Manichaean Bush View Spreads to China Commentariat
How’s that for a post title, eh? Particularly on a Monday.
Let’s unpack that a bit. I’m responding to that "Letter from Beijing" article written by Howard French at the International Herald Tribune (h/t China Law Blog). Very odd article, and after reading Dan’s comments, I felt like I was unnecessarily being tugged back and forth between two diametrically opposed opinions.
This is the Manichaean – good/evil, black/white, paper/plastic – sort of approach that political scientists and economists sometimes take when looking at the world. Bush has boosted this method of analysis with statements like "You’re either with us or against us." In this case, either
Howard French wonders whether the Chinese way of doing things is perhaps correct after all. However, he doesn’t really spell out in detail what that way of doing things really is (political? economic?), and I don’t have a clear picture who "the doubters" are in the first place. Annoying, that, particularly since the Chinese "way of doing things" is changing rapidly from year to year.
French’s guidance starts off with a description of
The limits of the state in
Even that attractive symbol of political repression, Internet censorship, is by no means the "Great Firewall" monolith as many believe. Several folks much more versed in the subject than myself have suggested other nifty names that are much more realistic and descriptive labels. (For example: Silicon Hutong suggests "Checkpoint
French lists a lot of impressive things the government here has done. Economic growth, the bustling metropolis of
Next we go into a discussion of how the government here controls all political dialogue, and that because of this, decisions are theoretically made based purely on logic. Personnel decisions in the leadership are determined by merit alone. Interesting, to say the least.
I understand that this is calculated exaggeration used to make a rhetorical point, and that if French had more column inches, this argument would have been developed with a bit more sophistication. As it is, it looks like some sort of propaganda, which it obviously is not meant to be. To be fair, French poses a lot of this in the form of questions, musing to himself whether the world could actually follow a "
In my reading of this, I figured that French was setting up an extreme position in his article only to hit back in his conclusion that things are not so black and white and that these comparisons are not at all useful at a time of tremendous change in this country. I guess his editor must have excised that insightful concluding message, ’cause I never found it.
So what happens when a one-sided, unrealistic viewpoint is floated out there? One that purports to discuss the "
Dan’s response is a flat-out rejection of French’s thesis: "I do not believe
I bring this up specifically in relation to Dan’s comments because I have spoken to him personally about some of these issues and know that his opinions are quite balanced and moderate. French’s article does not on its face invite a reasoned, moderate response, and that’s a shame.
Note: CLB readers stepped up to the plate with some good comments that are worth a read. Paul Midler also has some comments at The China Game, and it sounds like he is in general agreement with Dan.
Guilty as charged.
All I wanted to say was that I believe that with increased wealth comes an increased desire for freedom. I did not mean to predict anythign beyond that.
I also wanted to make clear that though China’s government has done an amazing job so far in terms of steering its economy, it will have to make mistakes (people do). Long term, I will always favor the invisible hand.
I think the government here already has made mistakes, some of which have been corrected, some have not. The question is whether another kind of system could have done better, which is pretty much an impossible “what if?” kind of thing to prove. Makes for great discussions, though.
I think the jury is still out on the “wealth = desire for freedom” argument, which I’ve read from a lot of folks. The West seems to think that it has a lot riding on the success of that argument, and it is gospel according to a lot of think-tank types in D.C.
I guess I’m too much of a cynic, but I see the wealthy guys in China (and in the U.S.) finding a way to influence the government anyway, despite the political system. In the U.S., they give money to buy TV ads. In China, they become active in the Party, control large and important parts of the industrial sector, etc.
Money always finds a way to power, which is one kind of freedom I suppose – how’s that for a paranoid pronouncement?
It’s one with which I agree. I am not a fan of politicians anywhere, but I generally prefer those who can be run out of office eventually to those who cannot. Seems the only solution is less government, no?
I think the China blogging community is a bit anal to be honest. You spend all day reading each others blogs and commenting on it. China Law Blog is particularly bad at this and has nothing new much to say. It’s the blog version of reuters, written by unqualified American lawyers with no China presence living in Seattle. Stan you are better than this, spread your net a bit wider, please. CLB are not the answer and shout above their weight. Why not have some original China comment there of which you are well able to produce?
I’m not sure that “anal” is a good word to use, but I will admit that a lot of bloggers, including myself, are unoriginal and engage in a lot of navel gazing. Kind of goes with the territory. If I really had the day to spend doing this, I could be more original. As it is, most of us have real day jobs and can only post during lunch, at night, weekends, etc. Not easy to come up with great stuff.
Although I am a frequent critic, I do not think that a blanket condemnation of CLB or any other blog out there is very constructive – at least we are spending our valuable time putting our thoughts out there. To “spread our net wider” requires more of that time – there’s a limit to that, and we all have our day jobs. For me, I read what I find interesting and blog about that. If folks suggest new sources, I give them a try. Simple as that.
Are we repetitive? Absolutely. How many times have I posted on RMB revaluation this year or complained about the income gap? We control our own topics depending on what catches our eye that day.
I don’t want to get into an argument about CLB, but I will say this. I have been working here since 1999 and dealt with hundreds of lawyers. I’ve met lots of horrible foreign lawyers during that time who didn’t know crap about how to get things done here, and many of them were resident. I do not judge people by where they are, but by their knowledge, ability and experience. With that in mind, I like to read CLB and respect its authors. It’s very easy to find out quickly whether someone writing about China law or business is full of shit or has real transactional experience, and CLB is a good example of the latter. Enough said, I think.
Thanks for writing.
Thanks Stan. I will add (in refutation of Jameson) that my co-blogger, Steve Dickinson lives and works in Shanghai and he has spent the better part of the last 35 years either living in or actively engaged with China. He taught Chinese law at the University of Washington for many years and has even taught law (in Chinese) at Beijing U.
Are you not engaging in the exact same navel gazing by commenting here?
Your accusation that we are pulling “above our weight,” leads me to believe you are pulling under what you perceive to be your weight and for that I sympathise, I truly do.