Enabling China’s Totalitarian Government

Mighty American companies, one after the other, bow down and sell their soul to China in exchange for a fistful of dollars.  The latest being the NBA’s acquiescence to China’s demands as noted in The New York Times, “American Basketball,”  October 13.

How sad it is that American companies are so hungry for ever greater profits from ever greater sales that they will sacrifice their principles in order to please the Chinese Communist government and thus have access to the huge Chinese market.  

The Chinese government is not evil on the scale of Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s Cultural Revolution.  But they are every much as totalitarian.  Anyone in China who dares to buck the Chinese government is treated like a criminal and taken into custody by the government with no rights.  

The fate of a democracy activist, or a religious activist, or a persecuted minority such as the Uighurs, is not that different in today’s China from what it was in fascist Germany or Russia.  They perhaps don’t fear death, but imprisonment at will is the norm.

Our opening up to China has in retrospect been a huge mistake.  We thought that exposure to Western products and ideas and increased prosperity would slowly bring a soft revolution in China; that people would demand not just economic freedom but political freedom.  

But while China has embraced a type of capitalism, our role in the economic transformation of China has created a monster that threatens our economy and our geo-political interests around the world.  American companies and farmers have become enablers of China’s totalitarian government.

It is past time to rethink our engagement with China, not for the reasons given by Trump, but because we are enabling a totalitarian government.  The dream of a soft revolution is just that.   What to do at this point is a huge question that requires careful and knowledgeable thought, so I am not going to make any suggestions, except to say that Trump's trade war is not the answer.

The Delusional President

President Trump is known for thinking that he has exaggerated talents and abilities.  But in a recent tweet he has topped himself.  In responding to criticism of his decision to withdraw troops from Northern Syria and allow Turkey to conduct a military operation there to get rid of the Kurds, he said the following:

“As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!),”

“In my great and unmatched wisdom” is so over the top, it would be laughable if the speaker wasn’t the President of the United States.  It sounds like something the Wizard of Oz would say, or Mussolini.  Totally delusional.  This is certainly not an impeachable offense, but it does show why Trump is unfit for the office and should have been removed through the 25th Amendment procedure.

But there’s more delusion.  He will totally destroy and obliterate the Turkish economy?  And he’s done it before?  This is truly scary stuff.

But beyond the evidence of delusion, what’s disturbing about this episode is that it is being reported in the press, including The New York Times, as evidence that Trump pivoted on the issue after receiving a barrage of criticism from Republicans and Democrats in Congress.  

But he and his administration didn’t pivot.  His statement is just blather.  How can anyone take it for a substantive statement?  And all the Defense Department said was that they and the President made clear to Turkey that the U.S. does not endorse a Turkish operation in Northern Syria and will not support one or be involved in any such operation.  

Note, they did not say that they would stop any Turkish operation, against the Kurds or otherwise.  And now that the Turkish military operation is underway and openly aims at wiping out the Kurds, all Trump said was, “It’s a bad idea” and that we can’t have these endless wars; and the Defense Department just reiterated what they had said previously.  We have abandoned our allies.

We are in uncharted territory.  All one can do is pray, God preserve the United States.  Follow through with impeachment.  And if that fails, vote Trump out of office in November 2020.

What are American Values?

Politicians of all stripes are talking about American values these days.  That they should be voted for rather than their opponent because they will preserve and protect American values.  But what are American values?

I have never written a post defining American values because they have always been so clear to me that the thought didn't occur to me.  Talk about begging the question.  Obviously this is a topic on which there are deep divisions.  You have fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives in their perspective on our founding documents.  And certainly what individuals define as American values is not only changing, it probably never had the clarity that I find in our founding history.  Perhaps that's because I have always focused on the aspirations of the Founding Fathers and our founding documents, not all the compromises that were necessary.  And the values of individuals are greatly affected by the values of the society they keep.

First, “American values” must be distinguished from the values of the American people.  To me, the term connotes something larger than us, grounding, permanent, of lasting meaning.  The values of people instead change as the times change, as the culture changes, as the political temperament changes.  And so there have been numerous articles reporting how American values have changed, citing polling data.  This is important information, but not the definition of American values.

This is the description of a ship adrift at sea, not a grounded fortress.  I would therefore argue that “American values” instead refers to the values inherent in the very existence of this country as stated in our founding documents … the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Those values are our grounding; the source of America’s stability and greatness.

That, however, does not answer the question, for depending on how you approach those documents, whether you are a conservative or a liberal, you can pretty much find what you want … up to a point.

For example, the Heritage Foundation scholar Matthew Spaulding wrote a book in 2009 titled We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, which sees our founding documents as decidedly conservative.  He finds that the Progressive (Republican) movement of the late 19th century, FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, and the new progressives have eroded the principles of our founding documents.  He finds that what many consider to be the maturation of the principles contained in those documents, the concept of a Living Constitution, our becoming truer to the ideals of the Founders, to be instead examples of the perversion of our founding principles. 

