Let Them Eat Empty Slogans!

The Weekly Standard unleashes an anti-Chinese yelp that concludes that "prosperity, while a great public good, is a meager substitute for the greater public good of natural rights such as the freedom to publicly oppose one’s government, to legitimate state authority through elections, and to worship God as one sees fit." I saw this via a somewhat appalled Kerry Howley and I'd like to associate myself with her remarks -- the improvement in human welfare associated with Chinese reforms and economic growth over the past 25 years has been simply enormous and to dismiss it like that purely in order to work oneself up into a greater fit of self-righteous fury at the PRC dictatorship is absurd.

Meanwhile, all this is pretty meaningless since I don't think China faces, in practice, a prosperity/democracy tradeoff and I also don't think the United States really has meaningful policy levers through which to impact the course of events in China.

Still, I think it's an interesting slice of the neoconnish mindset which is defined, in part, by the heroic conception of politics you see here. In this view, politics isn't just one activity among many where we can weigh, say, the right to vote against the ability to afford food and decent shelter and some people might decide, hey, subsistence farming sucks more than life under autocracy. This seems to me to be roughly parallel to the idea that the primary aim of our foreign policy should be to adopt the appropriate stance of indignation vis-a-vis foreign actors (China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Saddam, Zimbabwe etc.) rather than to adopt policies that advance some kind of concrete goals. Normal people think, it seems to me, that political engagement or policy shifts are worthwhile just insofar as they actually deliver some kind of goods -- health care or freedom or lower bus fares or cleaner air -- not simply as a venue in which to show virtue and accumulate "higher public goods."

Comments

Wow. Last I checked, the right to vote was kind of important.

Posted by Vidor | April 8, 2008 12:24 PM

Normal people think, it seems to me, that political engagement or policy shifts are worthwhile just insofar as they actually deliver some kind of goods -- health care or freedom or lower bus fares or cleaner air -- not simply as a venue in which to show virtue and accumulate "higher public goods."

Shorter Yglesias: Democracy is worthless. Living in a authoritarian society would be just fine as long as you there is bread.

Which is exactly what I thought Yglesias would say.

Posted by Al | April 8, 2008 12:24 PM

MY's greater point still stands, but as Albert Keidel and others have noted, the percentage of Chinese people living on less than $1 a day turns out to be higher than previously thought. The World Bank had been basing its findings on the number of people of various countries at a certain level of subsistence on formulas that were less accurate than they are now. In addition, over time the Chinese government has become more accurate at collecting such data as the bureaucracy has become, for lack of better terms, more meritocratic and professional instead of based on pure ideology and having a "good class background."

One of the things that drive me crazy about the neocons is how much they hate human rights activists that work on issues like Tibet, women's rights in the Muslim world, etc. From my own experience in human rights activism, pre-9/11 trying to get someone with neocon sympathies to care about genital mutilation, Muslim women from being stoned to death for having children out of wedlock, Buddhist nuns being raped in political prison, etc. was like pulling teeth. Instead of supporting Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, they would mock those Dirty Fucking Hippies and then complain that tax rates were too high and worry a lot about Castro while worse things were happening in the DRC, Chechnya, Tibet, Burma, Somalia, Liberia, etc. To the neocons, politics is a form of self-help to make themselves feel more masculine and righteous than to actually improve the lives of others or advance American foreign policy interests and substantively enhance American security.

Posted by Reality Man | April 8, 2008 12:33 PM

Aren't these the same people who said Chile was teh awesome under Pinochet because yeah, sure, he was a military dictator who murdered his political opponents, but the economy was much better than it would have been under Allende?

Posted by bobbo | April 8, 2008 12:33 PM

I have been to China several times. I know, and have spoken with, a lot of Chinese people. Almost all of them like living in China. Almost all of them are proud of China and see a good future in China. All freely practice, or choose not to practice, their religious beliefs. All of my Chinese friends may complain about the government from time to time, but they still like their government, and prefer the Chinese government to the US government.

China is not this authoritarian behemouth that we make them out to be. Most Chinese are actually happy living there. And if you compare China today, with China 10-15 years ago, the difference is astronomical.

Posted by Fighting Words | April 8, 2008 12:36 PM

It should be obvious by now that the only freedom these Weekly Standard types are really interested in is the freedom to exploit the Chinese market. Look at Russia and how we've turned against it now that it is not so easy get a piece of the looting of the country's resources. Same goes for China, its resources more-or-less its people, and its been going on for 750 years. Marco Polo, spheres of influence, the Boxer Rebellion, cheap labor, customers for Western goods, etc. Without the appetite for lucre we would hardly care.

