Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Shelby Steele - illiberal liberalism a form of denial
Posted by: mcq on Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Shelby Steel takes us down memory lane describing the desegregation of Little Rock High in 1957. I had just started school myself and vaguely remember my parents talking about it. Of course I was going to school on a military post and knew nothing but integrated schools so it seemed odd to me at the time that anyone was fighting about it.

Years later, in 1964, my father was transferred to Ft. Chaffee AR which is outside Ft. Smith. I was 16 and ready for a driver's license and remember walking into the county court-house and, for the first time in my life, confronting Jim Crow's "white's only" water fountains and bathrooms. It was shocking to me, but it quickly became a relic as the civil rights era had begun and such things were quickly swept away.

But I've never forgotten them because my mother made sure to point them out to me and describe their injustice.

Steel makes a couple of important points in his article. One is the role of TV in ending segregation. He's absolutely right that its role in displaying first hand the ugly side of white racism was critical in speeding up the demise of racial segregation in the US. When America was forced to watch the events as they unfolded instead of second-hand descriptions filtered by newspapers, it wanted no part of the ugliness it brought. Much the same would be true of events on the Edmund Pettis bridge in Selma, Alabama.

That being said, Steele also hits on another interesting theme which may be the reason for the lingering racism in America. I don't think any intellectually honest person believes that racism is at all dead here. I can say, having been alive for both the pre-civil rights days and the post civil-rights movement days that the changes in racial attitudes has been both profound and positive. But I also know better than to claim we are over all of our racism here.

One of the reasons for that is the second theme Steel raises - there is still a lingering aura of denial concerning the continuing existence of racism. And he contends that it is because of way it was addressed at the time and continues to be addressed today:
But Americans have not been particularly good at integrating this kind of accountability. We are a nation with a powerful investment in the idea of our own fundamental innocence. Our can-do optimism and ingenuity are based on the faith that we are a decent, open, and generous people. This is our identity. And when we shame ourselves, as in Little Rock, there is an impulse to get busy; to do something big that redeems the shame and proves that its implications about us are false. This is, of course, a form of denial. In our busyness we may dissociate from the shame, but this is no proof that we have integrated its meaning.

For the most part, this is how white America came to handle its new accountability in the civil rights era. The country got busy self-consciously redeeming itself. Redemption would be our big, ingenious achievement. If freedom and opportunity and wealth had always been the special mandates of American life, suddenly redemption was added to the list. And, as the civil rights movement worked its way through many more Little Rocks, as a movement for women's equality burst forth, and as the Vietnam War came to be held against America, the idea of American evil expanded and, thus, redemption became more and more entrenched as a national mandate.

By the mid-1960s this mandate had already given us a new illiberal liberalisma busybody, interventionist liberalism that was more bent on erecting an American redemption than ensuring freedom. The Great Society wanted to make America look like a country in which Little Rock could never have happened. It failed because it was a venture in denial rather than in realistic social transformation. And today's "diversity" will fail because it, too, is only a denial—a kitsch that gives us an image of an America shorn of Little Rocks.
This "illiberal liberalism" - the "busybody, interventionist liberalism" that is "more bent on erecting American redemption than ensuring freedom" is found in everything the liberal left approaches these days. It is a fundamental part of the liberal culture now, and a part of its approach to everything from foreign policy to health care.

Under that paradigm, America can "be better than this" even if the definition of "better" only addresses their ideal rather than the reality of the situation or, in fact, the needs of reality. Their busy body interventionism in the name of redemption certainly doesn't serve the cause of freedom or liberty.

It has morphed from what Steele describes above into a view of America that finds it ever flawed, ever at fault and always in need of their enlightened intervention (to whatever level necessary). And only their intervention is acceptable (see BDS, "Republicans are evil", etc.)

But, as Steele points out, their approach and solutions never address the real and underlying problems. In fact, as in the case of Affirmative Action, they actually make it worse. But in terms of "redemption", the desired product of this assumed guilt that can never be fully assuaged, it is viewed as "dues paid" even if, as government sanctioned discrimination, it does nothing to advance freedom and liberty.

