Tom Friedman has a typically thoughtful and well-written piece in today’s New York Times.  But he perpetuates what I hate most about “serious” pundits.  It is this false equivalency that asserts “both parties” are wrong or contribute equally to a problem.  In so doing, I believe the “serious” pundit positions him or herself above it all and superior in knowledge or motives to those engage in the grubby business of actually making policy.   This approach also diminishes the possibility of any constructive advancement of the debate or policy change by essentially absolving the true culprits of any unique responsibility for the positions they hold.  So, here’s Friedman in his Olympian declarations:

We cannot fix what ails America unless we look honestly at our own roles
in creating our own problems. We — both parties — created an awful
set of incentives that encouraged our best students to go to Wall Street
to create crazy financial instruments instead of to Silicon Valley to
create new products that improve people’s lives. We — both parties —
created massive tax incentives and cheap money to make home mortgages
available to people who really didn’t have the means to sustain them.
And we — both parties — sent BP out in the gulf to get us as much
oil as possible at the cheapest price.

He’s just wrong.  It’s not “both parties.”  For the most part, he describes the logical outcomes of the conservative policies that have held prominence since Ronald Reagan’s Administration.  The fact is that one party is actively trying to address these problems and the other party either denies their existence or simply obstructs solutions for political reasons.    So, here’s Friedman later in his piece:

We need to make our whole country more sustainable. So let’s pass an
energy-climate bill that really reduces our dependence on Middle East
oil. Let’s pass a financial regulatory reform bill that really reduces
the odds of another banking crisis. Let’s get our fiscal house in order,
as the economy recovers. And let’s pass an immigration bill that will
enable us to attract the world’s top talent and remain the world’s
leader in innovation.

Let’s see, now.  Who is trying to enact the legislation he says we need and who’s blocking it?

Only by calling out the obstructionists (read: Republicans) can we really move the policy.  But Friedman prefers his posture a an objective observer, above it all, damning both houses, and accomplishing nothing.

Tweet This Post

The Economist issues its diagnosis of what’s wrong with America’s governing system and declares it is because Obama hasn’t given enough ground to the Republicans.

It is not so much that America is ungovernable, as that Mr Obama has done a lousy job of winning over Republicans and independents to the causes he favours. If, instead of handing over health care to his party’s left wing, he had lived up to his promise to be a bipartisan president and courted conservatives by offering, say, reform of the tort system, he might have got health care through; by giving ground on nuclear power, he may now stand a chance of getting a climate bill.

Wrong!  Obama did offer to negotiate over tort reform and was rebuffed by the Republicans.  And what of the three months was given over to Finance Chair Sen. Max Baucus to come up with a bipartisan healthcare reform bill?  The strategy of the Republicans, which Sen. Grassley, minority leader of the committee, explicitly gave away, was to slow the process down and hope that lighten would strike and kill the bill.  Sure enough, lighten struck in Massachusetts, but didn’t quite kill it.

And what should we conclude from the politics surrounding the Deficit Commission that the Republicans were demanding….until Obama agreed to it.  Seven Republican cosponsors of that legislation voted against it when it was brought to the Senate floor with Obama’s support.

For the Economist to totally absolve the Republicans for any responsibility for the gridlock in Washington is laughable.  The GOP legislators are tacitly portrayed as this poor, ignored collection of principled conservatives.  When, in fact, they are a wrecking crew, bent on the destruction of the Obama presidency.

As Obama has learned, it is very hard to find common ground with people whose fondest wish is your utter failure.

Tweet This Post

The Economist has a rumination on the challenges Europe faces in the year ahead. In the “Charlemagne” column, the author discusses the “failed” Lisbon agenda, set forth in 2000 that imagined a much more robust European economy than the one that has come to pass.  The great goals of a knowledge-based economy and strong economic growth has not been realized.  Yet, European leaders continue to give lip service to these goals.  Still, the author blames Europeans themselves and not their leaders for this failure.

I was most struck by the following excerpt:

Lisbon failed because lots of Europeans do not want to live in the most dynamic and competitive economy in the world. They prefer to work fewer hours than Americans or Japanese (about 10% fewer, on average), to take long holidays, and to retire as soon as possible. Among EU leaders it is fashionable to predict that the financial crisis will lead to a revolution in “European economic governance”. Yet that phrase hides a dearth of new ideas.

I find that quote very telling, because it exposes this view that economic growth should be an end in itself.  What he’s saying is that, in their heart of hearts, Europeans will choose a better quality of life over economic growth for its own sake.  I have to say I admire that view. When conservative attack liberals for their secret agenda to Europeanize the American economy, I think “what part of total healthcare coverage, fewer work hours,  longer vacations, earlier retirement, do you not like?”

An economic system should be a means to an end with the end being a better human existance.  As the saying goes, “nobody every laid on their deathbed saying, ‘I wish I’d spend more time at the office.’”   Obviously, you can overshoot and, if your economic system does not produce enough wealth to sustain a good quality of life, it needs to be adjusted.  And maybe the ideal is somewhere between Europe and the U.S.  But, in the American debate, it seems that that we sometimes lose sight of what the real purpose of a strong economy ought to be.

