It is symptomatic of the silliness of the American media that only days after the year’s greatest exercise in multilateral diplomacy, the Pittsburgh G20, the only test of Obama’s diplomatic abilities discussed is his meeting with an athletic association. Thus, trying to make too much of the Copenhagen trip is a mistake. Presidents have made trips to support seemingly minor causes since the dawn of the Republic, and the President’s pleas have fallen on deaf ears just as often. In a few weeks, this too will be forgotten as a minor exercise with minor importance.

That being said, the real interest in this story has never really been the embarrassment of Chicago losing out to Rio de Janeiro, which will likely be a terrific host. The real interest is in the loss of Obama’s seeming invincibility on the international stage. Opinion polls across the globe show the American President leading all other leaders in terms of popularity. World leaders consistently speak about the breath of fresh air and cooperative attitude that Obama brings in place of George W. Bush’s go it alone strategy. The feeling among many of Obama’s core supporters in the US was, “With this kind of popularity, how could we ever lose?”

Yet when it comes to diplomacy, Obama has been anything but invincible. Pleas to NATO allies for additional troops in Afghanistan have gone nowhere, Iran and Venezuela have been at least as erratic and anti-American as when Bush was in office, American ideas for financial reform had been derided by European allies and Obama has come in for criticism for both being too involved and too distant from the constitutional crisis in Honduras. The Olympic example is simply the easiest to illustrate, as “first country eliminated” makes a snappy line for 24 hour news channels.

So, has Obama been a failure internationally? Not exactly. In many cases Obama has been successful, and in many of the examples of failure, there was nothing he could have done to bring about a better result. Instead, the Copenhagen trip illustrates the failure of a frequent assumption in diplomacy, that personality and likability have the power to bring about the desired results.

Especially in the early part of his administration, Bush was well known for his close, personal relationships with leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Saudi Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah. The idea was that friends would be more willing to make agreements than would mere acquaintances. However, these relationships never created the diplomatic capital that was expected. While Obama is not seeking friendships as Bush did, by using personal popularity as a tool to achieve diplomatic goals, he is essentially using the same concept of likability.

The problem with the personality approach is that it distracts from the real motivations in international decision making. No amount of charm can replace state and self interest as the main motivators in interstate relations. Chicago did not lose its Olympic bid because the International Olympic Committee did or did not like Obama. Chicago lost its bid because the US Olympic Committee wanted to make its own television contracts for the games and keep a higher portion of the revenue. In the end, money was the main motivator. Similarly, Obama’s charm cannot overcome the deep unpopularity of the Afghan war in Europe, or the Iranian and Venezuelan leaders’ need for an existential enemy in the US, or the global anger directed at Wall Street for its role in the financial crisis.

To be fair, neither Bush nor Obama relied solely on personality in diplomacy. But as Bush found out by around the middle of his Presidency, friendship can get a nice photo for the papers, but little else. Effective diplomacy focuses on determining the other party’s interests, and then convincing them that their interests are best protected by the proposed agreement. Candidate Obama promised he could better diplomacy by showing the kinder, more likeable face of America. Soon, both he and the American public will realize the inadequacy of that policy, and will focus on a more realistic way of dealing.

President Barack Obama of the United States

Friday evening, President Obama gave the closing speech to a hectic two day G20 summit. Echoing what other leaders stated, this summit was the most substantial and inclusive of all previous summits. It has been only the third G20 summit where leaders have participated directly, whereas before, the G8 fulfilled this role while not including the developing world.

President Obama began his speech highlighting the achievements of Pittsburgh, the host city. The city was chosen because it serves a strong example of how cities, countries, and the world can adapt to changing economic conditions. Pittsburgh, formerly known as a steel city and still home to US Steel, has diversified into various fields such as medical and robotics. Obama continued to thank the people of Pittsburgh for being supportive and mostly cooperative during this “very tranquil G20 summit.”

He continued to outline the new framework for global economic growth by first pointing out that stimulus plans must remain in place globally until growth has resumed. However, he did not describe how countries will coordinate taking away their stimulus policies once the time has arrived. Three of Obama’s major points within the body of his speech were a push for more transparency to derivatives and new capital requirements for banks, phasing out subsidies for fossil fuels, and creating a new world bank trust fund for food security and energy investment. While the first two issues have been discussed in the past, it remains important that leaders globally are united in principle, if not in execution. The third issue was touched upon by the Mexican Finance Minister earlier in the day, and simplify emphasizes that this is important to both developed and developing countries.

Finally, Obama took questions from his white house press corps. The questions mostly surrounded Iran, even though the United States knew of the second reactor before Friday. Obama’s reasoning for not pursuing action was clear: the United States acted hastily on false evidence in Iraq on its “weapons of mass destruction” in the past and did not want to make the same mistake with Iran. Obama stated that the military option is never taken off the table and that diplomacy is always the “preferred” option. The IAEA, which includes the security council five from the U.N. plus Germany, is to meet the first week of October to discuss the Iranian reactor and will make a decision there. The Chinese Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs He Yafei said earlier in the day that China will allow the international organizations to resolve the Iranian situation, and implied that it will not make any unilateral decision. Vice Minister He did not mention anything about sanctions, one way or the other.