Posted by The Other Alan | April 8, 2008 12:39 PM

In his next post, Matt decided to denounce Obama because Martin Perez supports him.

Posted by Dave | April 8, 2008 12:41 PM

It is also pretty clear that the prosperity of other countires has at least as much, if not more, of a role in promoting our national security as democracy in other countries (particularly if you hold aside countries whose prosperity is dependent on selling their natural resources).

Again, not that there is some sort of inherent trade off when it comes to prosperity and democracy in China, but this does kinda show how some folks don't seem all that concerned about the implications of their sentiments for U.S. national security.

Posted by DTM | April 8, 2008 12:44 PM

There is a 0% chance anyone at the Weekly Standard understands this post. As Vidor and Al have already shown.

That said, Matt, rejecting the "heroic conception of politics" in favor of something more empirical is itself a political act. The choice of which variables we care about is not an exercise in objectivity. Your "normal people think..." locution sort of shortcuts around this difficulty.

Posted by Marshall | April 8, 2008 12:47 PM

The know-nothings are out in force today. Al, some douche named Vidor, and I don't even know what to make of Dave's comment. In any event, this post is spot on. In the fevered neocon mind, it's all about Taking A Stand, and How History Will Judge Us and of course Courage! There are many examples, but Victor Davis John Augustus Patton Viagra Hanson comes to mind.

Posted by Franciso the Man | April 8, 2008 12:48 PM

Of course they view politics as "heroic". My memory of neo-con ranks is that they are, by and large, failed-to-4th rate academics who have substituted coining rationales for the plutocrats for tenure. The "heroism" of politics is balm for their cognitive dissonance.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 8, 2008 12:48 PM

The know-nothings are out in force today. Al, some douche named Vidor, and I don't even know what to make of Dave's comment. In any event, this post is spot on. In the fevered neocon mind, it's all about Taking A Stand, and How History Will Judge Us and of course Courage! There are many examples, but Victor Davis John Augustus Patton Viagra Hanson comes to mind.

Posted by Franciso the Man | April 8, 2008 12:51 PM

I wonder if the well-meaning but obnoxious protesters are aware that hanging signs on bridges and shooting fire extinguishers at people carrying the Olympic torch aren't going to "actually deliver some kind of goods" and serve as little more than "a venue in which to show virtue."

Or do they really think their noble intentions can accomplish what their futile actions cannot?

Posted by Herb | April 8, 2008 12:55 PM

Al, as someone who has had the Chinese police knocking at his door and prying into his business, you're an idiot who can't read. MY explicitly said there isn't a clear growth vs. democracy trade-off. However, as MY and Howley note, acting like the PRC of today is some totalitarian behemoth that whisks little girls out of their beds so Mao can molest them like back in the 1960's is simply idiotic. In addition, from my own experience, if you posed that choice to the average person in China, they will take growth every single time. People may not like being treated like children here from time to time, but they are more worried about idealists knocking over the gravy train with a revolution than about being able to say what they really think of Hu. It drives me crazy living here, but that's the reality of it and no amount of angry editorials in the Weekly Standard or Olympic boycotts will change that and often only lead to nationalist backlashes (and the refrain "You just don't understand China," the phrase that drives me crazy but greets any criticism of anything in China). Even the leaders of the Democracy Movement in Tiananmen said that their protest was in part over things like being able to buy Nike shoes and spend time with their girlfriends. They also were rather explicit in tying it to traditions connected to the Communist Party, including the May Fourth Movement (during which the CCP was founded) and the CR. Under the Great Leap Forward, tens of millions of people starved to death. People died by eating clay that blocked up their organs just so something would be in their stomach. Political repression may be bad now, but cannibalism isn't a common practice of political repression like it was during the Cultural Revolution.

"Aren't these the same people who said Chile was teh awesome under Pinochet because yeah, sure, he was a military dictator who murdered his political opponents, but the economy was much better than it would have been under Allende?

Posted by bobbo | April 8, 2008 12:33 PM"

Ironically, Beijing and Moscow under Putin have explicitly pointed to the likes of Pinochet and other conservative favorites (especially Lee Kuan Yew) as models for their governance.

