Tag Archives: xi jinping

Noblesse Obligee


Author Gary Moreau, aka Avam Hale in fiction

I am an avid reader of books. Perhaps it was all of that time I spent on an airplane over the years (well over one million miles). Perhaps it was my preference for solitude and the stimulation of my own thoughts. It doesn’t matter. I read a lot and have begun to share my thoughts on the many books I read via Amazon and Goodreads. (I am currently an Amazon Top 500 reviewer.)

There have been a rash of books, of late, regarding the economic, political, and social malaise engulfing the western world. The best among them, in my opinion, is Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism? by Robert Kuttner, cofounder and coeditor of The American Prospect magazine, and a professor at Brandeis University. I can’t recommend the book highly enough. I’ve posted reviews on Amazon and Goodreads if you are interested.

Many contemporary books have resurrected the term “Fascism,” and drawn fearful parallels between the state of the world today and Europe in the period leading up to World War II. The most direct linkage is provided by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in her book, Fascism: A Warning.

Kuttner has little to say about China directly but Albright and the others, too numerous to mention, do. And the core of their assessment appears to be that because the Chinese people do not go to the polls to elect their president in the way that Americans do, and because the government will figuratively silence political dissidents that it deems will disrupt social security and harmony, China must be “evil” in the same sense that Mussolini and Hitler were.

It is, I believe, a tragic and unfortunate misinterpretation of world events that is empowered by the western media’s own fascist pre-occupation with being able to say whatever it wants to say, true or not, and without regard for overall social harmony, which is the only time that productive change can actually take root.

I have long believed that one of the most important hallmarks of being an American is respect for authenticity. My father referred to it as “a man that is comfortable in his own skin.” To me it means a man or woman who speaks and behaves in a way that accurately reflects the person they are and the things that they believe in. And, of course, that he or she believes in the dignity of all people, regardless of wealth, class, race, gender, ethnicity, or ability.

The Chinese, I believe, are very authentic—once you understand their culture. If you evaluate Chinese behavior through American eyes you will, as many Americans do, conclude that the Chinese are a bit rude, don’t always tell the truth, and can be more than a bit pushy. These, however, are false impressions created by the American tendency to evaluate the world against our own standards. That is American culture and it is built on the Aristotelian belief in the linear logic of cause and effect.

What I like about Mr. Kuttner’s book, and believe me that he has not read or authorized this reference, is that he seems to appreciate that cause is less important than effect. Politically speaking, that means that a benevolent dictator that genuinely believes in the dignity of the common man is far superior than a man who is democratically elected (both Mussolini and Hitler were) but who, in his heart, believes himself superior to all others.

I grew up living only miles from a US nuclear air base that was the point of the spear of America’s “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) strategy in the Cold War with the USSR. As an elementary school student in the early 1960s I vividly remember practicing hiding under our desks at school, hands behind our heads, to prepare for possible nuclear annihilation by the Russians. (The kindergarten students, as I recall, were not disciplined enough to follow the protocol, so they all huddled beneath a large blanket.)

John F. Kennedy was the president of the US at the time and my parents trusted him. He was a lot of things that misaligned with their personal values, but they believed that he was a good man, so when he told them to sit tight during the Cuban Missile Crisis, they did just that. They talked about it; they asked questions; but they ultimately believed that Mr. Kennedy would do the right thing.


Available in paperback and Kindle versions
click here for paperback
click here for electronic

First introduced in Homer’s Iliad, and later given prominence by the great French writer, Honoré de Balzac, the phrase noblesse obligee comes to mind. Essentially, whatever your personal pedigree, we all should have an innate commitment to our common humanity. And it is that commitment that ultimately matters in our assessment of our leaders. They may have gained power by the ballot box or the sword (and there is little difference, in the end), but it is what they do with that power that ultimately matters most.

In evaluating both China and the US, at the moment, I care not how wealthy President Trump is. I care not about his negotiating skills. I care not about what he says to the cheering crowds he assembles among the disenfranchised. I care only what he does or does not do.

In the case of Chairman Xi Jinping, I feel the same. I care not that he is a member of the Communist Party of China, the word communist itself bringing back terrible memories of the Soviet leaders who my teachers convinced me were anxious to take my life. I care not that his government does not allow full freedom of the press to say whatever it wishes. I care not that he employs whatever means necessary to maintain social harmony. I care, in the end, only about what he does and the degree to which he is authentic and committed to the common men and women of China.

And while we are in the early innings of a very long game on both sides of the Pacific, here is my tally to date:

USA: President Trump is authentic, but authentic in all of the wrong ways for a leader of the strongest nation on the planet. He is a corporatist in populist clothing. In the end he has only a romantic appreciation of the working men and women who made America what it is today. He is a New York elitist with an insatiable appetite for gold and limousines.

China: President Xi Jinping is not a Maoist but he is true to Mao’s original guiding light. Mr. Xi is not his father, but he is true to his authenticity. Mr. Xi, himself, is authentic. He truly believes in the Chinese Dream he talks so much about and has the personal and managerial skills to bring it to life.

If we evaluate a country and a culture not by the press’ ability to print anything it likes in the interest of selling its wares, but by the alignment of the government and the interests of the common person, China gets my nod.

I will share one specific example but there are many more:

While living in China my wife and I ventured down into one of the most popular walking streets in the heart of Beijing one Sunday afternoon to observe the throngs and to enjoy a taste of barbecue. In the middle of this very crowded street was an elderly couple from some far flung rural province that had ventured to Beijing to air some personal grievance with the local government where they lived. Both wore large sandwich boards and paper hats detailing these grievances.

Before long, the police, naturally, showed up. None of them, so far as I could tell, however, were armed. They wore no helmets and carried no shields or batons. The most senior among them, judging by his age, approached the couple and spoke to them in terms I did not understand, but his hands were clasped lightly behind his back the entire time. Nothing about the authorities was menacing in any way.

Eventually the police officer, a federal security officer to be precise, stood back and the couple was allowed to walk in a circle for several minutes. Everyone in China has a smart phone, of course, so the audience was large and many were filming the events. And after several minutes the couple walked toward the nearby police van and climbed in, with the policemen and policewomen’s deference and assistance.

My point here is not to fawn over President Xi Jinping, or to suggest that China does not have its challenges. It is, quite simply, to suggest that the ultimate democratic ideal is a commitment to truth and authenticity. And in that regard, the United States, in 2018, should stand in judgment of few others, and China is not among them.

He may ultimately prove me wrong. At the moment, however, Xi Jinping would have my vote, should China be so foolish, which it won’t, to give me one.