As for Obama’s views on the protesters outside the summit, he responded saying “I fundamentally disagree with their (the protesters) views that the free market is the source of all ills,” and continued to say that growth needs to be bottom up - implicitly acknowledging that job creation is an essential component of any economic recovery. Although a strong system of implementation was not created nor agreed upon at this summit, the consensus brought together by most of the world on economic issues created a strengthened position for the G20 in all future economic summits.

Spanish Finance Minister Elena Salgado surrounded by reporters at the Pittsburgh G20 Summit.

The message across board from the representatives was clear: The G20 is an important body which helped to avoid a global depression, and now should be used to further “strong, sustainable and balanced growth.”  If there was any rift between the parties, it had to do with emphasis.  For the leaders of the industrialized nations, the highlight of the conference was movement on banking and financial reform.  Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi noted that the G20 conference is helping to bring about a “new global financial discipline” while US President Barack Obama emphasized the efforts to provide more transparency to the derrivatives market and on limits to executive pay.

On the other hand, the leaders of the developing nations sought to emphasize agreements to balance the global economic landscape.  Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva spoke of rapid movement towards a “new global economic order” and of commitments to add capital to the World Bank, IMF and Inter American Development Bank.  Lula’s statements mirrored earlier words by Ministers from China and Mexico.

While Obama was questioned by reporters mainly about today’s revelation of a secret Iranian nuclear facility, questions provided a bit of humor in some of the other conferences.  Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was asked to comment on “the great week he was having, his excellent posture and general positive outlook.”  One room over, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper recounted his meeting with Russian President Dimitry Medvedev.  The two bonded over hockey and noted that the Pittsburgh Penguins two stars are a Canadian, Sidney Crosby, and a Russian, Evengi Malkin.  They then managed to agree that this Canadian/Russian contribution had clearly played a major role in Pittsburgh’s revitalization.

With the press conferences complete, the G20 has come to a close, with leaders seeming upbeat about this new era of international cooperation.  Whether or not the words here will indeed be translated into actions is yet to be seen.  The real work will now be left to lower level officials who will attempt to implement the soaring agreements made here today.  But for now the G20 seems to have been a success, and Pittsburgh a terrific host.

Mexican Finance Minister Agustín Carstens

About an hour ago, Mexican Finance Minister Agustin Carstens delivered a statement to the Latin American press illustrating Mexico’s position on issues at the G-20 conference here in Pittsburgh. His three main concerns are climate change, an international fund to develop clean technology, and the need for more flexibility by the IMF.

Mexico’s concerns about climate change come directly after the discussions at the U.N. about a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol. It is important that Mexico is supportive of a climate change bill since they are a major developing economy, even if they are not officially part of the BRIC countries. This initial support also can hopefully be spread into an enforceable system where economies are properly incentivized to cut pollution where easiest, and invest in future technologies that limit pollution in industries that are not.

Carstens supports the development of an international fund for clean technology. This is important because it continues this summit’s theme of international cooperation on all issues such as monetary and fiscal policy and also investment.

Finally, Carstens mentioned the need for more flexibility by the IMF, which had been echoed by the Chinese delegation earlier in the day. Carstens stated that there is one final meeting amongst the finance ministers concerning global economic regulation this afternoon, upon which a statement will be drafted and is slated to be released in a few hours.

From left: Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ma Zhouxu and Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs He Yafei

Speaking Friday afternoon, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs He Yafei and Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ma Zhaoxu told reporters that China is looking for more balance between the developed and developing world in international organizations and world governance.

Vice Minister He told reporters that the highlight of the Pittsburgh Summit has been the decision by leaders to work on a global economic governance system, with the G20 at the center.  He also noted that the G20 is a better forum to discuss such issues than the G8, as the G20 attendees are well balanced between industrialized and developing nations.  Similarly, He called for equal voting powers for developing countries in the World Bank and IMF.

He also warned Western leaders to pay closer attention to their monetary policies.  China, along with a number of other developing nations, hold large reserves of foreign currency.  Because of this, fluctuations in the value of currencies such as the Dollar, Euro, Yen and Pound, have a deep effect on the developing world.  Additionally, He defended China’s pegging of its own currency, the renminbi, as adding stability to the world market.

Finally, He discussed the Mutual Assessment System, which is being discussed at the Pittsburgh Summit.  The Assessment System would provide a mechanism for the G20 banking heads to assess the monetary and fiscal policies around the world, in order to maintain stability and cooperation.  However, when asked what kind of enforcement mechanism would accompany the program, He cautioned that before such talk, the proper standards needed to be worked out by the central bankers.

After arriving bright and early to the military encampment politely termed the “Restricted Zone”, the PULSE authors learned that the first day of a summit is not always the most exciting.  Much of the day was spent searching for some form of news to report on, while only later in the day finding out that nothing of substance would happen until Obama’s evening greeting at another site.  In the mean time, the day was spent seeking the advice and opinions of other journalists, from places such as Japan, France, the UK and Mexico, and listening to NGO pitchmen, whose job was to raise their profiles by getting their names in news articles and on TV shows.

