Category: Uncategorized

The RNC just passed a resolution describing January 6 as “legitimate political discourse.” That puts the party on record as supporting the insurrection. In addition, the RNC censured Cheney and Kinzinger for putting the health of American liberal democracy ahead of party unity. Opposing the lawless actions of the extreme right is, therefore, officially GOP heresy.

Consider what this means for the future. There are no limits on the extreme right; no action or statement is too outrageous to be acceptable now. Anyone in the center who objects in public will be drummed out of the GOP for damaging party unity. The inmates are officially in charge of the asylum.

There was a consensus within the leadership of both American parties that admitting China to the WTO would ultimately result in a liberalization of the Chinese political system. As we know now, that was a mistake. No such liberalization has occurred–in fact, quite the opposite.

It occurred to me this morning that the irony here is that the analysis from the US was impeccably Marxist; a fundamental change in China’s economic system must inevitably lead to a corresponding change in the superstructure. But in China, at least, Marx was wrong (for that matter, so was Gorbachev, who was a better Marxist in this respect than Deng). The superstructure calls the shots; economic change and political reform do not necessarily move on the same track.

As I started to read what appears to be an excellent biography of Stalin, it occurred to me that there are clear analogies in Chinese history to the grim periods of the Soviet experience. For the Great Leap Forward, see the forced collectivization of Soviet agriculture and the diversion of resources to industry in the 1920s and 1930s; for the Cultural Revolution, you have Stalin’s purges. In both countries, dictatorial excesses were followed by periods of oligarchical rule, which were subsequently replaced by another era of dynamic one-man rule (Gorbachev; Xi). Are there any lessons to be learned here?

The first thing you would note is that the analogies are not perfect; the Soviet period of crash collectivization and industrialization had monstrous results, but it at least created a country that was capable of resisting the Nazis in World War II, while the Great Leap Forward was just a disaster, with no mitigating impacts. On the other hand, Stalin’s purges were directed by a single psychopath operating within the chain of command, while the Cultural Revolution was an effort by Mao to use people on the street to overcome resistance within a leadership over which he had lost control. And nobody would say that Xi resembles Gorbachev in any way.

What you should take from this is that communist revolutions and rule create similar issues regarding leadership structures and economic growth, but that different countries answer the questions in different ways. Individual agency still matters, even in China. Xi was a choice, not an inevitability.

Let’s look at the censorship issue from a more macro perspective. What are the available options, and how would they work?

There are essentially three options as to the social media companies: no censorship; censorship by the companies themselves; and censorship by the government. The first option is the one the companies prefer, as it makes them the most money and creates the least amount of inconvenience. However, it has led to ferocious criticism about the spread of clear misinformation from large number of consumers and from their own employees, while widespread lies on social media have destabilized entire political systems, the US not excepted, which is a potential danger to the very existence of the companies. The second option is consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence and avoids potentially dangerous government involvement, but it exposes the companies to constant criticism about unequal treatment from both the right and left, and costs lots of money to boot. The companies would thus prefer the third to the second option, as long as it is done with a light touch. That, unfortunately, cannot be guaranteed. Once government censorship starts, there is no guarantee it won’t be used by partisans of one side to stifle the opposition. Government involvement, therefore, can only work if the two political parties are trustworthy, and behave in good faith.

Does that sound like America in 2022 to you?

While Trump clearly saw Taiwan as a bargaining chip to be used in trade negotiations with the Chinese government, the mainstream of the GOP is publicly supportive of defending the island, and the Democrats are, too. Does this mean that America would necessarily come to the aid of Taiwan in the event of a Chinese blockade or attack?

No, because the American public hasn’t been consulted on the matter. It isn’t clear to me that the electorate as a whole would be willing to risk war with a nuclear power for an island thousands of miles from the US mainland. A lot of preparation would have to be done before military action is a politically viable option. As of now, I see no evidence that the leadership of either party is attempting to educate its partisans on this issue.

In a physical, military, and geopolitical sense, today’s Taiwan resembles West Berlin at the beginning of the Cold War. Assume that the Chinese at some point impose a blockade, as the Soviets did to Berlin in 1948. Would it be possible to supply the island by air in the same way in an effort to avoid both war and surrender?

Technology has improved since then, and America would have the assistance of Japan, Australia, and possibly the Filipinos, but the vastly larger population of Taiwan relative to Berlin would make it a huge challenge.

My best guess is that enough food could be provided to (barely) sustain the population, but that it would be impossible to deliver enough fuel to keep the Taiwanese economy going. At a minimum, life on the island would become extremely difficult.

Let’s hope we never find out.

When I was growing up, access to the marketplace of ideas was controlled by the owners and editors at the three TV networks and a few periodicals. You could say that it was censorship of a kind, but it wasn’t run by the government, and it wasn’t partisan. It kept out extreme ideas. It was a censorship of moderation and good taste.

First cable TV, then the internet, and finally social media have blown up this model. Today, the extremes rule, to the benefit of the owners of the social media companies. Any moron with a modem is entitled to broadcast his opinions for the entire world to hear. As a result, bad ideas drive out the good ones, partisans live in bubbles, and both sides fear the fringes of the other.

This situation is unsustainable. It cannot last. We are headed for a new model of censorship, which is already evolving in several countries throughout the world. This one will be run by the government, and will be partisan. The only question is who will control the new regime. The most likely answer is the right in the short run, and the left in the long run.

