Our Democracy Has Failed

Iraq, Katrina, bin Laden still alive and getting his kidney medicine and surgeon general's recommended daily supply of vitamins and minerals, skyrocketing deficit threatening the fundamental strength of dollar and the long-term viability of US economy, increasing economic disparity between rich and poor threatening the very foundation of our civil society, surging tide of religious fundamentalism (only Christian branded), divisive closemindedness and hatred emerging in multitude while hiding under the righteous label of "moral clarity," rapidly disappearing middle in everything from economic status to political standing...

Are these all Bush's failures?

Maybe, but only in a very superficial sense. This "defense" shouldn't be taken lightly, considering that I've been a staunch "Bush hater" ever since 9/11. In case you're wondering, I had been almost equally apathic between Bush and Gore before but Bush's cowardly behavior on the day of 9/11 thoroughly disgusted me. And it's gotten increasingly worse ever since.

I mean, our system is supposed to withstand the impact of a few colossal idiots or even "evildoers." How can it fail so completely?

Underlying all the colossal failures are a type of structural failure. There has to be. Terrorists not only brought down World Trade Center, they also knocked down the entire check-and-balance mechanism designed by the founding fathers.

If bin Laden's goal is indeed to destroy our way of life, then he's managed quite a success, with the unwitting but sweeping cooperation from us, the American people.

Let's do a technical analysis on the collapse of American democracy on the tragic day of 9/11.

Failure of the Media

The first structural failure point is the media. Mainstream media have largely and immediately abandoned their unoffical yet pivotal societal responsibility of being the ultimate checker. Under the pretense of "war time," all dissent were quickly silenced. All criticism, even simple questioning, of the executive branch were effectively banned. Fruitless hunt of the Anthrax culprit was quickly and quietly swept under the carpet. Questioning of Bush's swift decision to shift focus away from bin Laden to Iraq was never given any meaningful exposure. Coverage of the Iraq war debate was heavily skewed against the dissent.

If Bush has failed so phenominally, it's only because the media have given him a free pass to fail.

Interesstingly, rumor has it that Jiang Zemin, the head of Chinese communist party and government and military, held great fascination and admiration on how brilliantly and stealthly the Bush administration managed to manipulate and control the media and public opinion after 9/11. He asked his propaganda people to conduct a thorough study of the mechanism. Indeed, the Chinese government could never have pull it off with such ease and grace.

As a Chinese who lived through part of the Cultural Revolution, the Bush administration sends chills down my spine. The arrogance, the secrecy, the absolutism, all sound frighteningly familiar.

Am I the only one finding the following observations odd? On one hand,

• the failure to capture bin Laden,


• the failure to capture the anthrax culprit,


• the almost complete disappearance of presidential press conferences,


• the fact that Bush has taken one two disasters(one natural, one man-made) with open-ended spending power and consistently grossly misunderestimated budgets whenever provided,


• the conspicuous innocence of Kenny boy of Enron,


• the repeated and persistent unfair (or even corrupt/criminal, quite likely) award of federal contracts to Haliburton and other companies with close ties to the administration


• ...

got little to no mainstream coverage. On the other hand, we find plenty of headline space for Martha Steward's <4,000 share stock sale.

As everyone has known all along, democracy cannot function without independent, professional media. But now we have living proof.

Failure of the Congress

With the media channeling public opinion with a bias (and manufacturing/shaping public opinion in a self-fulfilling prophacy), the Congress, not surprisingly, quickly betrayed their duty of maintaining accountability of the executive branch. They gave the Whitehouse and Pentagon unprecedented power and said: here, take them, don't bother to report back. Failure to capture or kill bin Laden was never questioned. The pretense for invading Iraq, which has been discredited in its entirety by now, was never questioned.

Fiscally, this is arguably the most irresponsible in the history of this country. Our politicians have finnaly figured it out: it's not my money, and the more I spend it, the more compassionate/powerful I become and, besides, it doesn't hurt to doll out a few hundred million for the Friends & Family plan so why the hell not? Nobody checks or cares anyways.

With the Congress aligned with the executive branch, the marvelous design of the founding fathers has been circumvented.

