I found the article below by Thomas Friedman of the NY Times thought-provoking. He provides insight about ‘the buzz’ in Davos, and his impressions of it. Interestingly, many non-American movers & shakers the world over are expressing a certain ‘angst’ about the perils of ineffective governance in the U.S. and inability of Washington to effectively govern the nation. The images of ‘Tea Party’ activists, their Republican supporters, and the gratuitous levels of political hostility aimed at our new president provide ample support for their concerns of political instability in America, and what it means to U.S. power around the globe. He also acknowledges what seems to be a shifting center of global gravitas away from the U.S and increasingly toward the European Union and China – something captains of industry in Davos have been referring to as ‘the Beijing Consensus.’ It’s an interesting read. Post your thoughts in a comment.
—-
Indeed, speaking of phrases I’ve never heard here before, another goes like this: “Is the ‘Beijing Consensus’ replacing the ‘Washington Consensus?’ ” Washington Consensus is a term coined after the cold war for the free-market, pro-trade and globalization policies promoted by America. As Katrin Bennhold reported in The International Herald Tribune this week, developing countries everywhere are looking “for a recipe for faster growth and greater stability than that offered by the now tattered ‘Washington Consensus’ of open markets, floating currencies and free elections.” And as they do, “there is growing talk about a ‘Beijing Consensus.’ ” Read more from the NYTimes here.
NY Times (Davos) – As a political barometer, the Davos World Economic Forum usually offers up some revealing indicators of the global mood, and this year is no exception. I heard of a phrase being bandied about here by non-Americans — about the United States — that I can honestly say I’ve never heard before: “political instability.”
“Political instability” was a phrase normally reserved for countries like Russia or Iran or Honduras. But now, an American businessman here remarked to me, “people ask me about ‘political instability’ in the U.S. We’ve become unpredictable to the world.”
Mind you, people at international conferences love to criticize America, poke fun at America and complain about America. It is the only global sport more popular than soccer. But in the past, it was always done knowing that America was this global bedrock that could always be counted upon to lead. But this year is different. This year, Asians and Europeans, in particular, pull you aside and ask you some version of: “Tell me, what’s going on in your country?”
We’re making people nervous.
Banks, multinationals and hedge funds often hire foreign policy experts to do “political risk analysis” before they invest in places like, say, Kazakhstan or Argentina. They may soon have to add the United States to their watch lists.
You can understand why foreigners are uneasy. They look at America and see a president elected by a solid majority, coming into office riding a wave of optimism, controlling both the House and the Senate. Yet, a year later, he can’t win passage of his top legislative priority: health care.
“Our two-party political system is broken just when everything needs major repair, not minor repair,” said K.R. Sridhar, the founder of Bloom Energy, a fuel cell company in Silicon Valley, who is attending the forum. “I am talking about health care, infrastructure, education, energy. We are the ones who need a Marshall Plan now.”
