Craving Competence

After Covid exposed many leaders around the world, and after the global chaos created in the Trump White House, it is interesting to note a trend in 2021 towards a desire for competence. 

Competence in a political leader has an innate problem, which is that the competence to get elected often proves a hindrance to governing and vice versa. Getting elected involves plotting, charisma, vision and exaggeration. Governing involves delegation, teamwork, plans and patience. Few have both, and we usually only learn this once we have elected somebody wholly unsuitable. But it is our own fault because we make the same mistakes again and again.

 

Two elections this month exemplify the trend, admittedly in two rather competent, nay boring, countries, Canada and Germany.

 

Yesterday, Justin Trudeau appears to have been re-elected as prime minister of Canada, but when he called the election his purpose was to secure a majority mandate. In reality he failed to even secure a plurality of votes and only won the most seats thanks to a favourable election system, but only enough to continue with an unstable minority administration similar to that he enjoyed before calling the election.

 

How did this happen? Well, Trudeau looked at his primary opposition and saw a Conservative party with a dull new leader struggling to find his feet, and thought he could turn that to his advantage. He was wrong, because Erin O’Toole actually fought a superior campaign, cleverly tuned in to what the centre of the electorate sought, competence. I loved his slogan that Canada needs a handyman not a poster child. Well, they still have their poster child, but the handyman certainly threw a spanner into the works.

 

The German example is even stronger. The Germans have benefited from a plainly competent and competently plain leader for many years in the form of Angela Merkel. Since she announced that she would be retiring three years ago, her party has tried out at least three possible successors. After some humiliating failures, they landed on Armin Laschet, a clubbable sort of bloke with some of the charm they hoped would be effective in an election. Wrong again. Laschet has never been known for his competence, and managed to mess up handling the August floods during the campaign, among other blunders. Meanwhile Olaf Scholz successfully portrayed himself as a Merkel clone, experienced and dull, and competent. His slogan was something like “Olaf will sort it out”. He is another handyman, and this one looks set to become Chancellor, reversing a generational decline in the fortunes of his party.

 

There are other examples of the trend. Mario Draghi in Italy fits the bill, although he owes his position more to politics than votes. Sir Keir Starmer is trying to use exactly the same positioning in the UK, so far without noticeable success. It goes beyond politics too. In business, we seem happier listening to a Tim Cook than a modern day Jack Welch, though Elon Musk is defying gravity, even earthly gravity, for the time being. Bill Gates secures plenty of airtime with his dull but accurate analysis. 

 

Maybe the best example of all is President Xi. We might not care for some cynical policies, or the centralisation of elite power, or even some economic actions, but one thing they all have in common is competence in execution. Economically, his team has navigated many growing pains with remarkable success, and I am backing them to continue their good run. And politically China is out-manoeuvring the US at every turn.

 

So that brings us to the US. The same trend is in evidence. It was noticeable in the New York mayoral primary that the poster children flamed out while competence became a magic sauce. Kathryn Garcia, as dull a performer as is imaginable, nearly won based on how competently she had managed New York's  garbage collection agency. Fiery Democrats in other cities are toning down the rhetoric and focusing on building a track record of results. Hooray for that.

Biden campaigned as the antithesis of Trump, and competence was clearly a part of that story. Domestically his team have appeared competent so far, steering through a Covid relief bill, forming a feasible strategy for his larger economic package, and handling everyday matters neatly, including the vaccine minefield. But foreign policy has told a different story.

 

Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan were sold to us as experienced and reliable operators, but I have seen little evidence so far. The first meeting with China was reportedly a shambles, disintegrating into a shouting match within minutes. There is much talk of inflection points and new doctrines, but so far I see no substance and a consistent misreading and misanalysis of the main competitor.

 

Then we can add in the execution of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. How could the intelligence have been so far out? I guess we can blame the same complacent military spokespeople who blithely made false initial claims about their shocking drone strike. The whole operation was mis-sold and poorly executed.

 

A rare ray of hope comes from the climate progress, and, despite a lacklustre G7 meeting, I am optimistic for Glasgow. But that can be attributed to the smart appointment of (competent) John Kerry rather than anything achieved by Blinken’s team. But that same G7 also failed to provide the required and eminently achievable bazooka of global vaccine billions.