Read the whole Steele column. It's thought provoking and interesting. His points are solid. His conclusion that we've allowed redemption and all that brings with it to overtake accountability is, for the most part correct, and explains some of the reason for this lingering racism within our culture. His description of "illiberal liberalism" is spot on and identifies one of the more pernicious and destructive movements from which we suffer today and why it too is responsible for racism's continued survival today.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
This post is like Apocalypse Now, which was one-half of a great movie. Yes, to nearly all of what you wrote (and the Steele column as well). Yes, to your affirmative action example, which fits comfortably within the scope of the racial-guilt Steele focuses upon. But this?
This "illiberal liberalism" - the "busybody, interventionist liberalism" that is "more bent on erecting American redemption than ensuring freedom" is found in everything the liberal left approaches these days. It is a fundamental part of the liberal culture now, and a part of its approach to everything from foreign policy to health care.

Under that paradigm, America can "be better than this" even if the definition of "better" only addresses their ideal rather than the reality of the situation or, in fact, the needs of reality. Their busy body interventionism in the name of redemption certainly doesn’t serve the cause of freedom or liberty.

It has morphed from what Steele describes above into a view of America that finds it ever flawed, ever at fault and always in need of their enlightened intervention (to whatever level necessary). And only their intervention is acceptable (see BDS, "Republicans are evil", etc.)
Quite a reach. Yes, Steele mentions Vietnam as one cause of white guilt changing into "illiberal liberalism," but that certainly does not warrant your grandiose claim. You need better exposition if you are going to pull all this under the ambit of "illibreral liberalism." Otherwise, you prove nothing other than your own predisposition. Moreover, you utterly fail to note that much of the "illiberal liberalism" is now the hallmark of the Right rather than the Left in this country. It is the Right that takes a holier-than-thou approach to personal morality and insists upon legislating it. Third, this list — BDS, "Republicans are evil — is a complete non sequitur so far as I can see, and it looks plain silly without its Republican counterpart — as if Democrats are partisan and Republicans are not.

Most importantly, however, while there is some validity to the thesis of "illiberal liberalism," and Foote (and you) are certainly correct in categorizing events in the mid-60s as defining ones for America, that is no longer the most operant time-period in the American identity. The predominant event in immediate U.S. history (and current U.S. "personality") is now 9/11 and the authoritarianism it has evoked. I am much more concerned with the Right-Wing authoritarian theat to my freedoms, than by the spectre of "Illiberal Liberalism."
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
I object to Steele’s use of the term "white supremacy," which he applies not only to racial segregation, but to Western colonial interests over the past few centuries. He mentions Africa and India in the article. He even puts the Mau Mau uprising in the same category as the civil rights movement in the U.S., which stretches the category into meaninglessness.

This is not the first time I’ve noticed Steele using and broadly applying the concept of "white supremacy."

I think that "white supremacy," especially in its explicit form but also its implicit form, hardly explains what happened with the U.S. or the West as a whole vis a vis both other civilizations or tribal societies during the ascendency of the West.

I don’t think that "white" has anything really to do with it, i.e., I don’t think that Western society is self-identifying as "white," nor does it identify others as "non-white." Even when those terms are used they do not capture the cultural forces and clashes involved. Skin color is a superficial way to look at any of it.

Nor does a refusal to be a cultural relativist immediately imply that one must be a cultural supremacist. For a German in 1930 to recognize the greatness of German culture should have led him to reject Nazism, not embrace it. Nazism was in fact a rejection of Western values and, ipso facto, a rejection of German values. The embrace of the "volkishe" German essence was atavistic and indicated a dis-integration of culture. (And the atavistic impulse within Germany or the West was not disestablished with the defeat of Nazism, as we can readily see in the ascendant postmodern denial of reason.)

So the use of "white supremacist" is in fact a racial epithet, and the use of "Western supremacist" would just be wrong. Steele has set a trap for himself.

"Western ascendency" is in fact, when the cultural detritus is discounted, the ascendancy of the universal standards to which Steele himself aspires, i.e., the very values that required African slaves be freed and that Jim Crow, the worse offense in my view, be abolished.