Tweet This Post

Sometimes I wonder whether human beings have the capacity to look beyond their own comfort and self interest when evaluating their own governments.  It seems that much of the citizens’ action we see today (read: Teaparty Movement) has to do with people’s anger at feeling like they are not getting what they deserve from society or that someone else is getting somethign they don’t deserve.  “Lower my taxes!”  “Don’t cut my Medicare.” “Rebuild my roads!” “Educate my kids!” “Kick those immigrants out!” And, finally, “Lower the deficit!”

I think capitalist democracy depends on an educated populace that, in general, recognizes the tradeoffs inherent in sound economic policy.  It also helps of the population has some kind of social conscience that will prevent gross inequity from taking hold.  I fear that large numbers of Americans, maybe even a majority of the voting population, lacks either of these qualities.  Combine that with a dysfunctional Congress (read: U.S. Senate) and the future looks bleak.

But there may be another way and China is, I think, testing the proposition.  Maybe if you concentrate solely on generating economic growth and ignore the luxuries of democratic governance or government provided social programs, you can create a functioning society.  Maybe the best way to maintain social peace is a free market economy, with a tightly controlled political system.

In today’s Financial Times, there is a story about economic growth in Tibet.  The Chinese government is focusing heavily on making sure the economy is robust in this tumultuous region, while maintaining strict control over political activity there. 

Nearly two years after Tibetan regions of China were engulfed in riots and protests, Beijing is doubling its bet that rapid economic development will win the political loyalty of its Tibetan population.

This will be an interesting experiment.  Let’s check back in two years and see if the Tibetan resistance to Chinese political control subsides as the population begins to enjoy the fruits of a strong economy. 

Maybe James Carville was more right than he knew when he said, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Tweet This Post

Back in the early ’90’s, I attended an industry meeting of milk processors.  The keynote speaker was a futurist, whose name I can’t recall.  But I certainly recall his address.  He was a very dynamic speaker who was preaching the gospel of nanotechnology.  He made several bold predictions about how nanotechnology was going to revolutionize human existence before the turn of the century.  He inspired me to buy a book called, Unbounding the Future, which extolled the virtues of nano as the science of the 21st century.  Of course, I never read the book,  but I remember the speech.

Now, here we are, tens years into the new century and nano seems still to reside in the outskirts of science, except maybe in Ireland.  According to a Financial Times video report, Ireland is betting on nanotechnology to position the country as scientific trailblazer.  Even in the face of crippling financial strains, the Irish government continues to invest significant sums in nanotechnology research.

The report focuses on the economic and scientific challenges and opportunities that nanotech offers.  It doesn’t get into the practical benefits that we can look forward to.

From a public affairs perspective, I expect that we’ll be seeing more about the risks involved in nanotech and those advancing this new science will need to address those concerns.  Best to do that in advance of the kind of uproar that was associated with biotech when genetically modified organisms were similarly proposed as the solution to multiple human problems.

Tweet This Post

There is a new video that has apparently gone viral in China that represents an allegory for for suppression of speech in China.  It is called The War of Internet addiction and  illustrates the challenge that confronts governments that seek to maintain control over expression within their borders. 

Here’s a brief excerpt of from an article from the Wall Street Journal:

The movie includes jokes about many controversial topics, such as tainted food, soaring home prices, and a bitter class controversy that erupted last year after a wealthy driver ran down and killed a poor young pedestrian. A common theme is frustration over injustice and a sense of powerlessness.

This video, based on a an online game called World of Warcraft, is a thinly veiled critique of the efforts by the Chinese government and, tellingly, the government has not sought to shut down the video, which is shared online….yet.

What it shows is that no government can permanently suppressed free expression.  Some can do it for a very long time (see Soviet Union).  But one of the wonders of the web is the extent to which power has shifted to the people.  China cannot, at the same time, present itself as a modern society and also suppress the Internet.  It will have to choose which is wants to be.  It can’t do both.

Hooray to “Corndog,” which is the psuedonyn for the creator of World of Internet Addition.  He reminds me of this guy:

Tweet This Post

My friend, David Henderson, has a very interesting take on the China versus Google story.  Without necessarily defending China, he bucks the trend of canonizing Google, and its supporters in the State Department, for its heroic stand.

On one hand, I’m not pleased that China censors news and information flow into and out across its borders. But, so does Iran and a number of other countries. Even India imposes levels of censorship. But … it is their country, and it’s up to the peoples of those respective countries to strive for change. Ms. Clinton has no business playing Kojak for U.S. special interests that want to dominate online marketing in foreign countries.

Tweet This Post

On Friday, the State Department held a briefing for Chinese bloggers to provide background on Secretary Clinton’s speech on Internet freedom.  Officials also invited questions from the bloggers.  The event provides more nuance in the way the Chinese government handles criticism, both from within and without.  During the briefing, the government issued a statement rejecting Secretary Clinton’s criticism of restraints on Internet communications.  One of the bloggers received a tweet with the statement attached and posed a question.  The immediacy of the communications was remarkable and demonstrates the challenges the Chinese government faces in exercising control over new media.

