If you want a measure of how deep is the commitment of those on the Left to surrender and retreat in Afghanistan and Iraq, take a look at Garry Wills’s short piece in the New York Review of Books titled “A One-Term President?: The Choice.” In it, Wills argues:
It is unlikely that we will soon have another president with the moral and rhetorical force to talk us out of a foolish commitment that cannot be sustained without shame and defeat. If it costs him his presidency, what other achievement can match it?
Wills often reflects the views of a significant portion of the Democratic base. As you can see, Barack Obama’s political life continues to get more and more complicated by the day.
Great piece!
As you say, there’s no doubt that Regina Ip would be “better able to work with China”. She would be more likely to achieve her goals, since her goals include keeping China happy. Giving in is always easier than fighting.
If Anson Chan loses to Ip, I’ll be far less optimistic about the future of Hong Kong.
That’s very interesting. What do we know about Ip’s time at Stanford?
So Regina spent time at Stanford. Stanford has some great professors who know about Germany: James Sheehan, for example. So I hope Regina cleared up her misunderstandings about Hitler. His party never won a majority in a free vote (33% was the maximum). He was installed as Chancellor in a high level deal by President von Hindenburg. So Hitler is NOT an argument against universal suffrage.
I advocate free elections with universal suffrage not only in Hong Kong, but also in China. I stress the incorrectness of the point about Hitler because most people believe he was elected, and also because the response to advocacy of democracy, especially with respect to China is often very negative. Even Americans, who should know better, often express great fear about what will happen if China’s “ignorant” farmers (whom they call “peasants,” suggesting, wrongly, a whole distinct culture and set of attitudes, not to mention lack of reason) should win a majority.
“Arthur” I am regularly told “The people who win an election will not be those educated coastal Chinese you know, but those ghastly . . .peasants.” I respond that is fine with me. They are the people who live in China. They should rule it.
Chas Freeman told me in a debate at the Council on Foreign Relations that if China had universal suffrage, “Taiwan would be being bombed now”–a ridiculous assertion, suggesting a mad and fearsome popular nationalism, that only the current leaders keep under control. Hitler is also regularly mentioned. Ordinary Chinese do not want war.
History shows that the rural Chinese people are as intelligent and responsible as their sophisticated urban cousins. The illiterate farmers of the past millennium optimized their use of factor inputs so that production increased steadily. Chinese agriculture was not only efficient; it was as efficient as it could possibly be. No modern agronomist could do better than they did with what they had. These people may not have book learning, but they have intelligence and judgment.
Universal suffrage in Hong Kong will bring responsible government having legitimacy in the eyes of those ruled. The same is true for China. The only difference with the present will be that farmers will probably ask why they are so completely left out of modernization. They will ask for more schools, more hospitals, more infrastructure, not only in Shanghai but in remote areas. And perhaps less spending. e.g. on establishing a moon base until the water in rural China is drinkable.
Democracy is not perfect. But it is better than the alternatives. And it is legitimate and fair. The sooner China adopts it, both for Hong Kong and for herself, the better.
Interesting that Regina has somehow come around to some approximation of these views, sincere or not. She must have her finger in the wind. In other words, she knows what the Hong Kong people want, and realizes she will never win advocating Beijing’s policies. Still, I am for Anson all the way.
Ray G, Ip studied under Larry Diamond. Her thesis title is “Hong Kong: Case Study in Democratic Development in Transitional Society.” She received a Masters.
Upon her return to Hong Kong Ip founded a think tank that is now populated with Stanford graduates.