As time ticked towards Obama’s welcome at the Phipps Observatory, the PULSE crew made its way back to the media bus terminal in order to get to the event.  However, the fish out of water sensation returned, as the PULSE was turned away for not having the proper event credentials.  Fortunately, The Internationalist was made aware of another press conference that was taking place simultaneously at a downtown hotel.  The Prime Minster of Sweden and the President of the European Commission may not have the star power of Obama, Sarkozy, Merkel, et al, but to two policy wonks, it would be just as fascinating.

Of course, with Pittsburgh turned into a city with more barricades and road blocks than Baghdad, getting back across town was a task easier said than done.  A cab ride with a friendly but frustrated taxi driver took the PULSE crew on a winding, round about journey, and still left them a 15 minute walk from the hotel.  Although late arriving, the European Union press conference was worth the hassle; an excellent cap on an eye opening day.

Day two preview:

The real work is supposed to occur on Friday, starting with an early meeting at the Andy Warhol Museum, followed by smaller meetings throughout the day, which may or may not be open to the press.  At about 5:00 pm, Obama is scheduled to hold a post-event press conference, which will be followed by press conferences from the other leaders and diplomats present.  Although the PULSE staff is not yet old hat at the journalism game, they will again work hard to bring you all the news and events from Pittsburgh.

From Left: Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso

Within the last few hours, the President of the European Commission and the Prime Minister of Sweden held a press conference at the G20 summit. At this conference, a few key items were addressed which went beyond the G20 to touch upon the WTO, IMF, World Bank, and United Nations. The two leaders, Jose Manuel Barroso and Fredrik Reinfeldt, agreed on the need to make progress on both Copenhagen and the Doha round of trade talks. Copenhagen is the name for the talks on global climate change that will take over from where the Kyoto Protocol started, since Kyoto is supposed to end in 2012. The Doha round of trade talks, started under the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, have been put on the back burner since 2008 due mainly to the economy and as Reinfeldt noted, “a lack of political will”.

Reinfeldt felt that this was the main obstacle to making progress, which illustrates clearly what occurred during the Bush administration; international agreements on climate change agreed upon at the U.N. were basically abandoned, and since there were no repercussions for these actions, Bush was not held accountable. Although a lack of political will is the impetus for not even coming together for an agreement in the first place, the lack of enforcement is the main driver for not following through with lasting change. Although both Prime Minister Reinfeldt and President Barroso did not discuss this, it does not mean they do not agree with this statement. Rather, it suggests that they did not think it relevant to bring up, since there is still much progress to be made on the political front.

Barroso, while also agreeing to the lack of political will, went a step further in addressing some of the questions posed to him. He believes that there is no stability in the near future for a global currency, such as the one proposed by China last year and noted quite confidently that Europe is the first region to come up with a plan for international financial regulation. This model will most certainly be discussed at the G20 meeting tomorrow and could serve as a template for models instituted within other free trade zones, such as NAFTA or ASEAN, especially since these leaders will also be attending the summit.

Barroso and Reinfeldt were very candid in their responses, which provided a breath of fresh air from the typically stale and non-committed attitude of most politicians. Although President Barack Obama has great oratorical skills, his “framework for sustainable and balanced growth” does not offer nearly enough details nor commitment needed to make up for lost time on these two pressing issues. Hopefully in the days to come, the leaders gathered here in Pittsburgh can pledge to reduce green house emissions, institute needed financial regulatory reforms and oversight, and most importantly, have the political fortitude to enforce them.

Still, the international media center is operating on low power mode.  At this moment no one seems in a hurry and sandwiches are more visible than cameras.  The most excitement so far has been an appearance by the Mayor of Pittsburgh, Luke Ravenstahl, but even this barely caused a stir amongst the press corps.  It is clear that the logistical equipment and manpower is present for the inevitable rush of information, but at this moment it seems little will happen until the real rock-stars of the event start talking.

The first big event is scheduled for 6:00 pm at the Phipps Conservatory, a huge greenhouse and botanical garden in Pittsburgh’s Schenley Park.  There Obama will officially greet the G20 attendees, and then treat them to dinner.

Until then, the most exciting issue the media confronts could well be lunch.

“I’ve never seen my city like this before.  There is no one here.”

After arriving Wednesday night to the Shadyside neighborhood of Pittsburgh, the PULSE staff used its media credentials for complimentary use of the city’s public transportation to make their way to downtown Pittsburgh.  However, the PULSE crew didn’t find itself in downtown.  Rather, it found itself in a deserted set directly out of a Hollywood post-apocalyptic film.  The Restricted Zone.

First stop was the Mellon Arena, former home of the Pittsburgh Penguins, for security screening.  Drug sniffing dogs and police nearly outnumbered the journalists waiting in line to go through the media detectors.  Yet, with morning dew still in the air, the mood was calm.  After screening, journalists were loaded on tour buses en-route to the headquarters of the event, the Lawrence Convention Center.  It was at this point that civilians disappeared, replaced by concrete and metal barriers, police vehicles and men with semi-automatic rifles.

Not far away, at Point State Park, the protesters are meeting, readying to make a ruckus.  But here at the Convention Center, with blocks of roads barricaded in every direction around it, the foreign heads of state are unlikely to hear so much as a peep.

