guitar riffs that are typical of U2. Lyrically this song seems to be about how magnificent God is. It's a praise song about singing praise. Bono sings: "I was born to sing for you / I didn't have a choice but to lift you up / And sing whatever song you wanted me to / I give you back my voice / From the womb my first cry, it was a joyful noise." The phrase "joyful noise" is distinctly Judeo-Christian. It's in many hymns, songs, prayers, etc. as a form of praise. The phrase is especially prevalent in the Psalms: "Make a joyful noise unto God, all the earth" (Psalm 66:1). "Sing aloud unto God our strength: make a joyful noise unto the God of Jacob" (Psalm 81:1). "O come, let us sing unto God: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation. Let us come before God's presence with thanksgiving, and make a joyful noise unto God with psalms" (Psalm 95:1-2). "Make a joyful noise to God, all the earth! Burst out and sing for joy, yes, sing praises" (Psalm 98:4). "With trumpets and sound of the ram's horn, make a joyful noise before the Holy One, God" (Psalm 98:8). Make a joyful noise unto God, all the earth" (Psalms 100:1). Why do the Psalms and this song by U2 talk about making a joyful noise to God? Because God is...well...magnificent. God is so magnificent that people of faith, like Bono, can't help but sing for joy. God's gracious love, abiding presence, and guiding wisdom are worth singing about. Out of gratitude Bono sings: "you and I will magnify / the Magnificent." Clearly this song is a modern doxology - and rockin' song of praise.
"Moment of Surrender," is another dance-rocker. But this one is a little more haunting. The combination of chords played on an organ and lyrics cried out by Bono give this song a deep, brooding intensity. This mood intensifies the lyrical theme of surrendering to God's gracious love. Bono sings: "It's not if I believe in love / But if love believes in me / Oh, believe in me." Here Bono seems to be testifying that God's love for him is more important than Bono's love for God. Faith is not about us loving God - and then earning God's love. That is a works-based faith. Instead, faith is about God loving us - and God's love inspiring us to love God and others. That is a grace-based faith. As I John 14:9 says, "We love because God first loved us." The gracious love of God overwhelms us with gratitude and evokes our love. In short, Bono's singing about God's grace and our response. And "in that moment of surrender" to God's love, Bono "falls down to his knees." The second theological theme that spoke to me is that of rediscovering and returning to one's authentic self. The lyrics read: "I've been in every black hole / At the altar of the black star / My body's now a begging bowl / That's begging to get back, begging to get back / To my heart / To the rhythm of my soul." After searching the dark places outside of himself, Bono now wants to get back to the essence of who is inside. His search has gone from external to internal. He wants to bet back to his own heart and soul. These are significant words, Scripturally. "Heart" (lebab, kardia) means the core of one's being and "soul" (nephesh, psuche) means the life-energy of oneself. So Bono wants to get back to the core of his being and the rhythm of his own life-energy. He wants to let his authentic, true self re-emerge. After searching everywhere except within, he finally surrenders to the wisdom of his own heart and soul. Quakers may say Bono began listening to his "inner light" and "sacred center." In the end, Bono may agree with Parker Palmer, "Wisdom comes from a voice 'in here' calling me to be the person I was born to be, to fulfill the original selfhood given to me at birth by God." After Bono began living according to his authentic selfhood, he recognizes himself, singing: "I could see in the reflection / A face staring back at me."
"Unknown Caller" is a postmodern delight. It journeys through a slow start with chirping birds, to choppy singing in the middle, to a culmination that features one of Edge's most outstanding recorded guitar solos. The story of the song is about the transforming work of God calling humanity out of "midnight" and into "sunshine." Seems straightforward enough. But the lyrics tell this story in a postmodern, non-linear way that adds to the intrigue of the song. There are many possible ways to reconstruct this song in a linear way. So my reconstruction is just one take on the story. The story begins by talking about being lost in life. Bono tells this part of the story by singing about being "lost between the midnight and the dawning," "at the top of the bottom," and "on the edge of the known universe." During this time of being lost, the "Unknown Caller" (i.e. God) invites the person to change their life. Bono sings, "3:33 when the numbers fell off the clock face." It's at the darkest time of the night, 3:33 a.m., that God calls and time stops. The symbolism of "3:33" can be carried even further if we connect it with Jeremiah 33:3. In this text God is portrayed as saying, "Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things that you have not known." In the plot of the song, God calls the person to tell them "great and hidden things" that can change their life. To emphasize the importance of God's message, the lyrics say, "hear me, cease to speak so I may speak to you." The message is clear: the person needs to new life - a new start. In Biblical terms, the person needs to become a "new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17). This idea of change is expressed through a computer analogy in the song: "Force quit and move to trash...Restart and reboot yourself." In the song, God says the junk in the person's life needs to be removed, so s/he can begin anew. The reboot changes everything. The person moves from "midnight" to "sunshine." The lost becomes found. Transformation occurs. Perhaps this is a song about John Newton, who went from being a slave trader to an abolitionist after he began listening to the voice of the "Unknown Caller." Newton went on to write a song of gratitude that testifies to the transforming work of God the Caller, "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound / That saved a wretch like me / I once was lost but now am found / Was blind, but now I see." Both songs - "Amazing Grace" and "Unknown Caller" - describe the life-transforming work of God in all people who are open to the call of God in their life. Hallelujah! Or, to quote this song, "Go, shout it out, raise up."
"I'll Go Crazy if I Don't Go Crazy Tonight" is typical U2. It sounds like a song that could have been on either of their previous two albums, "All That You Can't Leave Behind" and "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb." Lyrically, the song is about resisting fear. Bono sings: ''Is it true that perfect love casts out all fear? / The right to appear ridiculous is something I hold dear." Here Bono is talking about his willingness to look "ridiculous" because of his choice of love over fear. This idea is based on I John 4:18-19, where it says, "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. We love because God first loved us." God's nature is about spreading love, not fear. By participating in God's nature, we participate in spreading love. This may look strange to some people, but Bono is saying that divine love is better than human fear. Yet choosing to resist fear doesn't mean ignoring the real obstacles in life. Resisting fear means finding the hope in the midst of struggle. Bono expresses this hopeful realism by singing, "It's not a hill it's a mountain / As we start out the climb / Listen for me, I'll be shouting / Shouting to the darkness, squeeze out the sparks of light." The "we" implies that the journey over the mountain is undertaken in community. And it's not just any community. It's a group of people who encourage each other by making "sparks of light" in the darkness. These sparks end up being enough to make a way through the dark. As John 1:5 says, "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it." This Scripture reminds us to use Christ, the light of life, as a guide through the darkness. But Scripture also hints at another important guide that we should welcome: children. In Matthew 19:14, Jesus says, "Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the Kin-dom of God belongs." Bono also urges that we welcome the youth of the world - and listen to their ideas. He sings: "Pity the nation that will listen to your boys and girls / 'Cos the sweetest melody is the one we haven't heard." The first line is a sarcastic warning to people who don't listen to new voices. The second line is what he really believes: the light of hope shines brightest in the youth of the world. In an interview Bono says, "The solution to the problems we find ourselves in will have to be found by the new generation." Let's let the children come. Let's let the light shine. Let's let the hope rise. Let's let ourselves be crazy enough to think that "every generation gets a chance to change the world."