Posted by Reality Man | April 8, 2008 12:55 PM

Matt:

some people might decide, hey, subsistence farming sucks more than life under autocracy

Al:

Shorter Yglesias: Democracy is worthless.

Someone should explain to Al how the 'Shorter' thing works.

Posted by Ryan | April 8, 2008 12:56 PM

Empty is the word for it. During the cold war, the U.S. never depended on the Soviet Union. That was then. Now, thanks to policies that the Weekly standard supports to the point of orgasm - for instance, invading Iraq and murdering Iraqis, whilst instituting tax cuts for the wealthy at home - the U.S. dependence on China has increased dramatically during the reign of George the bungler.

This dependence is going to have interesting rhetorical effects. Naipaul, back in the seventies, wrote about the odd resentment of the third world left, violently lashing out at developed economies that these same leftists depended on for practically everything. As the reality one is advocating for gets increasingly abstract and practically impossible, it frees you to get ever more shrill. Which will please those geezers who, like Hitchens, were lefties when young - it isn't the politics, it is the ability to exude contempt in ways that satisfy one's moral smugness.

Posted by roger | April 8, 2008 12:57 PM

Also, engaging China is more likely to cause democratic change in China than using the US State Department as a way for neocons to feel better about themselves. The more we ramp up the anti-Chinese rhetoric, the more paranoid the Chinese state becomes, the more they use the state-controlled media to say "America hates you and will invade at any minute" and the more sexually frustrated young men decide to join the PLA. The less we do that, the less paranoid the state becomes, the less soundbites the state has to use on CCTV and less reason to play up those disagreements with the US and the more social-political space for free expression Chinese people will have to move around in and grow and learn to despise the state on their own.

Posted by Reality Man | April 8, 2008 1:09 PM

All freely practice, or choose not to practice, their religious beliefs.

Well that's simply not true. In fact, it's an out and out lie. Many Chinese are not allowed to freely practice their religious beliefs, Falung Gong, Roman Catholics, and Tibetan Buddhists being among the most prominent examples of repression.

Posted by Stefan | April 8, 2008 1:10 PM

All of my Chinese friends may complain about the government from time to time, but they still like their government, and prefer the Chinese government to the US government.

I'm not so sure they prefer the Chinese government as much as they prefer China. But that's not surprising either, since the Chinese government does very good job of inculcating the Chinese with a fairly militant kind of Chinese nationalism from a very young age (and since most Chinese are also quite ignorant of what the American system of government really entails). So the fact that the Chinese may prefer their system to ours really only shows that indoctrination and propaganda pay off.

Posted by Stefan | April 8, 2008 1:16 PM

"prosperity, while a great public good, is a meager substitute for the greater public good of natural rights such as the freedom to publicly oppose one’s government, to legitimate state authority through elections, and to worship God as one sees fit."

Now try to imagine the Weekly Standard applying that dictum to the US. Would any Republican ever go to the American people and say we need more freedom for people to publicly oppose the government even if it means less prosperity?

Also the Weekly Standard is willing to let Chinese worship (the one) God as they see fit. But many Chinese are Taoists or Buddhists, and Chinese traditional folk religion has literally hundreds of gods. Is worshipping multiple gods not a natural right?

Posted by vanya | April 8, 2008 1:17 PM

"This seems to me to be roughly parallel to the idea that the primary aim of our foreign policy should be to adopt the appropriate stance of indignation vis-a-vis foreign actors (China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Saddam, Zimbabwe etc.) rather than to adopt policies that advance some kind of concrete goals."

Why not include Colombia in the example? Indignation replaces advancement of concrete goals.

"But that's different!" you say. "Our goal is opposing the trade deal is to advance solidarity with and the treatment of our Colombian labor brothers, so indignation is apporpriate even if it obstruacts the concreate goal of a better trade deal and support of an ally."

It all depends on who is indignant, and what your concrete goals are. You leftists don't like the administration's indignation; he probably doesn't like yours.

Big revelation.

Posted by Beer Here | April 8, 2008 1:26 PM

Hmmm. For the past several days in Texas there's been a confrontation over polygamy. I think news accounts have even used the dreaded code word "compound".

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 8, 2008 1:42 PM

"So the fact that the Chinese may prefer their system to ours really only shows that indoctrination and propaganda pay off.

Posted by Stefan | April 8, 2008 1:16 PM"

True, but we can't wish that away and using the American state the way the neocons want will likely just make the problem worse. We have civil society groups operating in the US like Amnesty International, Students for a Free Tibet, Human Rights Watch, etc. that the neocons could join, but then that would make them Dirty Fucking Hippies and wouldn't bring them closer to holding the reins of power. Human rights activism outside of the state holds some chance of helping actual Chinese people. The neocons' plan is little more than using the American government and foreign policy apparatus as the world's most expensive form of viagra to cure their erectile dysfunction.

Beer Here, IIRC MY never said he was against the trade deal with Colombia. He was against Penn taking steps in his professional life to move it forward while also being employed by a candidate who is publicly against it due to a conflict of interest. After all, MY was in favor of NAFTA.

Posted by Reality Man | April 8, 2008 1:46 PM

Of course, 90% of the people would prefer mildly repressive and very competent dictatorship over totally bungling democracy (think Nigeria).

It is also true that separatist sentiments have about as much support among the majority ethnic group as in USA (imagine that Mohawk nation wants to secede).

But many Chinese are unhappy with the dictatorial power of the government. A rather typical complaint is about local officials expropriating property of people, like homes and getting rich in the process. Provincial Chinese are suffering from whims of local petty tyrants. And they think that people from Beijing and Shanghai are unduly privileged.

So one could ask Chinese if they would be more happy if local officials were elected.

Posted by piotr | April 8, 2008 2:00 PM

prosperity minus democracy > poverty minus democracy

This formula seems pretty easy to understand, no?

One thing that still creeps me out is the hard-on neocons still have for China. If the invasion and occupation of Iraq had gone even marginally well, I wonder what kind of enemies the US would be making in Asia.

Posted by shecky | April 8, 2008 2:04 PM

If this article were written in the Nation, Matt would have written a tirade about how the Bush administration forced the state department to leave China off the list of the worst human right's violators and would have attempted to make some circuitous argument about how Clinton and/or McCain were also complicit.

The article didn't call for invading China, for ratcheting up military maneuvers in the Taiwan Strait, or even for the US government issuing a statement publicly denouncing China. It calls for a discussion about authoritarianism in China.

So, in an effort to get in the anti "neo-con" post of the day , Matt and the chorus are now completely giving up even discussing Chinese human rights violations in Tibet? Stunning.

Posted by Dave | April 8, 2008 2:53 PM

Also, engaging China is more likely to cause democratic change in China than using the US State Department as a way for neocons to feel better about themselves.

This seems doubtful to me. We've been engaging them for 35 years and while economic prosperity has been undeniable (at least for those in the cities), the government is just as bad as it ever was.

I tend to think that we missed our real chance to try and change China's behavior. If we had been tough after Tiananmen Square, denying Most Favored Nation status, blocking China's entry into the WTO, etc., insisting that the country play by the rules (which doesn't necessarily mean democracy but at least means no ethnic cleansing in Tibet, no selling the organs of executed prisoners, no sending Falun Gong members to reeducation camps, no draconian censorship of the Internet and western media, no extensive use of prison labor, fewer controls on unionization, fewer controls on religious organizations, and the like) before China would be accepted as an equal member of the family of nations, this might have worked.

But campaign contributions talked and Bush 41 and Clinton refused to make any attempts to change Chinese behavior. At this point, it's probably too late; we don't have any more levers.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 8, 2008 3:11 PM

Also, engaging China is more likely to cause democratic change in China than using the US State Department as a way for neocons to feel better about themselves.

This seems doubtful to me. We've been engaging them for 35 years and while economic prosperity has been undeniable (at least for those in the cities), the government is just as bad as it ever was.

I tend to think that we missed our real chance to try and change China's behavior. If we had been tough after Tiananmen Square, denying Most Favored Nation status, blocking China's entry into the WTO, etc., insisting that the country play by the rules (which doesn't necessarily mean democracy but at least means no ethnic cleansing in Tibet, no selling the organs of executed prisoners, no sending Falun Gong members to reeducation camps, no draconian censorship of the Internet and western media, no extensive use of prison labor, fewer controls on unionization, fewer controls on religious organizations, and the like) before China would be accepted as an equal member of the family of nations, this might have worked.

But campaign contributions talked and Bush 41 and Clinton refused to make any attempts to change Chinese behavior. At this point, it's probably too late; we don't have any more levers.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 8, 2008 3:17 PM

We've been engaging them for 35 years and while economic prosperity has been undeniable (at least for those in the cities), the government is just as bad as it ever was.

That statement is, not to put to fine a point on it, complete and utter hogwash. Do you have any idea what China was like in 1975? Or even 1981? Especially in the provinces there's more freedom today (not much but more) than there was at the height of Tiananmen. Beijing does not equal all of China, it's good to keep that in mind.

Posted by vanya | April 8, 2008 3:55 PM

That statement is, not to put to fine a point on it, complete and utter hogwash. Do you have any idea what China was like in 1975? Or even 1981? Especially in the provinces there's more freedom today (not much but more) than there was at the height of Tiananmen. Beijing does not equal all of China, it's good to keep that in mind.

I don't think year-to-year fluctuations matter all that much, given that the basic thrust of governmental policy with respect to Tibet, political dissent, human rights, etc., has not changed. For instance, approximately 20 years ago, they squashed dissent at Tiananmen Square. Now, they squash dissent in Lhasa. Pointing to some town somewhere that had meaningless provincial elections (while the dictators in Beijing and their connected friends still make off with huge portions of the wealth of the country) doesn't really change the analysis.

To say that there is an improvement in the political situation in China, you would have to point to some human political right that the government did not recognize in 1981 which it does recognize now. And there are none.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 8, 2008 5:49 PM

It seems as if you all recognize the difference between real totalitarianism (from the left even- that's leftist fascism!) that China represents and the utter ridiculouslness of making the claim that the US under General W is anywhere near such a state.

Because, of course, if we were living under anything resembling fascism, instead of typing comments on a political discussion board, you'd be battered, starving and imprisoned in some remote hole never to be seen again, not for what you have done (like engage in jihad a la the gitmo guests) but for what you expressed.

For some, China's policies are too ruthless to accept. The reality of the cold hard world does not fit within the coccoon of leftist comfort. It's better to avert our eyes from the people who lack ruth (the ruthless ones), and not engage with them at all. It is fantasy to think that's the way to get what you want from China.

Posted by Ruth Less | April 8, 2008 6:57 PM

Stefan: "So the fact that the Chinese may prefer their system to ours really only shows that indoctrination and propaganda pay off."

You could say the same thing about the US.

Look at the thirty percent of this moron population that still supports Bush.

One might also note that it's highly unlikely that the Chinese government is able to control its one billion people with anywhere near the completeness it would like to. These are not the days of the Maoist youth movements where everything was supposed to move in lockstep. Anybody reading articles about what China is like in the cities and the rural areas can see that.

The notion that China will remain some sort of one-party dictatorship forever is highly unlikely. It may take a couple more generations to improve things, but it's unlikely to stay the same as it was twenty or fifty years ago. History marches on and economic development usually leads to political change sooner or later. Of course, that can also lead to bad political changes even later, as the US has so clearly demonstrated over the last couple of decades.

Bottom line: US statists are in no position to criticize Chinese statists.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 8, 2008 7:34 PM

This makes me wonder - Matt, how much money would you accept in return for a signed statement saying that if you ever criticized the Republican party again, you could legally be thrown into prison?

Posted by Mr. Noah | April 8, 2008 8:14 PM

One should bear in mind that as Simone Weil pointed out, liberal democracy is a 'middle value": a means, not an end. The real ends that a society ought to pursue are virtue, justice and love, and to the extent that material prosperity is a necessary prerequisite of the higher goods, then that as well. Bread is quite clearly a higher priority than people than 'freedom'. If the freedom to choose one's leaders is such a 'natural right', then it seems very odd that no one in human history recognized this prior to a few disaffected American slaveholders in the late 18th century, drunk on some feverish notions cribbed from Voltaire. 'Natural right', indeed.

If the Republican Party was indeed dedicated to establishing a republic of virtue and justice, then I would certainly refrain from ever criticizing it, and I would expect other decent people to refrain from maliciously undermining it as well. It isn't (neither is the Democrats) so I don't.

Posted by Hector | April 8, 2008 9:18 PM

If the freedom to choose one's leaders is such a 'natural right', then it seems very odd that no one in human history recognized this prior to a few disaffected American slaveholders in the late 18th century, drunk on some feverish notions cribbed from Voltaire. 'Natural right', indeed.

That isn't the only argument for democracy, Hector. As Churchill said, it's the worst possible system, except for all the others.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 9, 2008 12:55 PM