Radical in the White House

For one day, for one hour, let us take a bow as a country. Nearly 233 years after our founding, 144 years after the close of our Civil War and 46 years after Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, this crazy quilt of immigrants called Americans finally elected a black man, Barack Hussein Obama, as president. Walking back from the inauguration, I saw an African-American street vendor wearing a home-stenciled T-shirt that pretty well captured the moment — and then some. It said: “Mission Accomplished.”

But we cannot let this be the last mold we break, let alone the last big mission we accomplish. Now that we have overcome biography, we need to write some new history — one that will reboot, revive and reinvigorate America. That, for me, was the essence of Obama’s inaugural speech and I hope we — and he — are really up to it.

Indeed, dare I say, I hope Obama really has been palling around all these years with that old Chicago radical Bill Ayers. I hope Obama really is a closet radical.

Not radical left or right, just a radical, because this is a radical moment. It is a moment for radical departures from business as usual in so many areas. We can’t thrive as a country any longer by coasting on our reputation, by postponing solutions to every big problem that might involve some pain and by telling ourselves that dramatic new initiatives — like a gasoline tax, national health care or banking reform — are too hard or “off the table.” So my most fervent hope about President Obama is that he will be as radical as this moment — that he will put everything on the table.

Opportunities for bold initiatives and truly new beginnings are rare in our system — in part because of the sheer inertia and stalemate designed into our Constitution, with its deliberate separation of powers, and in part because of the way lobbying money, a 24-hour news cycle and a permanent presidential campaign all conspire to paralyze big changes.

“The system is built for stalemate,” said Michael J. Sandel, the Harvard University political theorist. “In ordinary times, the energy and dynamism of American life reside in the economy and society, and people view government with suspicion or indifference. But in times of national crisis, Americans look to government to solve fundamental problems that affect them directly. These are the times when presidents can do big things. These moments are rare. But they offer the occasion for the kind of leadership that can recast the political landscape, and redefine the terms of political argument for a generation.”

In the 1930s, the Great Depression enabled Franklin Roosevelt to launch the New Deal and redefine the role of the federal government, he added, while in the 1960s, the assassination of John F. Kennedy and “the moral ferment of the civil rights movement” enabled Lyndon Johnson to enact his Great Society agenda, including Medicare, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

“These presidencies did more than enact new laws and programs,” concluded Sandel. “They rewrote the social contract, and redefined what it means to be a citizen. Obama’s moment, and his presidency, could be that consequential.”

George W. Bush completely squandered his post-9/11 moment to summon the country to a dramatic new rebuilding at home. This has left us in some very deep holes. These holes — and the broad awareness that we are at the bottom of them — is what makes this a radical moment, calling for radical departures from business as usual, led by Washington.

That is why this voter is hoping Obama will swing for the fences. But he also has to remember to run the bases. George Bush swung for some fences, but he often failed at the most basic element of leadership — competent management and follow-through.

President Obama will have to decide just how many fences he can swing for at one time: grand bargains on entitlement and immigration reform? A national health care system? A new clean-energy infrastructure? The nationalization and repair of our banking system? Will it be all or one? Some now and some later? It is too soon to say.

But I do know this: while a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, so too is a great politician, with a natural gift for oratory, a rare knack for bringing people together, and a nation, particularly its youth, ready to be summoned and to serve.

So, in sum, while it is impossible to exaggerate what a radical departure it is from our past that we have inaugurated a black man as president, it is equally impossible to exaggerate how much our future depends on a radical departure from our present. As Obama himself declared from the Capitol steps: “Our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed.”

We need to get back to work on our country and our planet in wholly new ways. The hour is late, the project couldn’t be harder, the stakes couldn’t be higher, the payoff couldn’t be greater.

(The New York Times)

Mientras Detroit dormía

Cuando pienso en nuestro intento de sacar de apuros a Detroit no puedo evitar reflexionar sobre lo que, desde mi punto de vista, es la norma empresarial más importante en el actual mercado mundial, integrado y digitalizado, en el que el conocimiento y las herramientas para la innovación están tan ampliamente repartidos. Es ésta: todo lo que pueda hacerse, se hará. La única duda es si lo hará uno o se lo harán. Pero no piensen ni por un momento que no se hará algo. Si tienen una idea en Detroit o Tennessee, prométanme que lucharán por ella, porque si no, alguien en Dinamarca o en Tel Aviv lo hará un segundo después.

¿Por qué saco esto a colación? Porque alguien del sector de la automoción en Dinamarca y Tel Aviv ya está desarrollando una alternativa real para el modelo empresarial de Detroit. No sé si esta alternativa a los coches que utilizan gasolina funcionará, pero sé que puede hacerse, y Detroit no está haciéndolo. Y, por tanto, se hará, y apuesto a que, al final, será rentable.

Y cuando lo sea, nuestra ayuda de emergencia a Detroit se recordará como el equivalente de verter miles de millones de euros de dinero público en el negocio de la venta por catálogo en vísperas del nacimiento de eBay. Se la recordará como se recuerda el verter miles de millones de euros en el negocio de la música en discos compactos en vísperas del nacimiento del iPod y de iTunes. Se la recordará como se recuerda el verter miles de millones de euros en una cadena de librerías en vísperas del nacimiento de Amazon.com y el Kindle. Se la recordará como se recuerda el verter miles de millones de euros en mejorar las máquinas de escribir en vísperas del nacimiento del ordenador personal e Internet.

¿A qué modelo empresarial me estoy refiriendo? A la cadena de coches eléctricos de Shai Agassi, llamada Better Place. Justamente la semana pasada, la empresa, con sede en Palo Alto, California, anunció una alianza con el estado de Hawai para probar en carretera su plan empresarial tras haber firmado ya acuerdos similares con Israel, Australia, la zona de la bahía de San Francisco y, sí, Dinamarca.

El sistema de recarga del coche eléctrico de Better Place consiste en generar electrones a partir de una fuente de energía tan renovable como sea posible (como la eólica y la solar) y, posteriormente, introducir esos electrones limpios en una infraestructura nacional para la recarga de coches eléctricos. Ésta está constituida por puntos de carga de electricidad con salidas en forma de enchufe -los primeros se han abierto esta semana en Israel-, además de estaciones para la sustitución de baterías repartidas por el país en cuestión. Luego, todo el sistema se coordina desde un centro de control del servicio, que integra y elabora las facturas.

Con el modelo de Better Place, los consumidores pueden comprar o alquilar un coche eléctrico del fabricante francés Renault o de empresas japonesas como Nissan (General Motors despreció a Agassi) y luego comprarle a Better Place kilómetros para sus baterías eléctricas, del mismo modo en que ahora se compra un móvil a Apple y los minutos a AT&T. De esa forma, Better Place, o cualquier empresa de automóviles que se asocie con ella, se beneficia de cada kilómetro que se recorre. General Motors vende coches. Better Place vende kilómetros de movilidad.

Está previsto que los primeros coches eléctricos de Renault y Nissan circulen por Dinamarca e Israel en 2011, cuando todo el sistema debería estar listo y en funcionamiento. El martes, el ministro de Medio Ambiente de Japón invitó a Better Place a unirse al primer proyecto para coches eléctricos dirigido por el Gobierno junto a Honda, Mitsubishi y Subaru. Better Place fue la única empresa extranjera invitada a participar y a trabajar con las principales empresas automovilísticas de Japón en la construcción de una estación de recambio de baterías para coches eléctricos en Yokohama, el Detroit de Japón.

Lo que me parece interesante de Better Place es que está construyendo una empresa de automóviles a partir de la nueva plataforma industrial del siglo XXI, no de la del siglo XX, exactamente lo mismo que hizo Steve Jobs para revolucionar el negocio de la música. ¿Qué es lo que Apple fue el primero en entender? Para empezar, que la plataforma tecnológica actual permitiría que cualquiera que tuviese un ordenador pudiese grabar música. Segundo, que Internet y los reproductores de MP3 permitirían que cualquiera pudiese transferir música en formato digital a otra persona. Los CD y las compañías discográficas ya no serían necesarios. Apple no hizo más que tomar todas esas innovaciones y reunirlas en un sistema único de creación, compra y reproducción de música que alteró completamente el negocio de la música.

Lo que dice Agassi, el fundador de Better Place, es que hay una nueva forma de generar movilidad, no sólo música, empleando la misma plataforma. Lo único que hace falta es la clase apropiada de batería de coche -el iPod en esta historia- y la clase apropiada de red nacional de recarga -la tienda de iTunes- para hacer que el modelo empresarial funcione para los coches eléctricos a tres céntimos el kilómetro. El estadounidense medio está pagando hoy día unos seis céntimos por kilómetro recorrido usando gasolina, lo que también contribuye al calentamiento global y consolida el poder de los petrodictadores.

