Farewell, 2008

Time flies,
But I will remember.

love thy neighbour

When a friend of mine asked me to write something about Christmas in China, my first reaction was how I should write. Do I have any special feelings about the day? If there is no such a request, this Christmas might be passed as usual, just like a holiday in which people naturally do traditional things, such as family gathering, exchanging gifts, enjoying the festive time of the year end.

Probably it's also the time to ruminate something special about the past year and to plan something new for the coming year. At least the first idea appeared in my mind about the writing was about a kind annual review of current affairs, so when I was told of some strange commercial promotions appeared in this Christmas season in Beijing, such as decorating a Christmas tree with a Mini Cooper car model as a kind of advertisement, I realized it's the problem of commercializing Christmas.

Looking around, one might find an awful lot of evidences that Christmas in China, especially in the cities like Beijing, Shanghai or Guangzhou, has been largely commercialized. Shopping centers, coffee shops, and book stores are full of joyful Christmas atmosphere. Indeed, a lot of young people are simply seeking fun and pleasure in this festive season, as the Christmas day probably is just an excuse in their daily life, to enjoy, or even to indulge a bit in some extravaganza, like having a luxurious dinner, or a wild party.

But some friends have also told me that a lot of church-goers are seriously treating it as a religious holiday, and they may seek the peace of mind by attending activities in various churches or at their homes.

So, basically we have two kinds of celebrators for this special day, one is the pleasure seeker, and another is the soul searcher. In between, there are a lot of people go neither side of the spectrum, just passing it by as an usual day.

I'm not a Christian, and I once enjoyed Christmas abroad with some foreign friends. The celebration seems to me more like a family gathering, where we shared and enjoyed pleasant time. Fleeting and impermanent as it might be at the superficial level, the sweetness and lightness of those moments has entered into my memory, which in turn reminds me of their existence each year in this season, so does the people I have encountered, acquainted and befriended in my life.

Yesterday, when I mentioned to a friend of mine in my greetings that I was to do some small giving job on the Christmas day, he said it's very Christian. I understand perfectly why he thought so, even though I'm not a Christian. Probably it's because of the date. But does it matter, to be Christian or not in this sense? Isn't the true spirit in being a Christian means 'love your neighbour', which one can easily find the similar sayings in other religions.

Can we say that as long as one's act embodies such a spirit, it doesn't matter whether one is called a Christian, a Muslim, or a Buddhist? Tolerance has been promoted in the secular multiculturalism. Perhaps it's time to promote toleration in various beliefs and religious practices, as long as the central spiritual pillar - ' love your neighbour' is identified in various religious practices.

In an interview with Spiegel, Rabbi Yona Metzger mentioned that his dream is to create an United Religious Nations, which will not only include Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, but also Hinduism and Buddhism. Grand plan indeed, and it's not difficult to understand his benevolent intention. This idea of the holy unity binding together various religions and the totality of the spirit of all human beings are very attractive, and perhaps it is the highest level of the human being's evolution.

As Rabbi Yona Metzger says, religious people speaks the same language. This same language, if one thinks about it, probably is more or less centred around 'love-your-neighbour', with which religious concord might be achieved. Such an ideal has been held by more and more people; but nowadays, its prospect of being realized is still located somewhere beyond the horizon of human being.

To be religious does not necessarily mean that one has to believe in a certain kind of religion, since belonging to a group of people unavoidably raises up the problem of 'Self' and 'Other', therefore it can cause all sorts of conflicts, discrimination, prejudice, and identity politics, which will hinder the formation of total spirit of all human kind - the communion that which would only emerge from the real religious concord. In this sense, humanity as a word can be treated as the signifier for the religious concord as well, so long as it reflects the spirit of 'love-your-neighbour'.

Excessive commercialization of Christmas has been considered by some observers as a vile symptom of contemporary society. Perhaps there is no more typical resentment against such a commercial mood of Christmas than the one made by atheist Richard Dawkins. In a review appeared two years ago in NYT, regarding his book the God Delusion and his attitude toward Christmas, Dawkins stated that,

'Christmas has long since ceased to be a religious festival. I participate for family reasons, with a reluctance that owes more to aesthetics than atheistics. I detest Jingle Bells, White Christmas, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, and the obscene spending bonanza that nowadays seems to occupy not just December, but November and much of October, too. So divorced has Christmas become from religion that I find no necessity to bother with euphemisms such as happy holiday season. In the same way as many of my friends call themselves Jewish atheists, I acknowledge that I come from Christian cultural roots. I am a post-Christian atheist. So, understanding full well that the phrase retains zero religious significance, I unhesitatingly wish everyone a Merry Christmas.'

Very fine reasoning. I have no doubt that Dawkins has been enlightened as an excellent rational intellectual, and I still remember how I enjoyed reading his Selfish Gene several years ago to defend my atheistic standpoint. Its scientific reasoning is so powerful, that any fantasies of social benevolence might be traversed as a kind of self-gratification.

However, I have started to doubt whether or not such a pure reasoning can answer all needs of human being? There are some historical lessons regarding the promise of the Enlightenment in the period of Romanticism, from which one can tell that the notion of the general individuality of various societies or various states are still partial and the sacrifice of particular individuality thus called for in the name of the general individuality is problematic.