Finding Grace Inside a Sound
Following Scripture, Reformed theology has always placed great emphasis on the ear over the eye. The gospel is called by Paul "the word of faith," a message that produces belief "by hearing the Word of Christ." The opposite of faith, of course, is not doubt but sight. A person is most faithless, therefore, not when disbelief is mingled with his belief, but when he demands to see, to experience, to feel the truth before he'll believe it. "We walk by faith," says Paul, "and not by sight."
Go ahead and roll your eyes, but I maintain that Bono understands this. U2's music often elevates faith over sight as, for example, in 1987's "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For," where Bono sings:
I believe in the Kingdom Come,
When all the colors will bleed into one,
But yes I'm still running.
You broke the bonds, you loosed the chains,
Carried the cross, and all my shame, all my shame;
You know I believe it,
But I still aven't found what I'm looking for.
On 2000's All That You Can't Leave Behind, Bono sings of the "grace that travels outside of karma," which, "when she goes to work, you can hear the strings." Get it? Grace is something you hear.
This theme is prevalent on their new release, No Line on the Horizon, as well. In the song "Moment of Surrender" Bono sings:
At the moment of surrender,
I folded to my knees;
I did not notice the passers-by,
And they did not notice me.
At the moment of surrender,
Of vision over visibility,
I did not notice the passers-by,
And they did not notice me.
True surrender, in other words, can only happen with "visibility" is relinquished.
.
In their lead single "Get On Your Boots," Bono repeats the line "Let me in the sound!" over and over (the same line is also sampled in "Fez - Being Born"). Lest we scratch our heads over what this "sound" is, the song "Breathe" tells us:
We are people borne of sound;
The songs are in our eyes,
Gonna wear them like a crown ...
I’ve found grace inside a sound,
I found grace, it’s all that I found;
And I can breathe,
Breathe now.
Remember, Newton told us that God's grace is not only "amazing," but that it's "the sound that saved a wretch like me." This is why ears are better than eyes, and why blindness is to be preferred over deafness.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
The Coming War on Sovereignty, by John Bolton
Barack Obama’s nascent presidency has brought forth the customary flood of policy proposals from the great and good, all hoping to influence his administration. One noteworthy offering is a short report with a distinguished provenance entitled A Plan for Action,1 which features a revealingly immodest subtitle: A New Era of International Cooperation for a Changed World: 2009, 2010, and Beyond.
In presentation and tone, A Plan for Action is determinedly uncontroversial; indeed, it looks and reads more like a corporate brochure than a foreign-policy paper. The text is the work of three academics—Bruce Jones of NYU, Carlos Pascual of the Brookings Institution, and Stephen John Stedman of Stanford. Its findings and recommendations, they claim, rose from a series of meetings with foreign-policy eminences here and abroad, including former Secretaries of State of both parties as well as defense officials from the Clinton and first Bush administrations. The participation of these notables is what gives A Plan for Action its bona fides, though one should doubt how much the document actually reflects their ideas. There is no question, however, that the ideas advanced in A Plan for Action have become mainstays in the liberal vision of the future of American foreign policy.
That is what makes A Plan for Action especially interesting, and especially worrisome. If it is what it appears to be—a blueprint for the Obama administration’s effort to construct a foreign policy different from George W. Bush’s—then the nation’s governing elite is in the process of taking a sharp, indeed radical, turn away from the principles and practices of representative self-government that have been at the core of the American experiment since the nation’s founding. The pivot point is a shifting understanding of American sovereignty.
_____________
While the term “sovereignty” has acquired many, often inconsistent, definitions, Americans have historically understood it to mean our collective right to govern ourselves within our Constitutional framework. Today’s liberal elite, by contrast, sees sovereignty as something much more abstract and less tangible, and thus a prize of less value to individual citizens than it once might have been. They argue that the model accepted by European countries in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which assigned to individual nation-states the right and responsibility to manage their own affairs within their own borders, is in the process of being superseded by new structures more appropriate to the 21st century.
In this regard, they usually cite the European Union (EU) as the new model, with its 27 member nations falling under the aegis of a centralized financial system administered in Brussels. On issue after issue, from climate change to trade, American liberals increasingly look to Europe’s example of transnational consensus as the proper model for the United States. That is particularly true when it comes to national security, as John Kerry revealed when, during his presidential bid in 2004, he said that American policy had to pass a “global test” in order to secure its legitimacy.
This is not a view with which the broader American population has shown much comfort. Traditionally, Americans have resisted the notion that their government’s actions had to pass muster with other governments, often with widely differing values and interests. It is the foreign-policy establishment’s unease with this long-held American conviction that is the motivating factor behind A Plan for Action, which represents a bold attempt to argue that any such set of beliefs has simply been overtaken by events.
To this end, the authors provide a brief for what they call “responsible sovereignty.” They define it as “the notion that sovereignty entails obligations and duties toward other states as well as to one’s own citizens,” and they believe that its application can form the basis for a “cooperative international order.” At first glance, the phrase “responsible sovereignty” may seem unremarkable, given the paucity of advocates for “irresponsible sovereignty.” But despite the Plan’s mainstream provenance, the conception is a dramatic overhaul of sovereignty itself.
“Global leaders,” the Plan insists, “increasingly recognize that alone they are unable to protect their interests and their citizens—national security has become interdependent with global security.” The United States must therefore commit to “a rule-based international system that rejects unilateralism and looks beyond military might,” or else “resign [our]selves to an ad-hoc international system.” Mere “traditional sovereignty” is insufficient in the new era we have entered, an era in which we must contend with “the realities of a now transnational world.” This “rule-based international system” will create the conditions for “global governance.”
