As part of a new wrinkle for this blog, I am answering some questions from Mark about LDP factions, the DPJ, and political leaders. Now, I’m aware that there are at least two people (and probably a few more) who read this blog and happen to be far more competent to answer them. Message to those people: Please feel free to embarrass me.The other day, the Japan Times wrote an interesting article on the factional politics in Japan. The article discussed the origins of the current factions. But I would like to know more about the evolution of the policies, thinking, and philosophies of the factions.
My take is that ideology was of only secondary interest to the factions in the first place, except perhaps Ikeda’s group, and has diminished dramatically in importance even from those modest beginnings. (That’s my excuse for not knowing much about the subject.)
According to the article, the Ibuki faction used to belong to Nakasone. How would you compare the thinking of Bunmei Ibuki to Yasuhiro Nakasone? The article also notes that Yukio Hatoyama and Ichiro Ozawa came from the Tanaka faction. The media often compares Ozawa to Tanaka. How does the thinking of Kakuei Tanaka differ from that of Ichiro Ozawa and Yukio Hatoyama?
The occasional, politically incorrect statements aside, Ibuki is far more intelligent and thoughtful than many people out there give him credit for. He also shares some of Nakasone’s nationalist leanings. But beyond that, I know little about his political philosophy or his policy preferences. But I’m not really embarrassed about that. For Ibuki has nothing of Nakasone’s vision, drive, or ambition, the last of which is symbolized by his unkempt, graying hair. This is not accidental in my view; given the drastically altered role of LDP factions, Ibuki is more the amicable manager of an intramural flag football team, where Nakasone was the head coach of an NCAA Division I varsity football team. More caretaker than leader, faction leaders have severely limited influence over their nominal subordinates, and if they harbor Prime Ministerial ambitions, they are no more than marginally advantaged over the others. In sum, Ibuki as faction leader is more comparable to his generational peers; likewise Nakasone.
It’s all about winning for Ozawa, winning big, winning it all. In that respect, he is Tanaka’s true disciple. His old school ways with money matters also reminds us of Tanaka. Where he differs most from Tanaka is a certain joylessness, an aversion to the spotlight and the winner’s podium. Tanaka’s political philosophy, if you can call it that, appears to have been: Make everyone rich, make my constituency rich, and make myself really, really rich. Ozawa comes across as someone who is even less interested in the substance of domestic policy. Making everyone rich also colored his interests, what there was of it, in foreign policy; he harbored none of Ozawa’s resentment of Japan’s second-class status in its relationship with the U.S. or desire to project the Japanese military in the near and far abroad.
I have no thoughts about Yukio Hatoyama other than that he’s a dutiful conciliator with few if any enemies but even less charisma. But then, given the quality of the enemy… Oh, he’s a foreign policy dove by inclination, which probably suits the majority of DPJ members and supporters just fine.
Apparently, the Aso faction and the Koga faction will merge. The article says Ikeda and Miyazawa used to lead the Koga faction. How would you compare the philosophies of Aso and Koga to Ikeda, Miyazawa, and Yoshida?
Koga is closer to the Ikeda-Miyazawa(-Koichi Kato) lineage of true, post-WW II doves, while Aso is much, much closer to the nationalist-conservative wing that includes such luminaries as Shinzo Abe and Shoichi Nakagawa. Perhaps that’s what made it easier for Koga to merge/swallow Sadakazu Tangachi’s group. But, as you can see from the fact that Aso inherited his 20-band of parliamentary warriors from Yohei “Kohno Statement” Kohno, love transcends ideology.
The two ends of the ideological spectrum of the rich-nation, weak-army values underlying the Yoshida Doctrine were: a genuine aversion to the profligate expansionism of the inter-war decades; and the sense that Japan was biding its time until it could emerge glorious once again as a Great Power in its own right. Koga, who lost his father to the war, and Aso, descended from a pre-war magnate whose children married up in socially, are the metaphor for the two poles. As for Ikeda and Miyazawa, they can loosely be included in the aversion school.
But seriously, are they going to merge? Finally? Well, Mma Ramotswe and Mr. J.L.B. Matekoni got married, so why not, eh?
Also, I would like you to comment a little on the inter-faction politics. In a separate article, the Asahi Shimbun interviewed Yasuhiro Nakasone. The interviewer made the point that Tanaka had a great deal of power over Nakasone. But he didn't mention the specific issues in which Tanaka manipulated Nakasone. Could you help me out here? Furthermore, both Nakasone and the interviewer thought the relationship between Yukio Hatoyama and Ichiro Ozawa might be similar to the relationship between Nakasone and Tanaka. But the article didn't say how the relationship was similar. Do you have any idea on what the those similarities might be? Lastly, the interviewer said that Ozawa would probably have a harder time influencing Hatoyama than Tanaka had with Nakasone. He did not say why that might be the case. Do you have any idea on why that might be true?
