"China at Seventy - Truth and Facts - Lessons for the U.S.?"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“China at Seventy – Truth and Facts – Lessons for the U.S.?”

October 8, 2019

“How ya gonna keep ‘em down on the farm

After they’ve seen Paree.” 1919

                                                                                    Walter Donaldson, Composer

                                                                                    Joe Young & Sam M. Lewis, Lyricists

A few years ago, a good friend, Charlie Hamm, privately published a small book, The Art of Life, a recitation of observations gained over a long and successful life. He wrote on many subjects, including comments on ‘truth’ and ‘fact.’ “Truth,” he wrote “is what someone believes to be actual and noncontroversial. Fact, on the other hand, has nothing to do with belief.”  In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson used the same words: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among those rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Facts, on the other hand, told Jefferson something different: “The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a history of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

Unlike our system, Chinese leaders do not deal in truths. We put trust in the people, not government. Our government is consciously inefficient, with a separation of power that allows for deliberation and compromise, and the protection of minority rights. Voting is by secret ballot; property and persons are safeguarded under the rule of law. Our Constitution gives power to the governed and limits power of the governors. In China, the reverse is true. There is no deliberation, compromise or rule of law. Government in China is efficient, with power vested in one Party, the Communist Party, which is composed, according to Wikipedia, of 90.6 million members, or less than seven percent of the population. While there are 2,980 members of the National People’s Congress, real power resides among the 205 members of the Central Committee, with absolute power in the hands of one man, Xi Jinping. There are no minority rights, as imprisoned Uighurs in Western China know full well, as do those in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Over the past forty years China has become wealthier. Millions have been lifted from abject poverty, but income discrepancies are stark. Wealth and income gaps in China make the U.S. appear a paragon of equality in comparison. According to a to a report in The New York Times last March, 153 members of the People’s Congress collectively have $650 billion in wealth, a third higher than the previous year and, using data from Wikipedia, an amount forty times greater than the combined wealth of the fifty richest members of the U.S. House and Senate. China has half as many billionaires as the U.S., yet household income is one-twelfth that of the United States. And, keep in mind, much of their economic growth has come from the theft of technology from the West. As their economy slows and as dissidents battle those who would subdue them, truths about the facts of China’s economic miracle and its role in the world are exposed.

On October 1, the Chinese Communist Party celebrated the 70^th Anniversary of its founding. “It was,” wrote the Dutch historian Frank Dikotter in Foreign Policy, “a liberation that plunged the country into decades of Maoist cruelty and chaos.” Commenting on the spectacle of violence in Hong Kong, Seth Lipsky wrote on October 2 in the New York Sun: “It is a moment to mark a profound truth: There is no difference between political liberty and economic liberty. They cannot be separated, nor can one be put before the other.” In honor of the 70^th birthday, Xi Jinping held his second military parade in four years. The purpose, as Edward Wong wrote in The New York Times was to “bolster the party’s legitimacy by strengthening nationalism…while reassuring foreign audiences that China’s growing might does not pose a threat.” But did the display of nuclear-ready intercontinental missiles capable of reaching all parts of the United States serve that purpose? Or will it cause (as it should) the U.S. to respond by deploying a more sophisticated anti-missile defense system? China’s military and economic reach has become global – witness islands built in the South China Sea and signed “Belt and Road” initiatives to build ports in Asia, Europe, Africa and Latin America, which have indebted some countries and compromised others.

By necessity, the United States’ relations with China are driven by realpolitik. China has the world’s second largest economy. They have the world’s largest standing army. In terms of tonnage, they have the second biggest navy in the world and the third most powerful air force. An estimated one third of global maritime trade passes through the South China Sea. Like a newly-hatched giant reptile, China has emerged onto the global scene from an extended period of nationalist incubation. The installation of 200 million cameras and the imprisonment of a million Uighurs in Northwest China remain facts of domestic tyranny, while protesters in Hong Kong are a manifestation of the truth that the desire for freedom is universal. In a dangerous world, with China rising and holding weapons capable of destroying the globe in a matter of minutes, we must avoid the Thucydides Trap that says a rising power and an established power are bound for war. For all their economic success, China remains a dictatorship. It is their military and economic aggression that should concern us. We cannot afford to not deal with them, no matter their human rights violations. But, for the sake of our moral imperatives, we cannot ignore their transgressions.

Will truths in China always be denied the people? Probably, but the question is unanswerable. Three factors imply possible change. One is education. Since 1979, when Deng Xiaoping first freed China’s economy in 1978 from the harness of Maoism, an estimated five million Chinese students have traveled abroad to study. The majority came to the United States, with most being sons and daughters of senior Chinese officials. Second is economic: Many in China have become rich. Property rights and rule of law appeal to those with income and wealth. One cannot help but wonder if the rubric at the head of this essay holds relevance. Perhaps it does, which leads to the third, which is fear Communist Party leaders must have as they witness the restlessness on display in Hong Kong. Can order be maintained? Or will it spread to the mainland? Can Party membership be withheld from those who have benefitted from a liberalized economy?  Last year, twenty-two million people applied to become members of the Communist Party, but only two million were accepted. China must keep the ninety million members of the Party happy, while keeping the other 1.2 billion people mired in contented ignorance. Can they do it? Or will the ninety-three percent rise up against the seven percent who control most of the wealth?  

But it is the U.S. that concerns me. Our democratic republic is under attack. To remain true, we should all scrutinize Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence, especially the first two paragraphs. Last May, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo referenced them, as he spoke at the Claremont Institute’s 40^th Anniversary: “The distinctive mark of Western Civilization is the belief in the inherent worth of human beings, with the attendant respect for God-authored rights and liberties.” Yet, consider where we stand: In the matter of impeachment, the Speaker has usurped power that rightfully belongs to the full House. Congress has given up the making of some laws to administrative bodies of the Executive branch. Administrative courts have made decisions, previously the reserve of the Judicial branch. Judges are being asked to respond with political answers to Constitutional questions. We are not China, but the future looks less certain. Before we lose our way, we should all recall the truths embedded in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We cannot let convenient facts and disingenuous promises destroy inherent truths.

Review: "Conservatism," by Sir Roger Scruton

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

Review: “Conservatism,” by Sir Roger Scruton

July 10, 2019

“Conservatives are not reactionaries. As Burke said, ‘we must reform in order

 to conserve,’ or, in more modern idiom: we must adapt. But we adapt to change

 in the name of continuity, in order to conserve what we are and what we have.”

                                                                                                Conservatism, 2017

                                                                                                Roger Scruton (1944-)

                                                                                                Philosopher and Writer

Labels are misleading. The terms “liberal” or “conservative” confuse substance with abstractions. To paraphrase Humpty Dumpty, labels mean whatever we want them to mean. If told I am conservative is it meant I am a tightwad in fiscal matters? Does it mean I favor martial law to a democratic process?Does it mean I am antediluvian in cultural ways? Does it mean I am anti-progress, preferring the past to the future? Does it mean I am racist, xenophobic or misogynist?Does it mean all, or none of the above? I know what I mean when I claim to be conservative, but do others?  For me, conservativism is about freedom – free to speak, write, assemble and pray. But it also includes respect for tradition and for the opinions of others; being responsible for one’s actions and accountable to other. It means a belief in the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and a commitment to values, like honor and duty. I believe strongly in family and in loyalty, and that the Constitution provided freedom for religion, not from religion. I believe government is an instrument of the people, not the other way around; that we must be ruled by laws, not men; it assumes a vigorous military, but one reflective of the nation’s citizens and under the control of a civilian president; it is the welcoming of legal immigrants and those legitimately seeking asylum; and it is an understanding that debt, while having useful purposes, when excessive has consequences, including political pressure to keep interest rates artificially low. 

The subtitle of Mr. Scruton’s short book is “An Introduction to the Great Tradition,” and that is what this book is – a primer on conservatism, a guide through the history of the discipline.  “…modern conservativism arose as a defence of the individual against potential oppressors, and an endorsement of popular sovereignty.” But it also recognizes the role communities and government must play in civil society. In institutions and traditions, there are kernels of wisdom without which, Mr. Scruton writes, “…the exercise of freedom is as likely to destroy human rights and entitlements as to enhance them.” 

We are taken on a sleigh ride from Aristotle to Niall Ferguson. He writes of Edmund Burke (1729-1797), “…the greatest of British conservative thinkers…” and Adam Smith (1723-1790), who “…provided the philosophical insight that gave intellectual conservatism its first start in life.” He cites Thomas Jefferson’s (1743-1826) contribution to conservativism, in his “insistence on continuity and custom as necessary conditions for constitution building and also for his warnings against the centralization of political power.” He writes of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) and their belief that “only in a free market do prices provide a guide to the economic needs of others.” He notes the role of cultural conservatives, like T.S. Eliot (1888-1965), G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936), C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973), George Orwell (1903-1950) and Allan Bloom (1930-1990). He quotes George H. Nash (1945-) on William Buckley (1925-2008), as “the pre-eminent voice of American conservatism, and its first great ecumenical figure, ecumenical because Buckley attempted to synthesize in his writings and his life the three principal aspects of the American conservative movement: cultural conservatism, economic liberalism and anti-communism.” 

Scruton differentiates conservatism from libertarianism, where the latter is interested only in the bare minimum of government necessary for the maintenance of individual freedom, while conservatives believe more is at stake: “Society depends for its health and continuity on customs and traditions that are at risk from individual freedom, even if they are also expressions of it.” He adds, “The philosophical burden of American conservatism has been to define those customs and traditions and to show how they might endure and flourish from their own inner dynamic, outside the control of the state.”

Conservatism has long been portrayed in pejorative terms, as privileged white males who, as Franklin Roosevelt once said, “stand on two legs but never go forward.” Conservatism has been under attack more recently by intolerant liberals purporting to fight for equality and fairness. It has been most common in universities, where administrators and professors blindly reject alternative opinions. We have seen “liberal” entertainers call for the assassination of President Trump. We have witnessed this hatred manifested in violent attacks by Antifa, most recently on journalist Andy Ngo in Portland, Oregon. Roger Scruton has not been immune from this scourge. George Eaton a deputy editor of the New Statesman interviewed him last November. By taking Scruton’s responses out of context and resorting to Twitter, Eaton was able to get Scruton fired from his unpaid position as chairman of the UK commission, Building Better, Building Beautiful. Indicative of his own character, Eaton then posted a photo of himself online clasping a bottle of champagne: “The feeling when you get right-winged racist and homophobic Roger Scruton sacked as a Tory government advisor.” He later deleted the photo.