The Plan suggests that the transition to this new system must begin immediately because of the terrible damage done by the Bush administration. In the Plan’s narrative, Bush disdained diplomacy, uniformly preferring the use of force, regime change, preemptive attacks, and general swagger in its conduct of foreign affairs. The Plan, by contrast, “rejects unilateralism and looks beyond military might.” Its implementation will lead to the successful resolution of dispute after dispute and usher in a new and unprecedented period of worldwide comity.
_____________
As the Obama years begin, we certainly do need a lively debate on the utility of diplomacy, but it would be better if that debate were not conducted on the false premise offered by A Plan for Action. In reality, in the overwhelming majority of cases, foreign-policy thinkers on both sides of the ideological divide believe diplomacy is the solution to the difficulties that arise in the international system. That is how the Bush administration conducted itself as well.
The difference arises in the consideration of a tiny number of cases—cases that prove entirely resistant to diplomatic efforts, in which divergent national interests prove implacably resistant to reconciliation. If diplomacy does not and cannot work, the continued application of it to a problematic situation is akin to subjecting a cancer patient to a regimen of chemotherapy that shows no results whatever. The result may look like treatment, but it is, in fact, only making the patient sicker and offering no possibility of improvement.
Diplomacy is like all other human activity. It has costs and it has benefits. Whether to engage in diplomacy on a given matter requires a judicious assessment of both costs and benefits. This is an exercise about which reasonable people can disagree. If diplomacy is to work, it must be preceded by an effort to determine its parameters—when it might be best to begin, how to achieve one’s aims, and what the purpose of the process might be. At the cold war’s outset, for example, Harry Truman’s Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, frequently observed that he was prepared to negotiate with the Soviets only when America could do so from a position of strength.
Time is one of the most important variables in a diplomatic dance, because it often imposes a cost on one side and a benefit to its adversary. Nations can use the time granted by a diplomatic process to obscure their objectives, build alliances, prepare operationally for war, and, especially today, accelerate their efforts to build weapons of mass destruction and the ballistic missiles that might carry them. There are concrete economic factors that must be considered as well in the act of seeking to engage an adversary in the diplomatic realm—the act of providing humanitarian assistance as an act of good will, for example, the suspension of economic sanctions, or even resuming normal trade relations during negotiations.
Obviously, the United States and, indeed, all rational nations are entirely comfortable paying substantial costs when they appear to be wise investments that will lead to the achievement of a larger objective. Alas, such happy conclusions are far from inevitable, and failing to understand the truth of this uncomfortable and inarguable reality has led nations to prolong negotiations long after the last glimmer of progress has been snuffed out. For too many diplomats, there is no off switch for diplomacy, no moment at which the only sensible thing to do is rise from the table and go home.
Has one ever heard of a diplomat working to fashion an “exit strategy” from a failed negotiation? One hasn’t. One should.
_____________
Diplomacy is a tool, not a policy. It is a technique, not an end in itself. Urging, however earnestly, that we “engage” with our enemies tells us nothing about what happens after concluding the initial pleasantries at the negotiating table. Just opening the conversation is often significant, especially for those who are legitimized merely by being present. But without more, the meaning and potency of the photo op will quickly fade.
That is why effective diplomacy must be one aspect of a larger strategic spectrum that includes ugly and public confrontations. Without the threat of painful sanctions, harsh condemnations, and even the use of force, diplomacy risks becoming a sucker’s game, in which one side will sit forever in naïve hope of reaching a settlement while the other side acts at will.
Diplomacy is an end in itself in A Plan for Action. So, too, is multilateralism. The multilateralism the Plan celebrates and advocates is, of course, set in sharp contrast to the portrait it draws of a Bush administration flush with unilateralist cowboys intent on overturning existing international treaties and institutions just for the sport of it. Defining unilateralism is straightforward: the word refers to a state acting on its own in international affairs.2 It is a critical conceptual mistake, however, to pose “multilateralism” simply as its opposite.
Consider, for example, the various roles of the United Nations, the North American Treaty Organization, and the Proliferation Security Initiative. The UN, the Holy Grail of multilateralism, is an organization of 192 members with responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security lodged in its Security Council. NATO is a defense alliance of 26 states, all of which are Western democracies. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), created in 2003 by the Bush administration, now includes 90-plus diverse countries dedicated to stopping international trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.
Each organization is clearly “multilateral,” but their roles are so wildly different that the word ceases to have any meaning. For example, if the United States confronted a serious threat, it would be acting multilaterally if it took the matter either to NATO or the UN. Both options would be “multilateral,” but widely divergent in diplomatic and political content, and quite likely in military significance as well. They would be comparable related in the same way a steak knife is comparable to a plastic butter knife.
The PSI offers an even starker contrast, for unlike either the UN or NATO, it has no secretary general, no Secretariat, no headquarters, and no regularly scheduled meetings. One British diplomat described the initiative as “an activity, not an organization.” In fact, the model of the Proliferation Security Initiative is the ideal one for multilateral activity in the future, precisely because it transcends the traditional structures of international organizations, which have, time and again, proved inefficient and ineffective.
“Multilateralism” is, in other words, merely a word that describes international action taken by a group of nations acting in concert. For the authors of A Plan for Action, however, multilateralism has an almost spiritual aspect, representing a harmony that transcends barriers and oceans.
Harmony is designed to stifle any discordant notes, and so is the multilateralism envisioned by an American foreign policy guided by “responsible sovereignty.” It is one in which the group of nations, of which the United States is but a single player among many, initiates policies and activities that would likely be designed to constrain the freedom of action of the United States in pursuit of that harmony—not only in its activities abroad, but also in its activities within the 50 states.
There is a precedent for this in the conduct of the European Union, whose 27 nations now possess a common currency in the form of the euro and an immensely complex series of trade and labor policies intended to cut across sovereign lines. The EU is the model A Plan for Action proffers for the “responsible sovereignty” regime its authors wish to import to the United States. EU bureaucrats based in Brussels have been reshaping the priorities and needs of EU member states for a decade now, and proposing a system based on the design of the EU suggests a desire to subject the United States to a kind of international oversight not only when it comes to foreign policy but also on matters properly understood as U.S. domestic policy.