Clearly, at least one of these bloggers is not intimidated.  His reaction to the briefing was, no doubt, exactly what the State Department had hoped:

After the meeting, another blogger, Zhou Shuguang, shared his impressions: “It shows that the U.S. government and Beijing have totally different ways of working. In the U.S., the government pays attention to public opinion and they know how to promote a policy through opinion leaders. That’s why they are now paying extensive attention to active Chinese Web users.”

Tweet This Post

In my previous post about dinner with my colleagues in Tokyo, I noted that “Ping” indicated that quite a bit of protest is tolerated in China, but certain areas are off-limits, among which are challenges to Communist Chinese rule.

Which brings me to a fascinating story in the Financial Times about the most popular blogger in all of China, a race car driving provocateur named “Han Han.”  He has more the 300 million readers, which probably makes him the most popular blogger in the entire world.  The story describes ways in which he challenges the authorities, including this little anecdote:

He caused uproar last year when, walking past a racetrack rostrum where high-ranking officials were seated, he raised his middle finger at them – but no action was subsequently taken against him.

Really?  If that happened in the U.S., the offender would probably be tacked by the Secret Service and hustled off for questioning.  Later in the story is this quote from Han Han:

“I don’t agree with some people who call for elections and a multi-party system in China now. That is clearly not realistic,” he said.

So, it’s OK to flip the bird to the leaders, but not to call for democracy.

Tweet This Post

Tokyo by Night

I had a delightful dinner in Tokyo last night with three, highly educated young professionals.  In order to provide a candid account of the dinner, I’m providing them with pseudonyms to protect their confidentiality.  All are in my profession of public affairs consulting, so they are very tuned into political issues, both in their home countries and throughout the world.

Ping is a young Chinese woman who was educated in the United States and is a specialist in food safety communications.  Peng is a young Chinese man educated in China and who used to work for the government in an economic ministry.  Both live and work in Beijing.  Franz is a German living and working in Brussels whose specialty is financial services.

I starting things off gently by posing the proposition, “Mao Tse Tung, good or bad?”  While I had always considered Mao despotic but generally a positive force in Chinese history, I recently read a book, Out of Mao’s Shadow, that enlightened me as to the vast numbers of people who had died as a result of his politicies like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.  I was anxious to hear what some native Chinese people thought.  Both Ping and Peng acknowledged he was ultimately a negative influence on China, Ping more so than Peng.  Peng said he had good motives, but used the wrong tools and he regretted the isolation that China endured for most of his reign.

When I referenced the deaths he caused, they both acknowledged the facts and indicated that Mao is not revered as he once was.  True, but I pointed out his  picture still looms over the Forbidden City.  He was probably responsible for more deaths than Adolph Hitler, yet you don’t see pictures of Hitler in public in Germany.  At this point, Franz jumped in and pointed out that the difference is that Hitler lost the war and Mao won the revolution.  He noted mildly that, had Hitler won,  his  picture would be everywhere.  What a chilling thought.

We then ranged into a broader discussion of the current state of Chinese politics and its role in the world.  As an American, I believe my countrymen, those few who actually give it any thought, see China in very one-dimensional terms.  They believe it’s a totalitarian dictatorship that is utterly impervious to public opinion.   My view  is more nuanced, but I had to admit that my beliefs that the Chinese government was getting more  responsive was shaken by the 15 year prison term recently issued to the leader of the petition drive that sought to make China more democratic.  Interestingly, while they acknowledged the harshness of the sentence, they both were also critical of the protester.  “He crossed the line,” Ping said.  According to her, the government will tolerate a fair amount of protest,  certainly more than most Americans think, but there are some issues that are off limits.  They include challenges to the rule of the Chinese Communist Party and challenges to the territorial integrity of  China, i.e. Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjiang in the West.  I got the sense that both Ping and Peng were supportive of these kinds of protest movement, but think that protesters should not be stupid about it.

The other topic that generated quite a bit of conversation was America’s role in the world.  I gave my view that the U.S. government lacked humility under the Bush administration, notwithstanding his promise to conduct a “humble” foreign policy.  I gave my paean to humility as an undervalued quality.  Risking an image as a “self-hating” American, I noted that we had a lot to be embarrassed about in our national history, the slaughter of the Indians, the internment of the Japanese, etc., so we needed to be careful about lecturing other countries about human rights.  Here’s where Franz jumped in and revealed himself to be a closet Neocon.  He said that, in the late 90’s and early 00’s, the United States had a right to be arrogant and, in fact, as the only superpower left standing, had a responsibility to seize the moment to try to settle some accounts around the world, including Saddam Hussien in Iraq.  At which point, I punched him in the nose.

Not really.  In fact, it was a delightful discussion, conducted withi unfailing mutual respect.  Very thought provoking and constructive.  So much so that I wrote this post mostly so I  wouldn’t forget it.

Tweet This Post