China makes the little voice inside my head nervous. China has surpassed India in having the largest population in the world with no other country coming remotely close to a billion in number. [1] As a matter of fact, the United States claims less than ¼ the number of China’s population. If forced into a war with China, we would be battling the largest military in the world. [2] It’s possible they are not as well trained as our forces and do not have as sophisticated weaponry, however there is no disputing they are currently “engaged in the most significant military buildup in the world.” [3] They’ve produced submarines and missiles that are serious threats to the United States. [4] Indeed, they are diplomatic and economic allies of Iran, a country which certainly cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and whose leader would like to decimate Israel and has made no secret of his animosity toward western ideas…wanting to unite the world under Islam. [5]

Of lesser, but still of considerable concern is China’s blatant disregard for how their industrial development is polluting the atmosphere. Although this has garnered the attention of the green movement, there is tacit acknowledgement that unless China chooses to address the issue, no one will mess with China. Because the media is preoccupied with an anti-Bush agenda for the past two terms our president has held office, sufficient attention has not been given to the true threat of Islamofascism, nor to how the one world movement (driven by the fictitious idea that by undermining the US economy global warming could be controlled) would actually impact the freedoms we take for granted.

Under the radar, China has catapulted into a position of power because of what Rowan Callick coins, “The China Model.” [6] Deng Xiaoping opened China’s economy “to foreign and domestic investment, allowing labor flexibility, keeping the tax and regulatory burden low, and creating a first-class infrastructure through a combination of private sector and state spending.” [7] The paradigm shift is that while he implemented these changes, he maintained the ruling party’s “firm grip on government, the courts, the army, the internal security apparatus, and the free flow of information. A shorthand way to describe the model is: economic freedom plus political repression.” [8] China continues to jail those who advocate democracy or religious tolerance. [9] Clearly, capitalism + a politically free society are no longer the only conduit to a free market economy.

China has enlisted its skyrocketing economy to woo allies and enemies alike into trade partnerships which serve to further China’s geopolitical goals. [10] The offer of “consumer market potential with developed economies” and “promises of cheap loans” and “successful developing country know-how” poses particular allure to developing countries run by powerful dictators known for woefully poor human rights records. [11]

“China offers a seductive model that is being eagerly taken up by the leaders of countries that have not yet settled into democratic structures: Vietnam; Burma; Laos; the Central Asian dictatorships that were part of the Soviet Union; a growing portion of the Middle East, starting with the United Arab Emirates, including its glossy new centers like Dubai; Cuba; most of Africa, including South Africa; and even to a degree the hereditary cult that is North Korea.” [12] Using money to win over new friends and influence people, China is making important inroads on the foreign policy stage and has quickly become a force with which to be reckoned. By offering Chinese-funded highways or hospitals, China is able to “strong-arm nations into acknowledging “Beijing’s one-China policy” so as not to allow acknowledgment of Taiwan’s sovereignty. [13]

“…if maintaining warm relations with the United States is China’s most important international priority, why did Beijing close the port of Hong Kong to an American aircraft carrier battlegroup on Thanksgiving?…Why has China abrogated maritime convention and denied safe harbor to American ships in distress?…Why did it successfully test a dangerous anti-satellite weapon?” [14] Although the wall fell down, it would seem that the Cold War is not over, and that at the very least the military arms race must continue to ensure that we have the capability to deter our would be enemies. Clearly, we have entered a new era. The rules have changed and the teams have changed.

It is true that in the short run, the United States has benefited from trade with China. However, The China Model might prove to be our Trojan Horse. Beware of Greeks Chinese bearing gifts (or toys) might be an apropos colloquialism in the new era of “Checkbook Diplomacy” [15] ushered in courtesy of the CPC (Chinese Communist Party).
 

Footnotes:

[3-4], [9], [14] Blumenthal, Dan Blind Into Beijing (12/20/07) The American
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/december-12-07/blind-into-beijing

[6-8], [12] Callick, Rowan The China Model The American (November/December 2007)
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/the-china-model

[10-11] China, Peru: The Politics of Free Trade Talks (May 17, 2007) Stratfor
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=288755

[13], [15] Geopolitical Diary: Taiwan Moves Beyond Checkbook Diplomacy (May 02, 2007) Stratfor
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=287977

[5] IRAN - Ahmadi-Nejad’s World Agenda.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/135378890.html

[1] Most Populous Countries
http://geography.about.com/cs/worldpopulation/a/mostpopulous.htm

[2] World’s largest army not necessarily the strongest
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9905/28/china.military/
 

Nancy Salvato is the Director of Education and the Constitutional Literacy Program for Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan 501 (C) (3) research and educational project whose mission is to promote the education of the American public on the basic elements of relevant political, legal and social issues important to our country. She serves as the Assistant Provost for the American College of Education and as the Education Editor for The New Media Journal. She is also a staff writer, for the New Media Alliance, Inc., a non-profit (501c3) coalition of writers and grass-roots media outlets, and a frequent contributing writer to The World & I educational magazine.

I have some disturbing news for Washington, D.C. – They can’t stop AIDS; they can’t defeat Terrorism; the scourge of Obesity cannot be overcome; they can’t reduce Homelessness. They have no hope of reducing Crime. When no one was looking they lost two wars against Poverty.
Before several million Washington bureaucrats begin running for the border in panic, though, the foregoing was just the bad news. As always, if they’ll stop lecturing us long enough to listen to us, there is also good news.
The way to bring about improvements is clear: Accept as fact that attempting to bring about change in Alaska, Maine, Florida, Arizona and everywhere in between, while seated at a desk in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, is prima facie evidence that they are delusional. As the Christmas carol says, “…..it’s been said many times many ways….;”so many times, in fact, that the typical American hardly thinks of it anymore. But it bears repeating again and again, louder and louder each time, if necessary, until the stewards of the present dysfunctional system “get it.” The numbers on our widespread social problems are telling.
In the case of HIV/AIDS, for example, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated that at the end of 2005 there were 437,982 people in the US who were infected with the virus. A number with that degree of precision is suspect to begin with, just as when the airlines tell you with seeming certainty that your flight will land at 6:47 PM. Remember, physicians have long been forbidden from reporting that a patient has HIV or AIDS the way they report other public health problems, because of the fear that the patient will be “stigmatized” by others. We can count ourselves fortunate if the true number is only twice the CDC estimate. With the spread of the disease into the heterosexual population, the potential growth rate of the problem has become exponential, as shown by the recent law enacted by New Jersey – one of the most politically correct venues – to test all pregnant women for the virus. The Washington “prescription?” – more of the same.
We’ve all seen so many reports of carbombs in Iraq day after day that even the mentally healthiest among us has become somewhat inured. Even beyond those, though, the overall numbers of terrorist attacks have risen to the point that the State Department announced in 2005 that its solution was to stop including the statistics in its annual report to Congress. Way to go! That’ll git ‘em!
If we accept Washington’s numbers on what’s happened to our collective bodyweight, two thirds of us are overweight and half of those (one third overall) are obese. This has transpired even with two Presidents in a row who’ve been joggers. Of course, one of them jogged to McDonald’s for a BigMac, but still…………….. The words from D.C. have been abundant, but what else? Thankfully, no one in Congress has yet proposed passing legislation banning obesity, but stand by.
The figures on Homelessness in the United States (officially approximately 750,000) are as appalling as those on any of the other problems, and probably as understated as those on AIDS. Among the more alarming numbers is that 142 violent crimes, including 20 homicides, were perpetrated against homeless Americans in 2006. To strain belief even further, attacking homeless people with clubs and baseball bats has become something “fun” to do for youths bored with computer games. The local, state, and federal response on behalf of some who are savagely beaten, critically injured, or killed is to pass legislation making the crimes “hate” crimes. Hah! Bless you, legislatures. That’ll git ‘em! For those not killed, the future looks almost as glum. They get to continue living on the street and/or in shelters and lining up at soup kitchens daily. One third, it is reported, are families with children. Those youngsters are without a doubt receiving an education, but not the kind you would hope for or tolerate with your own children. So, what now Washington? More legislation?
Having touched on the subject of crime just now, we should explore it in greater detail. If we couch it in terms of the percentage, an increase of “only” 2.3% in violent crimes in 2005 sounds much tamer than the 1,390,695 reported violent crimes. Any of the victims, I’m sure, would scoff at my use of the term “tamer.” By the way, property crimes also increased in 2005 – to 10,166,159. Robbery led all other categories of violent crime with a 3.9% increase. The murder rate increased 2.4% in 2005. No need to go into great detail on the public-sector response – the US Congress deplores crime, creates the category of hate crimes, attempts to ban gun ownership, ups the amount of federal grants available, and increases its rate of speech making. State and local governments apply for federal block grants, hire more police officers and then………………hire more police officers.
All of the preceding societal problems are tied in some way to the behemoth of poverty. Poverty is either the wellspring of the other problems or the result. The official number of people living in “poverty” in the U.S. in 2006 is 36.5 million, over ten percent of us. The federal “yardstick” can use more than a bit of polishing, in my opinion. If it’s possible to have a car, central airconditioning, a TV, and a house and still qualify as being in poverty, many others – especially the working poor – may very well find it attractive to quit their jobs and move up the economic ladder into poverty. Nevertheless, the aforementioned societal problems are real. Worse, they are growing. Worst of all, like the resident of a mental hospital, Washington keeps repeating the same “cure” over and over, expecting the result to be different.
A brief word on education – Disaster. The so-called Education System is in dire need of a complete overhaul. Discussing the problem in sufficient detail requires a separate column devoted solely to education.
The solution is more evident to those without a vested interest in the present dysfunctional system. If you’re a Social Worker, a Clinical Psychologist, a Member of Congress, and you have a mortgage, car payments, and tuition costs staring you in the face, even if you understand and agree, you’ll be much less likely to take the steps necessary to turn things around. Turning around means relinquishing responsibilities and authorities to the state and local levels where they used to be; the money, of course, goes with it. Sending a tax dollar to Washington so that they can send it back (minus the 68 cents needed for salaries, heat and light in D.C.) to the local level makes sense only to those who make their living that way. It will happen only when those who presently make the rules are replaced. Listening to the candidates now, though, is equivalent to playing “How Many Times Can You Fool Me.” That makes the upcoming national elections that much more important this time around.