That very approach has been on display at the United Nations for years in an effort to standardize international conduct that has come to be known as “norming.” In theory, there is good reason to create international standards—for measurement, for example, or for conduct on the high seas. But “norming” goes far beyond such prosaic concerns. The UN has, for example, repeatedly voted in different committees to condemn the death penalty, in a clear effort to put pressure on the United States to follow suit. Similar votes have been taken on abortion rights and restricting the private ownership of firearms.
_____________
Such issues have been, and likely will again be, the subjects of intense democratic debate within the United States, and properly so. There is no need to internationalize them to make the debate more fruitful. What is common to these and many other issues is that the losers in our domestic debate are often the proponents of internationalizing the controversies. They think that if they can change the political actors, they can change the political outcome. Unsuccessful in our domestic political arena, they seek to redefine the arena in which these matters will be adjudicated—moving, in effect, from unilateral, democratic U.S. decision-making to a multilateral, bureaucratic, and elitist environment. For almost any domestic issue one can imagine, there are likely to be nongovernmental organizations roaming the international arena desperately trying to turn their priorities into “norming” issues.
This is what “responsible sovereignty” would look like. For the authors and signatories of A Plan of Action, sovereignty is simply an abstraction, a historical concept about as important today as the “sovereigns” from whose absolute rights the term originally derived. That is not the understanding of the U.S. Constitution, which locates the basis of its legitimacy in “we the people,” who constitute the sovereign authority of the nation.
“Sharing” sovereignty with someone or something else is thus not abstract for Americans. Doing so by definition will diminish the sovereign power of the American people over their government and their own lives, the very purpose for which the Constitution was written. This is something Americans have been reluctant to do. Now their reluctance may have to take the form of more concerted action against “responsible sovereignty” if its onward march is to be halted or reversed. Our Founders would clearly understand the need.
Write a Letter to the Editor
The Coming War on Sovereignty
Write a Letter to the Editor
Thank You
Your email has been sent.
Footnotes
1 The report can be downloaded free of charge at http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/11_action_plan_mgi.aspx.
2 An important subtext is the continuing confusion between unilateralism and isolationism, confusion especially evident in Europe in the late 1990’s. Even before the Bush administration, I tried to explain the distinction in “Unilateralism Is Not Isolationism” in Gwyn Prins, ed., Understanding Unilateralism in American Foreign Relations, Chatham House, 2000. More recently, Mackubin Thomas Owens makes a similar point in “The Bush Doctrine: The Foreign Policy of Republican Empire,” Orbis, Winter, 2009.
Stimulus: A History of Folly
Before he was sworn in as President, Barack Obama began to lay out his plans for reviving an American economy that, it would later be discovered, had declined 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, its worst performance in 26 years. About the first part of his project, “stimulating” businesses to invest and consumers to consume through government spending and tax remittances, he was forthcoming and enthusiastic. About the second, stabilizing the financial system, he wished to reserve judgment.
He anointed the stimulus proposal with a convenient and vivid metaphor. “We’re going to have to jump start this economy with my economic recovery plan,” he said on January 3. According to the image, one can jolt a dormant economy into action just as one can hook up polarized cables to a car battery, clamp a defibrillator to the chest, or breathe into the ear of a reluctant lover. Suddenly, the object of our attention will be back in action, aroused.
Alas, the questions raised by a proposed stimulus—whether to apply it, what sort it should be, how much it should cost, and when it should begin and end—are far trickier to answer than problems involving dead batteries. And, remarkably enough, history and economic research offer no conclusive answers. The recession that began in 2008 could turn out to be the worst slowdown since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. For three-quarters of a century, economists have been studying it diligently. And even now they cannot come to a definitive conclusion about the cause of that depression, the reasons for its severity and duration, or what cured it. In an introduction to a book of essays on the Great Depression he compiled in 2000, Ben S. Bernanke, then a Princeton professor and now chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, wrote, “Finding an explanation for the worldwide economic collapse of the 1930’s remains a fascinating intellectual challenge.”
Today, of course, the challenge is more than intellectual.
_____________
When he wrote in 1936 that “practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist,” John Maynard Keynes surely did not have himself in mind. But, in times of trouble, Americans still cling to Keynes, or at least to the caricature of him as the economist who said you could spend your way out of a recession. His big idea was that, left to its own devices, an economy can fall into a slump and just stay there. Self-corrective mechanisms will not necessarily work on their own; they will need help.
Prosperity depends on investment, on businesses building new plants, buying new machines, and employing more workers. In a typical case, when an economy slows, businesses reduce their demand for credit. At the same time, worried consumers save their earnings in banks, and by doing so, add to the store of money available for lending. These two forces—as well as actions taken by the Federal Reserve Board—combine to push interest rates to levels so attractive that businesses start borrowing again, and the economy picks up. The Great Depression, however, was atypical. The economy slowed and interest rates fell, but businesses were so frightened about the future that they refused to invest; instead, they did the opposite, shutting plants and firing workers. As for consumers, while they may have wanted to save, they lacked the cash to put away. Because they were out of work, they depleted what savings they had.
Keynes argued that when businesses and people cannot or will not invest, then the government must take on the role of filling the gap. The key is speed. The means, Keynes wrote in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, really did not matter so much:
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with bank notes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal mines which are then filled to the surface with town rubbish and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again, . . . there need be no more unemployment and with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community would probably become a good deal larger than it is.
Of course, Keynes favored large public-works projects over the burying of bottles. Building roads in the right places, for example, would both put people to work and provide the basis for more commerce. At first, Keynes emphasized government spending as stimulus, but when pressed in 1933, he advocated tax cuts as well—specifically in response to criticism that public-works projects do not put cash into the system quickly enough.
The dire situation for which Keynes prescribed a cure bears distressing similarities to our own. Interest rates set by the Fed stand effectively at zero percent, but banks are recalcitrant about lending and even businesses flush with cash are hesitant to invest. It appears that the current sickness occurred because the Fed, in an effort to keep the economy stimulated after the collapse of the tech-stock bubble and in the wake of September 11, cut interest rates far too much during 2001 (from 6.5 percent at the start of the year to 1.75 percent at the end) and waited too long to raise them, making credit so easy that businesses expanded beyond all reasonable bounds, and banks, flush with cash and trying to make higher returns, shoveled money at borrowers with poor credit; risk aversion disappeared, and loans, especially to home buyers, went bad. Booms do, after all, create their own busts.
