My dialogue with Mark the Techie continues:
Why do you like Nakasone? And what do you think of his son, Hirofumi?
The elder Nakasone had—still has—a clear vision of his objectives as a statesman and held to it as best he could throughout his political life. For him, the political game was secondary. He understood the need to set his priorities accordingly, as can be seen from his handling of the Yasukuni controversy. He matched this purposeful approach with an eloquence that is sorely missing otherwise from post-WW II politics in Japan. He also put his personal stamp on administrative reform. He was a worthy representative of the LDP at the high watermark of the 1955 regime. His son appears to be an amicable, inoffensive representative of the more conservative elements of the LDP, nothing more, nothing less. He’s the son of a Prime Minister, yet has spent all his political life in the Upper House; go figure. I’d love to have him as a neighbor though.
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 control of the younger politicians?
I haven’t done a good job of explaining myself, have I? Let me take another crack at this theme.
I am sorely disappointed with the genteel fifty-somethings who have failed to step up in the post-Koizumi years and instead allowed their elders to play the political game with the Prime Minister’s chair and senior party posts. (Remember that the generally untested Abe essentially had the Prime Minister’s job dropped in his lap by Koizumi.) Don’t they understand that politics is a blood sport? Yoshimi Watanabe id leave the LDP, but his new movement (with Kenji Eda) is unlikely to emerge as significant focal point in any post-electoral search for realignment. Pockets of youthful dissidence do flare up as the party leadership lurches from one crisis to another, but ultimately come to naught as their elders preach unity, leaving the impression of aimlessness and disarray in the face of pending disaster. The junior varsity for the opposition has an excuse; Ozawa, Hatoyama, and Kan are, after all, the founding fathers of the DPJ and its predecessors. Besides, Okada and—even more significantly—Maehara have taken their turns.
Faction heads and their deputies are not totally powerless, insofar as parliamentarians continue to see value in their faction membership. But Yoshiro Mori appears to maintain substantial influence over his faction although it has been some years since he yielded formal leadership. Within the same faction and possibly beyond, Yoshinao Nakagawa has emerged as a focal point for diehard reformists, precipitating a bitter intra-faction schism.
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.
If your point is that a strong domestic economy is essential to achieving ambitious foreign policy goals, I can’t agree with you more.
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?
The economic downturn has created a backlash. Let’s see what happens other than Buy American provisions in Obama’s economic package (which the other OECD member countries are opposing) that goes beyond rhetoric. For example, will Sarkozy propose limitations on the free movement of labor and capital within the EU? Suspend Poland’s membership?
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.
Japan was the first to extend a substantial amount of money to the IMF during the current crisis. JBIC is basically the lender of last resorts for Japanese exports and foreign investment. It’s going into action as part of the government-sponsored emergency financing efforts. Nothing unusual in that. I don’t know what we’re doing with regard to ADB right now, but I doubt there’s anything new there as well.
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.
In 1972 Gough Whitlam came to power and started the process that transformed Australia, which till then had drawn a neat racial parallel with the far more malignant regime in South Africa. Essentially, White Australia decided to become Asia(-Pacific) Australia. Australia’s switch to the Asian Football Federation is a cultural symbol of this transformation.
As for relations with China, remember that when Rudd came to power, China was still the new black. I don’t think it had anything to do with Japan, a mature market as far as Australia’s natural resources and agricultural industry were concerned. But it’s easy to get worked up over natural resources when they’re still in the ground. I think that’s silly—unlike factories, no one can dismantle a mine and cart it off out of your national jurisdiction—but that’s the way the world works. In any case, China national champions and state investment vehicles, unlike say Norwegian or Qatar sovereign wealth funds, are more likely to follow the dictates of non-commercial interests. Connect this to the not unrelated authoritarian nature of China’s political regime and more or less inchoate fears about rising Chinese dominance, and I can understand where the public outcry was coming from.
