China and the World War I Analogy

Many commentators have identified an analogy between the current state of affairs in Southeast Asia and Europe in 1914, with China, as the dissatisfied rising power, playing the part of Germany, and the US playing the part of the status quo party, the UK.  The Chinese themselves are well aware of it;  I understand that Chinese TV broadcast a lengthy series on World War I with the analogy in mind some time ago.

Must our conflicting interests lead to the same result?  I think not, for the following reasons:

1.  China, unlike pre-World War I Germany, is not a militaristic society.  Chinese patriotism revolves around the superiority of its culture, not the army.

2.  The Chinese have no reliable allies in their backyard.  Encirclement is, therefore, even more of a concern for them than it was for the Germans.

3.  The Pacific Ocean is a lot wider than the English Channel.  The US has the ability to retreat from the South China Sea, if necessary, without fatally compromising its strategic position and exposing itself to invasion.  The UK in 1914 didn’t have that luxury.

The Putin Test

There is a scene in “The Godfather” in which the heads of the five families meet to broker a truce to an ongoing gang war that, to me, serves as a paradigm for the conduct of international relations.  Like it or not, the world outside is full of thugs, and relations among them are frequently conducted at the intellectual level of schoolyard bullies.

I thought of this as I listened to Sanders go into a left-wing rant about Henry Kissinger that would have been fresh material 40 years ago during last night’s debate.  The single most important task for our next President is not to wage war on Wall Street, but to keep us safe from people like Putin.  Can you imagine Sanders standing toe-to-toe with Putin, and making him back down?  Can you imagine him even caring enough about anything happening outside our borders to try?

Me, neither.

On Chinese and Russian Corruption

China has a single-party system, a politicized judiciary, and severe restraints on the media, all of which inevitably lead to rampant corruption.  That said, it is fair to say that corruption in China may be endemic, but it is not the organizing principle of the political system, as it is in Russia, which has at least the illusion of a democratic process.  Why is that?

I think there are two reasons:

1. The ownership of natural resources plays a far greater part in the Russian economy than in the Chinese:  As a result, the Russian government gets to distribute wealth that is ultimately derived from oil like candy to its supporters. If Russia had entrepreneurs who created wealth without government help instead of oligarchs, the economic and political systems would be different, but no such luck.

2.  The Communist Party plays a positive role in fighting corruption in China:  While you may not agree with the CP’s stated ideology (I certainly don’t, and neither do many of its members), it on paper stands for something other than the accumulation of wealth by its members, and it uses its enforcement powers over officials who violate its standards.  There is no similar mechanism in Russia; everything ultimately depends on the whim of Putin.

A Song Parody for Christie’s Exit

Put on your union boots.

Put on your Springsteen t-shirt.

Big mouth at last is mute.

We’re burying Christie.

 

Goodbye to right-wing lies.

No more obnoxious bully.

His waning hopes have died.

We’re burying Christie.

 

Parody of “Burying Davy” by The Decemberists.

Note:  I wrote this six months ago in anticipation of this day.  Christie’s slim hopes revolved around the marketability of his swagger, but he immediately lost that battle to Trump, which left him with nothing but his terrorist fighter shtick.  That obviously didn’t work, to the regret of no one outside of his family and small circle of friends.

 

 

Would China Work as a Liberal Democracy?

This question took me on an intellectual odyssey that started in Taiwan and ended with Federalist No. 10.  That may seem a bit odd, but stay with me here.

The natural initial answer is no, because the Chinese mainland has no historical experience of anything like liberal democracy, and the culture emphasizes the collective, not the individual.  That said, the government on Taiwan has evolved peacefully into a liberal democracy; the same is true of Japan and South Korea, both of which have elements of Chinese thought in their cultural DNA.  You cannot, therefore, completely dismiss the question at this stage.

China is obviously a vastly larger and more complex country than the three listed above, which is where Federalist No. 10 comes in.  Madison made the argument in No. 10 (in response to critics of the Constitution who believed that it gave the federal government too much power) that a republic would work better in a large state than in a small one due to the likely proliferation of factions, which would operate as a check on each other.  As a result, concerns about an overly powerful central government were misplaced.

Our national experience suggests that Madison was right, but only in the context of the argument to which he was trying to respond.  Our system does, indeed, contain lots of checks and balances (both legal and practical), and make strong central government difficult.  The real question, then, is whether a system with similar checks and balances would work in a country as large as China, with a history of strong central government, under today’s conditions.  In my opinion, the answer is no; the demands for quick and firm action from the government would just be too great.

Trump’s Fortress America

It is a common observation among conservative pundits that parts of Trump’s platform diverge wildly from orthodox Republican ideology.  It’s true, but irrelevant; Trump’s ideas make out a perfectly coherent whole, but one that finds its inspiration in a completely different source than the National Review.

Trump takes the following positions:

  1. Build a wall around the country to keep out immigrants;
  2. Increase the size of the military to deter any possible threats to the homeland, and then disengage from the world;
  3. Impose tariffs on most, or even all, of our trading partners in the hope of regaining jobs and boosting wages;
  4. Maintain existing levels of social spending;
  5. Increase spending on infrastructure; and
  6. Support business through massive tax cuts, deregulation, and subsidies.

This is a slightly tweaked and updated version of an economic model for a typical South American country, circa 1950.  It even comes with its own man on golf cart horseback!  The last act typically is stagflation.

Don’t cry for me, New Hampshire.

Lines on the GOP in New Hampshire

            Lincoln’s Ghost

The GOP’s put on a show.

More drama every day.

A comedy or tragedy?

I’ve never seen this play.

 

You say that Trump’s a huckster, now.

He’s got a line to sell.

A deal cannot be made without

A buyer there, as well.

 

I thought I saw the ghost of Lincoln

Shedding bitter tears.

The nation he fought hard to save

Surrendering to fear.

 

A few notes on the primary:

  1. The magnitude of Clinton’s defeat was a bit shocking, but her firewall is still intact.
  2. She hit the right note in her speech:  yes, economic inequality is very important, but there are many other issues that need to be addressed that go beyond class.
  3. Rubio’s failure to separate himself from the other Romney Coalition candidates is the establishment’s worst nightmare.  Now they will continue to split the votes in their lane for the foreseeable future, and Jeb still has a chance.
  4. My predictions are two for two.  South Carolina is going to be pivotal.  I don’t have the same degree of confidence in my bet on Cruz that I did in the first two contests.

On the Impact of Urbanization on Chinese Culture

The Chinese economy for thousands of years has been based on intense collective agriculture.  Their culture, as you would expect, reflects that;  family and community ties are very strong, and the interests of the collective are placed before the individual, even in their names.   Will any of that change with the explosive growth of cities, and, if so, how?

The migration of younger generations to cities inevitably will lead to a fraying of ties between the generations, and to more emphasis on individual preferences and freedom.  Some elements of the culture, such as the food, language, literature, and history, will not be impacted by this change, but rituals relating to ancestors will become less prominent, informal controls on individual behavior previously imposed by the community will have to be replaced by more formal mechanisms, and the government will have to create an effective welfare state in lieu of relying on the community to take care of its own.

The Cruzade

GLENDOWER:  I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

HOTSPUR:  Why, so can I, or so can any man.

But will they come when you do call them?

From Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part I

 

After Ted’s victory in Iowa, he called for the continuing support of three groups: conservative Christians (Reactionaries, in my terminology); Tea Party Republicans (Conservative Libertarians); and “Reagan Democrats” (a species that no longer exists–they have long since become Reactionaries).   The striking thing about this coalition is how narrow it is;  it can’t comprise more than half of the GOP, to say nothing of the much larger electorate in the general election.  Most notably, there was no shout out to business interests, who have always been the bedrock of the GOP.

If Cruz is serious about winning, he must believe one of two things:

  1. There is an enormous pool of disaffected evangelicals who will rise to fight under his banner in both the primaries and the general election.  New Hampshire will give us a better idea if this is true or not, but so far, I have seen no evidence of it (i.e., like Glendower’s spirits, they won’t come when called).
  2. He can win the GOP nomination if he wins the states with large numbers of evangelicals and Trump and Rubio split the rest.  This is a possibility;  it is, in fact, my prediction, but you wouldn’t want to bet the ranch on it, because there are too many things that could go wrong.  In order to win the general election, he would then have to benefit from some sort of national catastrophe.

If I were Cruz, I would be furiously sucking up to businessmen at this point in order to expand my base, but that doesn’t appear to be part of his DNA–at least not in public.

One final suggestion to Cruz for a campaign slogan:  “God built this.”  Catchy, no?

 

 

On Communism and Confucianism

This is the first of a series of posts on China in honor of Chinese New Year.

Confucianism is a collection of ideas about ethics that dates back over 2,000 years.  The ideal Confucian world looks back to a golden age, not forward, and emphasizes stability, harmony, social rank, and deference.  Communism, by contrast, is a pseudo-religion based on “dialectical materialism” that views revolution as the mechanism whereby mankind will progress from a dreary present characterized by conflicts between classes to a future golden age of complete equality.

Mao, for perfectly understandable reasons, viewed Confucius as a despicable reactionary;  his successors, however, see clear benefits to an ideology which encourages stability, and thereby props up their regime.  As a result, the current government is severely conflicted about Confucius.  Can the two ideologies be harmonized?  People can overlook a lot as long as things are going well; when push comes to shove, however, the answer will be no.

Deconstructing Marco’s America

Gaffes are only memorable when they feed into a popular narrative.  For example, the Chevy Chase impression of Gerald Ford was completely unfair, but it was consistent with the widely-held opinion that the man was mentally slow, so it stuck.  Similarly, the Rick Perry “oops” moment confirmed the popular opinion that Perry was a doofus, and thereby pushed a teetering campaign over the edge in 2012.

The argument against Rubio has always been that he is inexperienced and lacks fortitude:  when the going gets tough, he runs for a water bottle.  His New Hampshire talking point episode feeds right into that.  As a result, he is going to wear this mistake for the rest of the campaign, and, frankly, he deserves it.

That said, I think it is worth examining the talking point itself in more detail. Basically, what Rubio is saying runs something like this:

  1. The greatness of America lies in the fact that even a bartender’s son, like me, can become President.
  2. Anyone who fails in this country, therefore, is completely responsible for his own fate.
  3. Therefore, anyone who proposes to use the government to redistribute wealth from hardworking people to help the poor is acting in a way that is fundamentally un-American, and is practically a traitor.

This is Sarah Palin territory, and I find it deeply offensive.  If it is just a tactic designed to poach votes from Trump and Cruz, I think it will fail;  why should anyone vote for Cruz Lite when you can have the real thing?  If he really means it, on the other hand, he isn’t fit for service in government at any level, much less the Presidency.