In response, Congress last year voted funds for the Treasury to use to shore up financial institutions—the widely maligned Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP—and the Fed opened wide its lending window. Those actions forestalled mass failures, but banks, chastened by their past overindulgence and worried about depleting their capital, still do not want to lend. So while government action proved necessary (and remains necessary) to maintain public confidence in the banking system, it became clear those actions could not and would not mitigate the parlous effects of the recession that, we were told late in 2008, had begun at the end of 2007. So the question becomes: In a world in which monetary adjustments do not appear effective, can tax and spending policies pull us out of the slump?
_____________
The track record is discouraging. Despite Franklin Roosevelt’s aggressive spending, unemployment reached 25 percent in 1933, fell only to 14 percent by 1937, and was back up to 19 percent in 1939.1 In the end, the New Deal did little or nothing to resuscitate the economy. Certainly, inept monetary policies helped prolong the Great Depression, as did tax increases, constant interventions in the conduct of business, and the erection of global trade barriers, beginning with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930, more than two years before Roosevelt took office. There was a stretch of twelve years from the stock-market crash to Pearl Harbor, and, during that time, fiscal stimulus simply did not jump-start the economy (or, in Keynes’s own metaphor, “awaken Sleeping Beauty”). Now, some do attempt to make the case that Roosevelt did not increase government spending enough during the early and mid-1930’s and that it took World War II and the unprecedented infusion of government dollars into the economy to provide the stimulus that finally pulled America from the swamp.
But even if that were true—and considering the fact that federal spending tripled during the Great Depression, rising from 3 percent of the country’s gross domestic product to nearly 10 percent in 1939,2 it does not seem the likeliest explanation—it still does not offer much in the way of guidance through our current thicket. Few economists today believe the United States could tolerate the kind of budget deficits that developed during World War II, which ran more than 50 percent of gross domestic product, or about $7 trillion annually in current terms. When the federal government ramped up its spending during the war, it had not yet grown into the entitlement cash machine it is now, spitting out trillions of dollars a year in retirement and health-care benefits.
Not only was the stimulative effect of Great Depression fiscal policy non-existent, but follow-on efforts during the ten subsequent recessions proved equally ineffective. As a result of that hard-won experience, the consensus until recently among economists was that attempts at stimulus through emergency fiscal policies—as opposed to monetary policies and the automatic effects of increases in unemployment assistance and decreases in tax payments—were useless at best. Typical was the statement of Martin Eichenbaum of Northwestern University in the American Economic Review in 1997: “There is now widespread agreement that countercyclical discretionary fiscal policy is neither desirable nor politically feasible.” Martin Feldstein, then president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, agreed. Fiscal stimulus, he said in 2002, “has not contributed to economic stability and may have actually been destabilizing.”
_____________
A good place to turn to understand the failure of the jump-start is the work of Frederic Bastiat, a French politician of the early 19th century. “In the economic sphere,” he wrote,
an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them.
To prove his point, Bastiat described what happens when a vandal breaks a shopkeeper’s window. The seen effect is that repairing the glass creates economic value in the payment to the glazier, who then has money to buy a new suit or hire a part-time employee. What is unseen is that the shopkeeper has to pay the glazier with money that he would otherwise have used to buy a suit or add an employee. “The broken-window fallacy, under a hundred disguises, is the most persistent in the history of economics,” wrote the economic journalist Henry Hazlitt in 1946.
Like payments for broken windows, tax rebates and new roads (the seen) do not come free. The stimulus money that flows to taxpayers, government agencies, and businesses has to come from somewhere (the unseen). During a recession, it is usually borrowed, and the anticipation of taxpayers is that they will have to repay these loans, which means their taxes will rise in the future. This knowledge makes people anxious about spending the extra money, or even about investing it in the kind of ventures that help an economy grow.3
Lately, however, economists have become more sanguine about the power of fiscal stimulus, in large part because of the apparent success of the tax-rate reductions and rebates in 2001 and 2003 (although such a conclusion may ignore the monetary effects of the huge cut in interest rates). A summary of a conference held in May by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco stated that “the consensus” against stimulus “has unraveled and perhaps even begun to emerge on the opposite viewpoint.” Last year, Jason Furman and Douglas Elmendorf of the Brookings Institution wrote, “Fiscal policy implemented promptly can provide a larger near-term impetus to economic policy than monetary policy can.” And, in a paper delivered to the American Economic Association in January, Feldstein himself switched sides and said he now favored tax cuts and government spending.
The views of these economists are undoubtedly heartfelt, but it must be recognized that one of the great attractions of Keynes’s theories is that he gives you permission to do what you wanted to do anyway. Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Ronald Reagan, proposes a stimulus policy that extends the Bush tax cuts currently scheduled to expire in 2011 and increases spending on defense and national intelligence. In their stimulus proposal, Furman, now deputy director of Obama’s National Economic Council, and Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office under the current Democratic majority, adamantly oppose extending the Bush cuts and instead want to extend unemployment and Food Stamp benefits and issue short-term tax credits, even to people who owe no taxes.
Also, in the new enthusiasm for stimulus, there is not a small degree of panic; monetary policy is not working, so fiscal policy must! To his credit, however, Feldstein writes toward the end of his January paper, “It is of course possible that the planned surge in government spending will fail. Two or three years from now we could be facing a level of unemployment that is higher than today and that shows no sign of coming down.”
The truth is that we have learned almost nothing about the use of fiscal stimulus since the Great Depression, and it is a fatal conceit to assume that we can hurriedly construct a fiscal policy that will produce the prescribed results today. Economists seem to admit this fact by advocating what they prefer anyway, for political or ideological reasons. I would feel better about stimulus if Elmendorf were clamoring for permanent tax cuts and Feldstein for food stamps.
_____________
On being presented the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974, Friedrich von Hayek devoted his Stockholm lecture to acknowledging the severe limitations of his profession. “It seems to me,” he said, “that this failure of the economists to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences—an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error.” Government simply cannot know enough to direct an economy successfully, and when the President claims that his fiscal stimulus plan will create (or save) at least 3 million jobs, he is taking a wild, and dangerous, leap. Said Hayek:
If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible. He will therefore have to use what knowledge he can achieve, not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate a growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants.