No esperen que una innovación así salga de Detroit. Recuerden que, en 1908, el consumo del modelo T de Ford (10,5 kilómetros por litro) era mejor que el de muchos modelos de Ford, General Motors y Chrysler fabricados en 2008. Pero no se sorprendan de que provenga de un lugar diferente. Puede hacerse. Se hará. Si desaprovechamos la oportunidad de ganar la carrera del Coche 2.0 porque seguimos empeñándonos absurdamente en salvar nuestro Coche 1.0, no se podrá culpar a nadie más que a los nuevos accionistas de Detroit: nosotros, los contribuyentes.

(Thomas L. Friedman es columnista del diario The New York Times. La versión en español salió en El Pais, Madrid)

Making America Stupid

(Op-Ed Columnist, New York Times)

Imagine for a minute that attending the Republican convention in St. Paul, sitting in a skybox overlooking the convention floor, were observers from Russia, Iran and Venezuela. And imagine for a minute what these observers would have been doing when Rudy Giuliani led the delegates in a chant of “drill, baby, drill!”

I’ll tell you what they would have been doing: the Russian, Iranian and Venezuelan observers would have been up out of their seats, exchanging high-fives and joining in the chant louder than anyone in the hall — “Yes! Yes! Drill, America, drill!” — because an America that is focused first and foremost on drilling for oil is an America more focused on feeding its oil habit than kicking it.
Why would Republicans, the party of business, want to focus our country on breathing life into a 19th-century technology — fossil fuels — rather than giving birth to a 21st-century technology — renewable energy? As I have argued before, it reminds me of someone who, on the eve of the I.T. revolution — on the eve of PCs and the Internet — is pounding the table for America to make more I.B.M. typewriters and carbon paper. “Typewriters, baby, typewriters.”

Of course, we’re going to need oil for many years, but instead of exalting that — with “drill, baby, drill” — why not throw all our energy into innovating a whole new industry of clean power with the mantra “invent, baby, invent?” That is what a party committed to “change” would really be doing. As they say in Texas: “If all you ever do is all you’ve ever done, then all you’ll ever get is all you ever got.”

I dwell on this issue because it is symbolic of the campaign that John McCain has decided to run. It’s a campaign now built on turning everything possible into a cultural wedge issue — including even energy policy, no matter how stupid it makes the voters and no matter how much it might weaken America.

I respected McCain’s willingness to support the troop surge in Iraq, even if it was going to cost him the Republican nomination. Now the same guy, who would not sell his soul to win his party’s nomination, is ready to sell every piece of his soul to win the presidency.

In order to disguise the fact that the core of his campaign is to continue the same Bush policies that have led 80 percent of the country to conclude we’re on the wrong track, McCain has decided to play the culture-war card. Obama may be a bit professorial, but at least he is trying to unite the country to face the real issues rather than divide us over cultural differences.

A Washington Post editorial on Thursday put it well: “On a day when the Congressional Budget Office warned of looming deficits and a grim economic outlook, when the stock market faltered even in the wake of the government’s rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when President Bush discussed the road ahead in Iraq and Afghanistan, on what did the campaign of Senator John McCain spend its energy? A conference call to denounce Senator Barack Obama for using the phrase ‘lipstick on a pig’ and a new television ad accusing the Democrat of wanting to teach kindergartners about sex before they learn to read.”

Some McCain supporters criticize Obama for not having the steel in his belly to use force in the dangerous world we live in today. Well I know this: In order to use force, you have to have force. In order to exercise leverage, you have to have leverage.

I don’t know how much steel is in Obama’s belly, but I do know that the issues he is focusing on in this campaign — improving education and health care, dealing with the deficit and forging a real energy policy based on building a whole new energy infrastructure — are the only way we can put steel back into America’s spine. McCain, alas, has abandoned those issues for the culture-war strategy.

Who cares how much steel John McCain has in his gut when the steel that today holds up our bridges, railroads, nuclear reactors and other infrastructure is rusting? McCain talks about how he would build dozens of nuclear power plants. Oh, really? They go for $10 billion a pop. Where is the money going to come from? From lowering taxes? From banning abortions? From borrowing more from China? From having Sarah Palin “reform” Washington — as if she has any more clue how to do that than the first 100 names in the D.C. phonebook?

Sorry, but there is no sustainable political/military power without economic power, and talking about one without the other is nonsense. Unless we make America the country most able to innovate, compete and win in the age of globalization, our leverage in the world will continue to slowly erode. Those are the issues this election needs to be about, because that is what the next four years need to be about.

There is no strong leader without a strong country. And posing as one, to use the current vernacular, is nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig.

(New York Times, 14 de septiembre)