I’m not aware of any substantive issue on which Tanaka forced his views on Nakasone (except, likely, where his personal interests and those of his supporters and constituency lay). I suspect for Tanaka that it was mostly about rewarding his allies with cabinet posts and other political appointments. In that sense and that sense only, I think that Ozawa will wind up reminding all of us of Tanaka, although he displays little of Tanaka’s visceral need for personal gratification.
Nakasone, of course, served at the pleasure of Tanaka. It is also clear that Hatoyama would not have won without Ozawa’s support. (Indeed, he may not even have run without it.) But Tanaka could pull the rug out from under Nakasone any time he chose to, because he had the troops and the control over political funds for it. That Ozawa cannot do, partly because (for now) there are at least as many people in the PDJ who hate him as those who love him, partly because the bulk of the DPJ money consists of government subsidies, which Ozawa is no longer in a position to control, and partly because the competition with the LDP takes the decision out of any kingmakers’ hands and into those of public opinion (including the media).
Did that work for you, Mark? Incidentally, I’ve begun subscribing to the SSJ Forum. The Japan-U.S. Discussion Forum has many distinguished commenters, but I had a somewhat unpleasant experience there, and the talk there can get pretty cranky, so I haven’t gone there for quite some time now. SSJ Forum appears to be a youthful, nimble alternative.
9 comments:
Jun, honey, SSJ has the very same losers, er, posters as NBR's Japan Forum. It is double the waste of time.
I rather you spend your time posting your own thoughts on your blog about politics than being pulled into the lonely obsessions of folks who are avoiding time with their families.
Thank you for your response. Very interesting. Particularly the part where you compared Aso to Koga. However, your response has created new questions for me.
As I'm sure you're aware, many people believe that the bureaucrats actually control Japan. From reading your response, and reading your blog, I can see how they might get that impression. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have a somewhat dismissive and slightly contemptuous view of politicians (e.g. Ibuki is smart, but lacks ambition and therefore his views don't matter, Ozawa is joyless and only interested in money, Hatoyama lacks charisma, Aso is an imbecile, etc.). Are these the people who would run the second largest economy in the world?
By the way, for Japan, I don't place nearly as much importance on military matters as economic matters. As I think you would agree, Japan is much more important economically than militarily. As such, I am more interested in Japan's economic orientation that military orientation (nevertheless, like I said, I did find your Koga / Aso comparison really interesting).
Though you did discuss the military views of politicians, you did not discuss their economic views. It seems from your response that you don't really have a thorough understanding of the views of Japanese politicians on economic policy. If Japanese politicians really matter, how could that be? Weren't you a bureaucrat at MITI for three decades? If the politicians run Japan, shouldn't you know what they think?
Personally, I am doubtful that the politicians have a solid grip on the country. But that doesn't mean the bureaucrats are running the show either. What role does academia play? The media? Business?
In particular, I would like to get a better understanding on how the direction of Japan gets chosen. For example, I see a lot of evidence that Japan is reorienting itself away from the West (for the record, I think this is a brilliant idea and I'm very glad to see it). Do you agree with my theory? If so, could you explain how this decision got made, and who made it?
…aah, let’s post now, and see if I like what I see in the morning sun…
Armchair Asia?
Uh-oh, must be Mellifluous Knish, or a reasonable facsimile thereof; in any case, anyone who’s not interested in what Richard Katz has to say about the Japanese economy (whether you agree with him or not) is irrelevant to me.
…aah, let’s post now, and see if I like what I see in the morning sun…
Part 1:
Mark:
I don’t know what you do for a living, but you’re certainly good at raising difficult questions. Let’s see what I have to say…
As I'm sure you're aware, many people believe that the bureaucrats actually control Japan. From reading your response, and reading your blog, I can see how they might get that impression. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have a somewhat dismissive and slightly contemptuous view of politicians (e.g. Ibuki is smart, but lacks ambition and therefore his views don't matter, Ozawa is joyless and only interested in money, Hatoyama lacks charisma, Aso is an imbecile, etc.). Are these the people who would run the second largest economy in the world?