 

Of course Biden and Blinken have a fair excuse that Trump actively destroyed the State department during his tenure. Building back confidence and competence will be a job for multiple presidencies, and it also must be tough to get allies to work together with the US after the betrayals of trust under Trump, and the nagging fear that he may return.

 

But now we have another awful own goal with the questionable policy of equipping Australia with nuclear power submarines (aren't there treaties about this sort of thing?). This has the feel of something rushed through to create positive domestic headlines after Afghanistan. But to have annoyed the French to the extent that a nominally close ally and vital player on the UN Security Council should actually withdraw ambassadors shows just how incompetently the whole incident was handled. This never happened under De Gaulle, and not in the “freedom fries” era of the Iraq war, so we can guess how angry the French are.

 

There are a few more encouraging signs. Biden talked to Xi for ninety minutes last week and took a collaborative tone at the UN today. But this feels pro forma; I will start to believe in competence when I see the team consider how they might look to China and consider some steps that make cold war less likely rather than more. Some respect for international institutions would be a good start.

 

It is hard to know how long the sober mood among electorates may last. In many places a handyman is not on the ballot even if the public would vote for one – think Brazil, Argentina, India or even Russia. Perhaps Boris Johnson’s long honeymoon will end eventually. And perhaps competence will be important in 2022 and 2024 in the USA. There is no space for anybody competent on the Republican side just now, so we need the Democrats to step up. Admittedly foreign policy does not weigh a lot on voters’ minds, but it is foreign policy that ultimately has the most impact. Blinken is running out of time to demonstrate that he and his team are up to the task.    

9/11: The Question rarely asked

I have recently become a grandfather. Even though Kiara lives in Dubai, we have been lucky enough to spend her with her twice already. Life and its development is such a miracle, so wonderful to behold. Having said all that, how parents can find the energy required to get through those months is an extraordinary part of that miracle and a part I’m grateful not to have to endure again.

 

Everything in the makeup of small children is designed to grow and to learn. It is remarkable to see those tiny limbs learning to achieve small breakthroughs and to observe those young eyes absorbing everything around them in order to feed the developing brain with the information it needs to learn. Observing Kiara it became easy to understand how important a supportive environment is to a new baby, right from the very start and probably also in the womb. So much of our destiny is determined in the first phases of our lives.

 

I spent a lot of the time with Kiara recalling the first months and years of her mother. At the time I was blessed to have a job where I could spend half of my working week at home, so I could participate and observe more than most fathers of my generation. A particular tendency that came to mind was the way children go through a phase when it seems virtually their entire vocabulary consists of the word “why”.

 

It was so tiresome, constantly trying to find new explanations for everything around us using language that a young child might comprehend and learn from. Luckily the phase only lasts a year or so: perhaps the child starts to realize that the parent doesn’t have so much to offer, or is becoming too frustrated to give of their best and might start punishing them in other ways for their curiosity.

 

But of course there is a reason for the choice of question. Asking why is the most efficient way to learn the most, and as part of the miracle children are somehow programmed to understand this. There also realize that asking why repeatedly can help to deepen that learning, because answers can move beyond the superficial towards deeper insights. The parent becomes tired (again), but crucial wisdom is being imparted through the process.

 

It is strange how later on we tend to forget the value of asking why. There are one or two situations where I have retained the good habit. Whenever I was involved in any sort of root cause analysis, I developed a good habit called “five levels of why”, in other words asking why something may have occurred at least five times to establish deeper truths.

 

Last weekend a car driving on the wrong side of a small street in Brooklyn crashed into another car, causing the death of a child pedestrian. Why? Well the car was on the wrong side of the road. Why? Maybe the weather was bad or lighting or signalisation was not good. Why else? The car and driver had been flagged for over 150 violations over the last five years yet were still on the road. Why? Now it is starting to get interesting.

 

I also found the why question very useful when interviewing people for jobs. Candidates tend to prepare a series of pat answers to questions they expect, and interviewers often feed those questions, with long enough preambles for the candidate to be able to navigate the course. Hearing what a suspected might be a superficial answer, I would just simply ask: “why?” The question was always unexpected and always revealing. Good candidates might need to pause but could then articulate something to develop their previous answer. Unqualified candidates could not.