After nearly 200 years, and with so many bloody lessons we have learned, this problem of human being is still there and hasn't been solved. The interdisciplinary study of neuroscience and religious practices has tried its best to decipher the myth of individual enlightenment in a brave new world, but the result is also unclear. For this reason we have to accept the fact that the promise of the Enlightenment is yet to be fulfilled, largely because its initial emphasis on the autonomy of an individual as a rational being is partial, and the fact that in human nature people also has blind passion for communion at various levels can not be ignored.

There is a suggestion that such an irrational aspect of human nature can only be completely civilized if one dedicates oneself to a religious life. So the problem is how such a dedication of personal choice can co-habit peacefully with the secularized social norm. If it's externalized in the public sphere prematurely without the establishment of the religious concord, conflicts between different groups are quite likely to occur.

Therefore, the first principle, I think, for the realization of such a religious concord is that any voluntary religious organizations should not interfere with the issues that which belong to the secularised society, such as obtaining and executing the governing power of people, and any activities of those organizations should follow the principle of the rule of law in a secularised society. Under such a condition, religious people should have their own rights and freedom to enjoy their religious life, no matter what kind of form it is.

In another words, religious organizations under the unifying band of 'love you neighbour' should be always on guard against any temptation of stepping into the power struggle in the secularized society since any form of power struggle unavoidably manifests the Self, which will contaminate the spirit of 'love your neighbour'.

Theoretically, such a self-negation is a must to achieve the spiritual totality of human being, but in reality it is basically impossible to realize since that element of blind passion in human nature can not be eliminated completely, and the history has already manifested how disastrous and tragic the life could be if there is an exterior force to impose such a mandate to the ordinary people in the name of God, or some unfathomable higher orders.

One might argue that it will make a religious person extremely weak. Yes, paradoxically and individually it seems to be so, and it underlies the very meaning of the sacrifice and of being religious, that is, the true belief in 'love your neighbour'. But if every religious person holds this principle dearly, the spirit thus formed in their communion will be very powerful in-its-self.

This choicelessly formed spiritual power shall be the true manifestation of the holy unity of human kind.

mental regression to the Middle Age

Some European leaders who are using Dalai Lama as a kind of political leverage haven't realized that from the perspective of the Enlightenment, his political vision as a religious leader is against the core values of secularization in European/western civilization, as the power game he is in should be treated separately from other concerns about ordinary Tibetan people. 

Is Dalai Lama willing to give up his prestigious religious leadership in entering the sphere of political power structure? I doubt so. As far as I know, among Tibetan Buddhists, which are segregated roughly into four sections, Dalai Lama belongs only to one section. In fact, the way he interferes with the religious life of other sections have caused internal tension and conflicts among TIbetan Bhuddhists. Such a fact is hardly exposed by the western media, which shows either ignorance of current state of Tibetan religious life, or collusion of treating him as a proxy to level against Chinese government.

Some observers have suggested the similarity of Dalai Lama's struggle with the case of Northern Ireland, which I don't think it's valid exactly because of Dalai Lama's identity. Instead of being nudged into a certain mode of thinking unconsciously, one should ask where Dalai Lama's popularity is from. Is it from soothing religious statements as a religious figure that which meet the spiritual needs of ordinary people, or from a politician who is eyeing for the secularized power, or from a representative speaking on behalf of Tibetan people in the name of human rights and liberty?

It's the second aspect of the above-mentioned three facets that Dalai Lama have goes against the principle of the secularism, and for those who have followed him closely, one might have noticed that he's very skillful in addressing those different appeals to different audiences. In another words, he knows what his audiences want to hear under different circumstances, be they politicians, religious practitioners, or ordinary people who want to be enlightened spiritually. 

Isn't his mythic and affectionate aura that has attracted many overseas followers from his own contradictory identity that he is both a 'spiritual leader' speaking nicely on human issues and a 'political leader' fighting for those being repressed and asking for governing power? If Levi Strauss was still alive today, he probably would point out that Dalai Lama is actually a myth created by the post-ideological society.  

No wonder those members of European Parliament would be excited when they are greeted by his congenial smile and witty remarks, which makes what's going on around him in Europe now looks rather like a political farce. One might argue that at the very moment he's greeted with an unanimous applause there, his charming manner as a religious practitioner has conquered parliamentary members. What he said is very simple and plain, and nothing special to those sophisticated politicians of modern world; his persona and his very presence there count as a symbol to satisfy the fantasy of political struggle. 

Struggle? You must be joking. It's very easy for those of us in a secularised society to forget the fact that the prestigious leadership currently he is enjoying as a 'spiritual leader' is granted by the reincarnation system of the Tibetan Buddhism. He probably will reform this system, but that's only the future prospect. 

This is a kind of mental regression to the Middle Age, isn't it? Because he is so different, he must have brought a rare fresh air to the stuffy parliamentary building in Brussels, which is full of endless and lengthy debates in a politically disengaged society largely at the mass level. 

So far, there is no dogmatic political journalists who would follow his statements in various occasions like those in the US do, that any inconsistent views of a prominent political figure would be highlighted to the public. If so, I guess the general impression would be quite different.

