New School Politics

China, by focusing its economy on manufacturing, has been able to make itself an industrial powerhouse across the world. With its rapid industrial progression, there has been at times, a de-emphasis on the quality of its goods being produced. Pet food was found to be containing toxic material causing kidney failure, and just today the FDA curbed the sale of five seafoods farmed in China, also found to contain poison and cancer causing materials. This can have ill-effects on the United States, for the obvious reason that these foods are killing us, and the not so obvious reason that these imported foods make up a large part of our food market in the United States. These seafoods, for instance, account for 22 percent of our total imports of seafood from abroad, according to the New York Times. Food is not the only sector of concern: a Chinese made automobile recently receive a 1-star rating in European crash tests. The car basically collapsed in on itself, causing anyone inside to die. In June 2007, 450,000 steel-belted radial tires were realized to be defective because they lacked a key safety feature, likely causing many fatal accidents. Toy trains and toothpaste have also been realized to be poisonous.

But there are also consequences for China in all of this. With China rapidly progressing its reputation from a cheap supplier of goods to a deadly supplier of goods, less countries will accept China’s reasonably priced goods. China’s economy depends on its exporters more than its importers depend on China. If scandals such as this continue to develop, the Chinese government will ultimately be forced to intervene, establishing new quality controls. The United States depends on Chinese goods as a matter of economic convenience, however China depends on the United States and the rest of the industrialized world as a matter of economic survival. However, the United States and others should not patiently wait for this change to come about, but should instead put economic pressure on Chinese manufacturers and the Chinese government to quickly initiate reforms and minimum standards. This economic pressure can be accomplished by importing more goods from other countries, thereby forcing China to clean up its act before Chinese imports are allowed to go back to pre-scandal levels. In the meantime, who can tell me where I can find some rock-bottom prices?

Popularity: 14% [?]

George Mason free market economist Bryan Caplan (thats repetitive; all GMU economists advocate for the free market) had a “funny-cuz-its-true” commentary on EconLog about what he calls the “Jock-Nerd Theory of History”. Certainly worth reading:

One of my pet ideas is the Jock/Nerd Theory of History. If you’re reading this, you probably got a taste of it during your K-12 education, when your high grades and book smarts somehow failed to put you at the top of the social pyramid. Jocks ruled the school. If the nerds were lucky, they did the jocks’ homework in exchange for decent treatment.

According to the Jock/Nerd Theory of History, most historical human societies bore a striking resemblance to K-12 education. In primitive tribes, for instance, the best hunters are on top. If the the village brain knows what’s good for him, he keeps his mouth shut if the best hunter says something stupid. The rise of civilization gave the nerds a better deal, but as long as almost everyone worked in agriculture, brawn continued to pay well.

But then something amazing happened: Nerds got enough breathing room to develop and implement amazing wealth-producing ideas. The process fed on itself, devaluing physical ability and elevating mental ability. Nerds built the modern world - and won handsome financial rewards in the process. (Yes, I’m painting with broad strokes, but bear with me).

With the Jock/Nerd theory firmly in mind, this sentence takes on a deeper meaning:

We don’t take steps to redress inequalities of looks, friends, or sex life.

Notice: For financial success, the main measure where nerds now excel, governments make quite an effort to equalize differences. But on other margins of social success, where many nerds still struggle, laissez-faire prevails.

It’s suspicious - and if you combine the Jock/Nerd Theory with some evolutionary psych, it makes sense. When the best hunter in the tribe gets rich, his neighbors will probably ask nicely for a share, if they dare to ask at all. But if the biggest nerd in the tribe gets rich, how long will it take before the jocks show up and warn him that “You’d better share and share alike”?

Punchline: Through the lens of the Jock/Nerd Theory of History, the welfare state doesn’t look like a serious effort to “equalize outcomes.” It looks more like a serious effort to block the “revenge of the nerds” - to keep them from using their financial success to unseat the jocks on every dimension of social status.

P.S. If any jocks are reading this, please don’t hurt me! I’ll do your homework!

Popularity: 24% [?]

In the Wednesday Journal, Michael Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center, pointed out an illuminating fact in his op-ed, “Fatah Isn’t the Answer”:

Since its creation…the Palestinian Athority has gotten more aid per capita than any entity in modern history–more than Europe under the Marshal Plan.

