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. 

Once Upon a Time, America

At the end of 2018, I wrote a series of posts on similarities between Xi and Trump, CCP and GOP.  See below.

Now, about six weeks before the election, Barton Gellman at the Atlantic has an analysis of how Trump can disrupt the election and refuse to leave.   This is by no means the only story like this, and the idea seems more and more possible.  What if Trump Refuses to Concede?

It can’t happen here, is what most of us think.  But for Trump and GOP, as for Xi and CCP, all comes down to power.  And consider this – Xi Jinping created a lot of enemies in his power grab, starting in 2012 – senior CCP members in jail, some for life, careers ruined.

Xi changed the rules so he could remain in power past 2022. 

Question – if you were in power, and had created a lot of enemies (in Trump’s case, lawsuits that will be filed the day he leaves office) would you choose to desperately cling to power or leave?  Now suppose you were a narcissistic authoritarian basket case.

The GOP faces the same question, as has CCP. 

Some friends remind us of Cato the Elder, updated – GOP delende est.

 Some older posts –

Xi, CCP, DJT, GOP – Part 1 – Government and Party

Xi, CCP, DJT, GOP – Part 2 – Stability

Xi, CCP, DJT, GOP – Part 6 of 5 – Public Morality

and a couple of others.

Take a look at the Camelot last scene   We hope Camelot remains not a metaphor for America.

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. 

Everything old is new again – Inner Mongolia

If you’ve gotten tired of depressing news from Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong, there is a new oppression to watch in Inner Mongolia. As in the other provinces comprising mostly non-Han people, the new policy requires forced language change and erasing of traditional culture.

It’s a new oppression with an old mode of operation, same as used in the other provinces – forced acculturation, sterilizations, threats to school kids and old people and everyone else, threats of loss of job for parents whose kids don’t conform, disappearances and torture and jail sentences for “picking quarrels and provoking troubles,” the usual charge against dissidents, lawyers, writers, journalists, and activists of any stripe who fail to meet CCP standards of obeisance.

Also included are the standard threats, disappearances, and roughing up for foreign journalists reporting on local events.  Alice Su, Beijing Bureau Chief for the LA Times, is the latest victim, presumably while researching her article in the Times China cracks down on Inner Mongolian minority fighting for its mother tongue.

It is remarkable how well CCP follows prescriptions outlined in 1984 and Animal Farm.  Double-think is a prerequisite. An example – we know from the Chinese Constitution that all nationalities are equal …

Article 4. All nationalities in the People’s Republic of China are equal. The state protects the lawful rights and interests of the minority nationalities and upholds and develops the relationship of equality, unity and mutual assistance among all of China’s nationalities. Discrimination against and oppression of any nationality are prohibited; any acts that undermine the unity of the nationalities or instigate their secession are prohibited. The state helps the areas inhabited by minority nationalities speed up their economic and cultural development in accordance with the peculiarities and needs of the different minority nationalities. Regional autonomy is practised in areas where people of minority nationalities live in compact communities; in these areas organs of self- government are established for the exercise of the right of autonomy. All the national autonomous areas are inalienable parts of the People’s Republic of China. The people of all nationalities have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and written languages, and to preserve or reform their own ways and customs.

 … but quite clearly, some nationalities are more equal than others.

From Alice Su’s article –

“All ethnic groups must embrace tightly like the seeds of a pomegranate,” read a slogan from Chinese President Xi Jinping printed in Mandarin on the wall.

So we are in the realm of doublethink already, if Mongolians are being forced to abandon their language and culture.  But the Constitution always has an out – read article 4 above, again, and note – . The state helps the areas inhabited by minority nationalities speed up their economic and cultural development in accordance with the peculiarities and needs of the different minority nationalities.  Sort of in the same realm as, “we had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

Alice Su, again –

Bao said her grandson had to come back to class because his parents’ workplaces threatened to fire them otherwise. “We had no choice,” she said. “We want our grandson to go to school, of course, but not to forget his mother tongue.”

“It’s too outrageous,” her husband added. “What century are we living in? They’ve snatched away our rights.”

Now you might think promotion of “rights” in China is a western concept that would make one subject to arrest.  But remember these sections from the Constitution –

Article 35. Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

Article 36. Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.