Later today, Barack Obama will greet the leaders at the Phipps Conservatory, but for the next few hours there are no official events.  But the PULSE authors will mill around, keeping their eyes and ears open for any developments.  Check back for more…

No personality has been bigger in recent years than France’s Nicolas Sarkozy. Leaving aside the French tabloid obsession with his marriage to Italian model Carla Bruni, Sarkozy has been as active politically as any head of state in the last two years. He has brought a high level of energy and dogged commitment to policy goals, domestic and international. On financial issues, Sarkozy’s voice has been louder than anyone else in calling for a complete overhaul of banking regulations in order to avoid financial collapses on the scale of the recent crisis. In April, at the last G20 Summit in London, Sarkozy threatened to walk out of the meetings if leaders did not agree to pursue strict banking regulations. This time, he has yet to make such threats, but look for Sarkozy to be one of the major players this week.

Meanwhile, the leaders of the so called “BRIC” nations will be looking to shift the world economic powerbase. Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Dmitry Medvedev of Russia, Manmohan Singh of India and Hu Jintao of China, together represent 40% of the world’s population and four of the fastest growing economies on the planet. The BRIC countries do not necessarily work in concert and have only had one official summit. But all four leaders have been highly critical of the US role in the recent financial crisis. Hu has been vocal in calling for the creation of a new global reserve currency to replace the US dollar, and Medvedev has been supportive of this goal. Lula and Singh are seen as stronger allies of the Western industrialized countries, but they too have called for greater influence for the developing world in organizations such as the IMF and World Bank.

Jose Manuel Barroso holds a unique place at the G20 summit as the leader of the only international organization to hold membership in the group. Barroso, the President of the European Commission, represents the European Union as a whole. Generally, he has been less vocal than the other participants. But where he has spoken up, he has been a supporter of Sarkozy’s banking regulations, of free trade and of action on climate change. Look for Barroso to stand behind his European colleagues without making major waves.

According to numerous worldwide opinion polls, the most popular leader at the Summit is none other than US President Barack Obama. In fact, in many countries, there is more trust for Obama than for their own leader. As such a popular figure and as the host of this G20 Summit, Obama has plenty of political capital to spend on leading and influencing the discussions. In past international summits, however, Obama has seemed reluctant to spend his capital, instead opting for a more cooperative approach. Due to this strategy, Obama has been criticized as being a weak representative in these multilateral summits. Nevertheless, Pittsburgh could well be Obama’s coming out on the international stage, as hosting should make it easier for him to lead without coming off as abrasive.

Of course, there will be other interesting personalities to watch at the event. Germany’s Angela Merkel and Argentina’s Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner will be the only female leaders present. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia will be the only representative of OPEC at the summit, and so he will be a key player in any discussions on global energy. Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi and South Africa’s Jacob Zuma have both been plagued by sex scandals and each is known for making brash, un-PC comments. To see how these storylines and more play out, be sure to check back on the PULSE for all the updates.

The early Obama administration is similarly marked by a backtrack on free trade. In his election campaign, Obama railed against NAFTA and the proposed bilateral trade agreement with Colombia. In his first few months in office, Obama has not pushed Congress to pass the trade agreements with Vietnam, Colombia or South Korea, and only at the last minute prevented Congress from placing a “Buy American” provision in the stimulus package. Now, in the lead up to the Pittsburgh G20 Summit, the issue is Obama’s decision to place tariffs on tires imported from China.

Like so many other trade disputes, this one began with a complaint from a labor organization, the United Steelworkers. Their complaint was based on the fact that in the past few years, imports of tires from China have increased almost three fold. As part of China’s agreement to enter the WTO, they agreed to allow the United States to impose retaliatory tariffs if there was a “surge” of a certain good into the US market. At first glance, it would appear that there is a valid complaint; however, much of the surge in Chinese tire imports has actually been from US tire manufacturers who have moved their facilities to China. Furthermore, taking any action before receiving WTO approval risks Chinese retaliation, and already China has already announced its intent to investigate possible US violations for poultry and car parts sold in the Chinese market. Without assigning blame for this current dispute, the fact remains that while a trade war might benefit labor unions, it would be devastating to both consumers and manufacturers.

Indeed, whenever there have been periods of global economic turmoil, tariffs and protectionism have resulted. The prevention of this result is a major reason behind the formation of organizations such as GATT (now the WTO), the European Economic Community (now the EU), NAFTA and the G20 itself. Because trade wars are generally a negative all around, these organizations serve to provide a frequent platform for leaders to discuss economic issues, and therefore hopefully avoid detrimental tit-for-tat conflicts.

As the G20 conference opens Thursday, the China-US dispute is only one of the trade issues which will almost certain arise. Developing nations are concerned about agricultural subsidies in the US and EU; various measures have been imposed on imports of iron, steel, motor vehicles and parts, chemicals, plastic products, textiles and clothing; and huge trade imbalances still exist between high saving (China, India, Japan) and high consumptive economies (US, UK, Germany). In fact, according to the WTO, G20 countries have imposed 91 protectionist measures since the group’s most recent meeting, this past April in London.

