Unlike most of the Chorus, my time since Yale has been spent primarily the business world. This has given me a viewpoint perhaps orthogonal to most other Chorus members. One of the recurring questions I have faced in business is why some large organizations succeed consistently over decades in producing great leaders, developing innovative products, capturing major new markets, coping with unexpected upheavals, sustaining significant profitability, etc., while other firms rise quickly and then fall or stagnate. The answer cannot simply be "better people" because, with employee populations of 25,000 or even many more, it is difficult for small differences in abilities, experiences, education, etc. to be significant enough to account for such large, persistent differences in organizational success over many years. Differences among large groups of employees performing similar tasks in competing companies are statistically insignificant.
In any large group of humans, although some will make mistakes, some will be evil, and some will be incompetent, these individual failings do not mean that the group as a whole shares these traits. Just because a few individuals in a group are dysfunctional does not mean that the group as a whole is dysfunctional. Thus, assessing the performance of a group should be more than simply identifying behavior lapses by a few members of the group.
Over the years, a growing consensus seems to be emerging that explains differences in firms' performance by identifying differences in processes, values and systems. In other words, although two large groups of people may not be statistically different in any meaningful way, how they organize themselves to identify leaders, allocate scare resources, distribute power, etc. can explain why some organizations are successful and some are not. By analogy, which I do not think is spurious, I think it better to assess the performance of the United States by looking at its processes, values and systems, and not at the actions of individual citizens, even those occupying high office. In fact, this approach echoes some of the themes in John Brightly's first post, e.g. "Although we thought we had the better system, mostly we wished to know, to understand" and "Alas, the answer is clear; our major institutions and we have caused this devastation."
Hence, for me, the issue is not whether a Kennedy, a Bush, an Obama, or others made individual bad decisions. Rather, it is whether the country's fundamental processes, values and systems are inherently good or faulty, whether they enable the country to purge itself of individual bad actors and reward good ones, and whether they allow American citizens to prosper in peace over the long term in a constantly changing global environment. It is here where I suspect John's and my views may differ.
To me, America's fundamental processes, values and systems include things like freedom, democracy, market capitalism, and the rule of law, which I regard as essential strengths. However, many on the left would would disagree with my assessment. Similarly, I believe the American electoral system has worked well to purge itself of poor performers, as in 2008 (when Bush and the Republicans were chastised for the war in Iraq, etc.) and in 2010 (when Obama and the Democrats were "shellacked" for the focus on healthcare to the exclusion of jobs and the economy). However, many on the left would complain about Al Gore's 2000 election "stolen" by the Supreme Court, or about the American electorate being too stupid to appreciate all Democrats have accomplished over the last two years. Finally, where I see the United States' serial defeats of the Axis powers in WWII, the Soviet Union in the Cold War, and Japan (economically) in the "lost decades" of the last 20 years, to the enormous benefit of its citizens, many on the left see a country which should literally apologize for these "sins" and actually pay for them by redistributing its wealth to others.
If the United States is truly the villain of this story, who is the hero (the Gary Cooper) that should take its place to maintain peace and order in the world (assuming this is a widely desired objective)? The EU with its mortally wounded welfare state system and crippled "force de frappe"? Russia with its entrenched kleptocracy and aging nuclear arsenal? Iran with its prophet-king and "peaceful" nuclear program? India with its non-adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (along with Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Israel) and its pre-occupation with confronting Pakistan militarily? China with its quasi-capitalistic economy but well-known record on human rights (e.g. missiles facing Taiwan and "peacekeeping" efforts in Tibet and Xinjiang)? The UN with its Security Council frozen in WWII, corrupt bureaucracy, and "blue helmet" military force even more ridiculous than the EU's "force de frappe"?
Hence, for me, the issue is not whether a Kennedy, a Bush, an Obama, or others made individual bad decisions. Rather, it is whether the country's fundamental processes, values and systems are inherently good or faulty, whether they enable the country to purge itself of individual bad actors and reward good ones, and whether they allow American citizens to prosper in peace over the long term in a constantly changing global environment. It is here where I suspect John's and my views may differ.