Article 37. The freedom of person of citizens of the People’s Republic of China is inviolable.

The people of Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia have equal rights with other Chinese.  Its just that … well, you know.  Animal Farm. 

Bill Bishop at Sinocism has more.  Before we get too high-hat about this, the US has its own terrible history with racial and ethnic minorities.  But when Chinese media and foreign representatives go on about conditions in the US, remember that most of the time the American government has worked to protect rights of minorities.  The Chinese government works to define their rights away.  Too often, we forget that with rights come responsibilities.  In China, the responsibilities include those of obeying CCP. 

Lest We Forget June 4

In the social, economic, and cultural miasma that is the state of the world, we might let tomorrow slip by without notice.

A couple of old comments –

What Chinese cannot not talk about …

How to End June 4, et al.

 

Has Trump has been doing God’s work?

For years, some evangelical leaders have been touting Trump as the wolf-king, anointed by God to enact the Christian right agenda.  Symbols are important in this swamp-fevered world, and Trump’s immorality is actually a positive sign of his worthiness.  Go figure.

Four years ago, Peter Montgomery noted 25 Religious Right Justifications for Supporting Donald Trump.  Christian right leaders spoke endlessly of Trump as a chosen vessel for God’s will, saying things like “God has picked him up” and that Trump is “literally splitting the kingdom of darkness right open” and that “the Lord has put His favor upon him.”

Now I wonder if the coronavirus is a symbol from God as well, a sign of displeasure.  Is God finished with Trump?  Is Trump past his heavenly use-by date?

I ask because there is a long tradition of natural disasters as portents in every culture.  They can be God’s recognition that a ruler is no longer serving the people, and it is time for a change.

American evangelicals tend to see the portents as warnings to society, rather than as warnings to leaders.  Pat Robertson told us that the  Hurricane Katrina disaster was a sign that God is displeased about American policy on abortion. Hurricane Sandy was understood in a similar way.  Jerry Falwell, himself an American natural disaster, pointed the 9-11 finger of judgment at the ACLU, among other miscreants.  Per this poll,  the coronavirus is a portent as well, but only of a general need for Americans to turn back to God.

For me, personally, I don’t like these portents.  Too vague.  The end of days is always nigh, and always attributable to gays, abortion, music, or anyone looking to actually implement teachings from the Sermon on the Mount or pay attention to the Golden Rule.  I want real, actionable portents.

The ancient Chinese Mandate of Heaven seems to work for me.  For more than 3500 years, Chinese have been using alignment of stars and planets and natural disasters of all kinds – floods, tsunami, droughts, even barbarian invasions – as a sign that the ruler may have lost his Mandate of Heaven – the right to rule.   The mandate signals heavenly disapproval of a ruler.

Heaven hears as the people hear, sees as the people see (Mencius 18.8 or Wan Zhang 1.5)

That is the Confucian warning to rulers who fail to protect and serve the people. Chinese emperors, even down to current CCP leaders, have acknowledged the threat.  Terrible Beijing floods in 2012 caused a flood of existential worry at Zhongnanhai, the top leadership encampment in Beijing.  That was the year of transition to Xi Jinping and the rebirth of hard authoritarianism in China.  The disastrous floods in 1626 and 1890 were later seen as dynastic warnings of the end of dynasty. 

The political fear in any authoritarian government is that “performance legitimacy,” the only rationale for its political existence, will be compromised.  This is as true in the US as in China. Mr. Xi has his own ways of avoiding judgment.  For us in the US, Sam Crane at Useless Tree blog notes that democracy in normal times provides a cushion for both rulers and the ruled, by permitting some officials to be replaced without jeopardizing the entire political party.  A few officials or rulers can be changed without threat to the supreme leader.

But these are not normal times, and we have two viruses – one a medical emergency, the other a social, cultural, and democratic emergency.  We are in need of an internal flush, almost a cleaning, as our dear leader promoted the drinking of disinfectant to flush the other virus.   Trump alone is not enough.  We need to flush his enablers as well.

I have written before about similarities among Trump and Xi, CCP and GOP.  The Trump-led GOP is the most despicable and authoritarian regime ever to disgrace American politics.  The portent I am banking on is the covid-19 crisis as retribution from heaven for the banality of evil attributed to the the liar-in-chief and his despicable lackeys.

