Month: September 2021

Given India’s complicated history, its liberal democracy was bound to be messy—chaotic, even. Nevertheless, it was robust, and Indians are justly proud of it. Unfortunately, that is changing for the worse under Modi. India is evolving into something more like a gigantic version of Israel, with Muslims playing the role of the Palestinians.

The contrast between India and China on human rights issues is not, therefore, as clear cut as we would like. Does that mean we should keep illiberal India at arm’s length? Not at all! India’s shortcomings are not as baked into the system as China’s, and in any event, India does not present the danger to its neighbors that China does. Given the changing balance of power in East Asia, we can no longer afford to be too fussy about our allies.

Will the nation default on its debt?

The solution’s not visible yet.

How does it end?

Will either side bend?

It’s as stupid as crises can get.

The Chinese government is in the process of perfecting the surveillance state. The combination of cameras and AI looks like something out of “1984.” Does it mean China is becoming a totalitarian state?

Not exactly. In a genuinely totalitarian state, there is no sphere for private behavior; everything, be it art or science or entertainment, must actively advance the interests of the state or be crushed. If you’re not completely and wholeheartedly committed to the state, you are an enemy.

The Chinese state is not like that. It does not tolerate opposition, but it leaves lots of space for activity that is politically neutral. This is particularly true in the economic sphere.

In short, a totalitarian state demands the engagement of its citizens. The CCP is exactly the opposite. It wants the Chinese people to get on with their lives and be productive without asking too many questions. The surveillance state is designed to punish deviance, not to generate support.

Young Americans, it seems, don’t want to work with their hands. Millions of people remain unemployed, while job openings have reached record levels. While some of this is attributable to low wages and fear of the virus, some of the jobs, such as those in construction, are going begging even though they pay pretty well. Everyone wants to be an influencer, but few are chosen. Barring a sea change in attitudes, how are we to deal with problem?

In the short run, the only answer is more immigrants. There is plenty of supply and demand; all we have to do is make them match.

It was 2030. The great power was grappling with the problems of climate change and increasing inequality by expanding the powers of the central government. It was taking more control over the internet, as well. The surveillance state was becoming more of a reality every day. Defense spending was rising, too, as a confrontation over Taiwan loomed. The rest of the world looked on with increasing concern.

Is it China or America? You decide. In spite of their very different cultures and political systems, the countries have more in common than you probably think.

And . . . I’m back.

The first German election—the public, transparent one—is in the books. The second one—the one that really matters—is about to begin. How that one will turn out, no one knows, including me.

The one conclusion we can safely draw at this point is that either the Christian Democrats or the Social Democrats will be in opposition. That’s a good thing. Grand coalitions, except in times of national emergencies, are unhealthy, because they drive opposition to the extremes, and weaken centrist parties in the long run. Germany will be better off if the electorate has a clear choice between the center-right and the center-left. That has been missing for most of the past decade.

And the three men I admire most

The Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost

They caught the last train for the coast

The day the music died.

—Don MacLean, “American Pie”

I call the area of the North Carolina mountains in which I live “Boomerville” because the only radio station plays nothing but hits from the 70s and 80s. “American Pie” is one of the songs in heavy rotation.

When you think about it, “American Pie” was an incredibly unlikely hit, for two reasons. First, of course, was its extreme length and complexity. Second, the lyrics are a complete rejection of the culture that most Boomers hold dear. The song tells us that the country started to go to hell in a handbasket towards the end of the Fifties. It is a message that only Trump voters should want to hear.

The irony is that the song itself borrows heavily from Dylan—one of its targets— and would be unimaginable without him.

So why do Boomers love the song? Do they have a lingering suspicion they drove the country in the wrong direction? Do they ignore its context and generalize the feeling of nostalgia and loss? Or are they just stupid? And what in the world would a millennial make of it today?

You decide.

A note to my readers: I will be on vacation for the next week. I will be back with my semi-annual series on China on the 28th.

I’ve been watching a docudrama called “The American West” on Amazon Prime over the last week. It’s a bit oversimplified and hokey, but the acting is good, and the characters are vivid. I recommend it.

Anyway, while I was watching it, it occurred to me that I was looking at the Republican world view: an America soaked in testosterone, marked by anarchy and violence, in which the most important qualities were strength and self-reliance. It is the opposite of the welfare state.

There are three problems with the use of the analogy in today’s world. First, the old West died quickly, because it outlived its usefulness. Anarchy is bad for business. Second, there is no rugged individual solution to problems like the pandemic and climate change. Finally, Wyatt Earp wasn’t a whiner. Donald Trump is.

GOP candidates used to talk a great deal about the importance of nominating judges who would exercise judicial restraint. You don’t hear that anymore. Why?

For two reasons. First, the GOP is now under the effective control of the Reactionary faction, which wants to roll back the clock, not preserve the status quo. Judicial activism in the form of overturning precedents is necessary to achieve that goal. Second, the GOP has more or less given up any attempt to win the support of a majority of Americans, and now prefers to suppress votes to remain in power. Why would Republicans support a judicial philosophy that calls for deference to the popular will, as expressed through legislation, if they think the country is run by an immoral majority?

The USSR presented a very serious military and ideological threat to the countries of Western Europe during the Cold War. No reasonable person could look at the regimes of the Warsaw Pact and wonder what his fate would be if the USSR were to move the Iron Curtain to the west. And so, in spite of occasional objections and ambivalence, the US could rely on its NATO allies when push came to shove.

China presents a very different challenge for the EU. It is not a military threat, and it does not seek to overthrow any European government. At worst, it seeks to turn the EU countries into economic dependents, and to stifle any criticism of its political system, its human rights practices, and its foreign policy. As a result, the US can’t expect the same degree of support from its NATO allies that it received during the Cold War.

What does this mean for American foreign policy? That the EU nations will be of very limited assistance in dealing with Chinese military activity in Asia—hence, the Australian submarine deal. We will need help from our Asian friends, not Europe, in confronting those challenges. You can consequently expect America to slowly and quietly pull some of its resources out of NATO, and to turn the responsibilities for dealing with Russian aggression over to the Europeans. Second, the focus of America’s diplomacy with the EU relative to China will be on economic matters of mutual interest, not military issues. Third, the EU is going to do its best, for business reasons, to avoid choosing between China and America. The real point of decision will be on tech issues with national security implications. How will the mop flop here? Only time will tell, but it is likely that the EU will not be united on these matters.

People my age will remember the old Fram oil commercial in which a mechanic told the audience they would have to pay him now or later. Climate change is a lot like that; the bills are already coming due, but will get much worse in the future. If we don’t invest in green energy today, the remedial costs will be incalculable.

The GOP can’t bring itself to accept this trade-off, partly for ideological reasons, and partly out of short term self-interest. They could embrace a carbon tax with offsets, avoid any other interference in the market, and reasonably claim to be responsible. Instead, they are going to pay the electoral price in the longer run, and more severe intrusions into personal freedom will be required to address the inevitable disruptions caused by rising temperatures.

Thomas Edsall wrote a typically windy column about the relationship between racism and opposition to abortion rights a few days ago. The reality is that the two run in parallel, and are often found in the same people, but are not identical.

The syllogism on abortion typically runs like this:

1. God is a man. The Bible says so.
2. Man was created first. He is the default, as it were, and consequently has the right to rule.
3. Eve ruined everything by succumbing to Satan, and persuading Adam to do likewise.
4. Women, following Eve, are responsible for all sexual sins through their ability to tempt men from their adherence to God’s law. As a result, their behavior must be strictly controlled by men. Prohibiting abortion is an obvious part of that package.

If this sounds like something the Taliban would say, so be it. When you combine these attitudes with lost status for men in the knowledge economy, you have a formula for instability.

On the Democrat Senator Joe.

I can’t tell just which way he will go.

Dispensing with coal’s

Not a plausible goal

For his state is bright red, as you know.

Some left-leaning commentators view the limitations on the SALT deduction in the Trump tax cut as progressive, because they impact wealthy people in blue states. I don’t agree, for two reasons: first, it is fundamentally unfair to require anyone to pay taxes on funds that he does not own or control, because they are legally obligated to the government; and second, because the SALT limitation was a gratuitous attempt by red state Republicans to injure people in blue states. It was spiteful, pure and simple.

Hurricane season always comes with a call for blue states to bail out the climate change deniers in the red Gulf Coast states. If I were a blue state member of Congress, I would demand an end to the SALT limitations for my constituents in exchange for disaster relief. The national solidarity street should run both ways, or neither.

A recent issue of The Economist was largely devoted to discussions about the evils of the illiberal left. The magazine acknowledged that the right is a bigger threat, but had nothing else to say about the danger from that quarter.

I will fill in the gaps for you:

1. While the illiberal left takes philosophical positions that are debatably false, the illiberal right accepts “facts” that are demonstrably false.
2. The illiberal left does not have a following among prominent members of the Democratic Party. The last American President is the leader of the illiberal right, and he has plenty of company.
3. The base of the Republican Party is unambiguously illiberal. The leadership has no interest in persuading it to change its views. Democratic voters chose a liberal to represent them in 2020.
4. The illiberal right supported an attempted insurrection. The Twitter left has never attacked liberal democracy in this country.

I don’t have much use for the illiberal left, but it should be obvious why I don’t waste much time and energy worrying about them.