If Bush has failed so phenominally, it's only because the Congress has given him a free pass to fail.


(To be coninued...
Failure of the Political Opposition
Failure of the Constituency
It's All Because We're Cowards)

US And China Will Never Be Archenemies

After writing the previous post, "US And China Will Never Be Allies," now it's time for me to flip the coin.

First of all, despite the apparent rupture in ideology between the two countries as well as all the grand-standing by politicians and the ignorant mass on both sides, the actual ideological differences are much less dramatic than "democracy vs communism," "freedom vs oppression."

The US brand of democracy and liberty is far from the most radical, puritan experiments in human history. The reason why it stands out in this particular point in time is mostly because, well, it's worked out so far.

The Chinese brand of communism is simply no longer. The current government in China is among the least ideology-driven in the world. They're collectively driven by one thing and one thing only: stay in power. Everything they do, regardless of names and slogans -- economic growth, anti-Taiwan-independence, crushing down on Falundong, anti-Japanese/US protests -- is motivated by this singular obsession.

It's also worth noting that, historically, neither US nor China has ever fought a single war over ideology. And it's unlikely to happen in the future unless the neocons take root, which they haven't yet. And this is good news.

Reagan managed to slap the "Evil Empire" labe on USSR and get it to stick. But I don't think it's possible to pull the same trick on China. Some old-fashioned Maoists and ultra-nationalists in China would very much like to do it to the US. But they will never be back to the mainstream unless US is perceived to humiliate China in some big way, e.g., throwing its full weight behind Taiwan independence or helping Japan winning another war against China.

Secondly, there's no unforgetable, unforgivable historical score to be settled between US and China.

Where the two countries will continue to feel frictions are nothing more than practicality and convenience, things like trade and oil.

Oil is a big issue. But, as new technologies emerge and improve, it's highly unlikely that modern civilization will be eliminated for lack of oil.

Does this mean US and China will never fight another war? Quite the contrary, I think some kind of war here is very likely over the next few decades (I'll write about this later). But if it's any comfort, I'm saying war should be avoidable and there's no reason for the two countries to enemies for any significant length of time.

So, there you have it: too big and far away to be allies, too pragmatic and rational to be enemies.

This can be quite annoying and inconvenient. But then again, going to the bathroom is quite annoying and inconvenient. Such is life.

What I'm worried about is that stupidity, ignorance, and impatience may escalate the frustration into direct conflict.

How Public Opinion Is Manufactured in This Country: A Classic Example Today

Look at the Reuters News titled "Chinese Web sites used to target U.S. systems-report," pasted as comment below.

The title says "TARGET". But the story turns out to be about scanning and collecting public info, conveniently by anonymous officials.

Doesn't matter the story turns out to be total BS to anyone with an independent mind. All that matters is the title, with "China" and "target US" in one sentence.

This, people, is how public opinion is manufactured in this country. And surprisingly few people seem to ever notice it.

Chinese Spies Never Die, They Just Get Recycled

A WSJ article today reported an FBI initiative, one of the most important after war on terrorism, of Chinese spy hunting.

Of course, everyone knows industrial espinage is omnipresent in the spacetime continuum. So why the Chinese should be so lucky and honored to be once again singled out and headlined?

I'm not being paranoid. The Chinese spy hunt is like the flu, coming around every once in awhile and never goes away.

This is the most vicious kind of bad international politics because it hurts every China-born US citizen everytime it comes around.

It's the most stupid kind of bad policy becaise it, little by little, nurtures a poisonous zenophobic atmosphere in the society which may one day drive many talents out of this country. It's a lose-lose for everyone except the Chinese government in this scenario. We've been there before.

(Original WSJ article posted as comment.)

Study: Asians and Americans See World Differently

An interesting study showing that East Asians and native-born Americans visually examine pictures/scenes differently. (Original article posted as comment below.)

But I think the researcher, as cited in the article, totally missed the point on where the difference comes from. To me, it's almost self-explanatory that it's because of the written language. East Asian languages (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) have two-dimensional characters as the basic unit. The Roman languages are one-dimensional. As you learn the East Asian languages, you're trained to scan the two-dimensional picture and examine the relationships among the strokes and sub-characters.

