John O'Sullivan launches another episode in the oft-fraught relationship as he muses "Alas, Lee [Kuan Yew] is not eligible for the U.S. presidency." Lee is an impressive figure in many respects, but as we really supposed to deem it regrettable that we're not allowed to hand control of the country over to a foreign dictator?
« Maybe a Coverup Would Help | Main | 10,000 Years »
National Review and Democracy
11 Feb 2008 11:13 am
Comments (19)
That's progress at NR.
Just a few decades ago they would have wanted us to exhume the grave of Franco to have WFB's greatest hero rule us.
Pretty common sentiment among the rightwing schizo set. Mallaby, one of the conservative dullards who made the Washington Op Ed space a fairyland for the Bushies the last seven years, begins the meat of his opinion piece today: "A more subtle question is whether indulging the voters is good policy." Which goes on to caution against (OMG - We can't have this!) 'precipitous withdrawal' from Iraq - a phobic canard always launched by those who proposed a precipitous invasion of Iraq.
Yes, indulging the voters - we can't have that. The managerial class in D.C., pawns of the Petro-Gun club (strong on oil company profits, strong on the military welfare state), has to employ all the arts of its greater wisdom to ward off such disasters. Otherwise, we'd have ... why, a foreign policy that would benefit the average american! That would be a true disaster from the point of view of the think tank set.
Lee is a total fraud. His phony "Confucian" state is utterly intolerant of criticism, when Confucius himself and the greatest of his disciples, Mencius and Xunzi, all stressed the importance of speaking truth to power. Mencius, indeed, said that the ruler was the least important part of the state, and that critics should despise official power and pomp.
It was another early Confucian position that it was the fault of the ruler if his people misbehaved, since it was probably the ruler who had set the example of evil. Didn't see much of those sentiments from Lee either.
And they all had long hair, too. If Confucius had returned from the dead, he couldn't have gotten into Lee's Singapore, and he would have been arrested for shooting off his mouth if he had gotten in.
In short, Lee was a cheap, pompous, pervert fraud. That British education certainly instilled a taste for whippings in him, didn't it?
.
Actually, an interesting aspect of Lee's background is his strongly socialistic roots, with his party being called the Peoples' Socialist Party.
Remember that Singapore was a desperately poor, over-populated, resource-barren, ethnically-divided little dot of a former colony when he won his first election, arguably one of the globe's most totally unpromising new Third World nations at the time.
Over a few decades and several subsequent election victories, he transformed it into one of the most prosperous, stable, technologically-advanced, and safe places in the world, with gigantic economic gains for nearly all the poorest segments of the population. As far as I know, he accomplished all this without murdering anyone or imprisoning more than a tiny handful of "political troublemakers."
Lee certainly has his faults, but I'd bet good money that Marx and most 19th Century socialists would consider him as possibly the best single political leader of the 20th century.
And yet:
'Iraq was a mistake, Lee said. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with al-Qaida or Sept. 11. It was a costly diversion from the war on al-Qaida. "I cannot see them winning, and by that I mean able to impose their extremist system ..." '
So let's not get into a game of "My strongman is smarter than your strongman", OK?
What sunsin and RKU said. He's been important for Singapore, but his time in the sun has passed. His whole "Asians can't handle democracy" shtick has been getting old for a while. A lot more people in Singapore and parts of democratic Asia (Taiwan, Thailand, Korea, India, etc.) and in Singapore in particular have been waiting for him to kick the bucket and just go away for a while.
but as we really supposed to deem it regrettable that we're not allowed to hand control of the country over to a foreign dictator
Well, no, obviously not, but if you were going to choose a historical dictator to take over, I'm not sure you could do any better.
RKU,
There's nothing particularly socialistic about the People's Socialist Party, anymore than there was about the Nazis. Mr. Lee was a devoted believer in capitalism, and cracked down on Communist activists, and if I recall correctly was a big supporter of the Vietnam War.
He was quite a nasty little racist, too.
William Safire used to tell the truth about Lee Kwan Yew every once in awhile in his New York Times column. Lee responded by suing for libel in his kangaroo courts and obtaining judgments against the Times and Safire, kicking Safire out of the country, and doing various other things that were, shall we say, not consistent with a commitment to freedom of the press.
I always found it to be one of the few admirable qualities of Safire that he took on this clown.
Hector:
Well, I'd certainly admit that Lee is very much a "Nazi" in his views and policies...but of the Seinfeldian "Soup Nazi" variety...
Let's do a comparison. Lee's standard method of attacking political opponents was to sue them in court for libel or such. In nearby Indonesia, the government slaughtered ONE MILLION Communists and "suspected Communists." Sounds just like two peas in a pod to me...
Incidentally, after Deng came to power in China, the example of Lee's Singapore---stable, prosperous, and market-oriented---was a major positive role model for many of China's Communist leaders, whose attitude toward the net-results of Lee's policies was strangely similar to what (I have no doubt) Marx would have thought of them. Can't imagine why...
So perhaps the most important positive global transformation of the last thirty years---namely the enormous flowering of China and its economy---probably owes quite a bit to the trailblazing success of Lee's country.
I must say that Matt's blogsite attracts quite a number of totally ignorant idiots...
RKU,
I wasn't comparing Lee to the Nazis in terms of his policies. I was making the point that they both called themselves 'socialists' although there was nothing really 'socialist' about either one of them. I could have made the same comparison with, say, the French Socialist party.
Lee's political party is the People's Action Party, not the People's Socialist Party. And, in the rise to power, the PAP quickly abandoned any intellectual roots in socialism and British labour politics.
So the people who freak out and start scremaing about nanny-statism run amok over public smoking bans or cities banning trans fats think of Lee as a hero and ideal leader?
We have two possibilities:
1) these idiots have never actually been to Singapore and know next to nothing about it.
2) they really don't give a rat's ass about things like smoking bans they just knee jerk oppose anything proposed by liberals.
Of course I suppose those aren't mutually exclusive.
Matt,
This is your second Aspergery post of the day, after the Huckabee one. Normally, you remember the basic rule of non-autistic thinking:
"Do not take rhetoric literally."
When you start forgetting that, I think you may be posting too often.
He always posts too often - except when he's traveling.
He needs to "think twice - post once."
I will just point out the prominence of the Moonie employee and lackey Borchgrave in this.
If you guys have not been to Singapore, please do go and check it out. The comments on Singapore are far too outdated.
Comments closed February 25, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Also, Lee Kuan Yew does not shop at Whole Foods.
Posted by SoCalJustice | February 11, 2008 11:24 AM