Franklin Graham, the Billy Graham successor, says the virus is due to mankind turning its back on God.  One wonders whether he has both the direction of causality and the target wrong.  For Trump and GOP, sic semper tyrannis comes to mind.  Perhaps God has heard as the people hear, seen as the people see. 

China seems stuck with Mr. Xi for the duration.  For us, we can only hope that the retribution from heaven is reflected widely in the people’s choices on November 6.  Then, we can get to work on making America great again.

Moral Freedom

In Moral China in the Age of Reform, Ci Jiwei, Professor of Philosophy at Chinese University of Hong Kong, explains that Chinese do not have moral freedom.  His detailed explanation should be required reading for all China observers.

 What does it mean that Chinese don’t have moral freedom?

 Ai Fen is a doctor in the emergency department of Wuhan Central Hospital.  She was the first medical person to tell the world about the virus.  She got the nickname whistle blower for being the first to tell other hospital doctors – including Li Wenliang, one of the first doctors to die.  Her story is in some detail here.

In interviews, she talked about being threatened by the hospital party leader and head of the jian cha ke, the hospital version of the jiwei, the feared CCP Discipline Inspection department.  The leader said that she lost face in Wuhan city government meetings, because of what Ai Fen had said publicly.  The party leader accused Ai Fen of hurting the overall development of Wuhan City, and destroying all the improvements the hospital Party leader had made over the prior years.  According to Ai –

After the interview, I suffered an unprecedented and very severe rebuke.

At that time, the leader of the conversation said, “We can’t afford to raise our heads when we go out for a meeting. The director of XX criticizes our hospital.

Ai was threatened with spreading rumors, for which she could go to jail.  The party leader, incidentally, refused to let doctors and nurses wear masks early in the epidemic – she would lose face and she said, masks would scare patients.  She did not appear in the hospital emergency department until mid-March, when there was a big showy meeting with leaders.  She wore full protective equipment then.  More than 200 – some say, 300 – of the hospital staff are still in treatment for the virus. 

Ai Fen’s story in her own words is at Science Integrity Digest.

Ai Fen walked out dazed and shaken from this criticism meeting with her leaders.  She had never been threatened before.  She is a medical doctor, with many years of schooling and she is, as they say in China, a really excellent person.  But after this warning, this threat, she remained quiet – until her later public interviews.

Two questions – why did Ai Fen – clearly a smart, well educated, thoughtful person – think that these wild accusations about harming the GDP of Wuhan were any of her affair, or even remotely her doing?   Why could she not respond to the Party leader – figuratively, of course – with a personally directed expletive?

A couple of ideas – Ai Fen is an excellent person.  All her life, she was told how to be a good daughter, a good student – primary school, high school, university, medical school – the emphasis was always on being the best.  On the one hand, nothing wrong with incentive and initiative.  But “being the best” also meant being a good soldier, a good Party member, do what you are told and – in one of my most hated phrases in Chinese – meiyou wenti – no questions.  One could not advance in school without learning to mouth the right answer.  Her salary, advancement, stature would depend not only on her excellence, but on her relationship with leaders.  Obey authority is the idea.

What meiyou wenti means is that Ai Fen could not develop the courage to make choices for herself about moral questions – what is right, what is wrong, truth, falsity.  She was always told the correct answer, and there was no room for debate.  Wo bi xu zuo –  I must do it.  Making these judgments requires experience, and she did not have it.  Her reaction, though troubling to her, was to obey.

When presented with the virus diagnosis in December, she did the professional thing – circulate information to her colleagues.  This is science at its best – share information, seek the truth. This, however, was a political error – in CCP terms, an error in moral judgment.  When confronted by the leaders, she then chose to remain silent.

When confronted with power, she could only be in fear of what could happen to her personally from her inexperienced action. As a doctor, she always concentrated on her studies and her work. She was always shielded from the world of real power.  She is young, with two small kids, one a year old.  Jail?  Simply disappear?  She warned her husband after the severe reprimand –

I went home that night, I remember quite clearly, and told my husband after entering the door, if something went wrong, you can raise the child. Because my second treasure is still very young, only over 1 year old.