At that last meeting, the nations reaffirmed their commitment to free trade. Yet across the board, the recent record has been spotty. While protectionism has not risen as fast as in recessions past, there has been a significant global slip away from the goal. As this G20 Summit is set to open, the question will be whether the attendees will merely pay lip service to free trade, or will actually work to resolve disputes and set the table for the further reduction of trade barriers. Be sure to check back on the PULSE to see how the issue of trade is tackled and for all the other developments at the G20.

The last time the G20 met in April of this year in London, broad guidelines were adopted to coordinate global fiscal policy and to uphold principles of free trade. These guidelines have been violated, at the rate of one every three days. If we are to make progress, we cannot issue more broad based guidelines any longer; just remember how easily the Kyoto Protocol was put aside during the Bush administration.

Concerning banker’s pay, Sarkozy of France, Obama of the U.S., and Brown of the U.K. all agree that there should be some type of limit on banker’s pay and will discuss this at the G20 summit this week. The basic problem boils down to golden parachutes that were given CEO’s that did a terrible job, which if they were any normal employee, would have resulted in them being fired with minimum severance. This treatment of CEOs differently from individual employees hurts stockholders (as witnessed in the cratering of the stock market earlier this year), government (as evidenced in the bailing out of financial institutions to the tune of trillions of dollars), and the financial stability of the world (as witnessed in the spread of the Lehman collapse to AIG, Wamu, and foreign banks).

Hopefully the G20 can also go beyond just banker’s pay and try to correct the entire banking system to protect it from collapsing in the future. There has been talk of raising capital reserve ratios and creating a new international Basil II type of accord where banks anywhere in the world have to have a minimum amount of capital in order to be adequately funded. Since banks were the ones that ultimately were responsible for the bad loans that they made, they should be subject to this new requirement. With the rise of peer to peer banking online and other non-traditional more direct banking methods, this will not strangle future economic growth as there will always be another option for obtaining a loan.

Recognizing the importance of this event, the PULSE Review is sending The Internationalist to Pittsburgh to report on the proceedings. For an additional perspective, The Internationalist will be joined by special PULSE correspondent, The Financialist. The Financialist graduated from UCSD with a Bachelors in Management Science, and has since worked in both the banking and manufacturing sectors as a financial analyst.

Starting this coming weekend, The Internationalist and The Financialist will post daily about the issues to be discussed at the Summit, the personalities to attend, and their own preparations for the journalistic exercise. Once at the Summit, they will have unrivaled access to important meetings and conferences. Access to special media workstations means they will report frequently on the all the events as they happen at the G20.

Thus, for the first time the PULSE will mix its unique and broad spectrum analysis with on the spot reporting. Check back frequently to read all the stories and to join the conversation.

Pittsburgh's David L. Lawrence Convention Center will host the upcoming G20 Summit.

Barack Obama may well be the finest communicator to hold the Presidency since Ronald Reagan. But while some of Reagan’s most memorable and effective speeches were delivered to the international audience (“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”), Obama has yet to similarly distinguish himself. This is certainly not to say he will never do so; barely eight months into his term he still has plenty of time to make his mark.

More important than coming up with a memorable sound bite, Obama needs to distinguish himself as a diplomat. He has mostly stuck to his pledge of working to soften the image of America abroad. But there are benefits and drawbacks to a kinder-gentler foreign policy. Obama may be able to command large audiences of students on trips to France or Turkey; but he has been unable to get NATO allies to commit more troops to Afghanistan; nor has he been able to reign in the virulent anti-Americanism of Venezuela or Iran. On what is perhaps the most important issue of his Presidency, the global recession, world leadership has come less from the world’s largest economy and more from active leaders such as France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and China’s Hu Jintao.

However, in just over two weeks, the President will get his next chance to assert himself as the effective communicator and diplomat that many hoped he would be. The G20 Summit, which brings together the leaders of all of the major industrialized countries with the leaders of the developing world, will meet in Pittsburgh in late September. There are few better places symbolically to host this event than the former “Steel City”. Once a gritty industrial center, Pittsburgh went through tough times as many of these jobs were shipped overseas. Yet, instead of sticking irrationally to failing industries as if they were virtues, the city has reinvented itself with the help of premier centers of higher learning such as Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh. Instead of steel, Pittsburgh is now a leader in fields such as robotics, biotech, finance and health care.

With the global recession apparently slowing, Obama must now work to convince leaders, domestic and international, to follow Pittsburgh’s lead of embracing change and innovation, instead of the dangerous scheme of protectionism and false nostalgia. The opportunity for the President to become a truly world leader has never been better. Acting as host, Obama should have the opportunity to take the lead in directing debate on trade, emissions, banking regulation, and the practices of the World Bank and IMF.

Whether or not Obama takes advantage of this rare opportunity is anyone’s guess. But in this globalized world, the decisions made at conferences such as this one will surely have far reaching consequences. A soaring, professorial address will not be enough; the President must also show toughness and tact in order to get the rest of the world to follow his lead.