 

This past week has seen a lot of introspection in the US brought on by the twentieth anniversary of 9/11. I have been impressed by a lot of the commentary. The PBS news hour, as usual, has led the way. One of their leading journalists, Amna Nawas, is always piercing in her interviews. During the pandemic we have become used to her home, and the two spaces she uses to broadcast there, one with a sober green background in a corner of what may be a living room and the other probably an office. The office has a prominent poster on the wall, with all the common interrogatives listed in last print, no doubt a treasured aide memoire from her early days as a journalist. Of course the why question sits proudly towards the bottom of the list.

 

Yet for all their excellence, even the PBS news hour often neglects to ask that why question, or at least fails to employ it enough times. There were strong panel discussions with military and diplomatic officials, but mainly they focussed on how the USA reacted to 9/11, the justifiable moves and the mistakes made. As usual on Friday David Brooks made intelligent observations while Jonathan Capehart bored with inanities – how did he get that job?

 

But for all the strong journalism, I don’t think I ever heard anybody asking what for me is the most revealing and valuable question: why? Why did Al Qaeda attack the USA? The USA security had become complacent and because various regimes were permitted to harbour extremists. Why? Bin Laden exploited those weaknesses with an admittedly brilliant plan, which in the end achieved its goal of destabilising the west. Why? Bin Laden and his coterie were evil. Why? Now it might start to get interesting.

 

Intelligent and ambitious Sunni Muslims have not had a legitimate political outlet for many generations. Too much misogynistic and proselytising dogma has taken root in mosques and governments, and not enough poverty reduction or education. Muslims have grown up angry from listening to true stories of an insulting lack of respect against their kin. Western policy moved from harbouring despots during the cold war, through disinterest and triumphalism, towards the hypocrisy of defending a so-called rules-based global order that was empty and optional for its own people.

 

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. The harbouring of despots contributed to the lack of political outlet. The harmful dogma was tolerated because parallel dogmas of other religions bankrolled politics in the west. The rules-based order is unchallenged propaganda, while any remaining high ground has been surrendered in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. There is little attempt to understand the cultures and wishes of foreign nationals.

 

The saddest outcome of the last twenty years of folly has been that all of these root causes remain true today; indeed they have all become more entrenched. Creating policies to address them is tough: nation building is usually mishandled and is inherently arrogant. But such policies can only emerge if the lessons from the past are actually teased out. And that only happens when the adults learn from their own children and grandchildren and are humble enough to ask the why question, again and again and again. Let us pray that it does not take another twenty years before such a process can start to occur.    

The next Cold War

 It is widely claimed that the USA and its NATO allies won last cold war. In 1989 the Soviet Union collapsed, and for a decade NATO and the US banks reigned supreme, even trying to impose their economic model on the rump of their former adversary, with predictably disastrous consequences.

 

Few would claim that the Soviets won, but many had cause to regret that the war took place at all. The development of Africa was compromised when its newly independent political structures were undermined by strongmen tied to one side or the other. South America fared little better. Korea and Vietnam were among many countries to endure tragic loss of human life in the name of nebulous goals. Even though the fragile peace gave us i-phones and second cars, it is reasonable to argue that we were all losers in the cold war. At least they somehow avoided nuclear war.

 

This week sees the twentieth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and a chance to reflect on the wars, cold or hot, of the last twenty years. Many commentators have linked the shock of that attack to the suspicion, nationalism and introspection now prevalent in the USA, epitomized by Donald Trump. Perhaps that era reached an end last month with the ignominious withdrawal from Afghanistan. The USA is surely ripe for a new philosophy. We have reached a tipping point.

 

While the USA was wasting its resources and focus in the Middle East, a new kid has emerged on the block. The world’s most populous nation started focusing on development over ideology under Deng and has used its own playbook to create spectacular success, taking more than half its huge population out of poverty.

 

China’s leaders have been very clever. Until recently they have not tried to challenge things that the USA and its allies hold dear, complying more or less with the so-called rules based order that is essentially a recipe for the moneyed nations to do whatever they like. Instead they worked out what those moneyed nations craved and set out to provide it. First China became the cheap manufacturing and logistics hub for the developed world. Once this created some wealth, it propped up the western financial system by offering tempting investments and depositing its own money. Lastly it offered its own growing market as customers for western firms to grow. The west loved it and those of us who own stocks became richer as a result.