Most Chinese never have to deal with issues of moral freedom.  They have the luxury of living life, going to work, going to school, going shopping without having to confront issues of right or wrong, truth or falsity and making considered moral judgments – even voting or choosing what can be said or printed. That is what CCP wants.  Others – journalists, writers, artists, social scientists, intellectuals of all stripes – confront lack of moral freedom in some way every day.  In Wuhan, moral freedom came for Ai Fen.  With the interviews, Ai Fen found courage. She rose above CCP, and gained moral stature- not in CCP, but in eyes of the world.

Killer App

Trump, Xi, CCP, GOP is the title of a series of posts I ran about a year ago, pointing out some of the ways that Trump and Xi are alike, and CCP and GOP are alike.

We know that Mr. Xi and CCP wasted about six weeks at the early stages of the crisis.  This no doubt cost lives in China, as people died at home without being tested.

We know that Trump has wasted more than six weeks, since he knew about the virus from early in January when China informed WHO.   This waste of time has cost lives in the US, and is going to cost a lot more, as doctors and nurses work without a “safety net,” preventive measures are ignored by Trump, people die from overdose on hydroxychloroquine and GOP derides the pleadings of the scientists and doctors.  The bungling will force the use of the “death panels” hypothesized by the GOP in Obamacare debates.  In overwhelmed hospitals, doctors will be forced to triage virus patients.  Public health and safety cost money, and Republicans say we can’t afford it.

So let’s help in the election.  Let’s remind all Americans in our high-tech information age that the GOP has developed a killer app for the American people.  Call it Trump.  By June or July, Americans will have realized how true that is.

CCP and Mr. Xi’s Learning Disability

Two full months into the Covid-19 crisis, we see where Mr. Xi’s crackdown on communication and openness has taken him.  He is himself in no danger, but CCP runs into a conceptual wall with free flow of information. That is a disability – a learning disability – for CCP and China now.

CCP has always shown itself to be flexible and adaptable.  That has been a strength.  But with a modern middle class society, and an arteriosclerotic governing structure, the crisis points out two things – limits of CCP tolerance for free flow of information in the Xi era and people’s anger, anxiety, and disgust at censorship of their heartfelt emotions. 

Disability manifests in three ways –

There is no tolerance for officials who stray from CCP hierarchy –  Officials who know better dare not speak out. Xi has reintroduced centralization of authority in Beijing, and consolidated power in himself. Historically, there is no truth until the senior leader announces it. But a crisis demands openness, receptiveness to new knowledge and local initiative in response.

Without local initiative, we see the failure of CCP under the most powerful leader since Mao to have operable crisis management plans to dull or halt the spread of the virus.

Even during the crisis, Hubei officials have been slow in coordinating transport and lodging for thousands of doctors and nurses from other provinces, come to assist in Hubei.  No one could do logistics without an ok from Beijing.

China provide plenty of training for government officials and managers, but no independent decision-making experience. Isaiah Berlin was right in his essay On Political Judgment.  Good political judgment is a skill – it is practical wisdom.  Vetting and prior experience are important, but good judgment comes from exercising it, not suppressing it.  Vetting in an authoritarian system prepares one only for authoritarian values.

A political response is considered far more important than effective disaster response. The Centers for Disease Control, the Chinese Red Cross, the local transportation and police departments have had any meritocracy in the ranks superceded by rank political decision-making at the top.

To be sure, there are plenty of Chinese party members and local government officials who are ready and able to learn. I know this because I taught scores of them – vice mayors, organization department leaders, political liaisons, police officials, urban planners and maritime law judges — over the last seventeen years, in university programs in Chicago and in China. Many now are long-term friends. I know, firsthand, that many CCP members, mid-levels and above, are smart, committed, and generous people.  They can rightfully claim an elite status based on merit.  They are now caught between “serving the people” and serving political masters.

Chinese friends and colleagues remind me how risky it is for local leaders to act until their own leader has acted –  and that trail goes from a district health official all the way to Beijing.  The (former) mayor of Wuhan said as much the other day – he had information, but he could only report to his leaders.  He did not have the freedom to release what he knew.