US And China Will Never Be Allies

As much as it is to my personal interest and wish for US and China to become true allies, as "true allies" as it gets in international politics, such as US-UK, I have to admit it's not possible before the whole planet is united in a war against alien invaders, e.g., someone shooting an asteroid our way.

The fundamental reasons are very simple:

1. Both US and China are big, in terms of both area/population, and ego/pride.

2. US and China are too far away, in terms of both geography and culture.

What do size and stretch have to do with this issue?

Yup, this is definitely one of the cases where size matters. A lot.

A small country has no insurmountable obstacles in aligning with the US in today's monopolar world structure, as long as they're willing. They may be asked a lot in return if they don't have oil or other strategic value to the US (e.g., a tiny island country in the Pacific surrounded by massive methane ice at the bottom of the ocean, in 2050). But it's a matter of price, unlike selling Conoco to CNOOC (sarcasm intended). And for US, there may not be much upside, but at least there's no downside. So, as long as the price is right, why not?

And if US deems a small country valuable as an ally, it'd be quite difficult for it to resist. (Think Iraq.)

In the case of a big country like China, however, long-term, strategic, comprehensive alliance with US is undesirable for either party, nor is it possible even if there were strong will on both sides.

Why not?

From the US perspective, having an ally carries responsibility and liability besides the benefit. China being so big, any time it takes a dump, it's a huge stinking mountain. Market access, pollution, natural disasters, potential refugee surge...US can ill afford any of the potential demand and liability an allied China poses.

From the China perspective, it can never be an equal partner with US. As it is now, China can only be a subordinate to US. The 2000 year history of Central Kingdom, coupled with the constant humiliation by the west and Japan over the past 200 years, dictates that the Chinese people will not accept such a position. And if/when China gains equal power to US, whom would they ally against?

The perpetual feud, albeit low-grade, between US and France is a testimony to the size and history effects. And we'll see more and more US-Germany feud going forward, due to the same effects. (The monopolar power structure likely has its inherent instability. But that's another topic.)

And even if some ideological saints get installed in both governments by divine intervention, they'd immediately face thorny practical concerns such as sharing oil, haggling over trade and monetary policy, and dealing with pollution. These issues will remain for as long as humans life is in the current awkward, inconvenient biological form.

I'd go one step further. Even if China begs and pleads US for an invasion or by some other means take control of it, US would not do it. It quite simply and frankly can't afford it. By the same token, even if US gets so messed up that it becomes a third-world country and China becomes the sole superpower, the reverse would also be true.

Canada and Mexico are both big. But they're geographically so close to US that they have only one choice: either accept the subordinate position or be assimilated. And because they're so close, US has to accept the liabilities as long as they accept the subordinate position.

Russia will become an US ally before China does. And this does not necessarily have to do with Russians being Caucasian. While Russia has a huge land (at least for now), its population is relatively small. Perhaps more importantly, the cultural difference between Russia and US is more about favorite drinks and sports, not the fundamental underlying value system.

Of course, people know about the US-China cultural disparity.

Americans eat hamburgers, Chinese eat Kung Pao Chicken. And that's great. It provides alternatives, however undesirable in their respective own right, when you get sick and tired of hamburgers or Kung Pao Chicken. And should the alternative be unavailable, it takes a person as short as a few years, or at most one lifetime, to adjust.

Americans speak that blurry, incomprehensible mumble jumble, Chinese speak that punctuative, funny-intoned, incomprehensible mumble jumble. And that's OK, too. It provides mildly amusing intellectual challenges, and a lot of jobs. And it takes a person as short as a few years, or at most one lifetime, to adjust.

Americans are individualistic and hold deep suspicion and almost-blind distrust against the elite, Chinese are collectivists and hold deep respect and almost-blind trust towards the elite.

Now this is a bit of a problem.

Big words like individualism vs. collectivism, elitism vs. popularism are not just impressive-sounding at cocktail parties, they consist the core of a value system. It takes at least several generations to change the value system of a large society in any significant way. And I dare say the rupture in value system is even deeper than that in religion, though less likely to escalate into such visible and violent manifestation as the latter.