There is no question that there is plenty of language in our founding documents to support a conservative interpretation.  In my 2004 book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto, I stated that while the words of the Declaration of Independence were and remain revolutionary, and are profoundly liberal, “in their interpretation lies the core of both the Liberal and Conservative ideologies  that have run through American political life and the tension between them.”

Perhaps never has the tension been greater than now.  The main problem stems from the conservative emphasis on the rights of each individual, especially as granted by the Bill of Rights, whereas liberals stress the concept of equality and the implications of each person having equal rights.

There can be no question that in our legal system no rights are absolute.  No one, by exercising his right to pursue life, liberty, or happiness can infringe on someone else’s right to do the same.  All of our laws and regulations, both civil and criminal, are examples of proscribing action that would harm an individual or the general good.  That is the impact of our system of equal rights.  

For example, everyone has the right to drive, but you must pass a test to prove that you can drive a car safely so as not to injure other people or yourself.  The automobile is a potentially deadly machine.  The same reasoning should apply to gun ownership.

Even the hallowed right of free speech is not absolute.  For example, not only can you not cry “Fire” in a crowded theater, but you cannot slander another person.  False advertising is illegal because someone depending on such claims could be harmed.

But conservatives keep acting as though rights, at least those conferred in the Bill of Rights, are absolute, whether it’s freedom of religion, or free speech, or the right to bear arms, which only recently was held by the Supreme Court to apply as an individual right rather than the right of states of have militias.  But that perspective is totally opposed to our history and our system of laws.

So, given that “American values” means the values that are the essence of our founding documents and given the explanation above of the American legal perspective on rights, what are the core American values?

Note: These values, like equality, are clearly aspirational.  They may not have been true at the time of our founding or be true on the ground now, but they have enabled people to have faith and hope and accomplish what otherwise would have been impossible.

Equality:  We all know that the belief in equality was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence although its practice was significantly restricted in the Constitution.  But the concept was there, and it was that light that guided us towards the ending of slavery, the emancipation of women, the civil rights movement, and same-sex marriage.  We still have far to go, but that light is still guiding us.

Indeed, it is this central aspiration of equality that drives the other key American values/elements of American democracy.

     Equality of Citizenship:  We are all equal citizens of the United States.  Certainly that wasn’t true at the start, when voting was limited to males who owned property.  But over the years, America moved more towards the ideal.  Today all adult citizens, whether you were born here or immigrated, have the right to vote.  The concept of one “man,” one vote is central, though attempts by some States to restrict voting rights is still very much with us.  

     We are also equal citizens in that we have equal rights, and we each have the right to pursue these rights.   That is why if exercising your right restricts another person’s right, you cannot due that.  No right is absolute.

     Upward Mobility:  We have no caste system in this country.  From a structural standpoint, there isn’t anything that anybody cannot do.  Someone from the poorest layer of society can rise to become President or head of a powerful corporation.  And this mobility is not just theoretical; it has been seen as a reality countless times in all areas of commerce, the arts, the professions, and politics.  Again, this is true for native born and immigrants. and more recently people of color.

     E Pluribus Unum - Unity with Diversity:  Although the latin phrase refers to the 13 colonies, the sentiment applies more broadly.  The United States has been from its very founding a country of immigrants.  And as one would expect, there have been disagreements from the start between different factions or groups of citizens/immigrants.  One immigrant group vied against another.  And as immigrants became established, they had problems with the next wave of immigrants.  Often even those from the same country.

     Yet despite the animosity and distrust and at times violence between groups, when the country called, all felt that they were Americans.  They may have been hyphenated Americans, they may have felt that they weren’t getting their fair share, they may have felt discriminated against, but they identified as American and were proud of it.

     This shared sense of shared citizenship led to what’s called the American social contract.  Under that contract, in exchange for the benefits of citizenship, all citizens agree to obey the laws and to share the burden of government, whether through the paying of taxes or by answering a military draft.  Under this social contract, we are not just responsible for ourselves; we have a distinct responsibility for the welfare of the whole and thus for all Americans.

     In the first half of the 20th century, workers gained significant rights in their employment.  In the second half, overt forms of discrimination that had been practiced against some groups, like Jews and Blacks, became illegal.  And all minority groups benefitted from laws that guaranteed equal protection in public accommodations and other areas of commerce.  The movement always being towards more equality, more unity.  Yes, bigotry and discrimination still exist; we are still a work in progress.

     In the halls of Congress, this diversity with unity, this regard for equality, was reflected in the air of civility that existed between people on opposite sides of issues.  People agreed to disagree.   Clearly this is no longer the case.