But this does not mean that there is no way to look into this murky situation. Instead of being confused by all those extrapolations that have so far appeared in the public sphere, one should stick to the identity issue of Dalai Lama himself from a firmly secularized standpoint, the quilting point that seems to hold everything now regarding Tibetan issues; unless, of course, the coordinates are changed.  

By promoting the very idea that Dalai Lama as a equivalent party Chinese government should deal with on Tibetan governance, which falls into the problem of secularism I mentioned above, European leaders have implicitly endorsed his unique representativeness, which not only reveals their partial understanding of Tibetan religious life, but also betrays their self-centred approach in recognizing the unity of China. This is the true test of the Sino-EU strategic partnership.

However, that is still not a fundamental issue about Dalai Lama. By supporting Dalai Lama regarding the governance of Tibet, European leaders would also give a implausible signal that they are promoting theocracy, which can not be accepted among those progressives. I've found that some European pundits and politicians have ignored this aspect, perhaps because their memories of the Enlightenment movement that is originated from the Europe in the Middle Age are faded, or they are not willing to confront and to reflect, because of the prevailing sentiment about China in the European public sphere. 

The standard argument that Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC) might be more radical to handle if there is no breakthrough in the dialogue when DL is still alive has its own merit, but those countries who silently allow those ethnic Tibetan people, who can speak fluent English, to organize political gatherings and obtain donations from different channels for their radical political activities in doing something against a sovereign country should be held accountable as well. This is similar to the internationally co-ordinated anti-terror strategy. 

Keynes' grandchildren

In 1930, Keynes wrote a graceful essay on 'Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren', in which he envisioned more gentle and soften human hearts free from problems of economic necessity.

Four things in Keynes' eyes are necessary to be governed in order to reach such a economic bliss, namely, 'our power to control population, our determination to avoid wars and civil dissensions, our willingness to entrust to science the direction of those matters which are properly the concern of science, and the rate of accumulation as fixed by the margin between our production and our consumption'.

For all those four factors, Keynes optimistically thought that 'the last will easily look after itself, given the first three'; however, none of the first three have achieved good track records globally since then. Alas, Keynes must have been appalled by the financial turmoil and the prospect of unprecedented recession we, as grandchildren of his generation, are facing now.

In retrospect, Keynes' advice to President Roosevelt is to invest on public projects, although it will increase the budget deficit. However, Keynes's idea is that balanced budgets are stupid during recessions. Since incomes fall, government collects less in taxes. If the government is conservative to maintain the balanced budget, it must either cut spending or raise taxes, which will squeeze the economy further by the multiplier process.

What kind of solutions Keynes would give to current problems that President-elect Obama is facing? It's not so hard to guess as we have a Keynesian economist Paul Krugman. While advocating aggressive measures that Obama team should take on the fiscal expansion, Krugman highlights some misreadings of FDR's New Deal to clarify confusions that might have scaled down the scope of the stimulus plan that is likely to be adopted by Obama.

One potential hazardous measure is increasing tax while proceeding the public spending in an effort to balance the budget. Krugman points out that this is what FDR did after his winning of the election in 1936, which nearly destroyed his legacy. The poor economic performance directly led to a defeat in the 1938 midterm election, and the real stimulus for the American economy is WWII, which provides enormous public projects adequate to the economy's need.

More specifically, the problem of the American economy in 1930s was the so-called under-utilization (Paul Kennedy), a phenomenon of high productivity with high jobless rate. Because of the depressed demand, the New Deal were insufficient to stimulate the economy. Only when the huge rearmament programs started, the problem of under-utilization was corrected.

The historical lesson of FDR for the Obama's administration, as Krugman argues, is that if Democrats won't deliver economic recovery, they might be defeated in the 2010 midterm election as what FDR encountered in 1938. Krugman suggests that the new administration should not be prudent on the public spending scheme; too much stimulus is better than too little in the time of recessions.

This advice, interestingly, fits well with Chinese economic stimulus package, totalling 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) over two years, announced this week. Characteristically, it'll be implemented fast, without being scrutinized by the congress like what US did. So the timing effect might be positive. Although there are some suspicions about how much of the total is actually the new investment, the action swiftly taken by the state council of China in fact has enhanced the government purchasing power, which opens window for more import and has significant global implication.

Krugman's view is more or less from the domestic standpoint, but Jeffrey Sach's point has global perspective. Based on the fact that US has huge foreign deficit, roughly 700 billion annually, Sach argues that it can't sustain. The suggestion he gives is to stimulate American export and increase domestic investment. His advice is more from the perspective of global economy, as both China and Japan are in the position to expand domestic demand, which has potential to increase the import from US if the mutually benevolent political will could be established.

In the end of his essay, Keynes wrote: 'do not let us overestimate the importance of the economic problem, or sacrifice to its supposed necessities other matters of greater and more permanent significance'.

After nearly eight decades, it's still resounding.

the power of democracy

Speech by President-Elect Barack Obama-as prepared for delivery Election Night Tuesday, November 4th, 2008, Chicago, Illinois:

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference. It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It's the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day. It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he's fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead. I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation's next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House. And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure. To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics - you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to - it belongs to you. I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington - it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth.

This is your victory.

I know you didn't do this just to win an election and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us.

There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.

I promise you - we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.

It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers - in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.

As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, "We are not enemies, but friends...though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection." And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world - our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.

To those who would tear this world down - we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security - we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright - tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

For that is the true genius of America - that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing - Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin. And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot.

Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose.

Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved.

Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome."

Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change.

Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call.

This is our moment.

This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes We Can.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.


Republican John McCain's concession speech Tuesday in Phoenix, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions:

Thank you. Thank you, my friends. Thank you for coming here on this beautiful Arizona evening. My friends, we have — we have come to the end of a long journey. The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly.

A little while ago, I had the honor of calling Senator Barack Obama to congratulate him. To congratulate him on being elected the next president of the country that we both love.
In a contest as long and difficult as this campaign has been, his success alone commands my respect for his ability and perseverance. But that he managed to do so by inspiring the hopes of so many millions of Americans who had once wrongly believed that they had little at stake or little influence in the election of an American president is something I deeply admire and commend him for achieving.

This is an historic election, and I recognize the special significance it has for African-Americans and for the special pride that must be theirs tonight.

I've always believed that America offers opportunities to all who have the industry and will to seize it. Senator Obama believes that, too.

But we both recognize that, though we have come a long way from the old injustices that once stained our nation's reputation and denied some Americans the full blessings of American citizenship, the memory of them still had the power to wound.

A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt's invitation of Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage in many quarters.

America today is a world away from the cruel and frightful bigotry of that time. There is no better evidence of this than the election of an African-American to the presidency of the United States.

Let there be no reason now ... Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth.

Senator Obama has achieved a great thing for himself and for his country. I applaud him for it, and offer him my sincere sympathy that his beloved grandmother did not live to see this day. Though our faith assures us she is at rest in the presence of her creator and so very proud of the good man she helped raise.

Senator Obama and I have had and argued our differences, and he has prevailed. No doubt many of those differences remain.

These are difficult times for our country. And I pledge to him tonight to do all in my power to help him lead us through the many challenges we face.

I urge all Americans ... I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited.

Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that.

It is natural. It's natural, tonight, to feel some disappointment. But tomorrow, we must move beyond it and work together to get our country moving again.

We fought — we fought as hard as we could. And though we feel short, the failure is mine, not yours.

I am so deeply grateful to all of you for the great honor of your support and for all you have done for me. I wish the outcome had been different, my friends.

The road was a difficult one from the outset, but your support and friendship never wavered. I cannot adequately express how deeply indebted I am to you.

I'm especially grateful to my wife, Cindy, my children, my dear mother ... my dear mother and all my family, and to the many old and dear friends who have stood by my side through the many ups and downs of this long campaign.

I have always been a fortunate man, and never more so for the love and encouragement you have given me.

You know, campaigns are often harder on a candidate's family than on the candidate, and that's been true in this campaign.

All I can offer in compensation is my love and gratitude and the promise of more peaceful years ahead.

I am also — I am also, of course, very thankful to Governor Sarah Palin, one of the best campaigners I've ever seen ... one of the best campaigners I have ever seen, and an impressive new voice in our party for reform and the principles that have always been our greatest strength ... her husband Todd and their five beautiful children ... for their tireless dedication to our cause, and the courage and grace they showed in the rough and tumble of a presidential campaign.

We can all look forward with great interest to her future service to Alaska, the Republican Party and our country.

To all my campaign comrades, from Rick Davis and Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter, to every last volunteer who fought so hard and valiantly, month after month, in what at times seemed to be the most challenged campaign in modern times, thank you so much. A lost election will never mean more to me than the privilege of your faith and friendship.

I don't know — I don't know what more we could have done to try to win this election. I'll leave that to others to determine. Every candidate makes mistakes, and I'm sure I made my share of them. But I won't spend a moment of the future regretting what might have been.
This campaign was and will remain the great honor of my life, and my heart is filled with nothing but gratitude for the experience and to the American people for giving me a fair hearing before deciding that Senator Obama and my old friend Senator Joe Biden should have the honor of leading us for the next four years.

I would not — I would not be an American worthy of the name should I regret a fate that has allowed me the extraordinary privilege of serving this country for a half a century.
Today, I was a candidate for the highest office in the country I love so much. And tonight, I remain her servant. That is blessing enough for anyone, and I thank the people of Arizona for it.

Tonight — tonight, more than any night, I hold in my heart nothing but love for this country and for all its citizens, whether they supported me or Senator Obama — whether they supported me or Senator Obama.

I wish Godspeed to the man who was my former opponent and will be my president. And I call on all Americans, as I have often in this campaign, to not despair of our present difficulties, but to believe, always, in the promise and greatness of America, because nothing is inevitable here.

Americans never quit. We never surrender.

We never hide from history. We make history.

Thank you, and God bless you, and God bless America. Thank you all very much.

Revisiting 'One World, One Dream'

James Fallows comes back. In a more thorough way, the latest piece in the Atlantic about the post-Olympics China points out some paradoxes that are typical in contemporary China. 

The general public opinion in China seems to be very different from the one outside of China that 'according to a report last year by Joshua Cooper Ramo of Kissinger Associates, most people in China considered their country very “trustworthy.” Most people outside China thought the country was not trustworthy at all'. 

Knowing this fact would make the slogan 'one world, one dream' sound naive.  The problem is whether Chinese leaders know this situation. Fallows thinks that 'the closer Chinese officials are to centers of political power, the less they know what they don’t know about the world.' 

Is that so? Look at Premier Wen's interview with the Newsweek, issues such as Tibet and the Dalai Lama, human rights and democracy can be talked frankly. The matter is how such an openness to the West can be represented in a broader way and synchronized in China, say, by officialdom in China to the ordinary people.   

Here is another paradox, or the mismatch between the image that Chinese top leaders want to project to the outside world as a progressive and harmonious society, and the reality of what China really is in the eyes of some outside observers. The gap between what China wants to be and what China really is has become particularly prominent. While the government desperately tried to do all sorts of PRs and take preemptive measures to achieve an ideal and positive image of China, it has encountered the most dramatic antithetical event - the milk scandal.  

Truth about what China really is lies somewhere beyond such a paradoxy. Sometimes we need another big event that involves both sides to provide a proper lens to see it clearly. It would be amazing in historical eyes that within just two months the world has witnessed three big events, namely the Beijing Olympics, the Russian-Georgian conflicts and the global financial crisis, that probably would mark the dawn of the new era of global governance. 

If the dichotomy thinking of the West and the Other was fashionable for what's happened in Beijing and Moscow, the latest financial crisis looks like an antithesis to such a mindset, for it's been generally agreed that the world needs to work together to tackle down the problem. 

Are the national interventions across the board of the West not historical necessity? Isn't such a kind of socialization in the post-industrialized countries of the West realized naturally in the discourse of history? Such a development certainly is at the vanguard of the historical movement that no historical lessons so far can one refer to, which means, the socialized policies that the West have adopted are not the historical regression but completely new. 

It is in vain to use any adjective to define capitalism being caught in this financial turmoil and remedial measures thus taken to save it from collapsing as 'true capitalism' or 'honest capitalism' like what Judy Shelton tries to define in a reactionary 'A Capitalist Manifesto'  , or Simon Jenkins' unsolicited defense against 'the End of Capitalism'. Those ideological tainted words all fail to capture the essence of this new trend as it's still too early to make a judgement. 

Probably, this financial crisis will be like a catharsis to enable either the left and the right, or the West and the Non-west to become more inwardly reflective and to concentrate more firmly on its internal self problems. Finally, China adopts a new rural policy to unleash its potential, and to some extent, empower peasants to achieve equal social status as those city dwellers. What kind of changes it will bring is still too early to say, but it will certainly be one of the keys to win the trust from the outside world. 

Run, Money Making Machine, Run!

What does that really mean when governments across the the Eurozone countries, following the suite of UK, consecutively guarantee to backup those ailing banks to provide huge amount of money, even unlimited, to maintain necessary liquidity?

It is a coordinated remedial action indeed, and the market responds positively. Relieved? Hold on for a while, where this huge amount money comes from? Money can create itself, or governments suddenly know how to play gimmick? Never mind those blank cheques, as long as the confidence is restored, the pressure can at least be reduced a bit, otherwise it will be reaching at an unbearable level.

Actually, this kind of coordinated measures is gambling on the presupposition that no banks in reality would encounter the worst scenario, that is, they would really require governments to fulfill their promises to provide tons of money in one shot. If that happened, money printing machines would be very busy, and high inflation would be unavoidable. The issue is to set the confidence in motion, pulling the financial institutions out of this fearsome dead end and entering into a benevolent circle.

Formally, it's a risky decision again, in a much larger scope at the national and international level far beyond financial sector. It is also a forced free choice par excellence as well for Eurozone countries, and those who have guts to take a lead will have more power to set the tune for the future. In this latest round of competition, UK's Brown government does stand out and has played the leading role in presenting what seems to be a more feasible solution to the crisis.

Now, the market initial reaction seems positive that the worst scenario looming at the horizon has been temporarily contained. Human nature triumphs. Put your finger crossed though, as the price of filling in this credit black hole promised by those governments will be born by everyone in this world in a more subtle and invisible way.

Admittedly to most of us, such a prospect is less painful in reality than a sudden collapse of the ailing system. However, if it works, restructuring the ailing financial system may well be dragged into a lengthy debate internationally, and any radical changes may not come so soon.

Better die slowly than a sudden fatal heart attack, you bet!

Obey, but think hard!

(Illustration: the existing US National Debt Clock installed near Times Square in New York has exceeded its limit to accommodate the figure more than 10 trillion dollar on the 7th of October, 2008. As a temporary treatment, the dollar sign has to be squeezed to put additional figure '1' and the new one which can display quadrillion figure will be installed next year. The Debt Clock was installed in 1989 when the national debt of the US was about 2.7 trillion. At present, with the population of about 305 million, the average debt that each American bears has reached $34,000.00.)

A bit surprise to see Slavoj Zizek's latest writing on the financial turmoil and its implication appeared in a French mainstream newspaper. It's a translated version, and I guess the original English one has encountered some difficulties to be published in US, as it has somehow touched the hard kernel of the problem that most commentators that have appealed for fair play are either quite ambiguous on the fundamental issue of progressive values or avoiding being too political or radical in their argument.

The problem that Zizek has identified lies in the overlap of the left view and some conservative republicans', as both of them are against the rescue plan and they share disdainful feeling for those big CEOs and speculators in Wall Street who are protected by ludicrous golden parachutes while leaving disasters of their risky decisions to ordinary people that have been dragged into mortgage nightmare.

What the left like Michael Moore denounced-the rescue plan as the looting of the century is to fix up the problems of ailing financial institutions that virtually serve the interests of the rich and the powerful, so what seems to be a socialist's measure of 700 billion bailout plan indeed helps little the poor people. However, since the prosperity of Main Street can not be sustained if Wall Street goes wrong, state intervention is indeed necessary.

In an English version that has appeared on LRB, Zizek presents another notion - 'trickle-down'.

'The standard ‘trickle-down’ argument against redistribution (through progressive taxation etc) is that instead of making the poor richer, it makes the rich poorer. However, this apparently anti-interventionist attitude actually contains an argument for the current state intervention: although we all want the poor to get better, it is counter-productive to help them directly, since they are not the dynamic and productive element; the only intervention needed is to help the rich get richer, and then the profits will automatically spread down to the poor. Throw enough money at Wall Street, and it will eventually trickle down to Main Street. If you want people to have money to build, don’t give it to them directly, help those who are lending it to them. This is the only way to create genuine prosperity – otherwise, the state is merely distributing money to the needy at the expense of those who create wealth.'

The English one is ended with US campaign in mind, and the French one is more general, philosophically speaking. Zizek warns that the left leaning Democrats will be inconsistent in political stand if they are in line with the premise of Republican populists that capitalism and the free market economy are a popular, working-class affair, while state interventions are an upper-class strategy to exploit hard-working ordinary people.

Against the illusion that market is neutral, Zizek rightly argues that because of the asymmetric character of risky decision making process and national interests first in dealing with international trade conflicts, any decisions thus made to preserve free market and its operation are political in their nature, therefore we must think which side we should be in. The question is not whether or not the state should intervene, but what kind of intervention it is. In a really political sense, both presidential candidates were struggling to define the conditions for their campaign activities while facing new circumstances.

Here is a much sharper analysis in the English version:

'Politics is precisely the struggle to define the ‘neutral’ terrain, which is why McCain’s proposal to reach across party lines was pure political posturing, a partisan politics in the guise of non-partisanship, a desperate attempt to impose his position as universal-apolitical. What is even worse than ‘partisan politics’ is a partisan politics that tries to mask itself as non-partisan: by imposing itself as the voice of the Whole, such a politics reduces its opponents by making them agents of particular interests.'

Perhaps we all need to think resolutely on how come this society has created such an ailing institution which in turn has blackmailed and played fool with ordinary people.

After the meltdown, what's next?

While some observers are still waiting to see the effect of American government bailout plan, Fukuyama has gone further and voiced out the potential damage of this unprecedented financial turmoil to America's brand, or, soft power. 

In this lengthy essay, Fukuyama outlines the historical contour that has shaped the current financial situation and its impact on America's image. He argues that two central ideas that America have exported to the rest of the world, namely, deregulation with small government, the so-called Reaganism, and shaping prosperous international order by promoting liberal democracy, will be discredited further after this financial turmoil. 

Is Washington concensus dying altogether? In a dialectic way, yes and no. The American model might be improved from now on if its problems can be clearly identified and solved. After all, the Reaganism/Thatcherism that adopted small government, low tax and light regulations as the governance rules has witnessed three decades economic growth, and the emergence of the information and biotech industry as a new driving force behind the development. 

The problem, however, as Fukuyama argues, lies in elevating such a pragmatic approach to the problems of large welfare states into 'an unimpeachable ideology', that is, tax cuts would be self-financing and financial markets could be self-regulating. The faith in these two principles in the context of the globalization has resulted in America's ever expanding deficit and wild innovations of all sorts of derivatives that no one outside of Wall Street can really understand. The life of the rich and powerful is simply beyond the grasp of general people, as the article laments that no writer has ever chronicled the excess of the 21 century in the financial world.

Lack of transparency and too few regulations in the financial sector will only damage trust, 'which can only flourish if governments ensure they are transparent and constrained in the risks they can take with other people's money'. Perhaps, it's time to review his book Trust - the Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity once more. 

Anyway, the effect is accumulative, and actually warning signs appeared as early as the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and 1998. However, the policy to a large extent hasn't been changed, and the reason in Fukuyama's argument is the apolitical nature of less-educated working class in US, which is different from their European counterparts, that there is no relatively firm political stand among American workers means they can easily swing either left or right. Since the economic problems were still not so obvious at the moment that George W. Bush won the election, cultural issues and later on war-on-terror rhetoric plays upper hand.  Thanks to the financial crisis, this time it seems that the tide would finally be turned into the direction favourable to the Democrats.   

Internationally, American image has been tarnished a lot because of Iraq war, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib scandal, Fukuyama has endorsed Obama as a better choice to undertake the task to rebrand America because he seems to be pragmatic and less burdened with the past. In his opinion, America will eventually restore its influence, but whether or not American model will be attractive again depends on how flexible and adaptive it will become to solve the problems in reality. 

Still, it's a view being confined in the national interest mindset. It certainly has the merit of being historically clear. Another side of the story would be complimentary, as Will Hutton appeals for a more idealistic solution in this article, that 'it's time to build a new one based on fairness instead of naked greed.' 

Sounds familiar? On such a difficult and fundamental issue, French pundits are quite straight forward. The battle for a new model of society has begun, as this essay from Le Monde argues. In a structuralist's way, European countries in general, US and China represent three typical models of society. European social democratic model has been characterized by the social market economy and the state welfare system. Because of extremely heavy tax burden to redistribute social wealth (averagely 42% of GDP comparing 28% in Japan, 23% in US and 20% in developing countries), it's running out of steam to maintain national competitive edge in the 21st century. 

This is the backdrop that the right wing in European countries is coming back, which is in contrast with the situation in US. However, the left wing social foundation in Europe is still quite solid that the progressive values such as equality, solidarity and the fight against injustice are still held dearly by a lot of citizens, thus shaping a formidable political force that which is quite different from American ideologically swing working class identified by Fukuyama. 

The change of liberal laissez faire model would be in US after this financial crisis, as more government regulations and nationalizations are on agenda. Meanwhile, China is also trying its best to adapt to the new situation because it's been coupled for a quite long time with US. The financial crisis will either accelerate its decoupling process or enhance its coupling process with US, while it is facing challenges of wealth redistribution to construct a fairer welfare system within its own territory. 

Other than reshaping development models, a new model of global governance is also needed. We have entered a highly dynamic and uncertain time, multi-polar and more interdependent of course, but if it will be a kind of three-legged stool system, as Parag Khanna envisions in this essay remains to be seen.  

    

       

when the wall street becomes the mean street

“This is unique, and the Fed has never done something like this before,” said Allan Meltzer, a professor of economics at Carnegie-Mellon University and author of a sweeping history of the Federal Reserve. “If you go all the way back to 1921, when farms were failing and Congress was leaning on the Fed to bail them out, the Fed always said ‘It’s not our business.’ It never regarded itself as an all-purpose agency.”

The investor of the last resort, that's a new role for the Federal Reserve, NYT's article claims. 

The report says 'the Treasury Department sold tens of billions of dollars of special “supplementary” Treasury bills on Wednesday to provide the Fed with extra cash. The Treasury sold $40 billion of the new securities on Wednesday morning and will sell $60 billion more on Thursday. More money-raising is sure to follow.' 

Who are the buyers of those special supplementary treasury bills? China, or some Middle East countries? Why they are not specified? 

Rosa Brooks, the columnist in L.A. Times, gives some clue in her quite self-deprecating essay,

'Last week -- even before Wall Street's latest collapse -- 13 former finance ministers convened at the University of Virginia and agreed that America must fix its "broken financial system." Australia's Peter Costello noted that lately America has been "exporting instability" in world markets, and Yashwant Sinha, former finance minister of India, concluded, "The time has come. The U.S. should accept some monitoring by the IMF.' 

According to this local report, the summit was led by former U.S. Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, and the attendants included the former finance ministers from Iraq, South Korea, Germany, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Canada, Brazil, Spain, China, India and Italy. 

WSJ has calculated in this article that 'the Fed has committed some $380 billion of its $888 billion in assets to these mortgage rescue operations. That's nearly half. And yesterday the Treasury announced it will issue new debt to lend to the Fed, not merely to fund government operations.' It offers some solutions for the Fed to maintain independent and to stop serial nationalizations. 

Zachary Karabell invents a new word 'Chimerica' to describe how the US and China became one. Although his book on the subject will only be available next year, he nevertheless uses AIG case to illustrate the convergence. 

'In the interim, there will almost certainly be a wave of regulations designed to prevent the flood that has already occurred, some of which are likely to trigger another crisis down the line. Until we can have a more rational, measured public discussion about what government and regulations can and should do vis-à-vis financial markets, we are unlikely to break the cycle.'  

What kind of cycle is it? Let's review some golden rules that Hayek, the father of economic neo-liberalism, said nearly 50 years ago: 

'First, it seems that certain that we shall not stop the drift toward more and more state control unless we stop the inflationary trend; and second, any continued rise in prices is dangerous because, once we begin to rely on its stimulating effect, we shall be committed to a course that will leave us no choice but that between more inflation, on the one hand, and paying for our mistake by a recession or depression, on the other.' 

What would happen to US then? In the foreseeable future, the inflation will become worse. Instead of encouraging more saving, it will discourage saving. The size of the middle class will shrink further, and the gap between the rich and the pool will be widened. The worst thing probably is, starting from the Fed's intervention with the financial market, the US as a free world will enter into the vicious circle 'wherein one kind of government action makes more and more government control necessary', as what Hayek says. 

It is an irony indeed, as what Mr. Karabell says, that 'AIG was founded in Shanghai in 1919, when China was emerging from millennia of imperial rule. Over the next century, China turned away from capitalism. Almost 90 years later, AIG is now being taken over by the U.S. government just as the Chinese government is moving as quickly as possible to divest itself of control of major companies'. 

When worse comes to the worst... 

History is Back

8/8/2008 seems to be a special day, not only because it's the day that China opened the Olympic Games with its extravagant opening ceremony, but also it's the day that Russia invaded Georgia.

That night I was sitting in the news room, watching live broadcast of Zhang Yimou's show. At the beginning, the top story of major international news media like CNN, BBC, or Al Jazeera was about the Beijing Olympic Games, then, breaking news came in that Russian tanks moved into the territory of Georgia. My immediate response was, 'Woah, Russia is stealing the show'. The situation was quite murky at the first. Later, when the story was unfolded and more details came out, some questions appeared.

The first one is the timing. Is it a coincidence, or a conspiracy of a bunch of neo-cons? I'm actually not really into such a guess work, but I'm sure Saakashvili's reckless action must have obtained nod of White House in advance. Strangely, so far, there is no report to explore this aspect. Although the rumor of conspiracy is spreading, the truth nevertheless would hide somewhere. Perhaps I have to wait until someday in the future, the confidential files about the communication between Washington and Tbilisi are accessible to the public.

Leaving this unknown truth behind, some pundits have started to treat the Beijing Olympic Games and Russia-Georgian conflicts as two historical events, and capped them into a catchy phrase 8/8. Since today marks the seventh anniversary of 9/11, it is indeed the day to ponder a bit what has happened since then, what it is now, and what will happen in the future.

Here comes Timothy Garton Ash's sweeping view that has been published transatlantically in the Guardian and the L.A. Times, which is noteworthy. It's far better than Kagan's dichotomy thinking, but alas, I still have some doubts. Ash has made it clear that neo-cons doctrine of the 'war on terror' is not the only thread that defines the mesh of global politics. Judging from the current atmosphere of the general election campaign in the US, one may find how eerily this phrase has been outdated in both candidates' rhetoric that Obama and McCain are all emphasizing the word 'change' now.

One of the decisive factors in moving towards such a direction is the rise of the rest, that the economic slice of China, India, Russia, and Brazil in the global volume has been largely increased, therefore, their political weight in the world stage. The new rhetoric is that since China and Russia are both autocratic countries, their increasing economic power will disturb or even threaten the current world order if they don't join the democratic world.

Ash is quite concerned about the economic prospect of these new comers, but I'm a bit surprised that he quotes Goldman Sachs' prediction about BRIC's economic performance in 2040 to support his argument.

‘Analysts at Goldman Sachs predict that by 2040, China, India, Russia, Brazil and Mexico will have a larger combined economic output than today's G7. The date matters less than the trend. Even today, the shifts in economic power are translating into political and military power faster than many anticipated.’

The logic error lies in using the unknown as a matter of fact to portray a quasi-realistic scenario. Take China for example, whether it can sustain the current development rate as per Goldman Sachs' prediction has already been questioned by a lot of people. The high speed development of China in the last 30 years doesn't guarantee that it can do so in the next 30 years. China's problems, to name but a few, such as the shortage of energy supply, water supply, and natural resources; the binary system of the rural and the urban which have overtaxed peasants without granting them the same welfare treatment as city residents do; the alarming gap between the rich and the poor, lack of clear picture for institutional reforms; comparatively low productivity; infantile knowledge-based economy; all these are daunting tasks to tackle, which would significantly affect its economic growth in the global context.

Nevertheless, it's still quite inspiring to see that 'we of the FLIO (friends of liberal international order) must now confront the prospect of a new world disorder. Or rather old-new, for disorder rather than order is the more natural condition of international society', but I'm not so sure whether this 'we' refer to the people across the world who dedicate to universal values, or it just refer to the western nations, because later on Ash argues that 'Russia and China are not just great powers challenging the west. They also represent alternative versions of authoritarian capitalism, or capitalist authoritarianism.'

It seems to me that Ash's 'we' is more about the identification with the nation than the universal liberal values. I must say such a way of thinking, which is now prevailing in both the west and the east, is the most worrisome sign, and if this tide is not turned around, the so-called democracy vs. autocracy confrontation will probably be self-reflexively fulfilled.

Ash seems quite clear about such a negative prospect as he says that 'we should not kid ourselves that we can have only liberal democracies as partners', but later on when he says 'our values may pull us that way, but our interests will necessarily push us to relationships and even partnerships with currently illiberal states as well', he again identifies himself with interests (What interests? No elaboration. From the context, I judge they are the national interests or western interests.), even though he acknowledges that 'the future of freedom now depends on the possibility of new versions of modernity evolving - whether in India, China or the Muslim world, which are distinctly non-western yet also recognizably liberal, in the core sense of cherishing individual freedom'.

The problem is, juxtaposing the advocacy of universal values such as liberty and human rights with the national interests will not enlighten those being repressed or oppressed; it will only heighten the awareness of national identity, and creating the mental barricade between 'we' and 'you'. Sadly, advocating universal values is already repressed in China while some public intellectuals are struggling, but sometimes I'm even more grieved to see that in another side of world, such idea of humanity is slowly being marred by advocating national interests in economic term while global anti-poverty and development issues have been ignored.

Where is the legacy of those prominent public intellectuals such as Hannah Arendt and Edward Said, that seeking the glory and manifestation of true humanity – unconditional ethical engagement, without overly identifying with any national interests is the central of one's endeavor?

History is back, not in terms of national interests, but in terms of defending the true humanity which transcends nationalism. This 'we' should never be nations. We should always be people, no matter what color they are, no matter where they are from.