Perhaps, though, there is a shift in the winds. There are a few on the Left who have begun to realize that they may have gone too far, that they are partaking in a “sort of progressive feeding frenzy,” as Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote. This tendency toward extremism is not new to the left. It periodically surfaces. We saw it in 1968, in the attack on police in Chicago at the Democrat National Convention, and in the militaristic occupying of college campuses in the late 1960s by groups like SDS. When attacked by George McGovern on his policies in 1968, Lyndon Johnson, who had pushed through Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, told a reporter: “You know the difference between cannibals and liberals? Cannibals eat only their enemies.” But attitudes may be changing. In his 2019 book, A Thousand Small Sanities, the left-of-center Adam Gopnik wrote: “The contemporary left can sometimes seem to have an insufficient respect for the fragility of the very same liberal institutions that allow its views to be broadcast without impediments.” In These Truths, Harvard professor Jill Lepore bemoans that studying the United States as a nation fell out of favor. She has migrated from the progressive fascination with identity politics to the Declaration of Independence as her guiding star. While she does not whitewash America’s past, she wrote: “There is also, in the American past, an extraordinary amount of decency and hope…” There are defenders of conservatism, like Boston College professor Kenneth Kersch’s recent book Conservatives and the Constitution. As well, the “Intellectual Dark Web,” or IDW, has become prominent, a group that includes Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan, all who have articulated opposition to identity politics, political correctness, multiculturalism, intersectionality theory and perpetual grievance.

So where does President Trump fit into this discussion. I like what he has done overseas, in terms of accentuating the hypocrisy of global institutions, bringing attention to supercilious Europeans who have taken advantage of the U.S. in terms of their own defense; I like him for calling out the Chinese for having done the same in trade and in stealing our technology, for naming the Iranians for what they are  – seekers of the bomb and exporters of terror; and I admire him for defending Israel and being honest about the Paris Agreement, which was nothing more than a glorified mechanism to transfer wealth. I like what Mr. trump has done for the economy, in terms of taxes and regulation. But he is coarse, inarticulate and egotistical. However, like George M. Cohan (as played by James Cagney in the 1942 film “Yankee Doodle Dandy”), he knows what ordinary people want. But he is not a defender of classical conservatism. Just look at the increase in national debt. As well, conservatism incorporates contrition, manners and respect for others. One might argue those traits are no longer possible in today’s dog-eat-dog world. Perhaps? I hope they are simply taking a temporary leave of absence.

Sir Roger’s book is timely. Freedom is fragile and must be constantly tracked. The risk to our democracy is less the threat of terrorism, global warming or an attack by Iran or China, and more dissolution from within. When the central government assumes too much power, over-regulates and/or puts in place laws that constantly monitor and govern people’s behavior, freedom is the loser. To ward against that threat, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo established a Commission on Unalienable Rights at the State Department to be chaired by Harvard Law School professor Mary Ann Glendon. The purpose: to ensure that our human rights – those granted by government – are grounded in America’s founding principle of unalienable rights, which are universal and not granted by government. They include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In this post-Soviet Union period, those rights have been challenged by ad hoc (or human) rights, which include healthcare, old age pensions, education and basic income. Real freedom depends on the pursuit of unalienable rights. A focus on human rights, while desirable in a compassionate community, can detract from those that make us a free and independent people.  It is not that human rights should be abolished; though we must be wary of suffocation by kindness. It is that we cannot lose sight of those rights that are unalienable. Keep in mind, anything that government grants, they can take away, and that as dependency waxes independence wanes. 

In the 2006 revised edition of The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America, George H. Nash asked: “Whether conservatives could thrive indefinitely without victory in the context for our culture wars was, perhaps, the great unanswered question about American politics.” The question, in my opinion, remains unanswered, as intolerant professors and skittish administrators dominate our universities and colleges, as the incident regarding Oberlin College and the Gibson Bakery so vividly demonstrated, and as mainstream media serves as advocates for progressive causes, rather than as skeptical reporters indifferent to political philosophies. Scruton writes of the need to adapt – to change in the name of continuity, “in order to conserve what we are and what we have.” He emphasizes the importance of the first-person plural “we,” as it binds us together. Our identity is not one of gender, race, sexual preference or religion; it is one of being American – citizens of a sovereign state, governed by laws not men, where we are free to write, speak or act, subject only to rules of civility – that what we write, say or do does not infringe on the same rights of our neighbors. 

Roger Scruton has done a public service in producing this small book (155 pages). Not all will agree with his conclusions. He is controversial, scorned by the left and too often undefended by the right. But a reading should cause thinking people to question their assumptions and to decry the use of labels that do more to confuse than clarify.