Just as civilizations "break the cake of custom" that shutters the worldview of tribal societies, the West has been responsible for defining a set of universal standards that apply across cultures, and there isn’t anything "white" about it. Nor is there anything "supremacist" about it, at least not in the sense that Steele uses the term.

Steele’s use of "white supremacy" cheats on the meaning of both the good and the bad. The term characterizes the Western impulse as an atavism, when the true Western impulse is anything but atavistic, despite the presence of an atavistic impulse within the West, which takes many forms, including multiculturalism, which is worse than and far realer than "white supremacy."

 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
"It is the Right that takes a holier-than-thou approach to personal morality and insists upon legislating it"
This is BS. Almost all law is morality legislated and the left is every bit as guilty as the right. The left simply has its own morality agenda that differs from the right. Don’t tell me that affirmative action, reproductive choice, gay marriage, anti-wire tapping, strengthening social security, more money for public schools, etc., etc., don’t all boil down to morality.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
And let us not forget the concept of increased punishment for ’hate crimes’. That seems to be a prety clear case of legislating morality.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
The predominant event in immediate U.S. history (and current U.S. "personality") is now 9/11 and the authoritarianism it has evoked. I am much more concerned with the Right-Wing authoritarian theat to my freedoms, than by the spectre of "Illiberal Liberalism."
Authoritarianism? Clinton era attempts at anti-terror legislation were worse than the Patriot Act in terms of "authoritarianism".
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Don writes:
Authoritarianism? Clinton era attempts at anti-terror legislation were worse than the Patriot Act in terms of "authoritarianism".
Try reading Hillary’s original health care plan. That thing would have created an authoritarian bureaucracy that the old Soviet Politburo would have gagged on.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Martin McPhillips says:
I object to Steele’s use of the term "white supremacy," which he applies not only to racial segregation, but to Western colonial interests over the past few centuries...I think that "white supremacy," especially in its explicit form but also its implicit form, hardly explains what happened with the U.S. or the West as a whole vis a vis both other civilizations or tribal societies during the ascendency of the West.

I don’t think that "white" has anything really to do with it, i.e., I don’t think that Western society is self-identifying as "white," nor does it identify others as "non-white." Even when those terms are used they do not capture the cultural forces and clashes involved. Skin color is a superficial way to look at any of it.
I have some doubts about your assertion the West doesn’t self-identify as white (Western civilization is effectively a white civilization, not that there is anything inherently malign about that) but I agree with you in that it’s a tertiary identifier, and of little importance compared to other elements of Western culture. However, I think in several instances in the article you could replace "white supremacy" with "Western supremacy" for a more logical fit.
Just as civilizations "break the cake of custom" that shutters the worldview of tribal societies, the West has been responsible for defining a set of universal standards that apply across cultures, and there isn’t anything "white" about it. Nor is there anything "supremacist" about it, at least not in the sense that Steele uses the term.
I’m not sure that I agree on this either - that the West has created a universal set of values. While I certainly agree that those values are the most correct and valid, I’m not sure there’s much evidence for them being truly universal - Russians and Chinese generally seem to be OK with their authoritarian governments, despite the protests of pro-Western elites within those countries; and stable liberal democracies appear to be primarily a Western phenomena. I don’t doubt our basic Western values are right; but I doubt that the rest of the world wants them as much as we want them to want them. I think our values have only seemed universal to the extent that we had the power to spread and enforce them (which, over the past few centuries, we have generally possessed.) As for the West not having a sort of supremacist view of our values, I think that if we didn’t think our values as a civilization were superior to other value systems, we wouldn’t exert ourselves so much in trying to spread them. While I agree that they are superior, that doesn’t make them any more palatable to other societies.

 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
McPhillips: Yes. Every word.

Grimshaw: Yes. It is utter nonsense to even try to assert that there is no "holier than thou" moral position in the class-warfare which has been the whole spine of the Left since the French Revolution.