What is that environment? First, it provides a confidence that, in a crisis, bank deposits are safe and insurance policies will be paid in full. Such confidence can be provided only by the government of the United States in its legitimate and essential role as the lender of last resort. Second, the environment supports, rather than denigrates or browbeats, productive members of society. The U.S. will not emerge from a serious recession unless businesses and investors lead it out. Third, it recognizes that Americans have undergone a financial calamity and that we need time to adjust; we cannot, like a car battery, be shocked back to life, and we aren’t in the mood to have someone blow in our ear.
In fact, stimulus may be precisely the wrong metaphor. Rather than getting jazzed up, we need to be calmed down and to take the time to learn from the Great Depression, a time when government did too much, not too little. Amity Shlaes makes the argument in The Forgotten Man, her book about the Great Depression, that the constant experimenting and meddling of the New Deal froze investors and business operators in fear: “Businesses decided to wait Roosevelt out, hold on to their cash, and invest in future years.”
Despite the warnings of Keynes, the experience of the past half-century indicates that today’s low interest rates will start having a positive effect, though it still will take many months. Meanwhile, left alone, what Hayek called “spontaneous order” will find its way forward. Using a different metaphor, James Grant, in his history of credit, Money of the Mind, wrote, “The cycle of decay and renewal is as much a part of capitalism as it is of the forest floor.” But in the 1930’s, “something in the normal regenerative process was missing. There was no decisive recovery from the business-cycle bottom. People had lost their speculative courage, and the more government legislated and taxed, the more that credit sulked.”
Stimulus—that is, fiscal intervention with the express purpose of speeding up the normal regenerative process that Grant describes—is unnecessary and almost certainly harmful, a policy based on hubris and anxiety, rather than on history and good sense. Under such circumstances, the proper way to analyze discrete proposals today for spending or taxing is on their own merits, not on their supposed ability to stimulate something else. There may, in fact, be a good reason for government to spend billions of dollars today on building highways, and it has nothing to do with stimulus. It is that long-term interest rates are at historic lows and that the right highways can boost the economy in the long term. There also may be a good reason, again far apart from stimulus, for revising the tax code and reforming Social Security and Medicare. It is that Americans now understand that the economic future is not so assured as they believed a couple of years ago, and it is time for decisions to be made—in a manner careful, sensible, and unstimulated.
Write a Letter to the Editor
Stimulus: A History of Folly
Write a Letter to the Editor
Thank You
Your email has been sent.
Footnotes
1 For some perspective, the unemployment rate in January 2009 was 7.2 percent. 2 The figures are from a paper by David Wheelock, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 3 The notion that people make current consumption decisions based on their lifetime income, rather than their current income, was laid out brilliantly in 1957 by Milton Friedman in his “permanent income hypothesis,” which has never been seriously challenged.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Xfm Meets U2
The Edge popped in to see Ian Camfield at Xfm Towers. Thirty minutes of the guitar hero's time passed, many gems of wisdom were imparted.
The Edge visitied Xfm for a chat with Ian Camfield. Over the course of forty minutes, he revealed that some good came out of new album, 'No Line On The Horizon', being leaked, that he was wrong to dissaude Bono from cosying up to Bush and that Larry Mullen held the reigns of the band for approximately forty minutes.
You can hear the full interview right here,
When you’re at this stage and the album’s coming out, what are your thoughts on the day of release?
“Things like, ‘Did I put my Mum on the thank you list’…”
Listen To Part 1 Now
Did Daniel Lanois, Brian Eno and Steve Lillywhite get the most out of you because they know you very well?
“I think they do know us very well and they know when we hit something…”
Listen To Part 2 Now
Originally you planned on finishing the album in Summer. Was that you being confident or scared?
“It’s never nice to let people down…”
Listen To Part 3 Now
What do you want people to get from the new U2 album?
"First of all, that it is an album..."
Listen To Part 4 Now
Is Bono’s extra curricular activities easier because it takes the heat off the other three?
“That’s what he’s good at, and that’s why he’s the frontman…”
Listen To Part 5 Now
There was always the conception before that U2 was Larry’s band…
“The Larry Mullen Band existed for all of about 40 minutes..."
Listen To Part 6 Now
You’ve got bigger and better. How?
“From the very get-go it was always about being a great band..."
Listen To Part 7 Now
"We always create by finding something new…"
Listen To Part 7 Now
U2 Talk About Fordham University Gig
On Friday (March 6), U2 rocked a crowd of college kids on the campus of New York's Fordham University — which is exactly the demographic that the iconic rockers want to expose to their new album, No Line on the Horizon.
The band tore through three songs from the album on the college's picturesque campus in the New York City borough of the Bronx.
"Every album is like our first album. And we want to do the thing we did with our first album and go out and play the colleges," Bono told MTV News on Friday after the show. "Play to the people who are living closest to the music."
Bono said that for the most part, young people can best appreciate new sounds. "They're often students," he said. "They're often not people in their 30s. Bob Dylan has this line, 'He not busy being born is busy dying' [from 'It's Alright Ma, I'm Only Bleeding']. I love that line. I often think it applies to music. People, as they get older, they stop listening to the music. We want to go to where people are still passionate for music."
"You can feel that out in Fordham today," he continued. "There's people probably watching MTV going, 'Who are those guys ... what are they doing here?' Well we're ready to make our case."
Bassist Adam Clayton said that despite being in the industry for over 30 years, playing new songs to a crowd of college kids felt right. "When we came out with our first record, Boy, we couldn't get played on commercial radio," he recalled. "And it was the colleges that kept that record alive, and we would go to every college and do interviews."
"It was very cool to have a real crowd there and to be playing the new songs," guitarist the Edge agreed. "Always, for us, you learn almost instantly what's right and what's wrong as soon as we play. That's where we grew up as a band: in front of a live audience. As you're hearing it through all of the people, you're playing to sense their reaction."
For drummer Larry Mullen Jr., those reactions make all the difference in the world for future performances. "When you play live you get to understand the nuances, the things that make a difference," he said. "When we were playing it today I felt like, 'I get this.' "
Earlier this week, the band had a street in New York named after them.
The band tore through three songs from the album on the college's picturesque campus in the New York City borough of the Bronx.
"Every album is like our first album. And we want to do the thing we did with our first album and go out and play the colleges," Bono told MTV News on Friday after the show. "Play to the people who are living closest to the music."