I don’t know what exactly triggered the perceived shift in Australia’s defense posture. Maybe the strategic implications of a growing Chinese blue-water navy pushed the Australia’s national security establishment past the tipping point. I happen to think that the threat is greatly overestimated, but I can see how things might look quite different from a Southeast Asia/South Pacific perspective. I’ll believe it when I see an Australian aircraft carrier.
The “research” whaling issue, if I understand it correctly, addressed a highly emotive concern of a particular Labor Party constituency. I believe that the Rudd administration has become considerably more subdued since the kangaroo slaughter controversy—total nonsense in my view, but I don’t have a vote on this.
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.
Note that I wrote in the present tense. There’s a natural progression from blackface vaudeville routines to the Jack Benny Show to I Spy to Eddie Murphy. Then there’s the greatly expanded role of Hispanics in pop music. These are just a couple of examples of profound changes in U.S. popular culture. (And what high culture exists that was once not popular?) Social change: public acceptance of mixed race couples. Basically, cultural and social barriers of all sorts are coming down in a browning of America.
Since America is by far the greatest post-WW II exporter of cultural and social constructs, this change affects the rest of the world—a world where Al Qaeda uses rap video to recruit terrorists. In a thousand years, unless humanity fcuks up royally (there’s a not insignificant chance of that happening), they’ll all be subscribing to variations of a global culture using variations of a language vaguely resembling English—and it’ll be America’s fault.
5 comments:
Mark the Techie? That has a nice ring to it. I like it.
Of course, minorities have had a big impact on many aspects of American culture. The amount of worldwide media coverage dedicated to the death of Michael Jackson shows just how popular African-American performers can be. As you mention, this is nothing new. African Americans like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Run-DMC, and Dr. Dre have to a great extent defined popular music since the end of the second World War. And black athletes have been equally successful - think of Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, and Tiger Woods. In politics, we have people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Obama, to name a few. But what is the effect of this? Has any of this resulted in a significant change in policy?
It's funny that you should mention the acceptance of mixed race couples. Of course, Barack Obama is the product of a mixed race couple. Though he is also white, he has embraced black culture. He talks like a preacher, he has Jay-Z on his iPod. But does that make a difference?
In a recent study, participants were asked whether or not they would hire a person with borderline qualifications. When told that the applicant was white, seventy six percent of white people said they would hire that applicant. When told that the applicant was black, only 45% of white people said they would hire that applicant.
In the U.S., black babies have an infant mortality rate 2.4 times that of white babies. Blacks receive inferior health care compared to whites. They have a life expectancy 5.1 years less than whites. Towards the end of last year, 11.4% of blacks were unemployed, versus 6.1% for the economy as a whole. In 2007, white families earned $64,427 while black families earned $40,143. More than 10% of black males between 30 and 34 are incarcerated, versus 1.9% for white males in that age range. And despite all this talk of browning, U.S. public schools are becoming more racially segregated.
Of course, Obama just became president. There's not much you can do to change a nation in a half year's time. Nevertheless, look at his appointments. He has Geithner at Treasury, Bernanke at the Fed, Summers at the NEC, Clinton at State, Gates at Defense, Panetta at the CIA, George Mitchell is trying to bring peace to the Middle East, Richard Holbrooke is trying to bring peace to South Asia, Rahmbo is his chief of staff, and David Axelrod is his Senior Advisor. Now that's what I call change we can believe in. My father, who is a sansei, had a pejorative for certain fellow Japanese Americans. He called them yellow bananas - yellow on the outside, white on the inside. Time will time if Obama is a black banana.
Of course, Obama has minorities in some positions, but mostly in positions that don't matter too much (e.g. Eric Shinseki at Veterans Affairs).
Personally, I don't think music changes people much. Remember, George Bush loves James Brown.
Continued below...
I do not think the west is reorienting itself away from the west. Despite all appearances, the west is still run by the same people who are looking out for their own interests. The appearances have changes, and the rhetoric has changed, but the substance has not.