There is no tolerance for open communication – You know about the death of Li Wenliang, the doctor who tried to warn others about the new virus, and was punished for doing so. A window of wechat openness has shut down, as Mr. Xi is starting to claim victory over the crisis.  But CCP limits on open communication damage social trust. Suppression of information accelerates local and worldwide panic about the coronavirus. The flu in America kills tens of thousands each year; we don’t panic about flu.  No one trusts the Chinese government – not Chinese, not foreign governments. When there is no trust, and information is in great demand, the market supplies rumor and anxiety and hoarding. This is Mr. Xi’s legacy, to promote this corrosive disability.

People’s anger is palpable – Truth dies in a rigid hierarchy with heavy censorship and punishment for those who speak out.  “No one should comment unless they know all the facts” – this meme has permeated Chinese culture for decades.  Since no one can ever know all the facts on any topic, this serves as a warning for people to say nothing. The wechat posts may only last an hour or two before deletion. But the followup posts spread like a virus online. “Trust the leader” has long been a political premise in China.  Now, with online calls for officials to resign, or die,  Mr. Xi has destroyed this meme.

What result for CCP and Mr. Xi

Alexis de TocquevilleFriedrich Hayek and James Scott told us about the importance of local knowledge and experience.  In a strict hierarchy, top leaders are truly masked from exposure to information.  They are disabled.

The international brand of China and CCP is certainly damaged in this crisis. World leaders, perhaps even business leaders, will be less willing to show obeisance to Xi.  The image of China as having a meritocratic and superior form of governance is certainly destroyed. The Chinese government response in this crisis will hasten the exit of foreign businesses and foreigners from China that began with the trade fiasco.  Failure of government response in SARS in 2003, the ongoing swine fever crisis from 2018, and now Covid-19 are more than just a series of unfortunate events.  They are the product of silence.

Xi will need to crack down harder on dissent. To facilitate delivery of food and monitor those with fevers, local governments have used the recently rejuvenated grid system, a fine-grained watching network of volunteers.  This innovation was Mr. Xi’s idea for instilling patriotism and anxiety in the people.  After the virus crisis subsides, it may become more of a standard means of observation and control.  People watching is no leisurely pastime.

Xi recently claims to be in full control of the response to the crisis, which is a tricky position for him. He wants credit for success without responsibility for failure.  We remember the old adage, applying all the way down the chain of command – authority without responsibility is tyranny; responsibility without authority is chaos.

In 2013, Chinese officials were reading deTocqueville’s The Old Regime and the Revolution, by way of understanding how to avoid losing the autocracy.  The French old regime tried to reform, but eventually reverted to a powerful central government. Mr. Xi must have missed the quote about the French kings when Louis XVIII restored the monarchy after Napoleon: “The Bourbons had learned nothing and forgotten nothing.” 

Mr. Xi seems to find himself in a similar situation.  After the disasters of the Mao years, even his own sent down experience, he is trying to take China to a 21st century version of the old regime.  He can’t get there from where modern China begins. 

For leaders, information does not want to be free – lessons from Wuhan

(Note: update at February 13 – Hubei has changed the manner of identifying virus infections, and the new system overnight adds about 15,000 people to the total.  The number of deaths is also changed, but obviously the government will not go back and change death certificates from the last month.  I have no access to the statistics, only reports from Chinese of illnesses and deaths, but an increase in the total of cases seems necessary.  There were just too many stories, too close to home.  The new count coincides with the change of the Wuhan and Hubei CCP leaders.  Politically, it will now be possible to identify the crisis with the former leaders, and the end of the crisis with changes made by Mr. Xi.  This is the China wechat meme of the moment.)

We should not waste the coronavirus crisis.

Whether or not it turns into a full-fledged pandemic, surprises and lessons already have emerged that demand attention and need to be learned by Chinese — also by America and the rest of the world.

There is no chance that lessons will be learned in China. The lessons are mostly anathema to CCP.  But the crucial lessons are there for us, too — lessons that we must not ignore, lessons about openness to experienced advice and telling the truth. This post is mostly about China, but one can see the parallels in American politics now.

Our own recent political processes have nascent signs of copying CCP.  I comment on the China model below.  See how well it matches some political developments in the US. 

