Lots of comments on my first post but most of them came to me directly rather than via the comment function on the blog page. The comments have been about evenly split between (a) how my Asian friends have reacted to the abysmal quality of political rhetoric in the US and (b) my suggestions about what could be done to improve public discourse.Here’s quick summary:
Regarding item A
Many additional Asian friends admitted that they or their spouses had thoughts similar to the ones that I had summarized. Several thanked me for going public with them. One said that her husband had been called a bad American for raising such questions. (I can't think of any more solid citizen.) Several whiter respondents asked “How could the Asians think this way, didn’t they know (whatever)?”
To which I reply YES, these folks really do know. Everyone I talked to was highly educated, prosperous and cosmopolitan. Most were US citizens. They value their rights and responsibilities as Americans and are very alarmed at what is happening in the US. But being Asians they have a slightly different frame of reference than the average corn-fed Yankee.
Political scientists and philosophers sometimes frame their analysis of politics as a contest between liberty and order. The United States and China can be seen as two extremes with the U.S. tilting toward liberty and China toward order. The early history of the U.S. is a story about a struggle for liberty from the rule of a distant power. The foundational myth of the American republic emphasizes the triumph of the individual rights of the people and the restriction of the powers of the central government. This thread goes back to the Magna Carta (1215) and earlier. On the other hand, the story of the origin of China is about unification and bringing order from chaos through the consolidation of power in a strong central government. To maintain and reinforce this order much early Chinese political philosophy deals not with individual rights but with the obligations of key individuals or groups to each other: emperor : people, father : son, husband : wife. (Confucius ~500 BC)
The Asians that I contacted have a foot in both of these worlds. They don’t see either philosophy as being totally right or totally wrong. They would prefer that both China and the USA were more balanced: the US moving toward more social harmony and more civil and self-restrained political discourse and China moving in the direction of more freedom of speech. Despite the incarceration of Liu Xiaobo and the harassment of other dissidents in China, they see the country as generally being on the right arc and are hopeful that the economic growth to which the government is committed will eventually lead to more freedom of expression and political conduct. They are less optimistic about the USA. Many do not recognize the considerable accomplishments of the Obama administration in its first two years. They are fearful that political gridlock will prevent solutions to the formidable problems of economics and public finance facing the country, which will continue to decline.
Regarding item B
I offered three suggestions
- reinstate the McCain-Feingold rules that the Supreme Court gutted in January. Do this in a way that prevents the court from meddling again. I understand this can be accomplished by means short of constitutional amendment.
- enact transparency laws that require the disclosure of the ultimate source of funding for advocacy initiatives and policy research.
- change the work rules for the Congressional Budget Office so that they can comment more freely on the financial/economic repercussions of proposed legislation. Currently they are restricted to commenting narrowly on these impacts and only within the time frame covered by the proposed laws.
I got off easy on the second and third ideas but several people disagreed with reinstating McCain-Feingold because it restricts freedom of speech. McCain-Feingold certainly does not infringe my freedom of speech. It does restrict ExxonMobil's, ATT's, Pfizer's and Koch Industries' as well as the National Education Association (teachers' union) and American Bar Association among others. I am happy to have limits placed on those and similar organizations. I do not believe that the first amendment was meant to apply to corporate bodies whether they are businesses or other groups organized in corporate form. Without boundaries such organizations by virtue of their size and wealth have the power to trample the rights of individual citizens. I do not believe that the natural and/or inalienable rights of individuals (natural persons in the law) protected in the Constitution and Bill of Rights ought to automatically extend to organizations. On the contrary, I believe that the extension of such rights should be done cautiously and that in some cases it may be better to extend those rights with limits rather than to the full extent they apply to individuals.
No one queried the second sentence of the first point. It was meant to ask whether Congress could pass a new and stronger version of McCain-Feingold that included explicit prohibition of Supreme Court review of its constitutionality per Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution which says inter alia "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Normal disclaimers about the author not being qualified to comment on constitutional law apply!
Now, please take your shot. Be brave and use the comment box.
4 comments:
I'm so glad you are doing this blog. There's a difference between unfettered speech and the current state of things, thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision, wherein corporations and even other governments -- ANYONE! -- can buy and ad and campaign against a candidate, without revealing who they are, and what interests they have in the outcome. for example, there is a group actively buying ads urging Latino voters to stay home on election day.
Thank you for this point of view, now and to come, and for making it easy for others to find it.
