A question never really asked

… in force in American politics, but is the heart of Confucian thinking about leadership – how will this policy help the people?  The Confucian leader is judged according to that standard – and don’t give me the innovation and tax-cuts-create-jobs crap.

Secular humanists and some evangelical Trumpians might agree with this characterization of the relation of heaven to the people –

Heaven gave birth to the people and set up rulers to superintend and shepherd them and see to it that they do not lose their true nature as human beings…   (Spring and Autumn Annals, one of the five Confucian classics, purportedly edited by Confucius himself.)

The passage goes on to assert – Heaven’s love for the people is very great.  Would it then allow one man to preside over them in an arrogant and willful manner, indulging his excesses and casting aside the nature Heaven and Earth allotted them?  Surely it would not.” 

God’s people in the Old Testament is comparable to Heaven’s people in the Confucian texts.  So noted Wm. T. de Bary in his Tanner lecture The Trouble with Confucianism.  (Tanner Lectures on Human Values, University of California at Berkeley, May 4 and 5, 1988).

… there is much evidence of a prime concern for the people and every reason to believe that both the people’s welfare and the people’s sufferings weigh heavily on the Confucian conscience. (p18 of the book by the same name, available here.)

Confucius’ attitude is sympathetic to the common people. The ruler bears supreme responsibility for their welfare.  Leaders should be junzi, men of scholarly mien and education and wisdom.  De Bary lists seven qualities of leaders, as described in the Analects –

  1. He manifests virtues in forms that benefit the people.  (Analects 15:34 and 20:2)
  2. He commands respect because of his own respectful or reverential manner (Analects 6:30)
  3. He cultivates the social norms through rites – a disciplined observance of the social and religious forms that should govern the common life.  (Analects 1:9, 12:2, 13:4, 14:44)
  4. He has a kindly, generous, and forbearing manner in dealing with the people. (Analects 18:2, 11:24)
  5. He demonstrates a sense of confidence and trust in his relations with the people.  (Analects 12:7, 13:4, 15:25)
  6. He is reasonable in his demands on the people (Analects 19:10)
  7. He demonstrates zeal for learning and readiness to take responsibility for the education of the people. (Analects 6:20, 13:4, 13:29)

Through the Analects and other Confucian texts, the leader’s responsibility is abundantly clear – to care for the people.  Long before Confucius there was the notion of the ruler as the Son of Heaven, and the corresponding mandate of Heaven as long as the ruler demonstrates care for the people.

John Kasich demonstrated this concern in 2013 when asked about his support for medicare expansion in Ohio – “When you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a good answer.”

As we claw our way through the virus and the next five weeks of election chaos and the economic, political, and social miasma that is baked into our future, it might serve us well to ask a fundamental question of any government policy or proposal.  Ask it in congress, in state legislatures, in city council meetings, in press conferences – how will this help the people?  And ask it over and over again. 

A Quick Voting Guide

We get plenty of advice about how to be a good or strong leader – ask others for input, don’t take all the credit, don’t micromanage … but these are modes of practice.  When we look around, there is surprisingly little advice on the sort of moral qualities a leader should possess.  Here is a quick review.

Plato advises that rulers be a breed apart – possess no wealth, no property, claim no children, to prevent bias and corruption.  Aristotle call for the politician and lawgiver to be wholly occupied with the city-state.  Both require a sort of asceticism, along with wisdom, practical experience, and isolation from corruption.  Philosopher-kings would be good. 

Look in the other usual places for advice.  The business literature is devoid of advice on moral qualities of leaders. The Bible has some advice, though sparse.  In 1 Timothy, a leader is advised to be of pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith; temperate, self-controlled, respectable, able to teach, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome and not a lover of money.   That is some sound advice, although it seems sort of hidden away in the letters.

Closer to home, and to our times, we look to Mill, Madison, and the American founders for advice on the character of a leader, and find … little.  Without doubt, Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, et.al. were exemplary leaders, but there seems an assumption that men of intelligence, good will, and perspicacity will naturally lead.  We do have Federalist Paper No. 68  from Alexander Hamilton. This is with regard to what became the Electoral College –

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.   Little did they know.  But all claim virtue as a common thread.

Some direct advice

Plato, Leo Strauss, Machiavelli and Nietzsche told us that leaders must project power, and Mao told us that power grows out of the barrel of a gun.  All supported use of the noble lie, the lie in service of protection of the state.  I have no doubt that leaders make decisions in complex environments with no pure solution.  We hope that the lies be told not too often, and at least be noble, and that leaders agonize over their choice.  Cheap lies are just so … unvirtuous. 

In ancient China, rulers did not obtain their posts by election or merit. Confucius still had a great deal of advice on how to be a just and fair leader.  He tells us that the most important way for the people to become virtuous is by example, and in that regard, political leaders should be moral leaders. Analects 13:13 – if the ruler makes himself correct, what difficulty will the ruler have to govern people? If the ruler cannot make himself correct, how can the ruler make others correct?

The example is the legendary emperor Shun, whose virtue and wisdom was so great that he could rule by simply facing south and saying nothing, and his administrators would know the right thing to do, and do it.   Analects 12:22 – if we promote the upright people as the examples for the crooked people, the crooked people will become upright.

Leaders should teach virtue.  In order to do so, leaders must of course teach by example and be virtuous themselves. 

Confucian scholar Dong Zhongshu articulated the character of a ruler in Luxuriant Gems of the Spring and Autumn Annals (Chunqiu Fanlu), essays from the Han dynasty –

Establishing the Primal Spirit

Section 1 – He who rules the people is the basis of the state.  Issuing edicts and initiating undertakings, he is the pivot of all living things.  The pivot of all living things, he is the source of honor and dishonor….(H)e who acts as the people’s ruler is attentive toward the fundamental, careful of the beginning, respectful of the small, and cautious of the subtle.  His will resembles the stillness of dead ember …. He calms his vital essence and nourishes his numen (spirit).  He is quiet and nonactive …. He contemplates what lies in the future and observes what has passed.  He deliberates with his numerous worthies to seek out the opinions of the majority of the people. He knows their hearts and understands their sentiments…. He separates their factions and clans and observes the men they esteem….

 

(Section 2) He who rules the people is the foundation of the state.  Now in administering the state, nothing is more important for transforming the people than reverence for the foundation.  If the foundation is revered, the ruler will transform the people as if a spirit.  If the foundation is not revered, the ruler will lack the means to unite the people…. This is called “throwing away the state.”  Is there a greater disaster than this? … Therefore, when the ruler relies on virtue to administer the state, it is sweeter than honey or sugar and firmer than glue or lacquer. That is why sages and worthies exert themselves to revere the foundation and do not dare to depart from it.

 

What advice for us, now?

Plato told us that the smartest, the best and brightest, should rule.  They should disdain material rewards.  Aristotle told us that leaders should be wholly concerned with the affairs of state.  In the Bible, we have Timothy – pure of heart, self-controlled, not a lover of money.  Confucius told us that leaders should lead by example, and teach virtue. Dong Zhongshu clarified further. Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 told us that the electoral college would ensure that men of preeminent ability and virtue would rule. 

All would agree that loving wisdom is necessary for good rule.  All would agree that rulers should be exemplars of virtue.  All would agree that rulers should be temperate and sincere.

Why, in the name of Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Paul’s letter to Timothy, Alexander Hamilton … why in the name of God would anyone be thinking of voting for our current dear leader?  Why would someone want to throw away the state?  The inquiring minds of the sages, all of them, want to know. 

The humane leader – some Confucian thoughts on becoming human

With all the electrons displaced in analysis of our dear leader and his minions, I’ve seen nothing that presents a Confucian view. Confucianism, partly a guide to humane leadership, should have some advice for us right now.

Out of modesty and concern for the other, no learned Confucian would seek to point out how unfit, unwise, unprepared, and dangerous is our dear leader.  I am certainly no Confucian scholar, so I can proceed.  Confucianism, it seems to me, is a tool with which to expose some of our cultural stultification.  Briefly, let’s see what we can learn – advice for leaders, advice on choosing leaders, and advice for all of us, all the time.  The hyperlinks contain pertinent text.

Responsibilities of leaders

The Confucian concept of ren, which we usually translate as benevolence or humaneness, is characteristic of the ideal leader.  A leader must be concerned with the general welfare of his people, and unconcerned with money, status, or power. A ruler who is more concerned with his own welfare than that of the people may be replaced, as Mencius told us.

The legendary Chinese emperor Shun is extolled because of his magnificence – his benevolence was so great, trust in him was so great, that all he had to do was sit facing south, and his ministers would cause the empire to run effectively and efficiently and peacefully.  The great man inspires those around him to be great. 

The way for a leader to become great – indeed, the way for any person – is to practice self-discipline, engage in study and learning for self-cultivation, and enlarge other people.  Those concerned with bodily comfort and wealth are not great, the xiaoren, the little people, or, better, petty persons – small not in stature or number, but small in righteousness.

Responsibilities of all of us

In the Great Learning (one of the four Confucian classics) we learn that all people should work to gradually expand the sphere of self-cultivation, from early study and learning from parents, to having an orderly family, then participating in the governance of the state, and finally, bringing peace and enlightenment to the world.  This remains a goal for all of us, even if bringing peace and enlightenment to the world is a bit above our personal pay grade.

Confucius’ ideas about goals for a human life are similar to those of Jesus and Aristotle, whether we call it self-cultivation, union with god, or flourishing – some form of “be the best person you can be in community.” None have making money, insulting people, lying, deceit, cheating, or debasing the sacred texts as virtues. Jesus and Confucius have some universal advice – from Jesus – humility, charity, brotherly love, and love your neighbor as yourself. From Confucius – in  

Analects Yan Yuan 22, benevolence, education, and sincerity – Fan Chi asked about benevolence. The Master said, “It is to love all men.” He asked about knowledge. The Master said, “It is to know all men.”

And in Analects, Yong Ye 30, humility and charity – Now the man of perfect virtue, wishing to be established himself, seeks also to establish others; wishing to be enlarged himself, he seeks also to enlarge others. To be able to judge of others by what is nigh in ourselves – this may be called the art of virtue.

The Beatitudes are clearer, but similar moral instruction –

Blessed are the poor in spirit; Blessed are they who mourn; Blessed are the meek; Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness; Blessed are the merciful; Blessed are the pure of heart; Blessed are the peacemakers.

Not so many of us – particularly our leaders – are skilled at humility, charity, enlarging others, or assisting the poor, those who mourn, and those who seek righteousness.  But for Confucians – as well as Christians – the moral imperative is there. 

Where our leaders are now

Examples of Trump – and GOP – lying, mendacity, cruelty and mopery are available for all to see on a daily basis. Just one –

Fact-checking Trump’s attempt to erase his previous coronavirus response  (CNN, April 1, 2020)

Ok, one more –

Adam Serwer – The Cruelty is the Point  (Atlantic, October 3, 2018)

The Bible is a rich source of morality contrary to Trump’s tweets, words, and actions. Biblical advice on leadership is mostly confined to church leadership, as in 1 Timothy 3:1 and 2 Timothy 2:2.   There is Mark 10:43-45– “But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all   which sounds quite a bit like advice from Mencius and Confucius. Mencius in 7.2. 60 (Jin Xin 2.60) – The people are most important, the nation second, the leader last. And from Analects Yan Yuan 19If the leader strives for goodness, the people will follow him in being good. 

For Confucians as well as Christians, the goal of government is to build a harmonious society, including a climate of virtue. Leaders should be role models.  We don’t seem to have that right now.

How to understand where we are

Confucius tells us that political authority is a trust, conferred by heaven for the welfare of the people.  And the greater the political power, the weightier the moral responsibility.  Collectively, we elected Trump, some of us support GOP mendacity, and those are problems for a different article.  In some sense, we deserve what we have. Even given that, how to understand our leader’s lack of public decency, of morality, of benevolence?

Mencius told us about growing in ren, in humaneness. Those humane virtues are what sets humans apart from animals.  One should be virtuous to be a genuine or non-defective human being. In 2A.6 Gong Sun Chou 1, he  tells us that without the feeling of commiseration, one is not a human; without the feeling of shame and dislike, one is not a human; without feeling of modesty and complaisance, one is not a human; and without the feeling of right and wrong, one is not a human. Mencius in 4B Li Lou 2.47 –

That whereby man differs from the lower animals is but small. The mass of people cast it away, while superior men preserve it. Shun clearly understood the multitude of things, and closely observed the relations of humanity. He walked along the path of benevolence and righteousness; he did not need to pursue benevolence and righteousness.

Humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom constitute the virtues one ought to have in order to be a non-defective human being.  These virtues are not inborn.  They must be cultivated, nurtured, and demonstrated to separate humans from beasts. 

We recognize that we are all on different paths to self-completion (mirroring Augustine). When one is faced with inhumanity, one has an obligation to do self-reflection before reacting. What sort of person are we dealing with? In Mencius 4B:56 Li Lou 2 –

Suppose a man treats one in an outrageous manner. Faced with this, a gentleman will say to himself, “I must be lacking in humaneness and propriety, or else how could such a thing happen to me?” When, looking into himself, he finds he has been humane and proper, and yet this outrageous treatment continues, then the gentleman will say to himself, “I must have failed to do my best for him.” When, on looking into himself, he finds he has done his best and yet this outrageous treatment continues, then the gentleman will say, “This man does not know what he is doing. Such a person is no different from an animal. One cannot expect an animal to know better.”

A Confucian notion of human equality is predicated on every individual having equal dignity. Each person has the potential – and obligation – to cultivate knowledge, self-awareness, and benevolence.  Confucians refer to this as self-cultivation. Humans have these abilities. Animals do not. 

Some humans do not achieve a minimum level of self-cultivation. Frank Bruni at the New York Times went looking for Trump’s soul – he might well have included the GOP as well – and noted that George W. Bush reassured us and Barack Obama fought back tears when consoling the nation about national tragedy.  Bruni asked rhetorically, “Do you remember the moment when President Trump’s bearing and words made clear that he grasped not only the magnitude of this rapidly metastasizing pandemic but also our terror in the face of it?”  Bruni concludes that failures in this regard are more than a failure of empathy, or a failure of decency. It’s a failure of basic humanity.

Confucians tell us that rulers should be junzi – not egocentric or power hungry, but superior practitioners of morality and authoritative but modest leaders to a better future.  Make America Great Again is baldly egocentric – Trump sells the hats – and the future is manifestly worse for all.  A superior practitioner of morality, he is not.  He does not demonstrate the qualities that make one human.

What is to be done?

In the US, we don’t expect leaders to be junzi.  We can scarcely have lower expectations than what we seem to produce now for leaders.  But now with a Confucian perspective, we can at least answer the question of why our dear leader acts as he does.

In Analects Xian Wen 34 Confucius told us to repay injury with righteousness- that is, justice.  Someone behaving badly is in need of correction, and we have an obligation to attempt that. After all, the goal of self-cultivation is to improve others as well as oneself. Trump – and evidently, many of his followers – were reared without good moral training from parents and examples from relatives, friends, colleagues and government.  Mencius tells us that humans are born good, and with cultivation may become excellent.  Even individuals whose actions indicate serious human deficiency have the potential for growth.  We should encourage all politicians to engage in self-cultivation so they might develop virtuous behavior and become people of integrity instead of opportunists.

Let us return Trump to his self-promotion business, where he can be the master of all to his own satisfaction and not harm so many of us. Those who wish to deal with him may do so.  In the meantime, we should instruct Trump and toadies in elemental humaneness – call it Confucian or Christian.  To do otherwise makes us accomplices in tolerating someone who, to all appearances, is less than fully human.

Health Care Crisis

Some of you have read prior posts here on health care, the good, the bad, and the unbelievable.   Now comes the New York Times with a feature on the Crisis in Health Care in China, focusing on the shabby treatment of doctors and patients in the medical system.  As I noted in Hospital Rules (see the Health, Education, Welfare tag adjacent, to the right), the system optimizes for neither patients nor practitioners. 

The video in the NYT piece shows a man making home-made drugs for his mother, who has stage 3 cancer.  She has insurance, but cannot get coverage for drugs that are far too expensive to buy commercially.  If her insurance works as I think it does, she would have to buy the drugs, pay for them, and then get part reimbursement by the insurance company at some later date. 

How Capitalism Ruined China’s Health Care System  

From the NYT article –

China’s Health Care Crisis

On some mornings, Dr. Huang Dazhi, a general practitioner in Shanghai, rides his motorbike to a nursing home, where he treats about 40 patients a week. During lunchtime, he sprints back to his clinic to stock up on their medication and then heads back to the nursing home.  Afterward, he makes house calls to three or four people. On other days, he goes to his clinic, where he sees about 70 patients. At night, he doles out advice about high-blood-pressure medications and colds to his patients, who call him on his mobile phone.  For all this, Dr. Huang is paid about $1,340 a month — roughly the same he was making starting out as a specialist in internal medicine 12 years ago.

Doctors so poorly paid must find other ways to make money, and writing prescriptions is a principal means.  Doctors receive kickbacks from suppliers as a way to supplement income.  This is illegal, but without complete reform of the system, there is no way to end the practice.  The incentives are too great on all sides of the issue – suppliers, doctors, nurses, even patients.  The government has said it would crack down on the practice, but to little avail.  The government did fine GlaxoSmithKlein $500 million in 2014 for paying bribes to doctors and others.  Chinese pharma companies were noticeably absent from any prosecution in this regard.  NYT GlaxoSmithKlein fine  or if you do not have a NYT subscription, BBC GlaxoSmithKlein fine.  From my own experience in China, the system remains unchanged.  

Chinese have little respect for the medical system, and doctors are at the receiving end of patient anger.  It is common to read of doctors assaulted, even killed, by enraged patients, parents, or siblings. 

In this file photo, hospital staff walk past a security guard on duty in a hallway at the Beijing Friendship Hospital during a government supervised media tour on February 29, 2012.
In this file photo, hospital staff walk past a security guard on duty in a hallway at the Beijing Friendship Hospital during a government supervised media tour on February 29, 2012.   ED JONES—;AFP/Getty Images
 
A few more references –

http://time.com/4402311/china-attacks-doctors-medical-police-medicine-healthcare/

https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/in-violent-hospitals-chinas-doctors-can-become-patients

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/world/asia/china-attacks-doctors-hospitals.html

But overprescribed – and overly expensive – medications, battlefield conditions of treatment, and lack of training are an affront to even middle class Chinese who see excellent care for some, and a completely ignorant system otherwise.  As I mentioned in other pieces, it is frustrating to know that better treatment exists, and you cannot have it because someone else – maybe the woman who walked in after you – has superior guanxi.  When patient outcomes are less than desired, the frustration can boil over. 

Picking out a doctor to treat you, like picking a train back to the suburbs from downtown at 5:10 –

An electronic board at the entrance of Peking Union Hospital displays the number of doctors available and their specialty.  CreditGilles Sabrié for The New York Times

My own minor experience – when we were seeking to book a room – like in a hotel – at the Pregnant Women’s Hospital in Hangzhou, we were kept waiting outside a locked door on the patient floor for more than half an hour, while events unfolded inside. I knocked on the door several times, the guard at the door saw me, and simply ignored us.  The guard controlled access, and others were let in ahead of us.  My own frustration, boiling over, was relieved when I bolted through the door as another women was let in ahead of us.  At that point, there I stood, alone inside, with my wife and sister-in-law and a bunch of agape Chinese outside.   But, fait accompli – I was inside, I was a foreigner, and the only reasonable solution was to let the rest of my party into the floor so we could – check out the VIP room, as arranged previously, the room we were paying for. 

Oh – another personal experience -when our son was born, some medicine was handed to my sister-in-law, sleeping in the room with my wife and new born son.  She was instructed to put this medicine in my son’s eyes a couple of times a day.  (Nurses don’t administer medicine).  No suggestion that something was wrong, no discussion of adding this to Ben’s post natal care.  What was the medicine for?  I was not going to have someone put stuff in my kid’s eyes without knowing what it was for.  No one – not any of the nurses, not the head nurse – had an answer.  The medicine was prescribed by my wife’s doctor for our son.  Un-huh.  I declined, and told the nurse to take it away if she couldn’t provide a reason for its application.  “Oh, no, the package is already opened.  You must take it.”  (meaning, you must pay for it.)  Again I declined.  Much discussion and phone calls followed, which I am quite sure only took place because I was a foreigner.  Finally, a resolution to the impasse.  The hospital found another new mom who did not – or could not or would not – object to application of the medicine for her baby, even from an opened box.  We were relieved of responsibility.  No doubt the hospital gave the other new mom a discount on the meds that she never authorized or was told about.   But the system persevered – the system of mystery and control – and the system emerged victorious.