Bono said that for the most part, young people can best appreciate new sounds. "They're often students," he said. "They're often not people in their 30s. Bob Dylan has this line, 'He not busy being born is busy dying' [from 'It's Alright Ma, I'm Only Bleeding']. I love that line. I often think it applies to music. People, as they get older, they stop listening to the music. We want to go to where people are still passionate for music."
"You can feel that out in Fordham today," he continued. "There's people probably watching MTV going, 'Who are those guys ... what are they doing here?' Well we're ready to make our case."
Bassist Adam Clayton said that despite being in the industry for over 30 years, playing new songs to a crowd of college kids felt right. "When we came out with our first record, Boy, we couldn't get played on commercial radio," he recalled. "And it was the colleges that kept that record alive, and we would go to every college and do interviews."
"It was very cool to have a real crowd there and to be playing the new songs," guitarist the Edge agreed. "Always, for us, you learn almost instantly what's right and what's wrong as soon as we play. That's where we grew up as a band: in front of a live audience. As you're hearing it through all of the people, you're playing to sense their reaction."
For drummer Larry Mullen Jr., those reactions make all the difference in the world for future performances. "When you play live you get to understand the nuances, the things that make a difference," he said. "When we were playing it today I felt like, 'I get this.' "
Earlier this week, the band had a street in New York named after them.
Exclusive: U2 To 'Kiss The Future' On Global Stadium Tour
 U2 reveal "Kiss The Future" tour details. |
 |
March 06, 2009 09:00 AM ET
It’s a groundbreaking tour with production that includes a 360-degree audience configuration, ambitious staging and a cylindrical video screen. “We’re very excited about the idea to go on the road with this album,” the Edge says. “It’s an album that I think is going to translate so well to the live context. The songs we’ve tried in rehearsal are sounding fantastic, so that’s got everyone really fired up.”
U2 will be playing in a setting unique among all previous tours, by any artist. The tour will be global and lengthy. U2 will stay in Europe through Aug. 22, then hit American shores on Sept. 12 with a show at Soldier Field in Chicago. The band will play in North America until Oct. 28 and plans on working the globe until the fall of 2010. In addition to its production firsts, the tour is destined to become one of the highest-grossing tours ever; at $389 million, the band’s 2005-2007 Vertigo tour is second only to the Rolling Stones’ A Bigger Bang trek.
After playing arenas in North America and stadiums elsewhere on their last few tours, U2 will play stadiums everywhere this time out. “This is going to be completely different, and that’s what makes it exciting -- finding something new to bring to the touring culture,” says the Edge. “It’s hard to come up with something that’s fundamentally different, but we have, I think, on this tour. Where we’re taking our production will never have been seen before by anybody, and that’s an amazing thing to be able to say. For a band like U2 that really thrive on breaking new ground, it’s a real thrill.”
As they have for well over a decade, Live Nation global music chairman Arthur Fogel and his team will produce and promote U2 worldwide. Committing to a global stadium tour is “obviously a major undertaking on a bunch of different levels,” says Fogel. “On the last tour it basically broke down indoors in America and stadiums outside of America. Both shows were pretty different and they were both incredible, but I think the general feeling, and certainly mine, was the experience of U2 in a stadium is special and unique, and it would be great for North America to experience that the way the rest of the world did the last time around.”
Playing in a 360 configuration will increase the capacity by about 15%-20%, depending on the stadium. The configuration opens up myriad opportunities for scaling ticket prices, an important consideration for Fogel and the band. The top ticket price will be slightly higher than last time and the bottom price will be lower, with the floor seats -- the closest to the stage -- the lowest priced. In fact, playing larger capacity venues allows for more conservative pricing overall. Field level is going to be $55, and there will be 10,000 tickets a show, every show, at $30, Fogel says. The price points are $250, $90-$95, depending on the market; $55 and $30.
On-sales will begin in Europe in mid-March, and North American on-sales will start in late March/early April. U2 will also resurrect its random upgrade program first seen on the Elevation tour in 2001, where select fans purchasing GA tickets will be moved closest to the stage.
The basic layout of the tour is Europe in July and August, America in September and October with a total of 40-45 shows this year; more stadiums in America in June and July next year, then August and September in Europe. The trek then tentatively will hit South America in the fall of 2010, for potentially as many as 90-100 shows over the next two years.
This will be the first tour under U2’s 12-year multi-rights deal with Live Nation, though the band’s relationship with Fogel dates back to a show at the El Mocambo in Toronto in 1979. “Arthur and I are great friends and I’ve been very interested in the Live Nation project for years now, and we’ve been very supportive of it,” says U2 manager Paul McGuinness. “We obviously intend to go on performing for a long time to come and that’s what the deal reflects. U2 always had parallel careers as recording artists and a touring act and it was always fundamental to our way of thinking that the two should be complimentary.”
The NLOTH Wordle
The web is spewing reactions to the album - faster than anyone can keep up with - lots of +ve and -ve stuff. The world is full of people who love to hate U2, and who love to love U2, with not a lot in between. Bono doesn’t help by being an arrogant idiot sometimes (bit lame to say his insults to Chris Martin were just a joke). But still, there’s so much to get your teeth into with this album, as ever.
So i’m keeping an eye on U2sermons - an ever-ready help in such circumstances. Also always interested in what Christian Scharen has to say on these things - but couldn’t help be stung a little by his charge to those who indulged in precisely what i’ve been doing as being akin to trainspotting. Well - i suppose it is a bit geeky. But then, I’ll do it anyway (and not care too much - i won’t notice the passers-by and they certainly won’t notice me). Digging around the lyrics has certainly helped me to understand what is going on - and to explain why they took many of the musical decisions they have.
But an ultra-geeky thing i’ve done is to see what happens you combine all the lyrics from the album onto one Wordle. So here it is. The outright winner is as you’d expect (for ‘love is our law’)- but it’s quite interesting to see what follows (far) behind it… (Click the image to get detail)
Isn’t wordle.net just a fab thing?
I Found Grace Inside the Sound: U2's No Line On The Horizon
Over the weekend Mockingbird blog received an anonymous, theological review of the new U2 record, which was just too good not to post. The record is out 3/3/09:
Good music is like a diamond; one can look at it from many different angles and see various facets of beauty. The new U2 album is like this, and I could have written a review about many other topics, such as its guitar riffs, its “moments of surrender”, or whether or not it is the “best ever” U2 album. Instead, I’m going to focus on the facet that played loudest to my ears: the repeated lyric, "let me in the sound."