The answer is clearly the latter.  The mass media attempted to portray the Obama election win as a victory for the American people in its entirety.  Admittedly, this was easily accomplished when there were vocal Obama supporters dancing in the streets shortly following his historic election.  And indeed, President Obama won the election in a clear (compared to previous years) manner.  However, statistically the election was no landslide.  The truth, however obfuscated by media perception, was that close to half of Americans actually voted against Barack Obama.  Again, the mass media chose to focus almost singularly on those individuals dancing in the streets on the eve of the election, highlighting the populistic attributes of his win, not the divisive elements.  His election, while notable and historic, was certainly no populist uprising.  What made it appear to be so was the artificial amplification of ecstatic liberals and some moderates by media outlets.

Turning to today, there is a contemporary “populist” movement in the works.  This time, conservatives and some moderates (the exact flip from the Obama election) are broadcasting their own message.   As with the Obama election, to call the current healthcare rebuttal a true populist movement assumes too much - but that certainly did little to stop the mass media from trumpeting the liberal counterpart from 2008.  Is there a specific reason, then, that the media continues to focus on degrading this conservative healthcare uprising as being nothing more than a staged lobbyist act, when they so willingly ignored the involvement of dubious groups such as ACORN during the 2008 liberal “populist” movement?  Now that conservatives are broadcasting their message, where is the media amplification?

It’s also arguable that the current conservative uprising resonates more with the American people as a whole than the widely acclaimed liberal success in 2008.  For instance, only 36 percent of people think that President Obama’s healthcare plan is a good idea, making it easy to see why constituents across the country, even in blue states like Massachusetts, are making their displeasure widely known.  That’s quite different from the relatively even split during the presidential election.

Of course, all of this is largely consistent with the oft-termed “love affair” between the media and President Obama.  This has been noted by Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries, and by most people who watch the news with a certain level of awareness.  So the question remains - why is this?  Furthermore, what is there to be done?

The answer regarding the love affairs and impartial coverage of “populist” movements is nebulous, and possibly not attainable within the confines of this article.  Is it something nefarious?  Perhaps.  Maybe liberals long ago targeted mass media as the most influential way to sway voter opinion, and began to stack the deck.  After all, the placement of a favorable article can be a message in itself.  While many of the conservative block might believe this, it seems unlikely due to the raw audacity and scope of the undertaking.  The real answer - I hope - is far less conniving.

With respect to taking action against such bias (on either side, whether your anger lies with Fox News or MSNBC), I previously wrote an article about suing news organizations, specifically in regard to unfair bias.  Needless to say, MoveOn.org has attempted suing with Fox News, without ever succeeding.  Fortunately, mass media technology has also opened the world to sites like this one, in which a concerned citizen can read news from five different perspectives and biases, allowing them to hollistically form their own opinion.  Perhaps that’s the crux of the matter; once you know the extent of media distortion, you can move actively to mitigate that distortion by proactively seeking the news yourself.  We at The PULSE Review humbly hope that you find us useful in your endeavor.

But has Cash for Clunkers really been the cure all that these rosy numbers suggest? The program was created with two goals: revive the floundering market for new automobiles in the US and better the environment by taking older, less fuel efficient and higher emitting vehicles off the road. However, on closer inspection the victory is more political than actual. On reviving the market, the effect of Cash for Clunkers has been marginal at best, and its effect on the environment is probably negative.

When 250,000 cars are sold under a government program in a week, there is no question that it is popular. But popularity does not equate to effectiveness. The problem with conflating popularity of the program with its effectiveness is that it means that the wrong numbers are examined in determining success. What is important is not how many people took advantage of a great deal, but how many additional sales did the program create. In fact, since the market’s low point in January, when just 657,000 cars were sold, it has begun to rebound with 858,000 sold in March rising to 926,000 sold in May. Although these numbers are nowhere near the similar sales periods in the previous five years, they provide more context for the July national sales number of 998,000. According to industry expert Jeremy Anwyl of Edmunds.com, Cash for Clunkers increased July sales by at most 50,000 vehicles. Thus, Cash for Clunkers gave free money away to 200,000 people who would have bought a car anyways.

The question that needs to be asked is: was it worth it to waste $800 million dollars (the money given to the 200,000 people who would have bought without the program) in order to increase sales by 5%? If sales had been flat, then perhaps it could be an effective jump start. But with sales apparently rebounding on their own, an expensive subsidy just to give a temporary boost to the market is silly. Furthermore, once Cash for Clunkers ends, there is likely to be a drop in sales due to the fact that many people who would have bought in late August or September decided to buy early in order to take advantage of the deal. With those people out of the market, demand will necessarily drop in the months after the program is finally allowed to run out.

As far as the environment is concerned, it is clear there are problems when the bill’s sponsors, Senators Diane Feinstein and Susan Collins, criticize the bill as bad environmental policy. Feinstein and Collins cite the fact that the rebate can be used for some new trucks, like the Hummer H3T and Ford F-150, but it cannot be used to buy a two year old Ford Focus or three year old Toyota Camry. Others have pointed out that cars built before 1984 are not eligible for trade in, even though those cars are generally the worst emitters on the road. Still, supporters of the program point out that even though some less fuel efficient cars like the Hummer are available, in order to get the subsidy, the buyer must trade up in fuel economy. For instance, a person could not trade in an old Honda Accord for a new Dodge Ram.

But even this logic ignores environmental reality. Cash for Clunkers creates an incentive for people to dispose of perfectly usable automobiles. The old cars will not end up on used car lots, nor is it allowed for certain parts, such as engines, to be salvaged and resold. The manufacture of a new car takes a huge amount of energy and causes the release of large amounts of pollutants. Thus, keeping a functioning car for a long period of time, even if it is not highly efficient, is better for the environment than going back to the dealer every few years for a new efficient car.

If Cash for Clunkers was ever really about the environment, it would have incentivized taking cars off the road, not creating new ones. Biking to work and public transportation are much more efficient and lower polluting than any hybrid car. It also could have provided a boost to the market for efficient used cars, which lack the heavy environmental cost contained in the manufacture of a new car. But, as Senators Feinstein and Collins made clear, this was never about the environment; it was actually intended “to provide Detroit one last windfall in selling off gas guzzlers currently sitting on dealer lots.”

History shows us that politicians find it very easy to give money away, even when deficits are high. While a few billion dollars may seem like drops in the bucket in a time of trillion dollar deficits, Cash for Clunkers is reflective of the lack of interest many elected officials on both sides of the aisle have for fiscal responsibility. As long as there is some logic behind a spending program, it is irrelevant whether or not that logic is faulty. Sold to the public as beneficial to both the economy and the environment, the money will be long since spent when people realize that Cash for Clunkers was actually detrimental to both.

The MEDIA

More recently, the news has lost touch with its purpose. We spend hours upon hours of days upon days following Michael Jackson’s funeral, while countries revolt, leaders shout and treaties are broken. And when some of these issues are discussed, who do we have to turn to? When North Korea was firing missiles, I searched for a channel to watch the coverage. My options: D.L. Hughley or Mike Huckabee. No offense to either commentator, or their fans, but please – provide me with someone who can cover the news instead of covering themselves. Indeed, in my opinion, some of the best news lately has come out of Comedy Central itself (see Jon Stewart’s interviews with Jim Cramer) – and ironically, that is no joke.

The PULSE
Before the news became hypersensationalized, it was defined by the likes of Edward Murrow, or maybe even more classically, the New York Times – a news source that people would read to get the news in the morning, rather than keep themselves occupied and entertained all day.

This is why the PulseReview is trying to do something different. We have the power of all-day coverage, but the self-control to report on what is really important. If there is no news, sometimes that is good news – and we will leave it at that. If there is news however, you will get it in a classical style: in simple columns on our front page. Imagine that — “news columns”! Unfortunately, that phrase is probably no longer copyrightable.

More importantly, we bring back an unspoken tradition of the news. There’s a heartbeat, and a passion – a pulse — to this type of news. Rather than claiming to be unbiased, we let our bias shine, allowing us to provide a 360-degree view of issues of importance. Similarly to an instant replay in football – the more angles you have accessible to your view, the more accurate you can be in your understanding of the situation at hand. This is not ideology or philosophy, but what I like to call “phenomenology”.  The difference is found in our honesty about our own human ignorance – a condition we all ultimately share as parts in a bigger machine. We provide our view with full recognition that it may be completely wrong, but for the sake of providing another angle, we provide it anyway. Wasn’t that sort of the point of the Internet anyway?

No really, I went to DEFCON 17.  This is a slight departure from the normal Pulse Review fare, but one I expect you, gentle reader, will still find interesting.  DEFCON is a conference held in Las Vegas on a yearly basis which covers topics of interest to people who like to find ways to make things do what they simply weren’t designed to do.  Things like networks, computers, locks, beer, hardware and software of every sort, ranging from iPods to the human mind.   In fact, the most fundamental target of these “hacks” is the human mind.

Cryptography is a very, very interesting topic.  I cannot even begin to talk to it in this format.  Yet the funny thing is, no matter how complex a crypto system is, there is a fallible human that uses it somewhere in the system.  That human, more often than not, is the easiest element of the system to “hack”.  This is why corporations and governments that spend millions to billions of dollars on computer security don’t want users to write their passwords down on sticky notes or give out their user name and password - ever.  Social Engineering, which is the art of using societal norms to induce people to do things that they shouldn’t, is the low-tech way to bypass high-tech security.  Oh, and it was a significant topic of discussion at DEFCON.  Human perception is an important facet to security.  The perfect example of this is how we employ locks.

Locks, as our society predominantly employs them, mostly exist to keep honest people honest.   We perceive ourselves as secure behind locked doors and our high end bicycles safe because we put basic locks on them.  The reality is that most of the locks used by private citizens only deter fundamentally honest or ignorant people.  The honest people we can  immediately remove from the equation, while the ignorant are finding it harder and harder to stay that way though.  A quick search on a popular video site can enlighten you as to how simple most locks are to bypass.  In the past, locks used to maintain their security by making their bypass techniques obscure.  That method is no longer valid in the era of mass media.  At DEFCON, there were entire rooms dedicated to the overall art of lockpicking.  The information is in the open - it is amazing what you can do with a beer can and some scissors.

Information - actionable information, that is -  is probably the ultimate commodity.  The amount of information available on the average person has never been higher, and will only increase.  The amount of information that corporations and governments both knowingly and unknowingly release is incredible.  This tsunami of information that flows around us daily is ignored by most.   This is another case where mass perception has not caught up with reality. The ability to derive a great deal of very personal and private information is present to people who know how to analyze social network traffic, and of course to credit card companies as well.  Look at your credit card receipt - all it includes is where you buy gas, food, clothes, coffee, what you do for fun, and where you go to hang out - in short, a financial life story.  Is this necessarily a bad thing?  No, but it is something to be aware of.  Living in a fishbowl is not the way we think of our lives right now, but for most people it should be.  There is a great deal that can be done with this information, but fortunately most of us will never be targeted.

That was the final aspect of DEFCON.  There is a huge amount of vulnerability out there.  Yet vulnerability alone does not create risk.  You need to factor in probability as well.  Thankfully, most of humanity is pretty decent.  The average person won’t walk off with your bicycle just because they know they can get away with it.   Most of us won’t be targeted by identity thieves - unless we get unlucky.   Your front door isn’t going to be picked, bumped, or otherwise bypassed anytime soon.  Just locking it stops most crimes of opportunity.  Knowledge of vulnerability isn’t meant to be scary, it is meant to be enlightening.  Once you understand what the vulnerabilities actually are, you can better asses your overall risk and make informed choices.  And that is what really happens at DEFCON - spreading knowledge.

“If the party is going to succeed in the future, the advice I’m giving to my Republican friends is you’ve got to find some way to reach out and draw moderates and independents more toward the right so that we can build a party that will win.”

Indeed, that’s the million dollar question:  How do you attract the swing vote?  The significance of this is understated by Powell.  During the 2008 election, President Obama clearly didn’t win by turning southern evangelists into liberals.  Rather, it was the acquisition of the two to three percent of the country that was ideologically split between the two parties.

What, then, is the best way to capture the moderate vote, while also maintaining the strength of the strong far-right base of conservatism?  At first blush, it seems like the best way would to be to have a platform that both conservatives and moderates can stand behind.  Regrettably, this is usually near impossible.

It’s hard to sell a moderate stance on social issues to hard-right conservatives, just as it is difficult to sell a fiscally conservative platform to moderates who don’t mind a little government regulation and intervention.  Both Republican front runners in the 2008 nomination race had issues reconciling the different wings of conservatism.  Mitt Romney, typically a fiscal hawk, was largely shunned by the evangelistic voting-base due to his comparably liberal social values.  Similarly, John McCain’s “Maverick” persona was never perceived as being conservative enough; he ended up moving more towards the right in the primary race, resulting in the alientation of conservative leaning centrists.  Barack Obama, conversely, attempted to move more towards the center, gladly picking up the votes abandoned by McCain’s appeasement of the far right base.

If, in fact, there is a dichotomy between moderate and hard-right political ideologies, how does one unite the two voting blocks?  For the answer, one must only look into the recent past.  David Axelrod and Barack Obama present us with the answers.

Force of Personality

Even during his presidential campaign, a time in which political platforms change with the state currently stumping in, President Obama was certainly liberal enough to worry most moderates.  But when it counted, he easily managed to capture the swing votes and secure the election.  It’s arguable that this was largely due to his majestic stagecraft and oratory skills, evidenced most blatantly by his DNC convention acceptance speech, pictured here.  His presentation and sense of grandeur resonated favorably with people, even if they did not like or support some of his policies.  In effect, even those who didn’t agree with all of his proposed policies felt that Obama was the right man for the job.  This feeling perpetuates today.  Over half the nation disapproves of his economic, healthcare, and spending plans and their resultant bolstering of  government expansion, but over half of the nation still approve of him as president.  Barack Obama has continued to prove that people don’t necessarily have to agree with you to vote for you.  This is highlighted by the swing vote, where the voter feels that they are attempting to choose between “the lesser of two evils”.

Political Fatigue

Just as Obama exploited “Bush Fatigue”, in which the majority of the populace were exhausted with the policies of George W. Bush, it’s possible that a Republican candidate might be able to capture moderates in the same manner.  After the national debt has been expanded by trillions of dollars and inflation has resulted from the stimulus bill, moderates may be willing to swing to a conservative candidate, who despite not being a true centrist is simply something different.  This generally takes time, but eventually more citizens will begin to associate Obama with his policies, rather than his appealing personality.  Obviously, this won’t hurt his perception by the far left, but it is likely to impact his approval rating by centrists.

In all likelihood, for a Republican to capture the swing vote, he or she must embody the same showmanship of Obama, and benefit from his political excesses. Some likely candidates to compete are Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, and Sarah Palin.  Each one of them has some innate talent on the stage, but all will need serious improvement to contest Obama in that arena.  The political fatigue is certainly beginning already, although Obama still has plenty of time to maneuver to improve his position.  Without both elements, another four years of Mr. Obama is likely.

Author’s Note:  Interestingly, the crux of these two factors is whether the swing vote associates an individual’s policy with the candidate/president themselves.  In “Political Fatigue”, voters had securely linked Bush with negative policy and wars, opening the door to a candidate who they largely judged on personality.  In “Force of Personality”, people resonated with Obama personally, even if they were against or ambivalent to his policies, which highlighted the disassociation.