 

Nowadays we like to moan about how China cheated, but it is not really a substantial claim. Western firms were all too happy to allow local partners into their Chinese ventures and for intellectual property to leak, because the benefits outweighed the costs.

 

China became richer, and many of its citizens reaped the benefits. Gradually, this allowed the leaders to become bolder. The massive trade surplus did not all have to sit in western securities: some could be invested in other countries, shoring up the Chinese supply chains and building leverage. Some limited military leverage could be created too – not to attack anybody beyond its own backyard, but to deter others from interfering. The citizens were so happy becoming richer that they became more trusting in the leaders even when some liberties were removed. It is a fair bargain when some national pride is warranted and there is more pork on the table.

 

Through all this, the goals of the Chinese leaders have been clear and consistent. They want to grow the prosperity of their people, while avoiding internal strife, minimising external threats and dealing with what they see as historical anomalies such as Tibet, Hong Kong or Taiwan. The leaders have showed strategic patience and executional brilliance.

 

Perhaps it won’t last, but perhaps it is time to revisit the patronising orthodoxy favouring democracy and capitalism. Picking winners does not work if the goals are corrupt or short-term political, but the Chinese certainly seem to be developing a strong track record.

 

We are led to believe that China has changed over the last ten years, but in reality it is not China but America. Problems were bubbling under, but then came Trump. He tried to humiliate China, an experience the leaders will not forget. China has taken away many lessons. It must make its economy independent of America. It must build leverage to counteract future building. America is not to be trusted. America will lose a staring contest. And America will bluster but not act.

 

I do not have the expertise to explain how, but I see the recent Chinese moves to rebalance its economy as primarily to build defence and leverage against America. It does not wish to use these tools, but is creating them just in case. It is a wise move. Trump is gone, for now, but one of the few things Congress can agree on just now is a desire to bully China. One sad example concerns the berating of Anthony Fauci for allegedly collaborating with China on research about infectious diseases. Surely that should be lauded? But nobody is truing to defend it, only to claim it did not happen.

 

The drift towards a new cold war seems rather inevitable. Who will win? Well, America has military power, but seems to lose most conflicts and has little appetite to confront China regarding its “historical anomalies”. America has money, but look closely and a lot of it is actually Chinese. America has cultural strengths, but smart young Chinese are happy in China – something that smart young Russians never thought. America has the best universities, but I would not expect that lead to survive one more generation.

 

If we think about the USA and China as two giant companies, which one should we invest in? One has unified leadership, clear and consistent long-term goals, a committed workforce, credible plans, key points of leverage and a strong culture of execution. The other is the USA.

 

The Economist’s excellent Chaguan column tried to explain Chinese economic policy a couple of weeks ago. There were valid criticisms about some nanny state tendencies, such as curtailing private tutoring and limiting screen gaming time for kids. But the broad thrust was impressive. It featured development (taking the other half out of poverty), controlling inequality, avoiding corruption, growing strategic sectors, and using the untrammelled power of the state for rapid execution. If a party credibly offered that in its manifesto in the west, it would have my vote.

 

Of course China has challenges. The four goals usually work well in parallel but may also lead to potential conflicts. Much is also made of the unfavourable demographic outlook. Some welfare structures must be developed. There are economic imbalances to handle. Six per cent growth will not be achievable indefinitely, but they seem in a strong position to handle most of the challenges.

 

I wonder if Anthony Blinken and his team, chastened in Afghanistan in the process of rebuilding competence after the carnage of Trump, might be coming to realise how futile this new cold war actually is for the USA. I am encouraged to read that Biden and Xi talked for ninety minutes yesterday. There is an alternative path available. China can meet its goals quite well with authentic American collaboration, if US credibility can be re-established over time.

 

Most wars do not have winners, only losers. We will all lose if the USA continues down the wrong path. Perhaps the UN, or people like the Pope or an Angela Merkel with more time on her hands, can help. The opportunities at this tipping point will surely be fleeting.