If the title No Line on the Horizon refers to a yearning for the removal of the barrier between heaven and earth, then I assume it is evoked from Jesus’ prayer to his Father, “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” It is an idea displayed in visual form on the album’s cover, which is a photograph of a blurred line where the ocean meets the sky, and an “equals” sign over it (…on earth as it is in heaven). The theme certainly would fit within the larger context of Bono’s theology of eschatological tension (the “already / not yet” reality of Christ’s Kingdom), so poignantly painted in the scenes of Sunday Bloody Sunday and many other examples.
In that earlier U2 era, the tension was mostly focused on the brokenness of life on earth’s side of the horizon line (“broken bottles under children’s feet”). It sometimes alluded to the Kingdom on heaven’s side, showing us that it would include unity and hope (“tonight, we could be as one”). That unity was later analogized as radiant color, for example in the lyric “then [in heaven] all the colors will bleed into one” in I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For.
So many times, Bono has pleaded with the Divine to come down through the barrier once again. He would wonder why the delay (“how long must we sing this song?”), especially in the face of such a mess here on earth. He even pleaded by mocking God’s absence in Wake Up Dead Man: “I know you’re lookin’ out for us, But maybe your hands aren’t free?”
But on this latest album he has started to paint a fuller picture of that “other place,” the Kingdom (not yet) come, on the other side of the horizon line.
Moving beyond the color analogy, Bono here describes heaven as full of sound.
In the new song Breathe he has us imagine “the roar that lies on the other side of silence” and in I’ll Go Crazy If I Don’t Go Crazy Tonight, he sings “…the sweetest melody is the one we haven’t heard.” I think this sound--a roar!--must be the same vision of heaven described in Revelation 4 and 5, where all the living creatures in heaven and on earth say/sing without ceasing “Holy Holy Holy” to the lamb on the throne.
Pointing us toward that sound, Bono invokes a prophetic tone by asking God to be witness to the truth of the Kingdom (“let me in the sound!”) and then he declares that he’ll be communicating that truth on earth, singing to the hearer, “Listen for me, I’ll be shouting. But we’re gonna make it all the way to the light.” Like a prophet, he then gives a rally cry to his people: “Let’s shout into the darkness, squeeze out sparks of light.” This lyric is an obvious footnote to the Bruce Cockburn lyric that Bono quoted on Rattle and Hum, “gotta kick the darkness till it bleeds daylight.” But here, instead of kicking at evil, Bono asks us to sing into it. He asks us to listen for Jesus’ tune, then sing with him that not-yet-heard melody of the Kingdom.
How long must we sing this song? Until that day when Christ returns and there is no line on the horizon.
Good music is like a diamond; one can look at it from many different angles and see various facets of beauty. The new U2 album is like this, and I could have written a review about many other topics, such as its guitar riffs, its “moments of surrender”, or whether or not it is the “best ever” U2 album. Instead, I’m going to focus on the facet that played loudest to my ears: the repeated lyric, "let me in the sound."
If the title No Line on the Horizon refers to a yearning for the removal of the barrier between heaven and earth, then I assume it is evoked from Jesus’ prayer to his Father, “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” It is an idea displayed in visual form on the album’s cover, which is a photograph of a blurred line where the ocean meets the sky, and an “equals” sign over it (…on earth as it is in heaven). The theme certainly would fit within the larger context of Bono’s theology of eschatological tension (the “already / not yet” reality of Christ’s Kingdom), so poignantly painted in the scenes of Sunday Bloody Sunday and many other examples.In that earlier U2 era, the tension was mostly focused on the brokenness of life on earth’s side of the horizon line (“broken bottles under children’s feet”). It sometimes alluded to the Kingdom on heaven’s side, showing us that it would include unity and hope (“tonight, we could be as one”). That unity was later analogized as radiant color, for example in the lyric “then [in heaven] all the colors will bleed into one” in I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For.
So many times, Bono has pleaded with the Divine to come down through the barrier once again. He would wonder why the delay (“how long must we sing this song?”), especially in the face of such a mess here on earth. He even pleaded by mocking God’s absence in Wake Up Dead Man: “I know you’re lookin’ out for us, But maybe your hands aren’t free?”
But on this latest album he has started to paint a fuller picture of that “other place,” the Kingdom (not yet) come, on the other side of the horizon line.Moving beyond the color analogy, Bono here describes heaven as full of sound.
In the new song Breathe he has us imagine “the roar that lies on the other side of silence” and in I’ll Go Crazy If I Don’t Go Crazy Tonight, he sings “…the sweetest melody is the one we haven’t heard.” I think this sound--a roar!--must be the same vision of heaven described in Revelation 4 and 5, where all the living creatures in heaven and on earth say/sing without ceasing “Holy Holy Holy” to the lamb on the throne.
Pointing us toward that sound, Bono invokes a prophetic tone by asking God to be witness to the truth of the Kingdom (“let me in the sound!”) and then he declares that he’ll be communicating that truth on earth, singing to the hearer, “Listen for me, I’ll be shouting. But we’re gonna make it all the way to the light.” Like a prophet, he then gives a rally cry to his people: “Let’s shout into the darkness, squeeze out sparks of light.” This lyric is an obvious footnote to the Bruce Cockburn lyric that Bono quoted on Rattle and Hum, “gotta kick the darkness till it bleeds daylight.” But here, instead of kicking at evil, Bono asks us to sing into it. He asks us to listen for Jesus’ tune, then sing with him that not-yet-heard melody of the Kingdom.
Walk out into the street,The song concludes its last verse with this:
Sing your heart out.
The people we meet,
will not be drowned out.
We are people born of sound,Like a minister reminding his flock of their mission to be salt and light, Bono declares to us that we were created to sing of God’s grace. If we would yearn to hear, as he does, the song already being sung on the other side of the horizon, we might catch a note or two. We might “tune our hearts to sing God’s grace”, as the 18th century hymn Come Thou Fount also beckons. We might sing these notes in the darkness until we see sparks of light.
The songs are in our eyes.
Born to wear them like a crown, oh.
Walk out into the sunburst street
Sing your heart out,
Sing my heart out.
I found grace inside the sound,
I found grace, it's all that I found.
How long must we sing this song? Until that day when Christ returns and there is no line on the horizon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)