CCP leaders know the lessons.  I taught scores of them – vice mayors, organization department leaders, political liaisons, policemen urban planners and judges in Chicago, over a span of seven years.  Many are long term friends.  I know firsthand that many CCP members, midlevels and above, are smart, committed, and generous people.  They can rightfully claim an elite status based on merit. But they are caught in a system that does not value telling the truth until the leader announces it.  We are seeing that despicable system in American politics as well.  No one on the GOP side dare counter the leader. 

The operating governance model in China works for all the people – up to the point at which the values of openness threaten CCP.  We see this now in the US political system as well.  The GOP can entertain truth, until it becomes politically unpleasant. Then, the system can’t help but close in around leaders.   

That system of smart committed people in government in China is frustrated by political correctness at every level.  There is no truth, there is no openness until the senior leader announces it. For effective response in crisis, openness must permeate the government and the society, so that no one need fear retribution for speaking the truth.  We see how lack of openness failed the people in China, as it failed the people in New Orleans at Katrina or the people of Puerto Rico at Hurricane Maria.  You remember “heckuva job, Brownie.”

It is easy to trash government response in crisis.  Crises are by definition long tail events.  But the political side of government cannot hold itself out as the only purveyor of information, the only purveyor of truth or experience, particularly in a crisis.  It needs the local knowledge, local voices, local actors from within government and from outside.  The coronavirus teaches us that.  China cannot learn the lesson for political reasons.  In America, we must learn it, for, as the Washington Post tells us, democracy dies in darkness.

There are surprises coming from this crisis  – on the negative side, there is the failure of CCP under the most powerful leader since Mao to have operable crisis management plans and an effective response early enough to dull or halt the spread of the virus.  So much for meritocracy at senior levels.

On the positive side, there is the willingness of Chinese to volunteer to help. Contrary to political doctrine (and somewhat to Chinese culture), the people showed signs of learning how to depend on each other, and not the government.  And distinct from other crises, like Sichuan earthquakes, this time volunteers have their own health and lives at risk.

The lessons stem from observations –

  • A stark view of the isolation of Chinese leaders from the rest of the population by virtue of wealth and benefits.
  • Clear evidence of the perils of closing access to alternative voices – voices in the hospitals, in the local health agencies, in government agencies, in the society 
  • Clear evidence of the perils of hierarchical and rigid management in a modern society. From Confucius, heaven hears as the people hear, sees as the people see.  Heaven hears all the voices. The political side of government needs to hear them too. 

The China model

On isolation – a CCP mantra is that they Party members serve the people.  But Hubei and Wuhan citizens looking at the performances – that is the word – of the governor and mayor learned that these leaders had little sense of the severity of the nascent crisis.  They seemed as isolated from the crisis as they were from having to eat the same food as commoners or drink the same alcohol.  A people’s leader doesn’t have to read from a speech when bemoaning the deaths and exhorting people to take heart.  At the very top, Xi Jinping was absent from public view from January 28 to February 5.  He appeared on the 5th, disappeared again, and then made a public announcement about legal controls to silence dissent or public voice during the epidemic.  The silence is not Trumpian, though the uncaring certainly is. China Law Blog has a good summary of Mr. Xi’s plans.

On meritocracy – Those who have promoted CCP as a model of political meritocracy should be chastened.  The US could stand a little more meritocracy in its leadership, but Isaiah Berlin was right in his essay On Political Judgment. Good political judgment is a skill – it is practical wisdom.  Vetting is important, prior experience is important, but good judgment comes from exercising it, not suppressing it. Vetting in an authoritarian system prepares one only for authoritarian values. On the home front, real estate is an authoritarian model business. The developer is far more powerful than the buyers or renters, and meritocracy never enters the picture. 

As it turns out, the political system in China spawned the Chinese Red Cross, widely thought to be corrupt.  The Red Cross is the government preferred vehicle for donations of money and supplies, but it was woefully unprepared for the crisis.  Volunteers in Wuhan tried to help distribute masks, gowns, gloves and supplies, but they soon left, discouraged at incompetence. 

A crisis, and crisis planning, demands good local information. Without crisis planning, we get the result in Hubei, modeling the old adage – authority without responsibility is tyranny; responsibility without authority is chaos.