This is, of course, a general problem of pan-Chinese cultural circle vs. the western world.

Small countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan (ok, region...sheesh, relax would ya?), and Singapore were forced upon with the American culture and political/legal/economic systems after WWII. They are more westernized than China. But even with their much smaller size and the forced, abrupt transformation, the characteristics of the pan-Chinese cultural value system are still unmistakable 50 years after.

The Inevitable Rise of China

Many experts would write me off within one microsecond of seeing the title. "There're so many potential dangers in China, in every aspect of the sociopoliticoeconomic landscape," they'd say.

True. And it's been true for every significant country throughout human history, including US. But humans thrive on instability, a necessary condition for adaptability. A society with most things figured out and solidified faces the greatest danger of all: total elimination by the changing world.

At the fundamental level, two reasons underline the long-term rise of China ("long-term" meaning at least roughly two decades).

First, Chinese culture has always been very pragmatic, contrary to the common misconception stemming from the fanatical revolutionary fervor in Mao's era, which in fact had more to do with nationalism than anything remotely related to Marxism. China is the only surviving ancient civilization with a clearly identifiable and persistent cultural identity. (India as a cultural identity is quite hard to establish and track, and modern-day Greece/Egypt have little to do with their glorious past as labels of civilizations.) It's also the only one that's never produced its own organized religion nor relied on organized religions as the basis for social identity. The two observations are hardly coincidental. A pragmatic culture may not be the best soil for awe-inspiring breakthroughs and ideologies, but it can be surprisingly stable because it's less prone to fanatism and suicidal grandiose social experimentation.

Secondly, this deep-rooted pragmatism has been reinforced and re-expressed since the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre. It's ironic, sad, and reassuring all at the same time. The liberalism movement of the 1980's in China was a swing away from the Cultural Revolution, but actually a continuation of the same ideological fervor. Right after the massacre, the government tried to start a mass political movement similar to past ones, forcing people to report any and all who participated in the protests. The effort was met with silent but almost overt and universal resistance. And the same apathy and polite refusal was given to pro-democracy force ever since. The 1.3 billion people have enthusiastically turned into the ancient, pragmatic question of the day, the year, the millennium, the eternity: how to survive and thrive.

Chinese people never lost hope. Not under Chengis Khan, not under Mao. But now, for the first time in at least 200 years, there appears a tangible way to reach the hope and it doesn't even require chopping heads -- well, not literally: money.

Desperate people become revolutionaries, heroes, suicide bombers. People with stakes and hopes to lose are the stabilizing force. In China, there's never been such a strong stabilizing force since at least the late Qing Dynasty.

Also, the deep-rooted entrepreneural spirit and emphasis on education in Chinese culture provide long-lasting drive force once the society got on the right track.

OK, three reasons. Apparently my parents didn't emphasize on math education.

At the short-term, technical level, there're many reasons to believe that China will be able to navigate the countless minefields, avoid disasters, and continue to grow.

First of all, the Chinese government has established a framework for governing and power transition. Despite of all its ills and evils, the Chinese government today has practically nothing to do with Communism and is much more puritan capitalism in many aspects than even US. They're basing the legitimacy of power on two pillars: nationalism and economic well-being, which has worked out quite well so far. Within the power elite circle, there's widespread and earnest consensus building on all important decisions, contrary to the common misunderstanding stemming from the simpleton "dictatorship/communism" label. The technocrat leadership has proven to work well in East Asian societies. And they've managed two smooth top-level power transitions with remarkably consistent policies -- the Archille's Heel for non-democratic governments everywhere -- since Deng.

Secondly, the bizarre mix of free market and government control in China has, much to the surprise and dismay of economists, proven very robust and efficient. Had China taken the prescription by World Bank (as Russia did), there's little doubt that the 1997 Asian financial crisis would've taken down China. Also, according to economists, the massive bad chain debt in the Chinese banking system should've caused implosion a long time ago. But the reality is the solution to the problem has been a slow but steady and remarkable success.