These are the American values that politicians should refer to.  All the other values that are often cited … for example, individuality, free speech, religious freedom, the right to bear arms … are only able to be properly understood within the context of these core values.  Taken out of that context, they are a prescription for anarchy not democracy.

The American Social Contract in Trouble

In my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto, I noted that the Republican right wing had rejected the American social contract that has developed over time and was accepted by both political parties.  Actually, it resulted from the policies of both Republican and Democratic administrations.  

The basic idea is that as citizens, we are all equal participants in the great American experiment.   In exchange for receiving the benefits of citizenship, all Americans are responsible for contributing to the government’s work, which includes helping less fortunate citizens, each according to his ability.  It was indeed Republican President Theodore Roosevelt that initiated the progressive income tax, which is the main tool by which the financial responsibility of citizenship is implemented.

One can find no better expression of the concept than John Donne’s famous words:  “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. … Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.”  A predecessor of the Enlightenment movement that so influenced our Founding Fathers, these words are the essence of the American social contract.

As I’ve stated often before, the soaring aspirations of our founding documents and our Founding Fathers were indeed “just” aspirations.  But they have provided the light that has guided America and Americans forward through difficult domestic times and have enabled it constantly, although often by fits and starts, to grow, to reinvent itself, and become more reflective of its founding aspirations.

But the social contract has been under attack over the last few decades by the increasingly right-wing Republican Party.  Among right-wing Republicans, there is now a disdain for the poor in general, not just people of color.  They are against the “undeserving poor,” which includes whites.  

Mike Mulvaney, Trump’s Budget Director, said in an opinion piece, "For the first time in a long time, we’re putting taxpayers first. Taking money from someone without an intention to pay it back is not debt. It is theft. This budget makes it clear that we will reverse this larceny.”  The poor receiving assistance are viewed as thieves.  Remember when Mitt Romney was exposed referring to those benefitting from government programs as “takers,” which included those on Social Security?

But the threat facing our social contract does not just involve attitudes towards the poor.  In our increasingly polarized society under Trump, any feeling that we are all part of the American community or are responsible in any way for each other's welfare is gone.  Replaced instead with warring camps.

America must return to an embrace of our social contract.  Without that attitude, we will drift further apart.  FDR’s refrain, “My fellow Americans,” will become not just hollow in the contemporary context but a deceit.

Correcting the Perception of Poverty

Studies show consistently that most people, liberals as well as conservatives, think that most people living in poverty are Black.  More recently Hispanics have been included.  

Given the extent of racism in this country, whether subtle or violent, (see my post, “It Always Comes Back to Race/Racism”), it’s not surprising that support for anti-poverty programs is thus non-existent among the new right-wing Republican conservatives (the past attitude of noblesse oblige has disappeared along with moderate conservatives).  Liberals of course support such programs, although often one feels somewhat begrudgingly.  I must note, however, the cause of economic justice is rising among younger progressives who have grown up in a different era and are more free of any racist taint.

But this perception of poverty is fundamentally wrong.  While Blacks and Hispanics do have much higher poverty rates, there were more white people living in poverty (17 million) in 2017 than either Blacks (9 million) or Hispanics (10.8 million).  Combined they accounted for just 51% of people living in poverty.  Minorities have also historically accounted for no more of the welfare caseload than White families.

So in fact, anti-poverty programs help Whites as much as they help Blacks and Hispanics.  Why does this misperception of poverty continue?  The fault lies mainly with the media.  When it presents images of poverty, they are almost always that of Blacks or Hispanics.  The images from the depression, think the photographs of Walker Evans and Dorothea Lange, showing white Americans living in poverty, have very few equivalents in contemporary media.

Both government and the media must address this misconception.  Especially in this polarized age, having the correct facts is very important.

But it is also important that poor white Americans became more vocal in arguing for government help in bettering their lives and the futures of their children.  That should indeed be the goal of existing anti-poverty organizations, they should advocate for both people of color and Whites, that would only make their case more compelling.  When I googled to find organizations advocating for poor Whites I found nothing.

This is actually what is fueling part of the Trump base.  They are supporting Trump because no one else listens to them and no one else advocates for them.  Even though he really doesn’t.  And they have the same perception as most that anti-poverty programs are geared to help people of color, not them, even though they in fact do benefit.  And so they are against such programs, even though such action is against their own self-interest.  

Poverty should never been seen as primarily a Black issue.  Hispanics and Whites may feel more shame in accepting government help, but their poverty must be brought visibly and audibly into the public consciousness in a positive way.  If poor Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics aligned themselves in this common cause, they would present a very potent political force.

Whether the Issue is Gun Control or Inequality, It Always Comes Back to Race/Racism

I was trying to define wherein lies the fervor of the supporters of the NRA and the gun lobby.  It isn’t their love of guns.  It isn’t even that they’re right wing.  It’s that they fear being attacked, or more broadly, being overwhelmed by Black men and more recently Hispanics.