I still see the west droning on about human right and the rule of law, while violating those principles on every possible occasion. I still see Europe pushing for generic medication in its own market, while pushing data exclusivity in its FTAs. I still see the EU trying to get Japan (and everyone else) to open up for investment while Sarkozy creates an investment fund to fight off foreign takeovers. I still see idiots like Gregory Clark trying to get Japan to do the stupidest things imaginable (and he ain't the only one trying to do that, either). I still see Australians beating Indian students. I see western nations running huge fiscal deficits, after hounding developing nations to balance their budgets during the Asian financial crisis. And still today, many in the west are trying to convince emerging nations to balance their budget in the midst of a crisis. I see the west gutting mark to market after protesting vociferously about transparency at Japanese banks ten years ago. I see Europe begging developing countries to provide money to the IMF, but unwilling to increase the voting rights of those countries. You would think they would have learned something after that whole taxation-without-representation thing. Need I even mention crony capitalism and Haliburton?
The defining characteristic of the west is hypocrisy. It's getting others to play by the rules when you don't, and using that to your advantage. That has not changed and I don't believe it will change.
By the way, my point on Australian military spending wasn't that they really feared China - my point was that they will buy U.S. military equipment to help the U.S. economy, and to piss off China.
And one more thing, for your information, as if right on cue, yesterday China arrested an Australian employee of Rio Tinto on espionage charges.
The west is not reorienting itself away from the west. It is up to its same old tricks. The only thing that will bring change to the world is if the rest join together, and force the west to change. I believe Japan is trying to do that. I hope it succeeds.
Mark: Re your first comment:
As you mention, this is nothing new. African Americans like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Run-DMC, and Dr. Dre have to a great extent defined popular music since the end of the second World War.
I’m sure music critics and serious rock musicians will agree with you. But sociologists will surely have reservations, and economists will have objections. It is telling that the American music icons that you named who had their heydays in the fifties, sixties and, in the cases of Run-DMC and Dr. Dre, eighties and nineties had only three singles at the top of the US Hot 100 Charts between them, Aretha Franklin in 1967 and 1987 and Chuck Berry in 1972—with “Ding-a-ling,” a novelty song. By contrast, Pat Boone—Pat Boone!—had five, and Paul Anka three. This week, the highly mixed-race Black Eyed Peas held the top two spots for the fourth week in a row, while no.3 Drake has an African-American father (and a Jewish Canadian mother), and no.4 Keri Hilson appears to be part African-American ancestry. Lady Ga-Ga, an Italian-American, is the first pure Caucasian act, at no. 5.
Now none of these acts looks like true pioneers, Lady Ga-Ga’s outrageous act notwithstanding. Instead, I believe that they are the highly competent purveyors of the popular aesthetic—the music video equivalent of the post-racial, post-gender glamour of Angelina Jolie and Jessica Alba (who I believe rides the crest of the Hispanic wave). Gentlemen no longer swear by blondes; indeed, there would be no gentlemen but for the odd Obama here and there.
And black athletes have been equally successful - think of Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, and Tiger Woods.
The return of the black entertainer came slightly earlier in sports, with figures like Jack Johnson and of course Jesse Owens and Joe Lewis—athletic prowess was slightly less threatening. But it has been a long and difficult path, with overt discrimination in and around major league sports persisting at least into the sixties. Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan? Eighties and nineties. And basketball is an urban sport, and as such appears to have been more accepting of minorities. And how many other Black golfers can you name. (Vijay Singh doesn’t count. Then again, maybe he should.)
(continued)
In politics, we have people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Obama, to name a few.
You’ve named two, of whom King was not a politician in the conventional sense and was uniquely tied to the African-American (or, as they used to say in those days, negro) cause. Obama’s national political career began in 2004, which sort of makes my point.
It's funny that you should mention the acceptance of mixed race couples.
If you’ve lived on this planet as long as I have, it’s not funny at all, the acceptance itself is revolutionary. Obama’s presence is revolutionary, and the social and cultural conditions that made it possible are revolutionary. Does it make a difference? It is a difference.