______________________________________

My newest book, We, Ourselves, and Us: Creating a More Just and Prosperous America, is now available on Amazon in paperback (click here) and Kindle (click here) versions.

If you read any of my books and like them  I would greatly appreciate it if you will take the time to post a review on Amazon, Goodreads, or whatever book site you enjoy. Thank you in advance.

Good for Everyone


Author Gary Moreau, aka Avam Hale in fiction

This past week the Western media seized on the news out of China that the Communist Party of China has lifted the 10-year term limit placed on the office of the president following the death Mao Zedong. The Western coverage was, as would be expected, alarmist in tone, even though Xi Jinping has just begun his second five-year term and the amendment is largely meaningless for the time being.

That’s not entirely true, of course, as it will preclude Xi having to govern with ‘lame duck’ status as his second term winds down. And that is a good thing, to be sure. President Obama’s lame duck status in 2016 certainly didn’t serve Americans all that well. If nothing else, it changed the profile of the US Supreme Court rather profoundly, and, in the eyes of many, rather illegitimately.

Western journalists, of course, couldn’t resist the comparison to Mao, and whenever they speak of Mao they can’t resist talking about the Cultural Revolution. The word “authoritarian” was bandied about with great consistency. Virtually no Western account of the change, and I looked pretty hard, applauded the move. Virtually every report implied a doomsday scenario and, without exception, tough sledding for the US and our ‘interests,’ without ever specifying, of course, what those interests are, other than the ability to have our way in the world.

I was initially rather neutral on the announcement but with time I have concluded that this is a very good thing for China and the US both. Transitions of power seldom go smoothly and as we’ve seen over the last year a lot of mistakes are typically made when a rookie takes control of the big red button. There’s a lot to learn, experience does count for something, after all, and as much as we dislike political alliances when they stand in the way of what we want to accomplish, they are a necessity of political life in every nation on the planet, and they do take time to take shape.

Americans forget, perhaps, that the Founding Fathers didn’t stipulate term limits for the presidency. Hamilton and Madison, in fact, argued for a lifetime appointment, although, in fairness, most of the Founding Fathers didn’t want the president to be elected, either. They preferred a congressional appointment, although it would appear they ultimately concluded that would make congressional collusion too tempting to resist. (It appears Congress’ trust ratings were low even before there was a congress.)


Available in paperback and Kindle versions
click here for paperback
click here for electronic

President Franklin Roosevelt, of course, was elected for four terms during the course of the Second World War. And while the 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951, limiting any subsequent president to two four-year terms, I’ve never seen any historical analysis of Roosevelt’s presidency depicting his reign with quite the same sense of authoritarian doom and gloom they are depicting President Xi’s.

I often fear that I speak too frequently of the inevitable dualities of life and the universe so I won’t go there now. I will note, however, that while most Western journalists now depict Xi’s battle against corruption as they would depict a Soviet purge, that is not an accurate depiction at all. Shortly after his election in 2012 Xi issued what came to be known as the ‘eight rules.’ These applied to all members of the government, not just his political foes, and had as much to do with efficiency, wasteful spending, and decorum, as corruption. One of the rules, for example, was, “All government meetings shall be short, clear in focus, and all empty and courteous comments should be eliminated.” A good rule for any government, in my book.

As I was living and working in China at the time, and one of my important markets were the upscale hotels and restaurants that catered to government officials and the citizens lobbying them, I can say from experience that Xi was serious. While Chinese culture still turns on a shared meal, the alcohol is gone and the menus are modest. And there are no exceptions, foe or ally.

The title of president, truth be known, is probably Xi Jinping’s least authoritative title. It has long been a nominal role in China and in fact has not always been filled. That’s not to say that Xi Jinping isn’t powerful. He is. But we shouldn’t apply our American norms to others without getting the facts first.

In my own book, We, Ourselves, and Us: Creating a More Just and Prosperous America, I actually argue that we in the US should extend our own presidential term limits, although I do likewise argue for limiting any one president to one ten-year term.

There are three reasons for my recommendation. The first is that we have to take the money out of our politics or special interests are going to drive us over the cliff. Human nature being what it is, however, neither the politicians nor the wealthy interests that support them are ever going to do that voluntarily. The only way to get the money out of politics is to take the politics away from the money. One 10-year term for the US presidency would essentially provide less than half the chances for money to buy an election. And, if nothing else, I think the parties—and the voters—would think twice about which candidate they nominate if they knew going in it was a 10-year choice. (It might also lead to younger candidates, which isn’t all bad.)

The second reason is the accelerating pace of change in the world today. If the world is changing faster, of course, that would seem, intuitively, to argue for shorter terms of office. I think this is one of those cases, however, where counter-intuitive is the sounder choice. It’s like standing on the gunnels of a canoe. When you first step up the canoe is going to rock like heck. Once you get it stabilized you’ll want to just hold it there for a while. Do we really want to go through the lame duck/first year transition every four years? I don’t think so. The world is moving too fast to waste that much time and effort today.

And thirdly, I argue for a 10-year presidential term limit because nobody else in our government has a term limit, and given that we are a three-branched republic the net result is that nothing gets done when the president’s term in office is so limited. Senators Hatch and McConnell, and House Speaker Ryan, have served in the US Congress for 41, 33, and 19 years, respectively. Their Democratic counter-parts, Senator Schumer and Representative Pelosi have served for 37 and 31 years, respectively. And the members of the Supreme Court, of course, serve for life. Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Ginsburg have served for 30, 27, and 25 years, respectively, a period during which they have very much interpreted and made law.

Critics, of course, will point out that the members of Congress are re-elected every two (House) and six years (Senate), but that’s not true in any practical sense. Between gerrymandering and the powers of the purse that an incumbent enjoys, Americans, as a practical matter, exercise their right to kick their politicians out with an infrequency that borders on nil.

But getting back to China, the country has just completed a period of extended development and global ascension unlike the world has ever seen. Xi Jinping himself, however, would be the first to admit that a lot of work remains. And much of that work, such as the building out of the One Belt, One Road initiative, domestic legal reform, and the establishment of stability in the region are all going to take time. Having a steady hand at the helm is going to be in everyone’s best interests, including those of the average Chinese and American.

I admit that I might not feel that way if the president in question was not Xi Jinping specifically, but it is, and I think he is the right person to lead the country forward. As Henry Kissinger once observed, the Chinese have a knack of picking the right leader at the right time, and I think that Xi Jinping is no exception.

I’ll let you decide for yourself if we Americans share the same skill.

______________________________________

My newest book, We, Ourselves, and Us: Creating a More Just and Prosperous America, is now available on Amazon in paperback (click here) and Kindle (click here) versions.