It seems that the Christmas season brings out the hostility of atheists and secularists, the way a full moon attracts howling predators.
 
I was stunned to discover that the results of a survey in my local newspaper showed that about two-thirds of people preferred a “Merry Christmas” greeting to “Happy Holidays.”
 
Some of this response probably comes from recent publicity garnered by retailers who forbade their employees from saying “Merry Christmas,” out of fear of offending someone (have you ever wondered why retailers never fear offending the nation’s majority who claim to be Christians?).
 
On a local basis, some of the surprising solidarity is also due to a religious liberty issue that occurred in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The Mayor allowed the head of the city council to place, at his own expense, a nativity on the premises of City Hall. Other groups were invited to place there own symbols with it to maintain the “constitutionality” of the display, but when a Wiccan wreath that appeared with the nativity was vandalized, it wasn’t replaced. A Madison, Wisconsin based christian suppressionist organization, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, filed a lawsuit, even though the display was taken down the day after Christmas. The city has solicited the help of The Alliance Defense Fund for legal representation.
 
Would something like this have even been slightly controversial 30 or 40 years ago? Of course not, yet we still have the same First Amendment that we had then.
 
What has changed here, is how the First Amendment to our Constitution is understood. Look at the religious clauses, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.”
 
Because of a progression judicial meddling, we have come to believe that “Congress” is any person who serves in government at any level, and that “making a law respecting an establishment of religion” means any public acknowledgment of God is forbidden. The “free exercise of religion” has functionally been cut out of the Constitution altogether. A theater of the absurd in Orwellian vintage!
 
I think people, even those not overtly religious, are waking up to this perpetual knee-jerk tyranny from disgruntled interlopers. Being perpetually offended is the key that unlocks the door to wielding coercive power and gaining unjust enrichment. 
 
We used to say, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” The current motto for the secular, politically correct Gestapo is, “When in Rome, force the Romans to do as you would do.”
 
I often joke that someday secularists will complain, “How can you say your religious liberties have eroded away, when we still allow you to attend your house of worship each week, and permit you to pray in your closet?” Today, on an Internet forum, someone actually seriously suggested at that very idea of “religious freedom”. I pointed out to them that religious liberty (and not the right to be free of the offense of religion) is guaranteed by our Constitution’s First Amendment as a public right. The same amendment guarantees free speech. Does ”free speech” mean the right to say what I want as long as it is only in my living room?
 
I find it astounding that many of the same people who claim to find little or no evidence of declining religious liberty (namely the attack to secularize the celebration of Christmas), need very little proof to be convinced about the criminal deeds of the current president. People fail to see that the growing hostility toward public religious expression creates a cultural milieu oppressive toward religious identification in general.
 
The recent screeds by the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and lesser lights, has got to be a convincing testimony that militant atheism has migrated from the ivory towers of academia, to the courts of the mainstream know-it-all.
 