In a recent study, participants were asked whether or not they would hire a person with borderline qualifications. When told that the applicant was white, seventy six percent of white people said they would hire that applicant. When told that the applicant was black, only 45% of white people said they would hire that applicant.
Let’s assume that half the participants were lying and only 22.5% were actually willing to hire blacks. First of all, what would that percentage been in the nineties? Eighties? Seventies? Sixties?Fifties? In real life, of course, many among the other 77.5% might hire that marginal person anyway for fear of a lawsuit. The last part’s a consequence of federal policy decisions. The undeniable fact that racial discrimination persists at the hiring level does not mean that there has been enormous progress in the workplace.
In the U.S., black babies have an infant mortality rate 2.4 times that of white babies. Blacks receive inferior health care compared to whites…
All so true. So, after almost forty years of efforts at the federal and state level to improve the lot of African-Americans, there remains a significant gap on average between their socio-economic lot and that of White Americans. It certainly highlights the difficulties of legislating and administrating away socio-economic differences. Indeed life is unfair. So what’s the point?
(continued)
Nevertheless, look at his appointments. He has Geithner at Treasury, Bernanke at the Fed, Summers at the NEC, Clinton at State, Gates at Defense, Panetta at the CIA, George Mitchell is trying to bring peace to the Middle East, Richard Holbrooke is trying to bring peace to South Asia, Rahmbo is his chief of staff, and David Axelrod is his Senior Advisor. Now that's what I call change we can believe in. My father, who is a sansei, had a pejorative for certain fellow Japanese Americans. He called them yellow bananas - yellow on the outside, white on the inside. Time will time if Obama is a black banana.
I believe that there is one highly capable and fairly young African-American member on the FRB, but Obama inherited Bernanke, and I don’t think he’ll want to ditch him unless the nation finds him wanting. As for Geithner and Summers, it was an emergency, and Obama chose well, I think. As for foreign policy, Ralph Bunche is long dead, you wouldn’t seriously consider Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell is damaged goods. And Gates, bless his soul, has blossomed like a Sadat/Indira Gandhi. Let’s face it, if you make your choice on the basis of street cred (and Obama is if anything cautious), there just aren’t that many non-white-male figures available. I don’t have a handle on the others to comment, other than to say that it’s hard to see Holbrooke or Mitchell (or any envoy) making much of a difference, and Panetta must have been a good compromise choice to calm the waters.
Your father’s generation must have gone to great lengths to assimilate. (It was when I went to an American summer camp as an eight-year-old that I first experienced discrimination against “Japs.” Canadian kids had apparently not been taught that Germany was not the only member of the Axixs. And of course they didn’t think that they had a personal stake in Pearl Harbor. As an aside, I note that the Dutch and British harbored resentment mainly because they did not “win” the war against Japan, and also wound up losing their colonies.) That appears to have been the cause of much conflict, both personal and intra-communal, for many Japanese-Americans, though it does not appear to have reached the level of the lethal clashes in Brazil between the “kachi-gumi” and “make-gumi.” More broadly, the “… on the inside” argument crops up elsewhere on this planet when discussion turns to efforts by minorities to fit in. I’m sure Uighurs in China are taking this moment in similar terms about more successful kinfolk who have gone over to the Han Establishment.
Of course, Obama has minorities in some positions, but mostly in positions that don't matter too much (e.g. Eric Shinseki at Veterans Affairs).
There’s the Attorney-General. And in the game of chess, a king is worth infinitely more than the queen, rooks, bishops and knights out together.
Personally, I don't think music changes people much.
Music is the change, I mean part of it. If you start carving out music, sports, and other elements of the cultural experience, you’ll end up with precious little “people” to speak of.
I’ve taken up your comment almost line by line. But lurking behind all this is the question: Have you put forth a consolidated and consistent argument? Do the parts make a whole? My other favorite techie Janne’s arguments, for all our disagreements, always seem to do so, which I cannot say for mine.
Post a Comment