The Price Is Right?—The Ambassador’s Residence

I noted here that the British also did not appreciate the idea of receiving an Obama bagman as ambassador. Two friends, PS and PS (really), have sent me articles from Slate and Bloomberg with more on fundraisers being nominated to choice locations. Bloomberg has been kind enough to give us the amount of money they raised:

Paris—$800,000+
London—$500,000—800,000
Tokyo—$500,000+
Copenhagen—$100,000-200,000
The Vatican, almost but not quite priceless, goes for $1,000 to a theology professor*.

The order makes sense, though the prices come across as incredible steals. For example, for the capacious Tokyo residence in the heart of the city, the monthly rent alone should come to more than $500,000. Maybe the housing market is in even worse shape than is commonly reported.

The bargain sale must be disappointing Obama’s most ardent supporters and amusing Republicans across the board. It probably did not come as a surprise, however, to people who have looked at both Obama's history of playing the political game while avoiding the seamiest parts of it and the passive, harmless, role of modern-day ambassadors in allied countries and other benign outposts.

Seriously, when do you think Michelin is going to start awarding stars to embassies? I’m sure presidential campaign donors would appreciate it.

* Okay, that was a low blow.

What Do the US Secretary of State and the Japanese Health Minister Have in Common?

A lot, it turns out.

Condoleezza Rice and Yōichi Masuzoe both work for unpopular bosses (George Bush and Yasuo Fukuda) whose job approval ratings are stuck around the 30% mark in public opinion polls. Each one has been at the center of what has arguably been the biggest public policy fiasco of the respective administration, i.e. the war in Iraq or the public pension accounting scandal. The US relationship with Russia has deteriorated significantly on the former Sovietologist’s watch as well, and Mr. Masuzoe mishandled a high-profile contaminated blood plasma case to boot.

Yet the US Secretary of State and the Japanese Minister of Health, Welfare and Labor both remain highly popular with the electorate, opinion polls giving them approval rates in the fifties*, sparking futile speculation about their chances for higher elective office.

I don’t understand how they do that. Do you think it could be bottled and sold? Would it be legal? Well, if you find something on EBay, you know where to reach me…

* Here (via Real Clear Politics), and here (scroll down, way down).

Walter Russell Mead Tells Us How America Can’t Help Being Good, Even When It Is Bad

Walter Russell Mead unleashes another big one, with Failing Upward, subtitled Relax, America will survive George W. Bush, in the New Republic. In the article, he asks:

For two centuries, the United States has astounded critics with its bad foreign policy--and, for two centuries, the United States has steadily risen to an unprecedented level of power and influence in the international system. Why does the team with the worst skills in the league end up with so many pennants?

His answer:

But there is another dimension to our special providence, one that has come into greater prominence during the Bush administration. U.S. foreign policy isn't successful just because our process reflects the varied interests and priorities of our diverse and dynamic society (which I think was the core argument in Special Providence, the book). We also succeed because our core strategic interests--liberal society, global economic growth, geopolitical stability--fit well with the interests and aspirations of other people around the world. They remain popular even when U.S. policy is widely disliked; when we fail to achieve our goals, others often do the work for us.

Does this sound like American triumphalism with a little help from its friends, neo-con lite, if you will? Perhaps. But Mr. Mead does a breathtaking around-the-world analysis for the Bush era that argues in essence that the world is indeed buying into the deal despite the Bush Presidency.

No doubt you should be able to amass all the regional downsides to construct a different argument For example, the concentration of liquid and gaseous energy resources in the Middle East and Russia is troubling; I also have no handle on what to me was a revelation over the inroads Christianity has been making in Africa and its effects.

Still, on first reading, I find him persuasive. I think that this is going to be one of those articles that are widely talked about.

---

The article is split into 10 pages, but it’s not that long and can easily be read during lunch break, if you must. You can also read page 9 for the gist of his underlying argument (it is not that unfamiliar; remember the resemblance to neoconservatism), then go over the entire piece.