He continues:

The lion’s share of this fortune has been siphoned into the prevate accounts of Fatah leaders or used to pay off the commanders of some 16 semi-autonomous militias. The PA also maintains an estimated 60,000 uniformed gunmen on its payroll giving the West Bank the world’s highest percentage of policemen-to-population.

The Palestinian people, meanwhile, languish in ever-deepening poverty and unemployment, while lawlessness plagues the Palestinian streets.

If this is how they run an administration with a small range of responsibilities, not to mention that they get more financial help than any athority in modern world history, why should they be given their own country?! And, why should we expect anything different than the status quo from Palestine if they are given their own country?

Popularity: 25% [?]

Habeas Corpus is a right that all Americans should hold dear. As with many other promises contained in the Constitution, the Writ of Habeas Corpus is one that protects the American people from their government. The only time it had previously been suspended was during the Civil War by Abraham Lincoln, and he had done so legally “in a time of war.” President Bush, however, has attempted to circumvent the rules of the Constitution by giving some terrorism suspects special treatment with an “enemy combatant” moniker. The name enables the government to treat the victim as a POW, even if s/he is an American citizen.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 aimed to “facilitate bringing to justice terrorists and other unlawful enemy combatants through full and fair trials by military commissions, and for other purposes.” Instead, however, it faciliates the deliberate destruction of several rights integral to the American tradition. Pushed through by a Republican Congress, the act has raised eyebrows at watchdog organizations like Amnesty International.

Dozens of cases like that of Jose Padilla have clogged the American military justice system as dozens of prisoners remain in Guantanamo Bay awaiting charges, not a trial. The Democrats, desperate for an election win in 2006, claimed they would repeal the bill. Still, months into a new Democratic-led majority, we’ve seen no policy change and no new direction. It seems as if the Democrats are content with revoking Habeas Corpus as well. The current Administration doesn’t understand the unconstitutionality of the bill, and nor does Congress.

Fortunately for America, the judicial system does. This week, a federal court ruled in favor of an enemy combatant, noting that the federal government could not imprison a US resident on suspicion alone. The beauty of America lies in its system of checks and balances, and, finally, the government has done its job. After Congress and the White House failed to protect individual freedoms, the courts have stepped up to the plate, finally doing what should have been done long ago.

Popularity: 11% [?]

Without any official announcement as to whether he is running for president Former Actor/Senator Fred Thompson of Hollywood/Tennessee has surged to second place in most GOP primary polls, on the heels of Rudy Giulliani, despite his candidacy’s lack of any visable substance. Essentially he is the GOP’s version of Barack Obama: just instead of young, idealistic, pinko, and multiracial, he is old, folksy, southern, and traditional.

In both cases the candidates have not committed to any sytematic or distinct sets of views, but rather have each remained a blank slate upon which the party faithful can cast whatever image they desire. Given, Obama has had more time to identify himself because he has had more time in the limelight, but at the end of the day he reveals himself as little more than style over substance.

Thompson was in the Senate for eight years, but even there he did not distinguish himself as exceptional in any way other than his lackadaisical approach to public office. Furthermore, in the early primary season he has failed to identify himself in any other manner than generically on policy matters nor has he so much as alluded to any potential presidential initiatives.

George Will explained Thompson’s popularity by (1) good politician and (2) Republicans hope he’s Reagan:

One does not want to be unfair to Thompson, who may have hidden depths. But ask yourself this: If he did not look like a basset hound who had just read a sad story—say, “Old Yeller”—and if he did not talk like central casting’s idea of the god Sincerity, would anyone think he ought to be entrusted with the nation’s nuclear arsenal? He is an actor, and, as a Hollywood axiom says, the key to acting is sincerity—if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.

This is, of course, all about another actor. Republicans have scrutinized the current crop of presidential candidates and succumbed to the psychosomatic disease Reagan Deprivation. It is, however, odd that many Republicans who advertise their admiration for Reagan are so ready to describe Thompson as Reaganesque because he … what?

