Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts

Friday, April 27, 2007

The People's Democratic Dictatorship, Pt 2: Commuwhat?


One of my biggest pet peeves here is hearing people say, “that’s just communism.” I can see where they get the impression. There’s a Stalinist power-structure in place that calls itself the Chinese Communist Party that certainly has Marxist roots, but it has about as much a connection to communism today as the Republican Party has to the ideals of the old Roman Republic. Tenuous, at best. Not even very superficial really. One thing I’ll give credit to The Party for is not pretending to be something it’s not. Doublespeak is not a fixture in Chinese politics. Typically, the leadership says what they mean and means what they say and they say the revolution's dead, folks. They sent the memo in ’78, didn’t you get it?

Mao did create a communist society for a short while. During the Great Leap Forward in ’58 the villages were all leveled and rebuilt as communes. This might have actually worked except that alongside this came the remarkable idea that China was going to match England’s steel production in eight years. Wait, no, 4! Wait! Two years! We can do it in two! Someone said two months? Let’s do it guys! Just melt your shovels, hoes, rakes, plows, and jewelry in backyard steel mills! And then, you know, watch your crops die with thirty million dead peasants following. That's a tenth of the the current US population, by the way.

That didn’t work out so hot and his power slipped a bit. Plan B. Anarchy with communist characteristics. Ten years of it during the Cultural Revolution. Class struggle as defined by neighbors “struggling” against that bastard whose father was a rich peasant or whose brother served in Kuomintang along with your generic book burning, banning anything but revolutionary music, and sending anyone with an education to work as a farmer in the countryside. The general consensus is that it was Mao making a last ditch effort regain power and solidify his historical role as not just The Great Helmsman, but God Amongst Chinamen. Mao died. Happens to everyone, right?

Things changed very, very quickly after that. Deng Xiaoping, probably the most pragmatic political leader I’ve ever read about, came back from his small engine repair shop where he was exiled during the Cultural Revolution. He had a few ideas. The first, and most important today, was that “poverty is not communism.” Maybe sending educated people to the countryside for a few years can have a positive effect after all.

Well… turns out maybe poverty is communism when there’s not a lot of wealth to be shared. What’s a pragmatist to do? Rename communism, that’s what! But what to call it, what to call it… teacher! Pick me, pick me! If you said “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” you won! What does it mean? Well, whatever the hell it needs to mean. That’s its beauty. Did you notice how well the word “socialism” kept the relevance of the “communist” party. Didja also note that “Chinese characteristics” could mean anything? It’s kinda like saying Trey-style Chinese Cooking.

For Deng, it meant two things. Take notes, this well be on the test. First was that “to get rich is glorious.” Hmmm, interesting. That’s a bit of a change from the class-struggling fervor of Mao’s Little Red Book, the only literature allowed only five years earlier. The second was the pragmatic counter-weight, that “some must get rich before others.”

Right there communism died in China and the Chinese Communist Party was given a second chance to prove itself useful to the Chinese people before things got nasty. Nothing but pain came from the previous two decades of rule. While Mao started off on the right foot, The Party and its army was on its best red behavior while running from and fighting off the worse than useless KMT in China’s heartland, he left psychic and physical scars on this nation that will never be healed. Try to find a temple older than your grandfather in this ancient land.

So if China isn’t communist... what is it? That's for Part III: Survivalism.

Friday, November 17, 2006

At this very moment, and no other, I support Bush on Iraq

In January of 2003 my friend Abe and I drove to Washington, D.C. to be a part of massive anti-war demonstrations. I came away disillusioned with my fellow doves. The moment I heard 50,000+ chanting "Free Palestine, End Zionism," I knew this had little to do with actual policy considerations. My reasons for being there were very different than almost everyone else's that I met. People there just didn't like war. I can respect that, but I can also see when war is necessary. In my estimate, this war wasn't necessary and I felt it was going to severely compromise our national security. Chemical and biological weapons were of little interest to me. Even if he had them, he couldn't use them without overwhelming retaliation.

What brought me to Washington was remembering how our reception was when US forces were deployed to Beirut and Mogadishu. In Beirut we lost 241 Marines in one day and I'm sure everyone's seen Black Hawk Down by now to know what happened in Mogadishu. In both cases, we went with the best of intentions. We certainly we're going to be entering Baghdad with even a shred of the nobility of those two previous Middle Eastern missions. The biggest difference in hypothesis and reality is that the Iraqi's gave us about two months to get our act together before they rebelled. I assumed the masses would be resisting us from day one.

When the war started, I refused to participate in any more demonstrations. I went to a candlelight vigil to honor all of the fallen - American and Iraqi - but I refused to demand a withdrawal of American forces, something almost all of activist friends wanted. When I asked what they thought the outcome of a sudden withdrawal might be, none of them had an answer. It was just a solution that sounded right.

Foreign policy does not have an "undo" button. During the Democratic primary debates in 2004, one of the candidates put it best; "saying 'I told you so' isn't a foriegn policy." As happy as I am about the Democratic sweep of Congress, I'm very worried about their Iraq policy. I don't think it's progressed much beyond the activist rhetoric or told ya so. Don't get me wrong, it feels good, but it isn't.

Where stand now is that the Democrats are preparing to push for a quick phased withdrawal. The biggest proponent of this, Rep. Murtha, is poised to become Senate Majority Leader as a reward for letting Americans be able to openly admit they want to quit. If a hawkish vet can say we lost, then hey... so say we all. Well, at least about 60% of the public anyway.

Bush has a different idea. If the rumors are true, he wants to make one last push to secure peace in Iraq through military might. He wants to call a regional summit send an additional 20,000 troops in an admittedly last ditch effort to secure Baghdad before calling it quits. Read that last sentence again. Bush is ready to call it quits. He wants one more shot before packing up. Know what? I support that idea 100%. We owe it to Iraq to try once more. Bush knows this is his last shot and he's going to give it his all.

A rapid American withdrawal right now would be disastrous for Iraqi civilians. There would be no governing power beyond militias. Staying for another four years is equally bad, but getting the best minds together for one last try, one last push to make things work, gets all the support I can give. This should be something we can all agree on.

The biggest thing the Democrats could do for peace - real peace, not just leaving the fight - is to make sure Bush invites Syria and Iran to the regional summit. Take a look at the map. When we leave, they'll be holding all the cards. Ultimately this is about them giving us a chance to have a say in Iraq's future, not, as it would seem, the other way around.

Tags: