“Political Stakes”-by Sydney Williams
http://www.swtotd.blogspot.com
This essay was begun before Russia’s threat on Ukraine’s border became front page news. Putin’s actions validate the thesis that the political stakes are high, that the risks are existential, and that the United States and its Western European allies must change tactics from promoting “social justice” to affirming and defending a belief in classical liberal democracy.
The Cold War lasted for 42 years, from 1947 until 1989. It pitted the United States against the Soviet Union, along with respective allies. It ended with the fall of the Iron Curtain, and when a wave of (mostly) peaceful revolutions overthrew Communist governments in the Eastern Bloc. Three years later Francis Fukuyama published The End of History and the Last Man, which argued the universal acceptance of Western liberal democracies represented the final form of human government. The intervening years have shown how wrong he was. He appears to have misunderstood geo-politics, and he underestimated human desire for power and control.
Today, liberal Western democracies face a new challenge: an autocracy epitomized by China, where power is concentrated in the 205 members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, a Party that comprises less than seven percent of the population of the world’s most populous country. Joining the Communist Party can take several years and is generally open only to those with Han ethnicity. Xi Jinping is the current, paramount leader. He serves as General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Chairman of the Central Military Commission and President of the People’s Republic of China. China’s Communist Party is not diversified, equitable or inclusive. According to Statista, 88% of its members are ethnic Han. There are only nine women who sit on the Central Committee, a committee composed of 205 members. Its parliament, the world’s largest, stands at 2,924 members and which, according to CNBC, includes 100 billionaires. The 209 wealthiest members have an average wealth of $300 million. This is a country where the mean adult net worth is less than $68,000, and where GDP per capita is one sixth of that in the U.S.
Yet, our enemies see us as divided, in retreat globally and undergoing self-flagellation. What do immigrants make of Vice President Kamala Harris’, the daughter of immigrants, recent statement: “The truth is: There is segregation in America, xenophobia exists in America. Antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia all exist.” One cannot deny that among 330 million inhabitants one could find examples to substantiate her claim. But do the words of a few nuts define our nation? In every country there is good and evil, there are saints and devils. On February 17, reporting on Ms. Harris’ observation, National Review said: “If they wish, American citizens may be neutral on the virtues of their country. The Vice President doesn’t have that luxury.” Her statement served as aid to our enemies who want the rest of the world to perceive the U.S. as hypocritical, as divided by race and gender. Moreover, Ms. Harris, a woman of mixed heritage and daughter of immigrants, has risen to the nation’s second highest office. Is she a victim?
One asks: Why do immigrants choose to come to the United States, Western Europe, Australia and Canada and not to China, Russia, Iran, North Korea or Cuba? Why did Ms. Harris’ parents come here rather than Russia, Iran or Cuba? Where are the Chinese protesting China’s internment of Uyghers? Where are the Russians protesting Russia’s new-found imperialism? Where are the protesters complaining of wealth and income gaps in China, Russia, Iran, North Korea or Cuba?
What we face is a new cold war – which we pray does not become heated – between forces of darkness, led by China and other totalitarian states, and forces of freedom led by the United States and other liberal democracies. We must be alert and able to respond to weapons they will use: strengthened militaries, cyber warfare, which could affect banks and electric grids, biological weapons and, perhaps most important, insidious and infectious propaganda designed to undermine our culture. The outcome may not affect those of us in our 80s, but it certainly will have consequences for our children and grandchildren.
But the United States will continue to stand as a beacon to other nations: if our government continues to protect our inalienable rights; if it functions under the rule of law; if it offers opportunities for individuals to use their individual drive and abilities to better their conditions; if it promotes freedom not mandates; if it rids itself of the scourge that is wokeism, and if it once again recognizes its unique position in the world.
Speaking to the desire of some in government to impose more controls, Kimberly Fiorello, a Republican Connecticut State Legislator representing Greenwich and Stamford, penned an op-ed in the February 18, 2022 issue of the Greenwich Sentinel in which she argued November’s election will not be about Democrat versus Republican. “In 2022, it is about more freedom versus more government control.” What is true for Connecticut is true for the world. It is freedom, which lights the lamp that distinguishes democracies from autocracies. An interview by Richard Milne with Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, in last weekend’s edition of the Financial Times, highlights the concern of smaller, more vulnerable nations: “That memory of the terror and deprivations of Soviet rule, and a desire to never return to those days, explains why Estonia has consistently warned the west about the dangers of a revanchist Russia.”
Among these concerns, there has been suggestion that woke Progressivism, which mimics the ideology, tactics and goals of totalitarianism, may have reached its zenith: The parents’ revolt in Virginia resulted in the election of Republican Glenn Youngkin as governor; in November voters in Minneapolis rejected the overhaul of their police department; Eric Adams, a former chief of police, defeated Kathryn Garcia in the New York City mayoral Democratic primary last summer; the Build Back Better bill failed in the Senate, and a recent vote in San Francisco recalled three progressive schoolboard members. We must build on those successes, as we and the world confront ever-more dangerous, political alternatives, represented by the autocracies of China and Russia.
Thomas Sowell is correct, in the rubric quoted above. The United States, in the history of nations, has been unique in its radical, and positive, experiment. It is the country that created and led an international order following World War II, an order now at risk. As we retreat from leadership, we leave open spheres to be influenced by China and Russia. The risk we face is truly existential – a new cold war that could end the nation and a way of life we have known, a country in which individuals, through aptitude, determination and effort, regardless of connections, race or gender, have risen from poverty to success. In this new war, the political stakes are high. It is imperative we keep lit the lamp of freedom, which gives hope to millions.
Comments are closed.