If you read any of my books and like them  I would greatly appreciate it if you will take the time to post a review on Amazon, Goodreads, or whatever book site you enjoy. Thank you in advance.

We’re Not in Kansas Anymore

photo credit: iStock.com/skodonnell


Author Gary Moreau, aka Avam Hale in fiction

Exactly one year ago, President Xi Jinping delivered a speech to the United Nations office in Geneva, entitled, Work Together to Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind. It was collective in its vision: “China is ready to work with all the other UN member states as well as international organizations and agencies to advance the great cause of building a community with a shared future for mankind.” And it was long term in its perspective: “Building a community with a shared future is an exciting goal, and it requires efforts from generation after generation.” The sentiment would later be enshrined in a formal resolution at the 55th UN Commission for Social Development, as “a human community with shared destiny”

Jump ahead one year to January 26, 2018, and United States President Donald Trump spoke to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, at its annual conference of the heaviest of the heavy hitters in global politics and business. The man elected on the simple platform of “Make America Great Again” (MAGA), like Xi Jinping before him, delivered his vision for the future of the world.

Trump opened with the warning that “I’m here to represent the interests of the American people…” And, as expected, most of the speech was devoted to his personal contribution to “helping every American find their path to the American dream.” Specifically he spoke to the surging stock market, job creation, small business confidence, deregulation, and, of course, “…the most significant tax cuts and reform in American history.” (Which, on a side note, is not true.) As you would expect from the MAGA president, it was all about America, and, not surprisingly, him. After all, MAGA has everything to do with individuals, he being the biggest and most powerful “I” among them, and almost nothing to do with “human community,” as President Xi described it.

Trump’s would have been the perfect speech had it been delivered by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a fellow Republican, in the 1950s. It would have been even more appropriate, in fact, given Eisenhower’s military fame, and the fact that the only references Trump made to the US’ role in the world had to do with our self-appointed role as the world’s policeman, and “making historic investments in the American military”, already the world’s largest, costing $1,900 per year for every man, woman, and child in America, at a time when 80 million Americans have little or no health insurance.

Other accomplishments noted by Trump were “eliminating 22 burdensome regulations for every new one,” “…no longer turning a blind eye to unfair economic practices overseas,” and “lifting self-imposed restrictions on energy production,” even though all restrictions are self-imposed and according to the laws of the universe energy is not produced, but merely transformed (and thus fixed in quantity). And, of course, insuring that all nations “contribute their fair share” to the cost of the American agenda.

All told, Trump’s individualist agenda was summed up by this simple claim: “When the United States grows, so does the world.” Perhaps unconsciously, it was the exact same sentiment that Charles Wilson (1890-1961), the CEO of General Motors, made during his confirmation hearings as Secretary of Defense under Eisenhower. When asked about a potential conflict of interest between the interests of the US and GM, he is rumored to have said, “What is good for GM is good for the country.”

The world of today, however, is not the world of the 1950s. The world’s population has expanded three fold, from 2.5 billion people at the end of World War II to 7.5 billion people today, even thought the world’s land mass and its inherent ability to sustain life have not changed at all. As a result, the earth’s climate is changing, in less than desirable ways, and clean air and clean water are among the world’s most precious resources, and disappearing fast.

Technology has made the world smaller and virtually eliminated the concept of local communication and debate. Information flows to a far wider audience but is transmitted by global super-monopolies like Facebook and Google, who rule the world by algorithms that are developed with their own inevitable bias but remain virtually unregulated.

In short, this is not the 1950s. And any desire to turn back the world clock in search of that era is sure to fail. People and technology cannot simply be put back in the bottle. That would require the type of totalitarian dystopia that Orwell wrote about and the Great Generation had just sacrificed countless lives to vanquish.


The author’s new book will be released on February 15, 2018. Reserve your copy now.

The U.S. Constitution, one of the most famous documents in global political history, begins with the words, “We the people.” Yet it is “Me the individual,” that Donald Trump embodies and best represents the America of 2018. My identity, my rights, my tax cut, my income, my freedom—whether it’s my freedom to own assault weapons or my freedom to marry who I like—are at the heart of both the conservative and liberal political agendas.

The conservatives want to pull the rest of us along through individual exceptionalism. The progressives want to push us along through the acceptance and inclusion of all micro-group identity. Neither, however, will work, because both are built on the notion of an individualized world that simply doesn’t exist any more. Both would have been legitimate competing worldviews in the 1950s. Both are obsolete today.

Whether we want it or not, we will face the “shared future” that President Xi Jinping referenced more than one year ago. We will not have the option to choose who will be a part of that community. We all will. Whether you are a Dreamer, a Tea Party supporter, a member of the Rainbow Coalition, a misogynist or a feminist, a white supremacist or a believer that Black Lives Matter, will not matter in the end. We will be forced to live as a single, global community, consuming resources that are fixed by the laws of the universe.

We really only have two choices: 1. We can kill each other. (Or die trying.) 2. We can turn “Me” into “We.”

We have, of course, been here before. Eisenhower and the Great Generation faced the very same dilemma. And, unfortunately, following the great tragedy of World War I and the even greater human tragedy that followed, as the victors sought revenge on the losers, the “we” side of the option ultimately morphed into brutal forms of fascism and communism. They, in turn, gave us the Nazis, the Holocaust, the gulags of the Soviet Union, and the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge.

As a result, many of today’s most ardent individualists believe that any form of collectivism is, as the 20th Century seemed to show, inherently flawed and will only lead to brutal totalitarianism. That, however, is simply not true.

More importantly, however, it doesn’t matter if it is or not. Whatever form of individualism we pursue, the elite, however that is defined, will be forced to squash the many in the fight for limited resources. One percent of the world’s population already controls more than half of the world’s wealth. What will happen when it controls 90%? (And it will, if nothing changes.)

What will happen, in contrast, if the coalition of oppressed micro-identities overthrows the oppressors? All will be well, of course, if the former oppressors all accept a new micro-identity. But what if they don’t? And what about human psychology suggests that they will?

We may not agree with Presdient Xi Jinping’s politics. We can’t, however, plausibly deny his vision of a shared future. An economically and militarily elite America will not and can not pull the world along. A progressively elite America, even if elected, and even if it is truly inclusive, cannot push the world along.

We’re not in Kansas anymore. And the sooner we realize that the less pain we will be forced to endure.

Note: Author Gary Moreau was recognized by the World Economic Forum as a Global Leader for Tomorrow in its inaugural class of 1993.

You may contact the author at gary@gmoreau.com
Visit my personal blog at www.gmoreau.com

Follow on Twitter @gmoreaubooks

Summary for We, Ourselves, and Us:

In this new guide to American politics and economics, Gary Moreau wants to turn the “I” into “We.” As he argues in We, Ourselves, and Us, Americans’ cultural sense of individualism is hindering rather than helping the country. Moreau instead argues for a change to political, economic, and social systems to refocus them on the collective good. As he proposes this important change, Moreau argues that

  • both major political parties are offering ineffective solutions to the problem,
  • the model America was based on is no longer realistic for a modern society,
  • both communism and socialism fail because they are still based on the idea of individuality,
  • the unequal flow of power is responsible for a prejudiced and unbalanced society,
  • the concepts of obligation and self-interest are intrinsically connected,
  • individual advancement means nothing without collective advancement, and
  • all of society is interconnected in nuanced and important ways.

Moreau does not equate collectivism with communism or other political movements. He isn’t arguing for the elimination of private property or other drastic changes. Instead, he simply gives you a new way of viewing systems of power and important suggestions that could lead to satisfactory results for the entire nation.

 

What Might Orwell Say About Trump’s Trip to China


Author Gary Moreau, aka Avam Hale in fiction

By sheer coincidence, while President Trump and First Lady Melania were being feted by Xi Jinping and Peng Liyuan at the Forbidden City, I was re-reading George Orwell’s dystopian classic, 1984. It was written, of course, in 1949, the very year in which Mao Zedong brought the People’s Republic of China into existence.

Orwell’s book was and is considered a fantastic fiction of foresight so eerily prescient of current events that it feels close to prophetic. And, in fact, every time I looked up from my reading I felt and saw 1984 all around me.

In the end I don’t believe that Orwell was looking forward in time so much as he was looking back. There are many powerful themes in the book, from the permanence of a three-tiered society of the powerful, the want-to-be-powerful, and the 85% of every population that struggles in drudgery to serve the first two segments, to the need for continuous war to consume the inevitable over-production inherent to the post-industrial era.

The primary theme of the book, however, is the power and potential treachery of language and its inherent propensity to be deceptively stripped of meaning in the interest of mass oppression. It was a power that both Stalin and Hitler, who had dominated the news during much of Orwell’s own life, understood and cleverly manipulated to extreme and horrific effect.

Language, of course, is a human convention. It is not natural to the world like sunshine or the animals of the Savannah. We made it up to help us communicate. In so doing, however, we created the world’s most powerful oppressive weapon, a tool that can be turned on us as creator and master. Words have meaning but are not, by themselves, inherently truthful.

The Chinese understand this quite instinctively. In part this mirrors the inductive worldview in which personal obligation trumps everything, including language, and because they converse in a language that is, by its very nature, conceptual and pictographic.

Orwell’s warning, however, is of paramount application to Americans today, both because of our deductive world view which has given us political correctness, but also because the paramount tenets of our culture are not tangibles like filial piety, but intangible concepts, like honor, freedom, and liberty, that can only be understood proximately through words.

Never before, in fact, although I can’t believe Orwell truly foresaw this given that he penned this book forty years before the Internet, has Orwell’s warning been so relevant and so urgent. American culture, politics, and the economy turn on the importance of words more than ever before. Face to face communication among family and friends has declined greatly, our social institutions have steadily lost membership, our politicians communicate in 140 character (now 280 character) Tweets, and our economy is controlled by digital platforms driven by the two-dimensional language of algorithms and analytics.

The backbone of Orwell’s dystopia is the Thought Police, the role of which is “not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects…” Variations of the Thought Police have been around since the beginning of social organization. The difference in Orwell’s 1984 was the existence of the “telescreen,” a variation of television that supported 24/7 bidirectional communication controlled by the government.

Today, of course, we have the Internet. On the surface it is not as organized as Orwell’s Thought Police but it is equally powerful. It draws its strength from the collective consciousness of shamers, critics, and newsfeeds and content farms intent to achieve eyeballs and to disseminate their often virulent propaganda. It harnesses the hysteria of the crowd and the spite of the anonymous.

It is ironic that most Americans would equate Orwell’s dystopia more with China than with America itself. Western media coverage of China is inevitably pre-occupied with the lack of American style elections and the alleged suppression of political dissent, despite the reality that American political correctness suppresses more dissent than the Chinese censors could ever hope to.


Available in paperback and electronic formats at Amazon, B&N, and other fine bookstores. click here

United States Senators Marco Rubio and Chris Smith, both Republicans, and the Chair and Co-chair, respectively, of the Congressional Executive Commission on China, issued a letter prior to Trump’s trip, which CNN entitled, US should hold China accountable on human rights. In it they complain that China “continues to strengthen the world’s most sophisticated system of internet control and press censorship and forges ahead with what it calls ‘internet sovereignty.'” (They seem particularly concerned about China’s decision to block the WhatsApp platform in anticipation of the Communist Party Congress in October.)

This criticism was leveled, of course, in the middle of a US news barrage concerning the mass murder of American citizens by other citizens armed with military assault weapons, the long-tolerated predatory and misogynist behavior of powerful US men, the opioid epidemic, widespread civil rights abuses, travel bans, the suppression of immigration, and a growing income and wealth divide that is both categorically immoral and threatens economic and social stability.

But Orwell, in his prescience, would not have been at all surprised that this was all happening in America were he still alive. One of the lingual weapons of the oppressors in Orwell’s dystopia is blackwhite, a powerful piece of jargon with two contradictory meanings. “Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts…But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary.”

The blackwhite of America’s attitude toward China, of course, is that China is the oppressor and America is the guardian of liberty, justice, and the equality of all men and women. And, of course, the reality is the reverse. While the Chinese government is indeed sensitive to the negative collective impact of social disruption in a large, diverse, and heavily populated country, the Chinese have far greater freedom than Americans are allowed by the American Thought Police who control, through political groupthink, the dissemination of knowledge and truth.

As Orwell so darkly prophesized, the control of knowledge does not require censorship in an era where all thought and expression is transparent to all. Crimestop, another Orwellian addition to the oppressors’ lexicon, is simple enough to teach to children and can be used by the collective mob not to eradicate distasteful thought, but to preclude it from ever occurring in the first place. “It means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, or failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc [the ruling doctrine of the Orwellian state], and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.”

We have gone so far to promote crimestop in America, in fact, that we have created safe spaces on our campuses of higher learning so that students don’t run any risk of being forced to hear something that somehow got by the censors. Lenin himself could not have imagined such a wonderful and empowering accommodation of his ideology.

And while trigger warnings may not carry the direct impact of censorship, they can be more broadly deployed since they do not require any degree of government authority. They represent, in fact, the Thought Police writ democratic, the American mainstream stomping about in Orwell’s symbolic iron-shod boots.

And what is Orwell’s prediction for our future?

“It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called “abolition of private property” which took place in the middle years of the century meant, in effect, the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before; but with this difference, that the new owners were a group instead of a mass of individuals.”

But is Orwell describing the future of China or the United States? The Communist Party of China or the American political, economic, and Hollywood elite?

header photo credit: iStock.com/ollo

You may contact the author at gary@gmoreau.com
Visit my personal blog at www.gmoreau.com

Follow on Twitter @gmoreaubooks


Here’s what legendary Kirkus Reviews has to say about the author’s new book: “More than a guidebook for managers, this is a manifesto for an intellectually deeper – and happier – world of business.” Kirkus Reviews (starred review)
click here

The latest in the Understanding Series is now available.
click here

North Korea: A Sure Path to Peace


Author Gary Moreau, aka Avam Hale in fiction

Today, Wednesday, October 18, the 19th Communist Party of China National Congress convened in Beijing. This quinquennial meeting of party leadership is a time to review the party’s activities over the last five years, set markers for the next five years, and appoint future leadership. I provided my predictions on all of these fronts two posts ago so I will not be redundant here. Suffice it to say that my opinions haven’t changed.

Like anyone who has been monitoring the news, however, I am increasingly concerned about the situation in North Korea. Not out of any genuine concern that Kim Jong Un has any immediate plans to attack either the US or South Korea, mind you. I am more concerned that the issue has been thrown into the US political spin cycle and that it is quickly taking on a life of its own.

Speaking at a forum in Seoul just yesterday, Hillary Clinton noted, “…it should go without saying that cavalier threats to start a war are dangerous and short-sighted.” Nonetheless, the USS Michigan, a nuclear-powered submarine armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles, arrived in Korea on Tuesday, where it joins the USS Tucson, a Los-Angeles class attack sub already there. And, of course, there are the ever-constant tweets from President Trump promising to incinerate Pyongyang if the “little rocket man” tries to start anything. (Name-calling is always helpful in de-escalating tensions.)

I am always hesitant to tout history as the reason to do much of anything. The context is always different. There are certain historical truths, however, that have proven to hold true again and again. And one of those, I believe, is that whenever the rhetoric rises to this level with no reasonable plan in sight, nothing good comes of it.

There is obviously a lot at stake, in addition, obviously, to the 75+ million people who live on the peninsula. That’s not counting the 170,000 people of Guam, who are, by the way, US citizens; or the 127 million who live in nearby Japan, which North Korea is already capable of reaching with a missile strike.


Available in paperback and electronic formats at Amazon, B&N, and other fine bookstores. click here

A military solution to the stand off seems, at every level, both impractical and, frankly, more than a bit ludicrous. I am not a military expert but North Korea is dug in and I have yet to hear one person who is a military expert suggest that we can pop in, knock out Kim Jong Un’s nuclear program, and go home without leaving mass casualties in our wake.

So, what does everyone want out of North Korea? The US wants peace for the US and our regional allies; China wants border security and trade and does not want US troops on its southern border; Japan wants regional peace and perhaps some trade down the road; and South Korea wants peace, trade, and, ultimately, reunification of the Korean people.

An undecidable problem, as they say in computational complexity theory? I don’t think so. Counter-intuitive, maybe. But there is a solution.

The obvious first step in that solution is to remove all US troops from South Korean soil. OMG, OMG, OMG!!!

Yes, I did say that we should unilaterally, and with great fanfare, remove the US military presence from South Korea, where the US currently has 35,000 troops, and a whole lot of military hardware, sitting along the Korean Demilitarized Zone, the most heavily fortified border region in the world.

Here are the pros and cons:

Pros:
1. It ratchets down the rhetoric.
2. Opens the door to a regional diplomatic solution by South Korea, China, and Japan, where it belongs.
3. Gives face to China, in a political culture that turns on face.
4. Removes the most obvious justification for Kim Jong Un to take unilateral military action.
5. Gives the US the high moral and diplomatic ground at a time when it has largely lost it around the world.

Cons:
1. North Korea could be tempted to attack.

If they do, China will crush them. South Korea is a much more important trading partner for China than North Korea. China doesn’t really trust Kim Jong Un any more than the US does. And China does not want chaos on the peninsula, with which China shares an 880-mile border. (New Mexico and Arizona, combined, share only a 580-mile border with Mexico.) If the North Koreans pour across that border to get out of harms way, it will strain China’s social and physical infrastructure in the region to the breaking point.

If the North Koreans defy logic and mount a suicide mission anyway, moreover, the US still has 40,000 troops in Japan, a massive military presence in Guam, and the most mobile military in the world. (Including two nuclear submarines, B-1 bombers, and multiple warships already in the region. And that’s not counting the stationary missiles that are undoubtedly trained on the rogue country already.)

2. A potential loss of face for the US.

That’s not how face works. This will give the US face because we are acting from strength. It’s a unilateral withdrawal taken with the utmost confidence in our military and our regional allies. This is not appeasement. We’re simply giving China every chance possible—and every incentive—to take charge of the issue, something that Trump, Clinton, Tillerson, and just about everyone else have been asking for all along.

3. Panic in South Korea.

To be determined, of course, but I don’t think so. As long as the South Koreans accept our sincerity in standing by our defense commitment, I think the average South Korean understands the reality of the situation far better than anyone else. And they want to see a reunification just as much as the Germans wanted to see the reunification of Germany some twenty-seven years ago.

What is the upside for the US?

That’s easy. We’re worried about the growing influence of China. A unified Korea could potentially create a large, stable, economically powerful, and democratically friendly ally in the region. Remember that South Korea is already a staunch US ally, US corporations have a significant presence there, and 2/3 of the Korean population lives in the southern half of the peninsula today.

And what’s the alternative? In my opinion, the only alternative is for North Korea to become an autonomous territory of China similar to Tibet, Hong Kong, and eventually, Taiwan.

We can safely make two assumptions. The first is that the current regime in North Korea cannot survive. “Let them eat cake” is not a viable strategy, even in a nation whose citizens are effectively cut off from the world.

Perhaps more importantly, China will never allow a unified peninsula on which there is any chance that the US military presence moves north from the DMZ. It won’t happen. And China will never trust our political system enough to simply take our pledge not to interfere, even if President Trump were inclined to provide it, which seems decidedly unlikely for the negotiator-in-chief. The inductive Chinese are all about results. Words are cheaper than cheap. President Trump, no matter what relationship he may have with Xi Jinping personally, will never convince China to expose it’s geographic underbelly to South Korea as long as American troops reside on the peninsula.

And why would China go along and what incentive do they have to de-nuclearize North Korea? They obviously want peace on their southern border, and they want to conduct trade with a developing North Korea, not a starving one. Most importantly, however, it is exactly what a world leader would do.

As will become evident as the 19th China National Congress unfolds this week, China wants nothing more than to be seen as a world leader on a par with the US, Europe, and Russia. They don’t need Kim Jong Un’s nukes to secure the region. What they want is to achieve the Chinese Dream; to take their place on the world stage and once and for all overcome the Century of Humiliation.

I don’t generally believe in win-win scenarios. My own life experience has taught me otherwise. This strategy, however, comes about as close as you can get to a win-win-win-win-win between the US, China, South Korea, Japan, and the people of North Korea. And it should gain the swift support of Russia, which also shares a small border with North Korea and has obvious interests in the region.

This is not appeasement. This is simply resetting the board in recognition of the current economic and political realities and aspirations of the region and the world.

And, of course, it is the right thing to do from every humanitarian perspective. We tend to forget that there are twenty-five million men, women, and children living in North Korea. Liberation, which only China and South Korea can orchestrate, not mass destruction and death at the hands of American military technology, is the only humane option.

Perhaps that’s another lesson we can rightfully take from history and leave for our children.

header photo credit: iStock.com/dikobrazly

You may contact the author at gary@gmoreau.com
Visit my personal blog at www.gmoreau.com

Follow on Twitter @gmoreaubooks


Here’s what legendary Kirkus Reviews has to say about the author’s new book: “More than a guidebook for managers, this is a manifesto for an intellectually deeper – and happier – world of business.” Kirkus Reviews (starred review)
click here

The latest in the Understanding Series is now available.
click here

October 18, 2017


Author Gary Moreau, aka Avam Hale in fiction

Wednesday, October 18, 2017, will be an important day for the world. Its ultimate significance is likely to be even greater than the 2016 US presidential election.

On this day, the 19th Communist Party of China National Congress will convene in Beijing to review the Party’s work over the past five years, discuss and set the future direction for the country, and to elect a new central leadership.

During this Congress, it is widely expected that Chairman Xi Jinping will both secure his legacy and tighten his grip on power. It appears an almost foregone conclusion that he will come away from the Congress with a grip on power not seen since the reign of Mao Zedong himself, although no leader will ever quite achieve the historical status that Chairman Mao has.


Available in paperback and electronic formats at Amazon, B&N, and other fine bookstores.

Assuming that comes to pass, the world can expect Chairman Xi to double down on the major initiatives of the past five years for the next five, at least. All will be aligned with achieving the Chinese Dream at the heart of Xi’s political, social, and economic agendas. It is a redemptive legacy designed, first and foremost, to assign the Chinese Century of Humiliation (roughly 1850-1950) to the historical dustbin. This task will both influence and define everything else.

That said, here are my predictions for the next five years and beyond.

1. Energy – According to China Daily, more than 2.5 million people currently work in China’s solar power sector. That’s roughly ten times the number employed by the solar industry in the US. And in January of this year China vowed to invest 365 billion USD in renewable power generation by 2020.

Starting in 2019, China’s automotive companies will be required to begin the phase out of cars powered with internal-combustion engines. Some have predicted that by 2030 they will be outlawed completely.

China will continue to take the global lead in renewable energy and climate change. It has to and it wants to. China’s environmental degradation is not sustainable and it believes that the world will ultimately face the same challenges it does as population levels continue to rise. That spells economic opportunity for those companies at the forefront of renewable and alternative energy technology.

2. SOE Reform – Following China’s “opening up”, a process that began in 1989 and ushered in an era of unparalleled economic growth, many state-owned enterprises were privatized. Much of China’s economic growth, and a significant share of its burgeoning personal wealth, flowed from this transformation.

Some of China’s most powerful and influential industries, however, such as banking and financial services, remain under government ownership. By the end of this year, however, the Party has committed to turning all SOE’s into limited liability or joint-stock companies. This may well unleash an even more powerful surge in economic growth at a time when the Western economies continue to struggle for wage and inflation growth. China’s economy, as a result, now the second largest in the world, should equal the US in the next one or two decades.

3. South China Sea – There will be no backing down by China. China will risk World War III to protect its sovereignty. In its mind, it has no option. The West will ultimately be forced to accept this reality, with or without armed conflict.

4. North Korea – In one form or another, the rogue province will ultimately become a sovereign territory of China. China cannot and will not allow South Korea and its American ally to occupy the 880-mile (1,420 km) border it shares with North Korea.

For both environmental and competitive reasons, moreover, China needs to decompress the geographic concentration of its heavy industry (e.g. steel) and find new sources of low cost labor. North Korea will provide a convenient and geographically well-positioned opportunity to address both needs while providing a security buffer to China’s all-important southern region.

5. Regulation – Despite the ownership reforms cited above, government regulation will both federalize and increase in the future. The environment will be regulated with an iron fist. The Chinese Internet will be rigorously defended as both a Chinese asset and a tool for social and economic progress, not a medium for personal political expression. American technology companies will find limited opportunity there.

6. Hong Kong and Taiwan –  Neither will be granted the kind of political independence that Western political activists would like to see. This won’t even be considered. (On the contrary, North Korea will ultimately join them.) And any resulting social unrest, which should be quite limited, will be swiftly quelled.

7. Belt & Road –  Otherwise known as China’s Silk Road Initiative, China will continue to view this as a top foreign policy initiative. China views this as its best chance to economically develop its western provinces and release some of the cultural and political pressure it currently faces there. This will have a significant impact on all of Central and South Asia, including India, Pakistan, and many of the former members of the Soviet axis.

8. Politics –  China will exhibit no desire to export its political model except in matters of national security. Nor, however, will it move to adopt any form of the US political model. To most Chinese, the American model is not an attraction. If they are to borrow any foreign political ideals they will look to the socialism of Scandinavia, with “Chinese characteristics”, of course.

Is this good or bad news for the US and the West? In the end, it doesn’t matter. It will happen. The West, for a myriad of reasons, has lost the ability to shape world events. Phase III of Western imperialism (i.e. I. colonization, II. de-colonization, III. colonial dominance—the global dominance of the former colonies) will inevitably unfold.

As a pragmatist, I accept this reality. It is what it is. And if forced to choose, I believe, on balance, that this can be a period of positive replenishment for the US and its citizens. We will achieve far more by focusing our resources and our energy on renewing the American spirit, revitalizing American infrastructure, and revitalizing opportunity for all American citizens and immigrants, than we will on continuing to pursue inevitably ineffective attempts to reshape the world in our image.

It’s not a digital choice, however. We aren’t limited to putting America or the rest of the world first. Isolation isn’t a realistic option, as China itself has learned. By being a collaborative partner and embracing the diversity of the world, and accepting the inevitable ills of unfettered free markets and their corporate champions (e.g., polarized wealth distribution), we can help to usher in an era of unparalleled global prosperity, peace, and enlightenment.

And it could all start on October 18.

You may contact the author at gary@gmoreau.com
Visit my personal blog at www.gmoreau.com


Here’s what legendary Kirkus Reviews has to say about the author’s new book: “More than a guidebook for managers, this is a manifesto for an intellectually deeper – and happier – world of business.” Kirkus Reviews (starred review)
click here

The latest in the Understanding Series is now available.
click here

Corruption & Political Agenda

The Sixth Plenum of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China convened in Beijing this past week. It is the most significant event on the annual political calendar of China.

Once again, the focus appears to be on the elimination of corruption. President Xi Jinping’s administration has devoted itself to that very agenda since assuming office. To date more than one million members of the Communist Party of China (There are 88 million members in total.) have been disciplined. These include Zhou Yongkang, China’s ex-security czar, and Ling Jihua, a former presidential aide. Both were extremely powerful individuals convicted of criminal offenses.

Government corruption, of course, is not unique to China. The Chapman University of American Fears recently released shows government corruption at the top of the list of fears of most Americans. Government corruption, at 61%, exceeded fears about a terrorist attack (41%) or running out of money (40%).

Western political analysts tend to interpret Chinese corruption through a Western lens. Think Frank Underwood, played by Kevin Spacey, in the hit series House of Cards. It’s your everyday “anything for power” kind of corruption and has been around as long as there have been governments of any kind.

China’s problem is a little different. The Chinese understand power, for sure, and in China, as in the US, a crafty politician can leverage a little power into a sizeable fortune. Americans accept that as just part of the American dream. Despite often spending their entire lives earning a modest civil servant’s wage, there are no poor ex-presidents. It’s not hard to connect the dots.

Both China and the US, however, are attempting to bring about massive economic, social, political, and environmental change. Their methods are notably different, because the political reality is different in each country.

Governance in the US is done through the rule of ‘law’. The government passes detailed laws and regulations, often requiring thousands of pages of documentation, and then the regulators and the regulated fight it out in court. The cornerstone of this method of governance is the so-called ‘loophole’. If you’re clever enough, or rich enough to hire the cleverest people, you can usually find one. And the courts will uphold your right to serve injustice on your fellow citizens.

In China, in contrast, governance is largely accomplished through the rule of interpretation. Laws and regulations are often intentionally vague, foiling the finders of loopholes and empowering those who are tasked with enforcement of government policy.

Understanding China is now available at Amazon in paper and electronic formats.
Understanding China is now available at Amazon in paper and electronic formats.

Both approaches come with benefits and drawbacks. But both, in the end, lead to highly polarized societies where the interests of the few dominate the interests of the many.

In the US that comes down to money and power. They are the same thing. If you can hire people clever enough to find the loopholes, you can perpetuate the scam.

In China that comes down to the Party. If you control the apparatus of implementation you control the levers of power.

Xi Jinping gets it. I believe he very much wants to make China a better place. (I can’t say that with earnest about either of the US political parties.) He wants to improve the economy, the legal system, the environment. And he knows that he can do none of those things without Party loyalty at every level of government. Because that is how things work in China.

Western political analysts would have us believe that Xi Jinping’s crackdown on corruption is an attempt to consolidate his power – to silence or eliminate rival factions within the Party. I don’t think so. That would be an American strategy.

Mr. Xi’s agenda, I believe, is about moving China forward – what he refers to as the China Dream. We can only doubt that because we are so cauterized by our own political process.

Contact: You may reach the author at understandingchina@yahoo.com

Xi Jinping – President of China

In October 2012 Sinologist extraordinaire, Henry Kissinger, observed: “Each generation of Chinese leader…reflected the mission and the conditions of his period.” And five months later Xi Jinping was named the President of China amid conditions that looked little like those faced by any of his Communist predecessors.

The reality is that all leaders, great and otherwise, both shape their times and are shaped by them. Every once in a while, however, the conditions for change are particularly ripe, posing the opportunity for truly great leaders to change the world for the better in profound and far-reaching ways. Abraham Lincoln was such a leader at such a time. As were Franklin D. Roosevelt and Nelson Mandela. Each led a nation through profound and ultimately positive change.

And Xi Jinping? Only history, not glassmakers, can answer that question but there is little doubt in this glassmaker’s mind that the time is ripe in China for great and world-changing leadership to leave its mark on history.

If, as Kissinger noted, President Hu Jintao, Xi’s predecessor, led China onto the world stage, President Xi Jinping is surely the first Chinese President to lead from the established position of world power. So while it is undoubtedly true that President Obama remains the most powerful man in the world, President Xi is undoubtedly the man with the opportunity to change the world to the greatest degree – one way or the other – during the lives of today’s children.

So what can we expect from the man who now leads one-fifth of the world’s population and oversees the world’s second largest economy?

Xi Jinping was born in Shaanxi Province, home to Xi'an and the Terracotta Warriors.
Xi Jinping was born in Shaanxi Province, home to Xi’an and the Terracotta Warriors.

President Xi was born in Shaanxi Province, currently 16th of the 31provinces and autonomous regions in economic strength, an interior province known to Westerners primarily as the home of Xi’an and the Terracotta Warriors.

He is the son of Xi Zhongxun, a former revolutionary hero and one of the first generation of Communist Chinese leaders. As a senior provincial leader of Guandong Province, China’s most prosperous province, the elder Xi helped to bring about the development of special economic development zones that were the cornerstone of Deng Xiaoping’s efforts to redefine socialism with Chinese characteristics. He subsequently moved on to Beijing where he was elected to the Politburo and the party secretariat, retiring from government service in 1988.

A stamp was issued in 2013 to commemorate what would have been the 100th birthday of Xi Zhongxun, the famous father of Xi Jinping. Photo creidt:  Joinmepac/Shutterstock.com
A stamp was issued in 2013 to commemorate what would have been the 100th birthday of Xi Zhongxun, the famous father of Xi Jinping.
Photo credit: Joinmepic/Shutterstock.com

From the accounts I’ve read Xi Zhongxun was a man of moderation and tolerance, seeking political solutions whenever possible and displaying sincere accommodation of religious and ethnic diversity. And without question he was a man of both idealism and conviction, having been purged and imprisoned on several occasions throughout his career.