It always comes back to race and racism.  They say they need arms for self-defense.  Who do they see as potentially attacking them?  

Other whites, even white robbers?  Hardly.  They fear being attacked by Black men.  Nowadays they also fear the Hispanic “invasion.”   The fear of the black boogyman is alive and well in the United States.  And their fear of losing their special status as white Americans is increasing each year as we approach the day when whites will be in the minority.  Hence their hatred of Hispanics.

Right wing militias may say that they fear government oppression.  But what is that oppression?  Its essence is being placed on an equal footing with people of color.  You’ll never find a Black man or other person of color in a right-wing militia.  It’s not that there aren’t right-wing people of color; it’s that militias are nativist, white supremacist, anti-semitic.

America does not want to admit that racism has a presence in virtually all sectors of our society.  But it does.  Some strains may be more subtle, some more violent.  But racism, in all its forms, infects the national discussion of many issues.  

And it is racism that continues the propagation of inequality in our democratic nation.  For example, whether the issue is education, health care, or welfare, it is racism that causes the antagonism of conservatives to efforts to create more equal opportunity for the poor, which they view as being primarily Blacks and Hispanics  

(Note, however, that this is in fact just barely true.  While Blacks and Hispanics do have a much higher poverty rate, there were more white people living in poverty (17 million) in 2017 than either Blacks (9 million) or Hispanics (10.8 million).  Combined they accounted for just 51% of people living in poverty.  Also, minorities have historically accounted for no more of the welfare caseload than Whites.)

This racial antagonism explains why conservatives who were so deficit conscious when Obama was president and fought against programs to help the poor became so un-deficit conscious when they took control and spent money on the things that they considered important … like tax breaks for the rich and defense.  Their deficit talk during the Obama years was just a smoke screen for their racism.

Until we get over racism (see my post, “We Need a National Discussion on Race and Racism”) our country will be divided and hobbled.  We will never be truly great in the sense our country was meant to be great by our Founders.  We are far from meeting their aspirations.

In fact, we are less great now under Trump than we have been since the ratification of the 19th Amendment giving women the vote and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Seen in this light, Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again,” is highly ironic.  For it is Trump himself who has denigrated not just the office of President but America’s inner strength and standing in the world.

Trump/Xi - When Weak Men Lead Great Countries

The reader can be excused for wondering at the title of this article.  Donald Trump and Xi-Jinping weak men?  But that is what they are.  Let me explain.

Certainly to watch their actions one sees men projecting great strength and power.  Trump has gone from a laughed-at outsider not given a chance of winning the Republican nomination, let alone the presidency, to being a commander of this country as few presidents have been before him.  His will is the law.  Others shake in their shoes in fear of his wrath and do his bidding, if not fawn on him.  He has set this country on a perilous course that it will take years if not decades to right.

Then there is Xi-Jinping, the man who has gathered more power unto himself than any Chinese communist leader since Mao.  I don’t know much about the inner workings of the Chinese communist party or the government, but it is said that to the extent that anyone can call the shots in that huge, sprawling, diverse country, Xi is calling the shots.

Both men want a trade deal; they do not want a trade war that weakens them and their country.  And yet both men cannot make a deal because they dare not lose face.  They feel that their power is dependent on the continued support of their respective bases.  

They have each let a monster out of its cage and there is no containing it.  And that monster is nationalism/nativism.  Every time they appear to stray from the hard line path and move to strike a deal, their right wing raises its head in fury and the leader backs down.  And so the trade war continues to escalate.  Each blow must be dealt with by striking back.  There is no other way for a weak leader.  There is no space for compromise.

I can’t speak about Xi in other contexts since I am not familiar with Chinese politics, but I can speak about Trump.  The same pattern happens every time Trump makes an effort to compromise, to reach out to the other side, perhaps even go where he truly would want to go.  The right wing pundits and activists rise up and badger him into backing off his move towards moderation.  Whether it was his early support for an immigration deal with the Democrats or whether it’s his recent back and forth on the issue of improved background checks for gun purchases or a host of other issues, Trump has always backed down after being cowed by the vehemence of his right wing supporters.

These are not the actions or reactions of strong leaders.  These are the actions of men who have built a facade of being strong and imperious, and yet they are so insecure that they cannot proceed with any plan that angers their base of support and threatens their position of power.

They are both poster children for the psychological truth that the stronger the display of ego, the more insecure the person is.  They both have a Napoleonic complex, although their inferiority obviously does not derive from their being short.  Instead, it derives from some trauma in their childhood.  And given the size of their egos, the trauma must have been very great indeed.  They weren’t born the way they are, they developed that way because of their life experiences.

One can thus have compassion for their inner suffering, for suffer they inescapably do.  But they both must be dethroned so that the world can return to some semblance of sanity.  As leaders of the two greatest countries, their power to destroy our well-being is very real.