I find these discussions very interesting. Because I couldn't find the original piece by Ed, I am still not quite sure about the context and its original intent. If the focus of the comments was on the myriad problems with the American political system, I agree. My only comment here is that I feel sad that over half a century later people still use what Churchill said regarding democracy as an excuse to justify all the political problems in democracy. Sad that while we can scale astonishing heights in science and technology, we cannot seem to device institutions to overcome defects in our human nature, much less improve it. I guess because the first serious search for an alternative and a substantive form of democracy led to the embrace of socialism/communism in some quarters of the world, people are somewhat more scared to think outside the box again.
If the intent of Ed's original piece and subsequent comments is to exhort humility and caution America against overconfidence and arrogance about its political system, I also applaud whole-heartedly. LIke it or not, American political system has been held up as a beacon of light by so many people in non-democratic countries over the years. It is rather disappointing to those who inevitably feel a sense of let down just as their own non-democratic systems are opening up or becoming less oppressive.
However, if the undertone of the original piece or some of the comments is that because of the problems cited here, the American political system is not really any better in substantive terms than the Chinese political system, I have to say that I cannot agree. The differences between Chinese and American political systems are qualitative and not just a matter of varying degrees. I understand if people who make the comments are who often need to defend China against US attacks about the former's lack of human rights protection. As a fair-minded private citizen, however, I will choose being misled or manipulated over being coerced and incarcerated every time on the issue of political belief. To argue otherwise seems to me the equivalent of saying that because of the problems with diplomacy, war and bloodshed are a better choice; because of the well publicized problems in the present day legal system, taking things in one's own hands and street violence and killing are a better choice.
Last, what has happened in China in the past decades is nothing short of an economic miracle. Chinese leaders should be given plenty of credit. However, I think these accomplishments shouldn't necessarily be considered a reflection of the strengthen of China's political system. There are deeper economic, sociological and political reasons which are beyond the scope of this comment.
Thanks.
If the original intent of Ed's piece is to highlight or lament the myriad problems in the American political system, I agree with all the points. My only comment is that it is rather sad that those of us who believe in democracy still have to use what Churchill said about democracy over half a century ago as a defense of the US political system. While human beings have scaled unbelievable heights in science and technology, we seem to be incapable of devising a better political system to help overcome the defects of our human nature. It is even sadder that some of the problems seems to be getting worse.
If the intent of the original piece and some of the comments is to exhort humility and caution the US against over confidence and arrogance about its own political system, I also applaud whole-heartedly. Like it or not, American political system has been held up as a beacon of light by many under non-democratic regimes for all these years. It is rather disappointing for these people who inevitably feel a sense of let-down, especially when their own political systems are actually becoming more open and less oppressive.
If, however, the undertone of the comments is that because of all the problems cited in the blogs, American political system is not really any better or at least no different than China's system, I have to say that I cannot agree. I think the Chinese and American political systems are qualitatively and substantively different. I can understand the argument that if people under a democratic regime cannot really make a real difference it is hard to say that they are actually exercising their political and democratic rights in a democracy. Still, I think it is too big a stretch to mention the Chinese and American political systems in the same breath. Much as I loath the choice, I personally would choose political manipulation, i.e., attempts to misled and manipulate by government and others, over political coercion and incarceration every time. To argue otherwise seems to me the equivalent of saying that taking law into one's own hands and street violence are preferable to the current legal system because of the latter's glaring problems; or war and bloodshed are preferable to diplomacy and negotiations because the ultimate purpose of diplomacy and negotiations is also to get what countries want.
What's happened in China in the past decades are nothing short of an economic miracle. Chinese leaders should be given plenty of credit. However, I think these accomplishments shouldn't necessarily be always considered a reflection of the strength of China's political system. There are much deeper political, economic, and sociological reasons which are beyond the scope of this quick comment.
“Without boundaries such organizations by virtue of their size and wealth have the power to trample the rights of individual citizens.”
This statement hits the nail on the head for me. Corporations buy politicians with their enormous donations, and the donations (and voices) of individual citizens become meaningless. What’s even worse is that without requirements for full disclosure about corporate donations, citizens have no idea who is pushing specific interests.
Domestic corporations aren’t the only ones influencing U.S. elections. This article from The Guardian reports that European companies such as BP are funding candidates that deny climate change. The article also mentions a ThinkProgress report identifying Indian and Middle Eastern oil, coal, and electricity companies as donors to the Chamber of Commerce.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/tea-party-climate-change-deniers
Personally, beyond having McCain-Feingold fully reinstated, I would like to see public funding for political campaigns.
Post a Comment