Maybe personal appeal is enough to get you elected to public office–it has been at times in the past. But what the past has also tought us is that when the people vote for the candidate with the most inviting smile or best handshake without examining the mind behind the matter, the people tend to regret their vote. Let’s hope we have more choice than just Obama’s smile or Thompson’s handshake when we cast our ballot in November ‘08.

Popularity: 8% [?]

“Allahu Akhbar” comes the cry almost simultaneously from dozens of buildings across the Gaza Strip. This isn’t, however, just any other call to prayer in the Palestinian territories. Instead, militants from Hamas are celebrating the “liberation” of Palestine. Hamas declared an almost immediate victory as their forces steamrolled over the Fatah, their more moderate political opponents. Claims Hamas, today is the”second liberation of the Gaza Strip, this time from the herds of collaborators.” Hamas, somewhat deluded, believes they vanquished Israeli forces in 2005 and will proceed to crush their Fatah opponents in 2007.

For Hamas, 2007 is the year of government. In early 2006, Hamas won a majority in some of the West Bank and Gaza’s first democratic elections (although the results and methods of polling were contested). The government was controlled partially by Mahmoud Abbas, the chairman of the PLO Executive Committee, and the leader of Fatah. In recent years, Abbas’ voice has spoken for moderate Palestians, those who seek to live with peace and tranquility instead of war and destruction. It seems as if, at last, the voice of moderation has been drowned out. This week’s onslaught against Fatah makes the organization seem almost saintly, at least in comparison to Hamas.

Hamas has finally removed the last bastion against an Islamic government, leading the way to a country based strictly on Sharia law. International news coverage, however, barely begins to scratch the surface. Hamas’ attacks aren’t just an attack on Fatah. Instead, they’re the final strokes in an operation that began years ago. With this victory, Hamas has the opportunity to turn the Palestinian territories into a state run with an iron fist, quieting dissent and punishing protesters.What the majority of individuals fail to notice is that Palestine has been this way for years. The territory, once a well-governed section of the prosperous nation of Israel, has seen significant deterioration in recent years. The region has erupted into civil unrest dozens of times since the Israeli withdrawal. The government, despite appearences, held no real power in the territory anyway. The government’s most important ability, that to negotiate with other countries, seems to have been squandered as key fights between Hamas and Fatah (politically, this time, not violently) bogged down the Palestinian legislative authority.

While the government was busy attempting to compromise, the violent thugs of Hamas and Islamist organizations scattered across the West Bank and Gaza gave the regions a constant feeling of chaos. Since Israel pulled out, Palestinian citizens have lived in constant fear, not quite sure who to support in the neverendnig war for power. Support Fatah when they’re popular, and you may fnid yourself executed as soon as Hamas rises to power. What’s more, the situation in the Palestinian territories truly shows how incapable the region is of properly governing itself. Since Israel’s withdrawal, the areas have been provided with constant Israeli and US aid in an effort to push the Palestians to greater world understanding and tolerance. When it was clear that these efforts were in vain, the US and Israel continued their policy, paying more attention to the people than their beliefs and politics.

Palestine has been given endless opportunities for growth. The country’s not an independent nation, but that may very well work to its benefit. As a part of Israel, citizens receive the opportunity to commute to major Israeli cities to work at jobs not available in Palestinian territories. Were the country independent, regional change, not just civil war, would result. Neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan would feel reprocussions as well. In this instance, however, Israel may end up being Palestine’s saving grace. Israel has an obligation to promote peace and equality in all territories, even if the territories they strive to protect often attack them (see the intifada, etc.).

Israel, argues Liz, should not piece together an international force to bring peace to the Palestinian territories. As Ryan so eloquently noted, Israel is not in the wrong here. Over the past fifty year, they have time and time again demonstrated their ability to effectively run a government. Currently, Israel stands as a world pioneer in numerous markets and boasts one of the most developed markets in the Middle East. Liz claims the intrusions of Israel into Palestine, an area of their own country, is preventing progress in the region. The fault, however, is not Israel’s. Palestine has been given dozens of opportunities to reform and exist peacefully with the rest of the world. Instead, they have chosen violence and destruction.

