National Review Underestimates Chinese Workers

Conservatives in America are fed a regular diet of nonsense on China by the conservative press. I have been allowed to rebut such nonsense in The Stream and in Quillette.  But one of the worst offenders, National Review, which I have read since college, does not allow anyone to puncture its balloons.   

A few days ago, "China expert" Therese Shaheen gave NR readers another test of their gullibility. Most readers, having been brainwashed, seemed to fail that test.  Let's examine just one claim from her article denigrating Chinese economic prospects:

"And as many as 700 million working-age people in China have a grade school education or less."

How credible is that? Let's see, there are some 900 million people of working age in China.

And 162 million Chinese seem to have tertiary education. 

So for Shaheen's claim to be correct, no more than 38 million people in China have just a middle school or high school education.

Never mind that the number of secondary students was 85% of the number of primary students in 2020, and constituted the vast majority of children of school ages:

Total 250.5 million

Primary 107.5 million

Secondary 90.8 million1

Post secondary 52.2 million

Furthermore, when I first arrived, a high school education was considered pretty advanced in China.  Many students had to leave school during the Cultural Revolution, and play catchup on their own.  So it is simply not credible that only 38 million Chinese have a middle school or high school education but no post-secondary education.  

Of course, one could posit that all such figures are fake, though Shaheen gives no source for her alternative reality.

But beyond the dubious character of Shaheen's alleged "fact," being a very ignorant "China scholar," she also overlooks the significance of the fact that yes, some Chinese workers have little formal education.

Many of those workers are farmers, whose ancestors have farmed the land for centuries. That doesn't stop them from being innovative: China's farm products have dramatically improved, I know from first-hand experience.

Others entered the workforce as former farmers when China was developing, and went into occupations like construction, delivery, and cleaning. During those careers, the percent of those attaining higher education increased dramatically. Poorly-educated old people will retire, and maybe be replaced by tech. (Few young people want their jobs.) Their level of education is irrelevant to the question Shaheen applies it: China's future economic prospects.

National Review's philosophy seems to be that China is our enemy, and the best way to defeat an enemy is by underestimating them.  

What is a True Progressive?

Adapted from an article originally published at The Stream on September 8, 2021. 

What does it mean to be progressive? Language is a game people play. If every game requires agreed rules (and it does), then every word requires agreed meaning. Definitions are the first step to rational thinking and action.  

Take dueling, for example. Shall we meet at sunrise, or sunset? Shall we bring seconds? Will we fight by pistols? Swords? Light sabers? Who gets to shoot first?

A duel without common language rules becomes a mere cat fight — or less. If you say, “Let’s meet on an island in the Volga River at sunrise,” and your opponent thinks of a river in Russia, but you have in mind a river in Brazil, the joust will not come off. When words lack agreed meaning, we may clash like rutting elk or we may miss by the width of a continent. One can't even fight intellectually without the common ground of clear definitions. 

 

Confusion Over “Progressive”

This is why many quarrels about religion and politics are mere “dust in the wind.” Poorly-defined words lodge in the eyes and obscure the vision: “faith,” “science,” “democracy,” “socialism,” and of course, “racism.” These words means such different things to different people, our rhetorical ships do not merely pass in the night, they float on different oceans. Except when carefully defined (see for example J. Budziszewski on the dangers of “liberalism” and “conservatism”) our buzz-words usually stir more emotion than thought.

The duel of our times is being fought, and it is over the meaning of progress: where we should go, and whether, having arrived there, we shall still be fully human.

Perhaps no word is more confusing today than “progressive.” It sounds lovely: Who doesn’t want a future that is better than the past? Wait a minute, though: What does “better” mean? Once it was “progressive” to save girls from infanticide. Then a new “progressive” catechism made it a sacred right to kill babies up to the moment of birth. In 1965, “progressives” stood boldly against segregating based on race or discriminating based on skin color. Now some who claim that label put blacks and whites in different classrooms, and select students or employees by how much light their epidermis reflects.

 

In Which Direction Is “Progress”?

“Progress” means forward motion. It is the opposite of “regress,” and perpendicular to “digress.”

Was Odysseus sailing towards
the sirens a "progressive?" 

Once again, though, to go forward begs several questions. Where are you standing? Which direction are you facing? What will you find that way? What is your goal? What islands, currents, storms, or pirate ships stand between?

 Would Odysseus be “progressive” to head toward the sirens where he yearned to go, or on to the next island? C.S. Lewis pointed out that if one has taken a wrong turn, the quickest way to get ahead is to go back.

“Getting ahead” requires a map and compass so we know which direction is truly ahead. Suppose we map “progress” on a cosmic scale, say, by watching the Andromeda and the Milky Way galaxies collide, and see what that can teach us about contemporary politics?

 

Progress Toward Chaos?

Some physicists say the ultimate end of the universe will be “heat death.” All material objects will finally turn into a cold porridge of protons and leptons, reaching a state of “thermodynamic equilibrium” after the largest black holes finally decay.

In what direction are “progressives” taking us, then? “Movement towards ultimate chaos,” maybe? Notice the mile markers they’re passing on their route:

Toppled statues? Check.