James: Martin does not assert that "the rest of the world wants" what we’re talking about as much as we do. Russia and China can in no serious way be referred to as "Western" cultures, but that’s not the point. When he writes "across the board", he’s talking about a set of values on which color, for example, has no bearing whatever, and which ought to be embraced by anyone looking for the flourishing of the species in general. That they are not "palatable to [some] other societies" is obvious, but that doesn’t matter to their theoretically and practically demonstrable value to anyone not interested in despotism.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Oops, perhaps I was not clear, I’m not saying the Russia/China are Western societies; rather, that they are distinctly non-Western societies that have their own particular value systems which they find to be superior to Western values. My interpretation of Mr. McPhillip’s post was that he said Western values are values that all humans aspire too; my take is that this is demonstrably false. While our Western values certainly seem to be the most hospitable to human liberty and individual freedom, my point is that some other civilizations do not value individualism and liberty like we do (Confucian-based civilizations have a strong inclination towards authoritarianism and state paternalism, for instance.)

While I certainly agree with you that Western values work the best (for lack of better terms,) I’m sure plenty of Chinese folks would tell you that the West would be so much better off if we only clammed up those loud individual dissenters and embraced the authority of the state and submitted to its hierarchy. In other words, I think all civilizations find their set of values to be ’universal,’ whether they are so depends on how strong that civilization is and how able it is to project that set of values onto other cultures.
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
there is still a lingering aura of denial concerning the continuing existence of racism.
I don’t deny the existence of racism. This is falling for a mug’s game. We will NEVER eliminate "racism". 1) It’s definition changes monthly, it used to be a membership in the Klan that got one the name, now it’s voting for Republicans or supporting tax cuts, and 2) it’s Constitutionally protected. Racism, the idea that one ethnic group is either inferior or superior to others, is inevitable. Stoopit people will always exist. I know of engineers who think Blacks are inferior and call them N*ggers behind their backs. These are educated, supposedly rational people and yet, they are, in this area of their lives, ignorant boobs. We can’t and SHOULDN’T make efforts to eliminate such "racism." It is a fundamental right of Americans, to be stupid, to be racists. It is protected by your right(s) of Speech, Assembly, even property. It is more fundamentally, but less explicitly covered, by the very nature of America, your right to be free. You have a right to hate your neighbor for irrational reasons. To tamper with that freedom is to create an Orwellian future of the "Thought Police" and "Doubleplusungood" (Yes, I am informed that this is A Brave New World). It is the basis of "Political Correctness" and the cure is worse than the disease.

When we deny racism’s existence or work for it’s "elimination" we fall into the Sharpton/Jackson trap. Because people will always be stupid and irrational, then we will ALWAYS have to combat "racism", defined by the MSM and Progressives as White on Minority words/action never vice versa. And that combat will always involve the limiting of your freedoms, most importantly your right of free thought and belief. I am not for the elimination of racism, only the elimination, as far as possible, of "Invidious discrimination" based on an irrational belief in one’s superiority or another’s inferiority. I don’t deny that there are folks that don’t like n*ggers, Wops, Kikes, Wogs, Crackers, Bananas, Radishes, Oreo’s, Papists, Foot-Washin’ Holy Rollers, Godbags, F*ggots, or Low-down, no-good God Deniers or any other group you can name. I say it’s their right....And it is something that can never be eliminated; and I wouldn’t want to live in a world where it was possible TO "eliminate" it. It’s not our job to combat "racism" or "racists", only to prevent or compensate (at an individual level, via compensatory and punitive damages, not the societal level of action now so popular) for invidious discrimination, based on irrational stereotypes pertaining to religion, ethnicity or nation of origin.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"It is the Right that takes a holier-than-thou approach to personal morality and insists upon legislating it"
This is BS. Almost all law is morality legislated and the left is every bit as guilty as the right. The left simply has its own morality agenda that differs from the right. Don’t tell me that affirmative action, reproductive choice, gay marriage, anti-wire tapping, strengthening social security, more money for public schools, etc., etc., don’t all boil down to morality.
You are confusing enforcing rights and freedoms with legislating personal morality. They are opposites, even when government intervention is involved in each. One expands personal freedom, the other constricts it. For instance, you mention "anti-wiretapping" as an example of the Left legislating personal morality. Dead wrong. Opposition to government wiretapping is founded upon the Constitutional right to freedom from illegal searches and seizures, which is contained in the Fourth Amendment. Only an authoritarian could argue that "interfering" with "the government’s right to eavesdrop" is somehow legislating personal morality.

That said, I don’t disagree with your contention that the Left is guilty of legislating morality in the broad sense that all government action is coercive and morality-based in a manner of speaking. And I entirely agree with your admission that the Right is guilty of legislating morality, as well. In fact, that is my major disagreement with the initial essay itself: That post 9/11 authoritarianism is the major threat to personal freedom in America today.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Try reading Hillary’s original health care plan. That thing would have created an authoritarian bureaucracy that the old Soviet Politburo would have gagged on.
Yes, and there is also Bill’s few succeses with Democrat legislation: Brady and the assault weapon ban. Both based upon a moralistic view, and both authoritarian.

But my points is that whent the Donkey Party was in power, they also persued anti-terror legislation that was authoritarian. It would have had more actual impact on Americans than the Bush version, since it went the distance to target American gun owners. The left makes a lot of hay out of Patriot and wire tapping, but when they hold the executive they want the same things and more.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
In fact, that is my major disagreement with the initial essay itself: That post 9/11 authoritarianism is the major threat to personal freedom in America today.
Except that’s wrong. "Post 9/11 authoritarianism" is mostly fantasy.

Our biggest threat to personal freedom is the continuing lumbering super-state initiated by the New Deal and Great Society, and the insanity of modern environmental law (both of which are largely driven by a morality).

You have issues with "post 9/11 authoritarianism", but the Patriot Act et al are mostly "authoritarianism" in theory and not fact. The massive impact of the welfare state and environmental regulation is a very real impact to millions.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
In fact, that is my major disagreement with the initial essay itself: That post 9/11 authoritarianism is the major threat to personal freedom in America today.
Except that’s wrong. "Post 9/11 authoritarianism" is mostly fantasy. Our biggest threat to personal freedom is the continuing lumbering super-state initiated by the New Deal and Great Society, and the insanity of modern environmental law (both of which are largely driven by a morality).

You have issues with "post 9/11 authoritarianism", but the Patriot Act et al are mostly "authoritarianism" in theory and not fact. The massive impact of the welfare state and environmental regulation is a very real impact to millions.
You describe modern environmental law . . . the welfare state and environmental regulation all as threats to personal freedom. In doing so, you appear to equate government action of any kind with a "threat to personal freedom." Yet you dismiss direct governmental threats to invidual rights and freedoms as "fantasy" and "theory." (They pass (or ignore) the laws; they have the power; but we trust that they won’t abuse it.) That is precisely the attitude that the U.S. Constitution was formulated to prptect against. We do not trust the government to do the right thing. We demand limits, controls and accountabilty.

That’s bad enough. But, worse, you utterly fail to recognize that the Iraq War — an authoritarian over-reaction to 9/11 — is the ultimate "super-state" program. What else can the government do that gets people killed and maimed, the eats up billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars with little to no accountability. My point is validated: Authoritarian thinking can excuse even the most egregious government excesses so long as they are packaged under the guise of national security. That doesn’t make the government intrusion any less, it just means that you choose to excuse it.

You are fighting yesterday’s battle.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
That post 9/11 authoritarianism is the major threat to personal freedom in America today.
David, I agree with you. But I would suggest that 9/11 is just one more step on the road with respect to personal freedoms in America.

One after another, historical actions of great moment have occurred and with each of them came the price of the erosion of personal freedoms. These erosions might have been momentary but they surely eroded the individual.

The American Civil War ended the institution of slavery in the United States - but at what cost? Lincoln set aside Habeas Corpus in the process and the courts did not even blink. Congressmen were sent to prison for criticisng the federal government for the conduct of the war. The states lost their last pure hole card, secession. And personal property would never command prominence in american jurisprudence ever again.

World War Two destroyed the great evil of the 20th Century - Fascism. It ended the wholesale destruction of the Jews and freed countless persons subjected to Japanese and German domination. But in so doing, countless millions were again enslaved behind the Iron Curtain and a newer, colder war began. And even in our own country thousands of Japanese Americans were incarcerated for the sin of being Asian and even though a black man could be drafted and forced to fight for his country, it was a country that continued to force him into a second class status.