Let’s see, I have great respect for Yasuhiro Nakasone, and I think that Ryutaro Hashimoto is underrated, to name two. I also still marvel at the individual and collective political courage of Noboru Takeshita and his LDP colleagues for introducing the consumption tax in the face of almost sure defeat in the next Lower House election. What I “have a somewhat dismissive and slightly contemptuous view of” are the sexagenarian and septuagenarian LDP politicians with dyed hair who engage in a touch-football version of political maneuvering and their DPJ counterparts whose only public virtue sometimes seems to consist of “not being those guys.” I also “have a somewhat dismissive and slightly contemptuous view of” the highly intelligent, articulate 30-, 40-somethings who too often meekly submit to the presumed wisdom of their elders. My comments about Ibuki were intended as tribute to an oft-misunderstood, talented man who understands his limitations. Ozawa’s interest in power. Hatoyama lacks more than charisma. Aso…let’s just say that he would make a good neighbor. In any case, they do not run the second (third?) largest economy in the world. They can only set some of the conditions under which the Japanese economy runs. We’ll muddle along, but they’re not doing a good job of it.
…aah, let’s post now, and see if I like what I see in the morning sun…
Part 2:
[F]or Japan, I don't place nearly as much importance on military matters as economic matters. As I think you would agree, Japan is much more important economically than militarily. As such, I am more interested in Japan's economic orientation that military orientation (nevertheless, like I said, I did find your Koga / Aso comparison really interesting).
I prefer to talk about foreign policy and national security because they’re easier to understand than economic policy. I am not an economist. I mean, I’m not interested in my views about the Japanese economy.
Though you did discuss the military views of politicians, you did not discuss their economic views. It seems from your response that you don't really have a thorough understanding of the views of Japanese politicians on economic policy. If Japanese politicians really matter, how could that be? Weren't you a bureaucrat at MITI for three decades? If the politicians run Japan, shouldn't you know what they think?
I “don't really have a thorough understanding of the views of Japanese politicians on economic policy.” Most of that is my fault, but some of the blame I lay at the doorsteps of the politicians themselves, none of whom presents a compelling vision of our future.
Personally, I am doubtful that the politicians have a solid grip on the country. But that doesn't mean the bureaucrats are running the show either. What role does academia play? The media? Business?
That’s an interesting question, but I’m nowhere near equipped to answer that. There is no way to determine what academia in the collective sense does to affect national policy. Takenaka had a significant effect on Koizumi’s policy agenda and execution thereof. Does that count as “academia”? At the other end, what about the effect of Marxist Todai professors on multigenerational economic bureaucrats who took their classes? The role of the media—a magnifier of existing trends—appears marginally easier to understand. But again, how do you balance the collective role of Asahi Shinbun editors and reporters against the mindset and behavior of Yomiuri’s Tsuneo Watanabe? Business is obviously influential. Beyond that, I’d have to write a book on the subject (which I cannot do for several reasons), or focus on specific issues.
In particular, I would like to get a better understanding on how the direction of Japan gets chosen. For example, I see a lot of evidence that Japan is reorienting itself away from the West (for the record, I think this is a brilliant idea and I'm very glad to see it). Do you agree with my theory? If so, could you explain how this decision got made, and who made it?
Don’t you think that there’s “a lot of evidence that [the West] is reorienting itself away from the West”?
I'd hate to disappoint you, but I'm a programmer.
I would definitely consider Takenaka as part of academia.
Assuming those Marxist Todai professors intentionally wanted to influence the direction of Japan by influencing their students, and assuming they were successful in doing so, I would say that counts.
As for the balancing of the Asahi Shimbun vs Yomiuri, I'd say I'm mostly interested in the degree to which they work together. Note that if they have equal influence, and they publish opposing articles intentionally to keep the public from reaching consensus on an issue, I would consider that working together.
As for whether I think the West is reorienting itself away from the West - I thought long and hard about this - I don't see it. But apparently you do. Since you don't seem to want to comment on whether Japan is reorienting itself (grumble, grumble), could you tell me why you think the West is reorienting itself away from itself?
I'd hate to disappoint you, but I'm a programmer.
That’s intriguing. Some of the most interesting comments on this blog come from people in the IT field, you know. Is there something in the coke and pizza…
I would definitely consider Takenaka as part of academia.
That’s a singular case of an academic entering the political process and applying his economic expertise. If that’s what you mean, Japan does not have those ever-busy revolving doors that keep the Larry Summers and Martin Feldsteins shuttling back and forth between the ivory tower and Washington (and in recent years Wall Street).
Assuming those Marxist Todai professors intentionally wanted to influence the direction of Japan by influencing their students, and assuming they were successful in doing so, I would say that counts.
I once overheard Professor Ryutaro Komiya, who at the time was the head of what is now the Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI), half-seriously claim that all the papers produced by MITI officials doing research there were Marxist. This was fairly early in my career at METI and it reminded me that Marxists were still dominating the Todai public finance faculty when I was there.
As for the balancing of the Asahi Shimbun vs Yomiuri, I'd say I'm mostly interested in the degree to which they work together. Note that if they have equal influence, and they publish opposing articles intentionally to keep the public from reaching consensus on an issue, I would consider that working together.
I don’t think there’s any collusion. Asahi is dominated by pacifist-internationalists and Yomiuri—Tsuneo Watanabe. I don’t think that many people subscribe to newspapers based on their ideologies (unless you swear by the Akahata or Seikyo Shinmun. I think it’s predominantly a more accidental process; namely, your family newspaper growing up. That, and sales promotion aka Yomiuri Giants. In any case, newspaper journalists percolate up the corporate ladder with metronomic regularity from cub reporter to editorial writers, so there’s no reporter/editor divide ideology-wise like you see in the Wall Street Journal and to a slight extent in the Washington Post. And if you’re going to become a reporter, you’ll want to choose a place that you’re ideologically comfortable with. Also, because they all appeal to national readerships, there’s less need to cater to everyone from Bill Kristol fans to people who swear by Paul Krugman. All this tends to make this a collective and natural process, I think.
As for whether I think the West is reorienting itself away from the West - I thought long and hard about this - I don't see it. But apparently you do. Since you don't seem to want to comment on whether Japan is reorienting itself (grumble, grumble), could you tell me why you think the West is reorienting itself away from itself?
Demographically, the West is becoming less and less white, and more and more Third-World. This has powerful cultural and social implications. Australia’s switch to the Asian Football Federation is a potent symbol of this process, particularly if you remember what went on there for the better part of its 20th Century history. Japan is arguably the only significant industrialized country (unless you count South Korea) that is not moving significantly in that direction. Economically, I believe the story is different. But Japanese businesses have always been investing and selling in Asia. And so is everyone else. I think that’s called globalization. There is plenty of interest here in regional institutions and frameworks, but other than the standby swap arrangements, I don’t see any meaningful moves to separate Japan from institutions dominated by the United States and the EU. Even there, it’s complimentary, and I think it makes sense when you consider the degree of economic interdependence.
Pizza and coke?!?!?! What do you think we programmers are? We're not all dorky, disgusting, fat...
*looks down and rubs his considerable belly*
Uh...Nevermind.
After re-reading your earlier reply, I have a few more questions. Why do you like Nakasone? And what do you think of his son, Hirofumi?
In your original post, you seem to discount the power of the faction heads. But in your first reply, you claim that many younger politicians obey their elders. Who are these elders that have contol of the younger politicians?
By the way, I find it curious that you separate foreign policy from economic policy. Based on the success of Japan during the post war period, I'd say a successful economic policy is the most integral part of a successful foreign policy. After the Iraq war, and after nearly a decade of a botched reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, it seems funny for an ex-MITI bureaucrat to split foreign policy and economic policy like that.
Globalization? Is that what it's called? Interesting. But for the West, I think another word is more applicable. I think it's called de-globalization. Think of Gordon Brown and his "British jobs for British workers" spiel. Or think of Sarkozy and his admonition against exporting jobs to eastern Europe. Or think of the Buy American provision. But most importantly, think of GE. Nearly three decades ago, Jack Welch unleashed his shareholder value ideology. Good for shareholders. Not good for the current account. About a week ago, Jeff Immelt said the U.S. had outsourced too much, and needed to have a stronger manufacturing base. Quite a difference, wouldn't you say?
I'm sure Japan's continued support for the IMF gives some relief to the U.S. and Europe, but I would note that since the crisis began, it seems like Japan has been most active through the institutions it controls - the ADB, JBIC, etc.
I don't know what happened in Australia for most of the 20th century and I don't really see why Australia's switch to the Asian Football Federation is particularly important. On the other hand, I would note that Kevin Rudd seems to be a big advocate for this Asia-Pacific thingy. I wonder why? Also, I believe his budget calls for buying lots of military equipment for defense against China. Presumably, he will buy this equipment from the U.S. In addition, Australia continues to pester Japan on whaling. Furthermore, it recently killed the Rio Tinto deal with Chinalco. Throughout that process, I heard many voices in Australia who expressed concern about Chinese investment. Frankly, his recent actions have made me wonder if Kevin Rudd's professed affection for China was more a stunt to attempt to panic Japan - a stunt that backfired because Japan itself wants to get closer to China.
I agree that the U.S. is becoming less white, though I think the financial crisis could alter that trend somewhat. You say this will have powerful cultural and social implications. What are they? What changes will result? I am very interested in hearing what you have to say on this issue.
The latest, being too long, goes here.
Post a Comment