The modern finance system is based on the jungle model where everyone is driven by greed and greed only, governed by explicit rules and explicit rules only. In such a system, players are forced to be greedy and relentless since anything less would be subject to exploitation by competitors, or at least so they must assume. For example, if a bond issuer pays interest one day late, it's a default by standard definition and bond holders have to demand default treatment; otherwise the bond holders would have to answer many questions and expose themselves to various grave tangible and intangible risks. While the issuer's Failure To Pay may be due to a minor cashflow glitch in an otherwise perfectly healthy and profitable company, such vigorous prosecution by bond holders may well result in the total collapse of the issuer.

The Chinese system, perhaps more so than other East Asian ones, are a collaborative system where explicit rules are dynamic and driven by necessity as well as convenience. In such a system, if the above scenario were to occur, the bond holders will predictably sweep the little delay under the carpet, after either meeting with the issuer or intermediation from some government agency. The disruption and cost to the macroscopic system is therefore avoided.

In theory, the collaborative system's main disadvantage is its vulnerability to disastrous mistakes, as the collaborative character allows more corruption and secret dealing. But in practice, it's at least a possibility that this structural instability may be remediable.

But more important than government, the Chinese society in general, and the economic system in particular, has shown remarkable maturity, resilience, and rational behavior in recent years. The worldwide sanction after the 1989 massacre forced China to start developing its domestic market. In several industries, they're successfully migrating up the value chain, and slowly but steadily integrating into the international system.

Of course, "inevitable" is a bit too strong as nothing is inevitable in life except death and tax. (And, with the rapid development in bio-tech, I'm not sure about the former.) There're two fundamental risks in China that may cause catastrophe at any time: economic disparity and environmental pollution. However, barring unforeseen large-scale external disruptions, the case for China's continued growth is very strong.

A Brief History of US-China Relationship

The love-hate relationship between US and China seems dated from the first time the two learned each other's name. Here's a brief and broadstroke run-down in case you're not familiar with this perpetual schizophrenic tango:

1. US participated in the Opium War, but then turned the money forced out the Qing Dynasty around and set up the first modern universities and hospitals in China.

2. The two were allies during both WWI and WWII, with China under the KMT government. But it's no secret that US government really disliked the KMT government during WWII -- the corruption, the lack of determination and resolve (mostly due to the politiking among some senior officials and generals), the incompetence (poor training).

3. After the communist took over power in China, the two countries managed to fight two wars without declaring war: Korea and Vietnam. Then none other than Nixon and Mao, both having presided over the Vietnam war, defrosted the diplomatic relationship between two ideological archenemies. In retrospect, all of the drama were nothing more than Cold War maneuvering and had little to do with ideology...well, except the ideology of pragmatism.

4. The opening and reform kickstarted by Deng Xiaoping quickly began a honeymoon between US and China. Throughout the 1980's, aspiring Chinese college students, intellectuals, artists, scientists genuinely admired US, while much of America held high hope for China as the first large defector from the communist bloc. Then, Deng killed the honeymoon with Tiananmen Massacre of 6/4, 1989. I was in the US to witness the outpouring of emotion -- condemnation against the massacre and support for the students -- of American people on the news of massacre. It was nothing short of remarkable and deeply moving. It may have been unprecedented in the US as so many Joe and Jane Schmoes, who thought Canada is another state, would go on the streets to protest and donate money for something happening half way around the globe.

5. The massacre not only turned the US public opinion decisively and irrevocably (at least so far) against the Chinese government, it also ended, in retrospect, the pro-US force in China. The public sentiment in China has grown more and more nationalistic. Relatively minor "accidents" such as the US bombing of Chinese embassy in Belgrade and the collision between a Chinese fighter jet and a US reconnaissance plane over South China Sea didn't exactly help the matter.

6. Currently, areas where US and China share interests, at least officially, include anti-terrorism, North Korea, and commerce. Areas where they have competing interests: everything else. Or so it seems.

And the schizophrenic tango will only get more messy, and dangerous, going forward.

(Gotta go to work now damnit...)

(Instead of a series with the same title, I decided it'd make more sense to break it into several titles/threads to keep it manageable and maintain the dialogue/running flavor. Please feel free to critique. I'm quite open to persuation.)