At this stage, it’s too early to tell if Hamas’ victory will be permanent. The violence in the Palestinian territories has brought a new meaning to political dissent. Palestinians loyal to Fatah are being executed in droves, and Hamas has begun targeting key Fatah leaders to dismantle the opposition from the top. Palestine clearly does not understand the concept of democracy. Hamas purports that they, finally, have given a voice to the Palestinian majority, but instead of ruling a government, they are smothering any chance for an equitable and fair governmental arrangement in Palestine.

Interesting Link: A Palestinian-written editorial in YNetNews provides an interesting perspective on Israeli-Palestinian relations in light of the current conflict

Popularity: 20% [?]

I must fundamentally disagree with Liz’s characterization of Israel:

Once again, Palestinians are dying. This time, however, they’re not actually being killed by the Israelis.

…

Israel is clearly in the wrong with its imperialistic attitude toward its Arab neighbours, but if the Palestinians want a nation of their own, they must prove that they can govern it without terrorizing their citizens.

Let us first observe that Israelis are so too always being killed, the difference is they’re always being killed by Palestinians! That’s just one example of the primitiveness of the culture surrounding Palestinians–they’re essentially engaged in tribal warfare. You cannot begin characterizing Israelis and Palestinians on equal moral grounds when Likud and Labor handle disagreements through elections and open debate while Hamas and Fatah handle them with TNT and roadside bombs. Do not ignore the distinctive moral nature of each side when examining the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians: Israel is a free and secular republic while a Palestinian state would resemble nothing more than another Arab dictatorship, ruled by Shari’ia and bent on complete destruction of Israel.

Second, it is completely backwards to smear Israel as imperialistic towards its Arab neighbors when its Arab neighbors initiated the years of perpetual conflict nearly six decades ago. Immediately after its founding in 1947, five surrounding Arab nations, not counting stateless forces such as the Arab Liberation Army, invaded Israel with the goal of destroying the UN Partition plan and obliterating Israel. Only after Israel single-handedly defeated the cohilition of five nations did they proceed to take the land that was designated for Palestine, in the same way that Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula only after Egypt took control of the Straights of Tiran in 1967.

It is ironic that Palestinians today beg for an independant state when the origional partition plan was itself a two state solution. The Palestinians were the ones who invaded Israel and ultimately erradicated the partition.

The military force that Israel has used over its history has always been for the moral purpose of protecting its freedom against neighboring belligerents. Imagine for a moment that your nation, upon its conception, was invaded by five neighboring states and lived in a state of constant terror and constant hostility as you were surrounded by an entire region of people who wanted nothing short of its annihilation. How could that nation not be justified in fighting back? While the entire ”international community” of bleeding hearts weeps for Palestine, Israel has stood firm in recognition of the fact that freedom is not free, and that in order to defend the freedom of its people, the Israeli government must use unequivocal military force against its attacker, lest its freedom cease to exist. 

Popularity: 21% [?]

Once again, Palestinians are dying. This time, however, they’re not actually being killed by the Israelis. No, this time, it is Fatah vs. Hamas for the control of the Gaza Strip, a tiny piece of land in the West of Israel. Fatah, often considered the more “moderate” of the two main Palestinian parties, was defeated in the 2006 elections by Hamas, the far more militant group that is now the majority party in the Palestinian Authority. After the elections, the Saudis brokered a deal in an effort to prevent exactly what is happening at the moment. Under this deal, Fatah ministers would serve in a Hamas-dominated government. The latest news it that the President of the Palestinian Government, a member of the Fatah party, has decided that Fatah ministers will no longer take part in the government if the shooting does not stop.

The fighting throughout the day could be tracked by the content on a Palestinian TV station, which, at one point, played music supporting Hamas, and, at another, played music supporting Fatah. With dozens of men already dead, the area is slipping even further towards civil war. Hamas has more men and guns, and observers generally note that it will not be long before Hamas controls Gaza completely. This could have international consequences.

The goal of this coalition government was to secure international aid/recognition and to stop the fighting between the factions. Clearly, neither goal has been accomplished. Nearly every Western nation prefers the relatively moderate Fatah to Hamas, which is widely regarded as a terrorist organization. For once, however, Israel seems reluctant to intervene and the Israeli government is facing its own stability issues at the moment. As the violence becomes more extreme, some are advocating the deployment of a multi-national peace-keeping force.