As we grow as a nation we continue to face the same questions we have always faced. What price freedom? And with every generation, the answer differs.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
As we grow as a nation we continue to face the same questions we have always faced. What price freedom? And with every generation, the answer differs.
Well said.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
You describe modern environmental law . . . the welfare state and environmental regulation all as threats to personal freedom. In doing so, you appear to equate government action of any kind with a "threat to personal freedom." Yet you dismiss direct governmental threats to invidual rights and freedoms as "fantasy" and "theory."
Yes, because environmental law actually destroys freedom. That’s something I’ve personally experienced.

Who, exactly, has had his freedom limited by the Patriot Act?
That’s bad enough. But, worse, you utterly fail to recognize that the Iraq War — an authoritarian over-reaction to 9/11 — is the ultimate "super-state" program.
You are correct: I don’t see the war as anything of the kind. I see it as anti-authoritarian (anti-Saddam), a reasonable reaction, and the type of program the state exists for.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"You are confusing enforcing rights and freedoms with legislating personal morality. They are opposites, even when government intervention is involved in each. One expands personal freedom, the other constricts it. For instance, you mention "anti-wiretapping" as an example of the Left legislating personal morality. Dead wrong. Opposition to government wiretapping is founded upon the Constitutional right to freedom from illegal searches and seizures, which is contained in the Fourth Amendment. Only an authoritarian could argue that "interfering" with "the government’s right to eavesdrop" is somehow legislating personal morality."
Where do rights and freedoms come from? Are you saying that if it’s written in the Constitution, morality (and can morality be anything other than personal?) does not play a role? What is the freedom from illegal searches grounded in? Are you arguing morality does not play a part? And yet, people with values wrote that amendment. What’s the rationale for preventing the government from performing illegal searches then? It all boils down to morality. I’d be interested to read your response if you think otherwise.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
"That post 9/11 authoritarianism is the major threat to personal freedom in America today."
This is hyperbolic to the extreme. I encounter far more daily threats to my freedom than anything related to 9/11, as do most people trying to get through routine life. My freedom is constantly restricted by taxation and regulation at all levels of government, and every level of government seems determined to meet every challenge with more of the same.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
This is hyperbolic to the extreme. I encounter far more daily threats to my freedom than anything related to 9/11, as do most people trying to get through routine life. My freedom is constantly restricted by taxation and regulation at all levels of government, and every level of government seems determined to meet every challenge with more of the same.
Correct, but that can’t be blamed on Bush, at least for 99.9999% of the restrictions, so it doesn’t count.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
It all boils down to morality.
I agree. All rights and freedoms are moral constructs.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"While our Western values certainly seem to be the most hospitable to human liberty and individual freedom, my point is that some other civilizations do not value individualism and liberty like we do (Confucian-based civilizations have a strong inclination towards authoritarianism and state paternalism, for instance.)"

This is a fallacy promoted by authoritarians in Asia. Please note that Taiwan is a thriving democracy where individualism and liberty are almost over rampant.

Korea is also now democratic and has very active trade unions.

Of course, you can mollify a lot of political dissent with 10% growth rates and a booming economy, but even then, in China there are demonstrations and protests happening all the time, mainly complaining about the unfairness of the state and its officials.

"I’m sure plenty of Chinese folks would tell you that the West would be so much better off if we only clammed up those loud individual dissenters and embraced the authority of the state and submitted to its hierarchy."

Sure, if they or their parents are party members. Please realize that a large, large segment of Chinese you meet overseas are wealthy and politically well-connected - I believe there was a study that found a majority of the wealthy in China had political connections (and trust me those come BEFORE the money in China.) They have an agenda to keep the status quo.

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Please note that Taiwan is a thriving democracy where individualism and liberty are almost over rampant.
Don’t they also have a total ban on firearms ownership?

Frankly, Taiwan doesn’t meet my idea of individualism and liberty.

That said, key states in Asia have done a good job of Westernizing. Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea have all done an amazing job.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider