President Obama’s deep bow to Japanese Emperor Akihito this week went further than a simple sign of respect. The near-90 degree tilt taken by our chief of state symbolizes a subservient American-Japanese relationship. Though I would not go so far as to call this treasonous, as some bloggers have, I would say that a greeting representational of an equal relationship between America and Japan would be much more appropriate. However, this deep bow could have been accurately directed at Hu Jintao, China’s head of state.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Obama’s endeavors in China have been less than successful due to a strong arm from the Chinese government, which is tightly restricting the president’s plans. This overbearing position taken by the Chinese government should be expected. Shi Yinhong, a professor at People’s University in Beijing summed up the issue well when she said, “The U.S. is not able to force its agenda on China anymore.” Debt has undermined our position of power. Hari Sreenivasan of CBS News reports that the U.S. owes China about $800 billion dollars, and Stephen Green, head of research at Standard Chartered Bank in Shanghi, stated on NPR in 2008 that this number was probably closer to $1.3 trillion. Either way, China has one of the largest stakes in the U.S. debt.
The U.S. has become subject to a communist country that has little respect for basic human rights, children and women. Consumerism has driven governmental and personal spending out of control. This, in turn, has led to the loss of international influence, which was once used to better the condition of humanity. America has become a nation complacent, if not downright submissive or dependent, in the world stage, as seen in the case of our president’s bow.
Alexander Fraser Tytler, a noted historian, postulated the nature of government as the tyranny-liberty cycle. This cycle describes government in five sequential stages that repeat over an approximately 200- year era: liberty, complacency, dependence, tyranny and revolution.
It appears from recent events in China and the general climate of American politics, including the current social policies of the left, that we exist between the stages of complacency and dependence. By the nature of our government, individuals who make different incomes are not treated equally. Individuals in higher tax brackets, and subsequently under greater government control, tend to believe we are further along in the cycle. These individuals say we are drifting into the realm of tyranny. Whether we are in a stage of dependence or nearing tyranny, this nation is far beyond the stage of liberty.
I am not advocating a revolt, and I oppose tyranny. If Tytler is right, however, the only path to a return to freedom is by way of the dark side of liberty, through tyranny and revolution. They key to successful government in the tyranny-liberty cycle is to move quickly through the painful stages and prolong the good stages. Since we have moved beyond the stage of liberty, it is crucial that we move quickly through the remaining stages to bring us back to freedom. At this point, I am a progressive in the most literal sense. Let tyranny come to the masses. Let revolution pass. For, in the end, liberty shall return.
When history repeats itself, it’s usually due to ignorance, a failure to learn about the patterns of the past. I don’t know what I would call “repeating history to get it over with”, but it doesn’t sit well.
In tyranny and revolution, there is substantial destruction of wealth, decreasing the standard of living. We still have the power to overturn oppressive laws by electing officials who abide by the constitution. Tyranny should never be desired for any reason.
On an unrelated note: mustangdaily.net needs a better security code system, maybe asking the poster to enter the result of 3 + 5, as well as use stripslashes() on the comment text after an invalid code has been entered.
I have to admit that I am not one to usually post a reply to an article but after reading through another of installment of this weekly column I feel compelled to share my opinion.
Just pointing out the many ways that the author contradicts himself within a few sentences would take more time than I have. The one that bothered me the most however is the final paragraph, first denying any sort of interest or advocacy of a revolt (against the US government, isn’t this the sort of talk that in 2004 would have gotten any liberal even flirting with such language branded as a traitor?), and yet not a few sentences later he writes, "Let tyranny come to the masses. Let revolution pass. For, in the end, liberty shall return." Did I miss something? Isn’t this the exact opposite of what he was just saying?
You cannot take away responsibility from the views you are espousing just by stating three sentences earlier that you don’t really mean them. You either believe something or you don’t , at least take ownership of it.
I am embarrassed to have this passing as journalism at the University which I attend. I am a strong advocate for freedom of speech, but I would hope that the Mustang Daily could at least provide opinions with some level of thought and reason behind them.
the revolution starts within. if the people positive change, our relationship with leadership will change, the culture & society changes, and lastly, the government will change. government is always the last to change.
why people believe that government must lead is beyond reason. there is no evidence for it, other than in examples of violent repression and tyranny, where the change is in a negative direction
With regards to the first point, I do agree that Obama made the error of bowing too deep to the Japanese emperor. However, I do not find this cultural gaffe to be as nearly incredulous as the right-wing media pundits make it out to be. The emperor is a largely ceremonial position, and the political implications related to the bow are not significant enough to warrant this much media buffoonery.
——-
The United States’ diminishing leverage over China has much to do with the fact that China regulates its currency valuation internally. Most of the world’s major currencies “float” against one another. That is, their relative values move up or down depending on market forces. That doesn’t necessarily mean that governments pursue pure hands-off policies: countries sometimes limit capital outflows when there’s a run on their currency (as Iceland did last year) or take steps to discourage hot-money inflows when they fear that speculators love their economies not wisely but too well (which is what Brazil is doing right now). But these days most nations try to keep the value of their currency in line with long-term economic fundamentals.
China is the great exception. Despite huge trade surpluses and the desire of many investors to buy into this fast-growing economy — forces that should have strengthened the renminbi, China’s currency — Chinese authorities have kept that currency persistently weak. They’ve done this mainly by trading renminbi for dollars, which they have accumulated in vast quantities.
And in recent months China has carried out what amounts to a beggar-thy-neighbor devaluation, keeping the yuan-dollar exchange rate fixed even as the dollar has fallen sharply against other major currencies. This has given Chinese exporters a growing competitive advantage over their rivals, especially producers in other developing countries.
What makes China’s currency policy especially problematic is the depressed state of the world economy. Cheap money and fiscal stimulus seem to have averted a second Great Depression. But policy makers haven’t been able to generate enough spending, public or private, to make progress against mass unemployment. And China’s weak-currency policy exacerbates the problem, in effect siphoning much-needed demand away from the rest of the world into the pockets of artificially competitive Chinese exporters.
———–
And lastly, the calls by teabaggers and radio talk show hosts for revolt are absolutely ridiculous. These same people, the ones who voted for Bush two times(!), are placing the blame of our economic situation on an administration that hasn’t been in office for a year yet. Our mounting foreign debt is inextricably linked to the fiscally irresponsible policies of Bush. Don’t forget that.