Graffiti on walls? Check.

Tents, syringes, and human waste on major city sidewalks? Check.

Anarchy in the streets? Shootings? Coyotes without borders? COVID-laden cough particles scattering through ICE facilities?

How about crowds in Afghan airports scattering as bombs explode?

“Now that one’s unfair!” You complain. “We do not call it ‘progress’ when an army that locks women indoors and carries out executions in soccer fields conquers a country. This isn’t moving forward, it’s religious kooks, an Afghan Moral Majority, dragging us back to 7th Century theocracy!  So no, this is the furthest thing from true progressivism!”

Or does saying that make you an "Islamophobe?" 

 

Who Says Islam Isn’t Progressive?

Black was the dress code in both Kandahar and downtown Portland.  Progressives and radical Muslims alike decree that only people with pure thoughts should speak.  They merely differ over who should get the mic. If you recall Lewis’ comment about turning around after a wrong turn, the Taliban might claim to be better progressives than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

“Backtrack to 6th Century Arabia, and we can find the true stairway to heaven!” say the Afghanis. This is a coherent idea, if not a good one.

Western “progressives,” lacking a sacred Scripture, are more muddled in their thinking. “Go forward!” They say.  But the direction they deem "forward" keeps changing, and they spin blindly in a fog of changing fads, from Marxism to liberalism, environmentalism to Woke ideology to such fear of "racism" and "Islamophobia" that they are afraid to object to Somali scams or Pakistani grooming gangs.  

One cannot progress, said Chesterton, if one’s goals keep on changing.

If degrading the most intricate and productive forms of civilization is “progressive,” then left-wing and Taliban philosophies have more in common than the Left cares to see.

 

Regress in Both Uniformity and Chaos

One can die of uniformity or of chaos. You may be frozen into a crystal, each molecule in your body lined up in tight rows. Or you may dissolve in chaos, like the T-1000 Terminator in a vat of molten steel. One is the totalitarian clone-like “diversity” of a modern sociology department or of a Chinese Community Party Politburo meeting. The other is South Chicago on a Friday night in summer or the streets outside Kabul’s airport.

Modern progressivism often imposes a sameness of thought like molecules in a crystal, even while breaking social connections into the sludge-like chaos of death. Simple ideologies, whether “forward to the future!” or “back to 7th Century Arabia!” demand conformity. They atomize and isolate us, eroding the fabric of civilization.

Progress? If death is our goal, I’m afraid America has made quite a lot over the past year.

 

True Progress Echoes Creation

An alternative vision of progress echoes Creation. Quarks unite to become protons and neutrons. Atoms form molecules. Nucleotides, proteins, and DNA make cells, then tissues and organs. Organs, said St. Paul, cooperate to form bodies, each with its unique and valued contribution. Men and women make families. Centers, forwards, and point guards become basketball teams. Farmers, tradesmen, soldiers, and other specialists create a city, said Plato. The Medieval Church invented even higher forms of harmony, unity within diversity, such as contrapuntal music, the great cathedrals, and the university.

“Death, thou shalt die,” said John Donne. Whereas today’s “progressives” often seem to aim toward entropy, from Creation to the Resurrection of Jesus, Christian progress has meant defeating it. The American motto, “Out of many, one” (E Pluribus Unum) spits in the eyes of chaos and conformity alike. Diversity in creative harmony is the form of progress on which western civilization was founded.

Followers of Jesus may thus call ourselves true progressives. We have a Guide who does not change, and the unity we seek is not “equity,” a sludge of conformity, but the oneness of organs within a living body.

The duel of our times is being fought, and it is over the meaning of progress: where we should go, and whether, having arrived there, we shall still be fully human.

The myth as I’ve read it has them sailing right on by, with Odysseus lashed to the mast, and his shipmates protected by earplugs. They didn’t turn around.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Judge Venezuela by law, or by consequences?

How should we evaluate the attack on Venezuela? By international law, or by its probable consequences? Let me limit the choices to these two.

Many people say international law should be our guide. A few of these claim Trump's actions were legal, while more seem to cite international law to describe them as lawless, reckless, illegal, immoral, etc.

I am skeptical that international law should be given priority in judging this action.

Four eternal criteria seem to be in play in geopolitics: Power; Interest; Law; and Justice.

Power and Interest usually determine how states treat one another, even when they appeal to Law or Justice. And national interest, and the means one has to defend it, should be considered, and it would be unrealistic to deny their force. Nations do act in their own interest, and in a sense, should. But then they begin to realize something called "enlightened self-interest," which means, in essence, that if they act badly, they can expect bad karma -- not just because the Universe or God will avenge their victims, but because they will be seen and treated as bad actors, and alliances will form against them.

That is a danger the US, along with other major powers like Russia and China, need to consider.

But beyond that, as a Christian, of course I think nations should act justly.

What does International Law add to justice?

Not much, I think.

Henry Wheaton's Elements of International Law begins with this rousing declaration:

“There is no legislative or judicial authority recognized by all nations, which determines the law that regulates the reciprocal relations of States. The origin of this law must be sought in the principles of justice . . . ”

Wheaton wrote at a time when western nations were expanding ferociously, for Power and Interest, but not always with much concern for Justice. Wheaton seemed to concede that there is no paramount authority which can be cited to back international law up. Neither is there today. The UN is a toothless lion, usually roaring for the wrong side. It cares little for justice. If justice is to be found, it must be allied with Power.

The Presbyterian missionary WAP Martin translated Wheaton's long book into Chinese, to furnish the Qing government (when China was run by the Manchus) with legal weapons against European nations that were taking bites out of China. He did this under consultation of Anson Burlingame, Lincoln's envoy to Beijing.

Lincoln's former general, Ulysses S. Grant, when he visited Tianjin and Beijing after his own presidency, perhaps more realistically recommended trains. Grant had fought and won a war by using rail technology, and by destroying the South's rail lines. Books may be helpful -- and Burlingame helped China a lot by negotiating treaties -- but Grant recognized that interests must be defended with power, which means technology.

And even Wheaton seemed to recognize that Law must ultimately be reduced to Justice, if it is going to say anything to Power and Interest that is worth hearing.

Christians are told to obey their rulers, except when we "must obey God, rather than man." That applies to the rulers of one's nation. But it does not apply to the so-called "international community," a vague and dubious entity, which in practice seems obsessed with chastising Israel for daring to exist, and choosing Somali wheeler-dealers to lead the UN Security Council.

Justice must be set first, with caution, recognizing that Law is often a disguise for Power and Interest, and that Justice is also often self-interested and deceptive. Trump talks much about Power and Interest, and sometimes makes appeals to "fairness" (Justice) which tend to be self-serving. But Justice is more closely aligned with the commands of God than what lawyers propose about international law. Law can be a tool to promote Justice, but should never be an excuse for ignoring it.

So faced with a case such as the raping and looting of Venezuela that has occurred under yet another "socialist" regime, whatever the arguments for or against the "legality" of this action, I don't think arguments from "international law" should be set first.

Law should be carefully considered, because nations do need common principles of action. But we must not pretend the nations of the world are an impartial jury, or that one can easily access the rulings of the Judge. (Who is generally ignored in such discussions, anyway.)

So how about judging the attack on Venezuela by its consequences?

Judging actions by effects seems natural. Monday morning quarterbacks across America do just that, after their football team loses. "The coach shouldn't have tried a pass on the Patriot goal line when Marshawn Lynch was available to run it in!" They say, after a painful (still, years later) Super Bowl loss.

"It's easy to judge after the fact," Pete Carroll might respond. "But you'd be criticizing me just as loudly if I'd tried a run, and it got stuffed at the one-yard line. My QB didn't throw many interceptions."

Formally, judging an act by its effects is called consequentialism. And one difficulty is one can never be sure what the consequences of a given action will turn out to be.

Will Venezuela be free? Or fight a civil war? Or maybe both? Will the government hang on to power? At least mellow out some? Hold elections? How honest will those elections be, and who will be elected? Will people starve? Or slowly become prosperous as oil is refined and sent to market? Will this scare China? Or give China motive to arm up even more quickly?

Those are just a few of the hundreds of questions that come to mind -- and probably no one knows the answers to any of them.

Obviously, one should consider the consequences of one's actions before taking them. But we are normally constrained by commandments -- "Thou shalt nots" -- which are easier to follow, and good for our souls, in part because they don't require us to predict the future. Because, again, we are not God.

Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's oil?

Yes, we'd better remember those. We must seek justice with Venezuela. The temptation simply to take must be restrained by law -- here it really is helpful.

Nevertheless, I think it is better to judge the attack on Venezuela mainly by its consequences, not by what the international lawyers may say. (Though they should have a voice.)

In a sense, this is unfair to Trump. One must act, as president, and one can never know all that will flow from one's action.

So I reminded my students a story they knew well, about a farmer named Sai Weng, whose horse ran away. His neighbor said "Too bad!" And Sai Weng said, "Who knows what is good or bad?" The horse led wild horses back, and the neighbor said "That's good!" Sai Weng's son broke his leg taming the horses, and the neighbor said, "Too bad!" Conscription agents came to take the son to the army, but left him, because he had a broken leg. "That's good!" And at each stage, Sai Weng recognized the weakness of consequentialism: we never know all that will flow from our actions, still less are we able to judge it all.

But hold your head up, Marco Rubio. Straighten your tie, Pete Hegseth. The buck stops here, Donald Trump.

For despite all that, I think it is right to judge this attack by its effects, whatever they turn out to be. Effect is a more pressing question than the perhaps equally unanswerable, "Does this violate international Law?"

This is the NFL. Winners go on. Losers take their horses and go home.

It is your job to do the impossible: to consider all the variables that factor into Power, Interest, Law, and Justice. And then to act so as to make the world a better place. You'll make mistakes. But if you take a bold action like this, it is your job to make sure it helps, and does not hurt, the nation you have accepted responsibility for leading, and yes, also the nation you have attacked, because that is part of our enlightened self-interest, and the justice of God.

May he guide you. It will not be easy.