These people don’t respectfully disagree; they belittle, mock and impugn with irreverent tastelessness. They are armed with a host of disturbing canards about Christianity, and are expert purveyors of their revised versions of history.
 
Such people must be confronted in their attempts to secularize the whole of society. Turning the other creek is a blessed personal virtue that mitigates the escalation of insults. Allowing society to be overrun by boorish marauders is another matter.

In US political discussions, there is currently a heated up Cold War going on between those who desire to move our country towards a Socialist foundation for our governance and those who desire to keep our Capitalist foundation. That struggle is clearly in evidence in the Presidential campaigns, especially of the top tier candidates.

Most illustrative of the Socialist side of the equation is Mrs. Clinton’s recent Christmas ad featuring her sitting in the midst of piles of packages to put under the Christmas tree, wrapping and labeling the gifts she plans to give to the American people. The first is Universal Health Care and the final one is Universal Pre-K.

The idea that such programs are gifts, of course, ignores the fact that gifts aren’t really free. They have to be paid for by someone. In the case of Mrs. Clinton’s gifts, that someone is going to be the American taxpayer. It must also be noted that it is most likely also going to be true that the vast majority of people paying for the gifts will not be realizing any benefit from the gift other than whatever blessings from the Scripture “It is more blessed to give than to receive” manage to apply to this particular giving.

The most important question in this discussion is a behind the scenes query. It’s easy to see why “we the people” respond to Mrs. Clinton’s promotion of a Socialist agenda. It appeals to the part of our human nature that thinks we’re going to be the ones to benefit from such largesse. So we vote for her because we think it will get something for us. But the real question is why do Mrs. Clinton and her associates support such an agenda?

The results of Socialism are plainly visible. It has always been and remains a dismal and glaringly obvious failure that blights any country and economy it touches, let alone any it controls. A simple examination of the history and fate of the former Soviet Union suffices to illustrate that point. If we add in Cuba it becomes even more clear. If we note that China’s recent rise in power comes not from adherence to Socialist principles but, quite the opposite, from the introduction of Capitalist principles, it should put to rest once and for all the idea that it is possible for Socialism to produce any significant gains or benefits for the masses it purports to support.

The superiority of Capitalism over Socialism is succinctly distilled in the following excerpt from the Country Study of Russia done by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress.

Private plots also played a role in the Soviet agricultural system. The government allotted small plots to individual farming households to produce food for their own use and for sale as an income supplement. Throughout the Soviet period, the productivity rates of private plots far exceeded their size. With only 3 percent of total sown area in the 1980s, they produced over a quarter of agricultural output.

A number of factors made the Soviet collectivized system inefficient throughout its history. Because farmers were paid the same wages regardless of productivity, there was no incentive to work harder and more efficiently. Administrators who were unaware of the needs and capabilities of the individual farms decided input allocation and output levels, and the high degree of subsidization eliminated incentives to adopt more efficient production methods. (emphasis added)

Even in the heyday of Soviet Socialism, the principles of Capitalism worked best and provided the most for Mother Russia. This is not an isolated incident or result. It holds true across the board and in every instance where Socialism is tried. This truth was quickly realized by the very people Socialism was intended to benefit. They rejected Socialism as a way of providing for the needs, dreams and futures of their family at every opportunity, preferring instead the hated and despised road to Capitalism. Those who today desire the gifts offered by American Socialists will quickly come to the same realization and will adopt the same anti-Socialist behavior that the residents of other Socialist utopias did for the same practical reason – it does not work.

Which brings us to the question posed at the beginning. If the Socialist model is notoriously inefficient; if it fails to produce the value it is touted as producing; if the people who should benefit the most from it soundly reject it at every opportunity once they become familiar with it and if it is replaced with our Capitalist model whenever possible, why in the name of rational thought do Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic leadership and an unfortunately rising number of people on the Right side of the political spectrum continue to promote it?

By all accounts Mrs. Clinton and the elite of the Democrats are intelligent people. They have access to the same historical information that the rest of us do. Perhaps even more so. They surely know that at the end of Socialism’s rainbow is a chamberpot and not a pot of gold. Thus, stripped to its bare essentials is the question, if Mrs. Clinton knows that Socialism is bad for the people she wants to lead, why is she so in favor of it? Why does she keep riding to win on a losing horse?

Thinking that perhaps the best answer to that question is yet another question “If Socialism is bad for the people, who then is it good for?” …

Blue Collar Muse