To me, America's fundamental processes, values and systems include things like freedom, democracy, market capitalism, and the rule of law, which I regard as essential strengths. However, many on the left would would disagree with my assessment. Similarly, I believe the American electoral system has worked well to purge itself of poor performers, as in 2008 (when Bush and the Republicans were chastised for the war in Iraq, etc.) and in 2010 (when Obama and the Democrats were "shellacked" for the focus on healthcare to the exclusion of jobs and the economy). However, many on the left would complain about Al Gore's 2000 election "stolen" by the Supreme Court, or about the American electorate being too stupid to appreciate all Democrats have accomplished over the last two years. Finally, where I see the United States' serial defeats of the Axis powers in WWII, the Soviet Union in the Cold War, and Japan (economically) in the "lost decades" of the last 20 years, to the enormous benefit of its citizens, many on the left see a country which should literally apologize for these "sins" and actually pay for them by redistributing its wealth to others.
Thus, I disagree with the premise of John's statement, "The central question is not who to replace the US, although there are possible answers there, but to first recognize that the US has been and is on a destructive path that: harms our own democracy and security, the lives and well-being of other peoples of the world, and indeed through pollution and proliferation, the well-being of the biosphere; and then to join with others to modify our behavior to avoid further catastrophe." Not only do I disagree that the United States is on a "destructive path that: harms our own democracy" etc., but I am absolutely opposed to non-Americans ("others") meddling in our internal affairs "to modify our behavior." Of course, these "others" should be free to express their opinions about American behavior, but they should not be able to impose a UN "global warming" tax on Americans or to assert jurisdiction unilaterally in their local courts for "war crimes" alleged to have been committed elsewhere.
Rather, I think America's processes, values and systems easily allow it to self-correct, perhaps not perfectly but better than most of the alternatives -- e.g. power passing from Kim Il-sung to Kim Jong-il to Kim Jong-un, or from Hosni Mubarak to Gamal Mubarak, or from Vladimir Putin to ... Vladimir Putin. (To be sure, power passing from Jerry Brown to ... Jerry Brown is perhaps "an exception that proves the rule" -- at least I hope so). I think our 2-party system remains vibrant and robust, particularly when compared to record of the LDP in Japan, the PRI in Mexico, the Communist Party in China, etc.
So, in my humble opinion, the alternative to the USA ("If not the USA, who?") cannot be ignored in good faith by anyone who sincerely wants to change the world for the better. To pick only one example, Chiang Kai-shek (Jiang Jieshi) was corrupt and most likely a "tool of America." Nevertheless, after he was forced to pass from the scene, the alternative that emerged was Mao Zedong, who caused prolonged suffering and misery to millions. China's economic and financial strength today is due not to Mao but to Deng Xiaoping, who was twice purged by Mao but nevertheless managed to survive and eventually proclaim in 1992 "To get rich is glorious," thereby unleashing enormous capitalist energy in China.
If the United States is truly the villain of this story, who is the hero (the Gary Cooper) that should take its place to maintain peace and order in the world (assuming this is a widely desired objective)? The EU with its mortally wounded welfare state system and crippled "force de frappe"? Russia with its entrenched kleptocracy and aging nuclear arsenal? Iran with its prophet-king and "peaceful" nuclear program? India with its non-adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (along with Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Israel) and its pre-occupation with confronting Pakistan militarily? China with its quasi-capitalistic economy but well-known record on human rights (e.g. missiles facing Taiwan and "peacekeeping" efforts in Tibet and Xinjiang)? The UN with its Security Council frozen in WWII, corrupt bureaucracy, and "blue helmet" military force even more ridiculous than the EU's "force de frappe"?
Unless this question can be answered satisfactorily, I am quite content for the United States to retain its position as a "unipolar" power, at least for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment