Maybe it's because you're an IDIOT, Paul

Wistaria House, Taipei

A typical dark, rainy late autumn day in Taipei today, and we gathered at Wistaria House (the historic teahouse known for early pro-democracy activism and the movie Eat Drink Man Woman) to do what one really ought to do there: drink tea, shoot the breeze, and talk philosophy and politics.

The now-infamous op-ed piece published in the New York Times (for some reason) came up - I find it so abhorrent that I don't even want to link to it directly. But I will, I guess. The prevailing theory among my friends is that Paul Kane's a hack (keep in mind that many of my friends studied International Politics) and that the NYT just likes the controversy it's drumming up. I can't think of any other reason to publish such a steaming turd-pile.

Brendan's take: Paul Kane is clearly the sort of academic who can't handle complexity and discussing politics and current affairs through an appropriately in-depth understanding of the issues. He's the sort - and libertarians do this too, I might add - who reduces very difficult situations to simple models that suit his needs and disregards anything that could upset the simplicity of his ideas (and I use "simple" in the way that a 19th century governess would to describe one of her charges who was especially slow). With ideas based on models rather than reality, his understanding of the deeper issues is about as thorough as a four-year-old's understanding of the mechanics and engineering of trains, from his model train set. He can't afford to take into account things that upset the balance, like how the Taiwanese might feel about this, how it not just might, but would start a cross-strait war, and how political negotiation is rarely as straightforward as "you cancel our debt, we give you Taiwan". At least it hasn't been since Europe gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler. And gee, that sure worked out. That what a people and their government thinks is only important in relation to how much power that country has globally, so the only people whose ideas matter are the US's and China's, and everyone else is like a butterfly flapping its wings in Malaysia, which might cause a storm: something you can't and shouldn't take into account. Basically, these sorts of people - Kane, a lot of people in the State Department and on international affairs advisory committees, the stupider sort of academics, libertarians and most conservative economists - look at the world the way a sociopath would ("sociopath" being my word) - with zero empathy. They're chess pieces, big ones if they're lucky, small ones if they're not, and what matters isn't people but the game: both the political game and the economic one. There's no accounting for actual people, because it's all models...and let's be honest, models don't work.

(Some of the above, like the train set analogy, is mine).

Joseph's take: It's just plain more complex than that! Hacks like Kane treat Taiwan as a troublemaker, a thorn in the side of the USA, but it's not Taiwan that's the problem. Taiwan has issues (human trafficking is a biggie) but generally speaking is probably one of the easiest and least offensive countries to deal with in Asia, if not the world. The problem - the thorn in our side - is China acting like a spoiled little bitch (his words, not mine, but they really need to be emphasized). Taiwan is not a part of a bigger country that wants to be free, or a province looking for independence - it's a de facto independent political entity, and Taiwan is not the problem. China is, and the solution is not to just bend down and **** China's **** (redacted for the sake of my Moms), which is what this move would be. Furthermore, Taiwan really should be the US's easiest bargaining chip (we all hate referring to Taiwan as a "bargaining chip" but let's be honest - in the eyes of the US government, it is). It doesn't have to send troops. It doesn't have to impose sanctions. All it has to do to keep a little bit of strategic one-uppery on China is to throw out a few "we hope for a peaceful resolution" platitudes and sell it some arms from time to time. How is that so hard? It's a huge advantage for the US. Giving it up would be idiotic.

My take: all of the above, and the fact that Kane seems to just assume that this won't have any adverse impact - that because the feelings, thoughts and opinions of the Taiwanese don't matter, that selling Taiwan to China won't incite a cross-strait war. But it will - I know of very few Taiwanese people who want to unify with China. I know more who think it's inevitable, but almost none who actually want it. I know plenty of people who feel that keeping the status quo is the best way to go, but none who would think that way in a world in which China was not a threat: they'd vote for independence, not unification. The status quo is a necessity, not a desired state, in their minds. And for every apathetic sort, I know a few who would fight. Taiwan would almost certainly lose that war (OK, it certainly would without assistance), but not until horrific carnage was racked up. The death toll, the economic costs (especially in the tech industry, seeing as Taiwan is one of the core pillars of semiconductor technology, OEM products and more), and the political strife it would cause in East Asia is something the US can't possibly accept or justify. That alone should be enough to realize why Kane's idea goes beyond idiotic and into the "I'm just an idiot trying to stir up controversy" territory.

Plus, well, think about it: America not only can't afford to police the world for democracy, but also I'm not nearly convinced that the USA as a nation has the moral compass to be able to do so effectively. We can't go sending the military around the world to force democracy on people (as much as I am a fan of democracy). Taiwan isn't like that - it takes very little effort for a fairly big payoff. And while we can't force democracy on countries like China, we shouldn't go in the other direction and sell out functioning democracies like Taiwan to autocratic, corrupt states like China. We can't force democracy, but we shouldn't be taking actions that actively dismember it. Selling Taiwan out to China would do just that.

He says somewhere in the piece that people will think his idea is crazy and unworkable.

Well, DUH. Because it IS.

And with that, I've already wasted too much time on this worthless piece of tripe. I'm going to go find more funny pictures of AIDS brochures.

Comparative Politics 101

So the US government won't be shut down after all - which is a good thing, I guess, when it comes to museums, parks, federal workers, federally-backed mortgage approvals and government services for the poor and elderly. Allowing it to be shut down would have also had some upsides, and I'm not entirely sure it wasn't a good idea to just let it happen (for once, I agree with Eliot Spitzer!) and what we've got is a country where liberal social principles are triumphing, but Republican (I can't say conservative - it's not, really) financial ideas are sharing that winner's circle.

This brings about an interesting little eddy in the writhing tides of comparative politics.

Before we found out that there would be no shutdown, I mentioned it to a student. She was taken aback - positively horrified - by the idea that a government would go so far as to not reauthorize spending to maintain itself.

"I thought that American politics was more mature than Taiwanese politics, and these things don't happen in America," she said.

"Yeah, well, that's not true. We're just as immature politically as the DPP and KMT. The arguments and divisions are different but the rhetoric is the same. The only thing that separates the Legislative Yuan from the Senate is that American Senators don't beat each other up..." (Which, actually, I'm not sure is historically true). "...although sometimes I think they should."

And it is absolutely true. For all the complaining that you hear about politics in Taiwan and how it's too rough, immature, pointless, boastful and full of empty rhetoric and political game-playing over serious investments in improving the country - honestly, you'd think that that was only a problem in Taiwan. It's not. We're just as bad, if not worse. I mean, is there a Taiwanese Sarah Palin? Although, for all his wishy-washiness, Obama is a better and more centrist leader than Ma.

Both countries are deeply divided over social and economic issues, and both of those divides follow cultural lines (in the USA it's generally regional and is in some way related to religion; in Taiwan it's mostly about who immigrated when). The words are different and the issues are different, but the BS is the same.

So.

A lot of people like to boast that they are "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". This is apparently something that many people are proud of, and they think it makes them somehow more sensible than either party. I am not fiscally conservative - while I'm not in favor of debt, cutting government programs that many needy people rely on is not the way to go about reducing it. Lowering tax rates for the wealthy and corporations is definitely not OK - I'm sorry but supply side, Libertarian and trickle-down economics do not work. We've been through this. We talked about this in the late '80s and '90s. We agreed. Doesn't work. Money spent on social programs for the poor, elderly and unemployed put more money back into the economy than money spent giving breaks to wealthy people. So, America, WTF?).

I do believe that a time of recession and high unemployment is not the time to slash spending. I do believe that the spending the government has agreed to cut isn't the spending that really matters, and isn't the right thing to be cutting. I do believe that Obama should have called the Republicans' bluff.

I am happy that liberal values are winning out in the USA (because they're right, natch) and that for the first time in awhile, the Democrats actually stood up for women's rights and refused to allow the de-funding of Planned Parenthood.

I am not happy, though, that conservative fiscal values, at this time, are winning - and that they're cutting the wrong things and lowering taxes for the wrong people.

So yes, we might be basically just like Taiwan except we don't slap each other, but really, someone should just take Boehner and rough him up a bit, Taiwanese-legislature style.

Playing Chicken

I almost always vote Democratic (nowhere I've lived has had a Republican nominee I'd vote for - though I think that even though I am more liberal than most liberals, that I'd vote for a good, socially liberal Republican if one came along in my voting jurisdiction who clearly deserved my support).

But, I agree with this article. Completely. I vote Democrat because, as a woman who is consciously and actively aware of and in support of the struggle for women's rights and equality (true rights and true equality, in society as well as under the law - something that's definitely better for American women than most other women in the world, but could still stand to improve), I'm still consistently disappointed with the Democrats' fight for women's rights. I don't take my support away because the other choices are to vote Republican - which I really can't do when it comes down to the candidates I've had to choose from so far - or not vote. I could and would be an activist if I lived in the USA, but other than blustering on the Internet there's not much to be done from Taiwan. But still. What is up with the Democratic party? As the article states, they're chicken.

We're chicken.

I'm chicken, for continuing to vote "in support of" these measures...though I feel like I was forced into that role.

Why is that?

I feel like it's a massive Prisoner's Dilemma (sort of) for 51% of the population. Seriously, 51% and we can't even keep our rights safe? What's up with that? I'd love to see every likeminded woman in America suddenly turn activist, and what's more, refuse to vote for any candidate who does not support - in full, no chicken - our rights. I know that sounds extreme but it seems like that's what it's going to take. And yet nobody's willing to stand up and start taking that risk, not knowing if refusing to vote in favor of cowardly politicians of both genders.

And it's frustrating. To be pushed down that road. To have to choose between compliance and extreme, crazy left-wing action, and to know that those who would like to see our rights taken away know we won't go to that extreme.

Frustrating...and sad.

Oh say can you see...

...by the dawn's early light...

...hundreds of expats, hungover from last night.

So I work in Taipei 101 twice a week. In between classes I tend to hang out at the Starbucks in the lobby if I'm not hungry enough to go to the mall and eat. This gives me a killer vantage point from which to observe the comings-and-goings of Taiwan expats who work in business.

What did I see late this morning?

1.) A line at Starbucks, and for once the majority of customers weren't Taiwanese office folks gearing up for yet another 12 hour workday. Peppered between them were slack-faced yet smiling foreigners with stars in their eyes and dark circles under them.

2.) Other expats - the older ones - looking somewhat downtrodden, probably because their man had been cast aside like an old lion (thanks, Christopher Hitchens) about to be retired from slashing gladiators.

3.) Taiwanese office workers sitting in said Starbucks talking about foreigners ("How strange," one young girl in a purple suit and eye glitter with the telltale ID tag dangling from her neck, "they elect a black man and then they all go get drunk. Nobody's doing any work today! Foreigners! I just don't get it.")

4.) More expats, the happy ones, wandering around like sleep-deprived zombies, occasionally shuffling down to Watson's for more Panadol, silently commiserating about their massive collective hangover.

I was one of the hungover ones. Still am, at 10pm the next night. At least it's a good hangover; the Belgian beer kind, not the nasty Chinese chemical beer kind. We stayed at Red House pub in Shida until it closed, talking, laughing, hoping, drinking and singing the national anthem. Red House was otherwise quiet - we wanted a gathering of friends, not a liberal, libertine throng. The party was going on much louder at Jr. Cafe, Carnegie's and The Brass Monkey, but the only one of those places I actually like is Jr. Cafe and still didn't really feel like dealing with it.

I like my Presidents...

...well, the fine folks (folk, I guess) down at Octopus Pie said it far better than I could.

Totally worth the hangover. And when will I learn that just because we're celebrating (what I hope is) a new era, that doesn't mean four Belgian beers are somehow less potent. Ow.

It's good to be a citizen of a country in which we now take it for granted that anyone, from any background, can rise to the rank of President of the United States. Good on us for not being assholes, for once.

The Youth Vote, Not I

Since I've moved to Taiwan, nobody but the Arlington Democrats has sent me any campaign literature or made any attempt to court my vote. So all I ever got in the mail was an absentee ballot and a stodgy envelope full of pictures of old guys (there were a few women in there, too, but not many...not enough) telling me to vote for Jim Moran, Mark Warner and Barack Obama, as well as two or three other people I've never heard of because I'm so distanced from local politics.

Then I read this Washington Post article on getting out the youth vote and the realization hits me.

I'm no longer "the youth vote".

I get thick mailings from stuffed suits, not messages on Facebook. I get campaign news from The Washington Post, not from text messages and blogs.

Damn. Not even 30 and I feel ancient.

More on "Red Asia, Blue Europe"

...or was it Blue Europe, Red Asia?

Whatever.

This Global Electoral College poll from the Economist proves my earlier point...there is no Red Asia. Governments might lean towards McCain, but the people do not.

It's not a very scientific poll...it can really only be taken by people who cared enough go read The Economist online. But it does indicate...well...something.

Notice that Taiwan is specifically a "country" in the selection. Go Economist! Jia you, baby.

The world - be it Europe, Asia, or anywhere else, does not want a McCain presidency. That's kind of funny (and unfortunate for McCain) given his deep knowledge of foreign policy. I deeply dislike the man's platforms, but you can't deny that on world affairs he knows his shiznit.

I am surprised that so much of Africa is "red". I realize that Obama is specifically Kenyan and specifically of the Kenyan Luo people, but you'd think there would be some solidarity. Most African Americans are of West African, not Kenyan or eastern, descent and yet are still mostly pro-Obama.

Oh well. Goes to show that you never know, and I am admittedly quite uneducated about African affairs.

"Blue Europe, Red Asia"? Methinks not.

This stunning piece of tripe appeared in the Taipei Times today:

Blue Europe, Red Asia

...and I am agog with...well, not just with surprise at the inaccuracy, but with the generality of it, the lack of attention to detail in the overall assessment, and with then supporting those generalizations (when dealing with entire continents one has to be general, fair enough) with precious little evidence.

Anecdotally, it's pretty clear to me that Asians do not, in fact, generally support McCain. Looking at Taiwan, despite the fact that there is a line of argument saying that McCain would be better for Taiwan (something I disagree with, but hey, I covered that in a previous post) the general public consensus is that Obama is the better candidate.

At least when the author discusses China, she uses the term "may very likely" - as in she may very likely not have enough research and is basing that assertion on conjecture. The Chinese people hated Bush - this was all too evident during my time in China, and not just anecdotally. Many now seem to see McCain as an extension of Bush. Whether he is or is not is not worth getting into just now (I think he is, but that's a personal opinion).

I've spent quite a bit of time in India and keep in touch with plenty of people there. This is again anecdotal, but so far the questions I've asked my desi friends about the general consensus of the Indian populace - if there can ever be such a thing - is that Obama is far and away the better candidate.

Of course, surveys awhile back on the Indonesian opinion of Obama held him in favorable regard, and that does not seem to have changed.

So where are these "Red Asians" who lean towards McCain for all of the reasons listed in the article (a preference for traditional security measures, traditional US involvement, and being able to snatch the "mantle of hope" from the USA should McCain be elected)? I certainly don't know any of them. I'm sure they're out there - Asia's big, in case you haven't noticed - but the generalities expressed in this article seem questionable at best, blatantly false at worst....rather like the assertion that McCain will be better for Taiwan just because the party platform language contains more wording about Taiwan. Very shaky indeed.

I won't address Japan - I know precious little on Japanese foreign policy and public consensus so have nothing to add there.

Moisi may have a point that there are governments out there who favor McCain. I could see the Chinese government doing so, though I don't know for sure (I'm not sure anyone really knows for sure; can one really trust anything the Chinese government says about its policies, actions, alliances or...frankly, anything at all?)...I'm less convinced about India. I could go into detail as to why, but this is a blog on Taiwan so I would rather not devote the space to it here.

But the people? Sorry honey...but no. It doesn't seem as though Dominique Moisi has even been to Asia, or she'd have a much better general idea about how people feel here. Even then, it would only be very, very general.

This, however, is brilliant. Very wordy and dense article on alternatives that Asian institutions have at saving their financial markets in lieu of the bank bailouts currently in vogue in G7 countries. Quite intelligent and I have nothing to add lest I sound like an uneducated boor. [name drop] Plus I know the guy who wrote it, and he's a smart fella. [/name drop]