This included imprisonment during the Cultural Revolution, a time during which Xi Jinping, at age of 16, was ‘sent down’ to work and study at an agricultural commune in Yanchuan County, part of a widespread program developed by Mao Zedong to allow urban youth to learn from the simple ways of Chinese farmers in the hope of eradicating the perceived emergence of bourgeois decadence in urban Chinese society.

After six years on the commune and the end of the Cultural Revolution, the young Mr. Xi went on to earn a university degree in chemical engineering and, later, a doctorate in law, both from Tsinghua University, widely considered the MIT of China and one of the best and most competitive universities in China today.

Having joined the China Communist Party (CCP) while still in Yanchuan County President Xi’s first job after graduating from university was personal secretary to Geng Biao, the minister of defense, eventually moving on to a variety of county and provincial level posts before becoming party secretary of Shanghai and emerging on the national political scene.

Beyond those basic facts, of course, neither we as Westerners nor the average Chinese knows all that much about Xi Jinping the man. Chinese leaders are notoriously private, although his wife, Peng Liyuan, a famous folksinger, is widely adored by the Chinese and, unlike political wives of the past, is frequently seen accompanying her husband on official state visits. Still, no Chinese person that I’ve talked with is even certain where the couple actually live so the idea that the first family might invite television cameras into their home to share a holiday celebration, as is the custom in the U.S., is virtually unthinkable.

From watching President Xi on Chinese television, however, I must say that he strikes me as a man comfortable in his own skin. He seems quite relaxed in front of an audience and often displays a sense of disarming humor and self-deprecation seldom seen publicly in any senior government official here in the decorous Middle Kingdom.

His father, as all fathers inevitably do, undoubtedly shaped Xi Jinping’s thinking in many ways.  And, I suspect, he was likewise greatly influenced by his time on the agricultural commune in Yanchuan County.

But before my fellow Western readers jump to any conclusions, I mean ‘influenced’ in the most positive way. While Westerners tend to think of being ‘sent down’ as akin to an old Soviet political dissident being sent off to a gulag, I don’t believe that is in any way a valid analogy.

My first assistant in China was a retired teacher who herself, with several of her classmates, was ‘sent down’ during the Cultural Revolution to work on a similar agricultural commune. And while the living conditions were austere, food was not always plentiful, and the work was long and grueling, I never once heard her utter anything close to anger or resentment about the experience.

She spoke about it very matter of factly. While her own family suffered at the hands of the Red Guard for allegedly being bourgeois (She told the story of a young guardsman burning a cherished photo of her mother in her wedding dress because he considered the dress to be a symbol of bourgeois decadence.) she always talked about her time on the commune in terms of the friendships she made and the lessons she learned about life. To this day she and her classmates visit the village from time to time and she holds a heartfelt reverence for the poor farmers, who like farmers the world over, feed the rest of us in relative obscurity, enjoying feint praise for their hard labor.

But this woman, who was always referred to by the simple but highly respectful term, lao shi, meaning teacher, had two notable qualities beyond her general reverence for the poor that I believe she would attribute to her time in the country. One is the complete and total lack of fear. The other is perspective.

President Xi, I suspect, shares all three of these qualities – respect for all people, invincible courage, and balanced perspective. If you can read a man from his eyes this is a man who has complete and total respect for people – all people. This is a man who genuinely shares the hopes and dreams of the Chinese people for a harmonious and comfortable life – the Chinese Dream that he so often references in his public speeches.

And the achievement of that dream, I believe, will ultimately define the agenda for the decade he will serve as the President of China. Which is to say that the first Chinese president to lead China as an established world power will spend more time and energy focused on China itself than its influence over the rest of the world.

President Xi faces many daunting domestic challenges, including environmental degradation which is facing even China's most modern cities like Beijing.
President Xi faces many daunting domestic challenges, including environmental degradation, which is facing even China’s most modern cities such as Beijing.

He faces many daunting domestic challenges – environmental degradation, the polarization of wealth, corruption – both public and private, and regional unrest and the violence it has spawned. And these, I believe, are the challenges that will occupy his time and attention.

That is not to say, however, that he will simply defer to the rest of the world in defining China’s role in the new world order. He is the son of a soldier, is married to a major general in the People’s Liberation Army, and himself served in the military. He is a man, from what we’ve seen so far, who is both cool under pressure and not intimidated by either saber rattling or bellicose rhetoric. His father ‘risked it all’ and willingly paid the price for what he believed and the son, I strongly suspect, is cut from the same cloth.

President Xi, his father, and his wife all served the People's Liberation Army, shown here in a relaxing but disciplined game of basketball.
President Xi, his father, and his wife all served the People’s Liberation Army, shown here in a relaxing but disciplined game of basketball.

I believe the quality that will ultimately come to define President Xi Jinping in history, however, is the same quality that so prominently defined my assistant – perspective. He has seen it all and experienced it all and he, unlike so many of today’s valueless leaders intoxicated by their own power, knows exactly how it all fits together.

And for that reason I am willing to bet, without hesitation, that this, more than anything else, is a man that simply deplores hypocrisy. I don’t think he expects to agree with the world leaders he will meet and work with in his duties. I don’t think he even cares if they share his perspective or his worldview.

But God help them if he concludes that they are hypocrites. More than anything else it is the perceived hypocrisy of their enemies that gave Mao and his fellow revolutionaries, including Xi Zhongxun, the strength to win despite unimaginable suffering and against the longest of odds.

I believe it is the ruins of hypocrisy on which the Chinese Dream will ultimately rise, and it is the battle against hypocrisy, both here in China and the world over, that I believe will ultimately define the leadership of President Xi Jinping.

Will history judge him to be a great leader? I dearly hope so. And, yes, I, for one, as inconsequential as I may be, sincerely believe it will. He is, in my humble glassmaker’s opinion, the right man at the right time and in the right place to change the world in positive and profound ways.

Don’t you hope I’m right?

In his youth, Xi Jinping was 'sent down', as were many of his peers, to learn from the ways of the rural peasants who feed the country.  Whether the ideals of the times were realized or not, I believe they all learned important lessons about themselves and about life.
In his youth, Xi Jinping was ‘sent down’, as were many of his peers, to learn from the ways of the rural peasants who feed the country. Whether the ideals of the times were realized or not, I believe they all learned important lessons about themselves and about life.

Photo credit for title image:  Kaliva/Shutterstock.com

You may contact the author at glassmakerinchina@gmail.com

Copyright © 2014 Glassmaker in China

Notice:  The views expressed in this post are strictly those of the writer acting in a personal capacity.  They are not in any way endorsed or sanctioned by his employer or any other individual with which he may be personally or professionally affiliated.