This force should not be deployed. Israel is clearly in the wrong with its imperialistic attitude toward its Arab neighbours, but if the Palestinians want a nation of their own, they must prove that they can govern it without terrorizing their citizens. Gaza, small as it is, was given to the Palestinians to run, not to blast to pieces. In the short term, refuge must be offered to Palestinians fleeing Gaza until the area is stabilized. If Fatah and Hamas really want to blast themselves to pieces, no international peace keeping force is going to stop them; they will unite long enough to terrorize the peacekeeping troops and then turn on each other as soon as they are left alone. Egypt has also offered to broker a deal between the factions, but such a deal would be ineffective, just as the Saudi agreement has been. In the long run, the only way to solve this issue will be for Israel to get serious about economic opportunities and equality for the Palestinians.

Popularity: 19% [?]

In May 28’s New York Times, Venezuela Police Repel Protests Over TV Network’s Closing [TimesSelect readers only]:

With a little more than an hour to go late Sunday until the country’s oldest television network was to be taken off the air after 53 years of broadcasting, the police dispersed thousands of protesters by firing tear gas into demonstrations against the matter.

…

Groups that support President Hugo Chavez also flooded a central area of Caracas to celebrate his decision not to renew the broadcasting license of Radio Caracas Television, or RCTV which has been one of his most vocal critics.

I think I have said enough about the bottomless pit that Venezuela has jumped into (here and here), and my notations continue to prove correct. Now Chavez has taken a TV Network off the air because of their outspokenness against the Venezuelan President. Lucky for Chavez he has done away with rule of law in his country otherwise a judicial or legislative check would certainly emerge.

But maybe I give the Venezuelan people too much credit. After all they have already reelected the man, twice. Its not like they haven’t had a chance to stop his evasion of liberty and property rights. But now those violations have come to a climax of sorts as Chavez has violated a right recognized as sacred by most liberals and conservatives alike–the right to free speech.

The moral of this individual story, although there could be many, is that for the right of free speech to exist the right to property must also exist. In fact the right to free speech is a corollary to property rights; accordingly Chavez’s disrespect for free speech is a consequence of his disrespect for property.

Essentially, if you own and have a right to your property that means you can also use it for whatever speech purposes you desire. But if the right to property can be undercut by a politician’s whim then that property cannot be used for the speaking purposes that the owner desires–rather, it can only be used at the politician’s approval. The fact of the matter is that for speech to truly be heard there needs to be capital to distribute that speech (television, print, etc.). But if government has a check on that capital (property) then people cannot speak freely, rather they can only say what the government allow. Case in point: Venezuela.

Note: this post edited for grammatical consistency at 10:15PM on June 12, 2007.

Popularity: 9% [?]

France, which has for a long time been the most leftist of the modern industrial nations, is finally embracing the free market. The new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has vowed to disassemble the 35-hour working week, cut taxes, weaken the unions and guarantee minimum service on public transport during strikes. All of these have been key features of France’s socialist state. On Sunday, June 10, in the first round of the parliamentary elections Sarkozy received a clear mandate to carry out his reforms. His party, the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), won 42% of the vote, while the next closest, the Socialist Party, only won 28%. It is believed that the UMP will end up with anywhere between 381-505 of the 577 seats in France’s national assembly. With such a majority Sarkozy will be able to free France’s economy from the shackles of socialism.

Sunday’s election also dismantled the entire left of France. The major leftist party, the Socialist Party, is in complete disarray after humiliating losses in the presidential elections and now the parliamentary elections. Also, the Communist Party, which at one time was a serious force in French politics, won only 4.3% of the vote, and the Green Party, which was expected to make a strong showing, only managed to garner 3.3%. The leftists now are in a very difficult position because if they stick to their beliefs they will continue to shrink to insignificance in French politics. Their only option at this point is to accept some free market reforms, as the major leftist parties in the UK, Germany, and other nations have.

While France still has a long way to go, it appears as if they are on their way to eliminating the socialist state which has caused economic stagnation for many years. Sarkozy has received his mandate from the people, it is now up to him to transform France into a free market economy.

Popularity: 22% [?]