The great would-be emperor Xi

Wants to crush Taiwan under his knee.

Will the Chinese attack?

Will the island fight back?

Can it count on the land of the free?

Unlike his predecessors, Xi has embraced an aggressive “wolf warrior” style of diplomacy. As a result, China is widely perceived as an obnoxious bully throughout the world, which undercuts its expensive attempts to enhance its soft power. It seems counterproductive. What’s the point?

It all revolves around the government’s legitimacy. The regime obviously has no reasonable claim to be “democratic.” Since it no longer believes in Marxism, its right to rule cannot derive from its status as the vanguard of the working class, or its superior knowledge of dialectical materialism. That leaves the CCP only with its record of making China great again, which it exploits to the hilt with the public by swaggering on the world stage.

That’s a problem for both China and the world. Under normal circumstances, Chinese nationalism focuses on the superiority of Chinese culture, and is not militaristic. The new version promoted by the government is angrier and more grievance-based, and sounds a bit like Germany between 1870 and 1945. We know how that turned out.

Can the government continue to turn off angry nationalism as easily as it turns it on? Does it have the ability to back down in a pinch? We had better hope so.

When the British sent an embassy to the Chinese Emperor asking for trade rights and diplomatic equality in the 18th century, Qianlong swatted them away, saying that China was perfectly self-sufficient. As we all know, that didn’t end well for the Chinese. They have never gotten over the resulting conflict.

Xi’s ultimate objective is to create a China which, unlike Qianlong’s empire, actually is completely secure and self-sufficient. The overriding purpose of the New Silk Road is to create infrastructure, relationships, technology, and outposts which will eliminate any physical, military, or economic choke points for the Chinese economy.

Can it work? That, and how an invulnerable China would respond to the rest of the world, are the biggest geopolitical questions of the early 21st century. What I can say today is that it will be extremely difficult, but the Chinese have made a lot of progress, and the size of its market is a big asset.

Imagine a world without social media. It shouldn’t be that hard; you only have to go back about a decade. The traditional antagonists–the NYT and the WSJ, Fox and MSNBC–still exist, but Facebook and Twitter don’t. Is America still as polarized as it is today? Is liberal democracy still under threat?

No, for two reasons:

1. The cultural left that is so loathed and feared by the right expresses itself almost exclusively on social media. The right erroneously assumes that it speaks for the mainstream left, and overreacts by trying to maintain a monopoly of political power in an effort to save itself.
2. Social media are experienced through phones, and thus are more pervasive than periodicals and TV. People who were fairly sane in the old regime are bombarded with the opinions of nut jobs, and start to accept their opinions. Even partisan gatekeepers lose their authority. Anarchy results.

The bottom line is that uncensored social media are incompatible with liberal democracy. The current situation is unsustainable.

As I noted in a previous post, both Xi and Biden are attempting to reduce inequality by improving the lot of workers and cutting the fabulously wealthy down to size. In Biden’s case, he attempted to use the tools available to him in a liberal democracy–legislation–but to no avail. The BBB failed. The dollar store economy remains in place, mitigated somewhat by the pandemic relief bill.

Xi has very different tools available to him in a very different state. He is trying to spread the wealth by using the arbitrary power of the Chinese government to intimidate the wealthy, bring large companies under more rigorous state control, and force large “voluntary” charitable contributions for the public good.

Will Xi’s approach work better than Biden’s? I don’t think so. Apparently random efforts to interfere with the market, driven by politics, are no substitute for an adequate welfare state. They destroy essential incentives for business without assuring anyone that the proceeds of the ransom payments–er, voluntary contributions–will be used fairly and effectively.

Imagine no pandemic.

It isn’t hard to do.

No masks or distance.

The schools are open, too.

_____________

Imagine all the people

Getting the vaccine.

Yoo-hoo!

____________

You may say I’m a dreamer.

But I’m not the only one.

I hope someday you’ll join us

And the world will live as one.

_______________

When the virus becomes endemic, the supply chain problems and inflation will ease, there will be no more disputes about masks and vaccines, and things will get back to something approximating normal. Won’t that be great!

It will happen. It’s just a matter of time.

John McWhorter is best known as being a severe critic of the illiberal (woke) left. Until recently, he had less concern about the antics of the reactionary right. DeSantis and the Florida Legislature, however, have changed his mind. Today, he is threatening a plague on both illiberal houses.

I agree, but if McWhorter thought the right was genuinely interested in protecting free speech, he was being painfully naive. Censorship is very much a part of the reactionary DNA. It always has been. Remember the battles over publications in small town libraries? What about the Index of Prohibited Books?

I hate to keep saying this, but it is worth repeating: the illiberalism of prominent GOP politicians is more dangerous than the ideas of woke teenagers on Twitter. People with guns and power matter more than people who don’t. That’s a matter of common sense.

The EU grew by about 4 percent last year. EU inflation is running about 5 percent. By comparison, we grew by over 5 percent, but inflation is 7 percent.

It would be completely fair to ask the American voters if they would prefer the EU cocktail of lower inflation and slower growth. Many of them would probably say yes, but most workers would not, if you explained that would mean lower wages and higher unemployment. That is the real choice on offer–not high growth and no inflation.