There is disaster planning in China; there is extensive training for officials at all levels.  But the learning is blocked by the necessities of hierarchy and power maintenance.  A political response is considered far more important than effective disaster response.  Within organizations, within departments, effort is then put into not learning: preventing learning, suppressing it, corrupting it or breaking up the organizations themselves. The training can then become pointless, a version of “just do it.” 

A good Chinese example is an article published just recently in the Chinese journal Management World, titled Crisis Management in the Internet Era (original in Chinese; reprinted in English at China Journal Review).  The article tells us that crises are usually predictable and the best way to prepare is to identify potential threats in advance. Ok.  That is valuable information. This was written by State Councilor Xu Xianping. 

In the US, the current version of this lack of meritocracy in crisis management is to simply deny that a crisis is possible, or to simply defund agencies. A good American example – Trump recently defunded the Global Health Security program, which provided funding to some of the world’s poorest countries to assist in health crisis research and planning.  Heckuva job, Donnie. 

It is in no particular leader’s interest to act until their own leader has acted, and that trail goes from a district health official all the way to Beijing.  The mayor of Wuhan said as much the other day – he has some information, but he can only report to his leaders.  He did not have the freedom to release what he knew.  At the same time, no one with authority wants to take responsibility.  The doctors and nurses and researchers are willing to be responsible, but they have no authority.  And no one can speak out of turn, for fear of real punishment.

On hierarchical management in a modern world – The Wuhan Center for Disease Control isolated the virus in December.  But per requirements, it could only report to its Beijing leaders.  At least a month was wasted in fumbling and denial and punishing communication, and by then the virus was well established.  When Beijing informed the World Health Organization of the new virus on December 31, it was still keeping Chinese in the dark about existence. We will see how many of the five million people who left Wuhan before it was closed down on January 23 at the beginning of Spring Festival will become ill. Alexis deTocqueville Frederick Hayek and James Scott told us about the importance of local knowledge and local information and warned about the dangers of high management attempting to implement grand plans.  In a strict hierarchy, top leaders are truly masked from exposure to information.  Fear of the leader accomplishes the same task – looking at you, US Senate Republicans and their enablers.

On political priorities – Part of the delay in reporting to the public was the desire to not interfere with Spring Festival –a reasonable initial take. But leaders also did not want to muddy the political waters with the provincial People’s Congress meeting and the planned two meetings in Beijing in March. Now, the ham-handed approach to late remedial action – closing all movement in and out, banning private vehicles on the streets, restricting household movements to one a day – means that now people are running out of food, out of medicines for all illnesses, out of emotional reserves.  I have friends who are frightened, depressed, and feel there is nowhere to turn.  It is the realization of Camus’ The Plague.

In a hierarchical system, even simple logistics problems can become political problems.  At least a thousand doctors and nurses from other provinces, come for emergency aid to Hubei hospitals, were stuck at the Wuhan airport for three or four hours without food and without transportation.  The management decision to provide buses and food had to come from the newly organized crisis management team, formed in Hubei and in each city.  The management team would consist of political leaders, for sure, and perhaps a few other officials.  But all would defer to a direction from the party leader, and if the party leader did not express an opinion, underlings might be afraid to make a decision.   In the US, we see that the independent voices in federal agencies – it is particularly obvious at the State Department and EPA – are fleeing, to leave unqualified and political replacements in charge. 

On information management –  Dr. Li Wenliang, one of the first doctors to try to warn others of the coronoavirus outbreak, and who was punished for doing so, has died.  There is widespread outrage at his martyrdom in a just cause.  His wife, now about 8 months pregnant, is also sick, along with his parents.  At first, the Chinese media deleted all stories about his death.  CCP could learn the importance of whistle-blowers even for an authoritarian government. In one of his last statements, Dr. Li noted that there should be more than one voice in a healthy society.  His evidence is submitted to a candid world. 

Now no one knows how many people are only a little bit sick, and are sent home or never got to the hospital.  No one knows how many of those a “little bit sick” will develop the virus, or whether they just have a cold. No one knows whether sequestering those who are a “little bit sick” in large exhibition halls, several hundred to a room, will make some sicker or not.  No one knows how many deaths are not recorded.  There is no such data, and no system in place to collect it.  But recent phone conversations between a crematory director and an inspection group (sent to check on supplies and processes) provide one datum – about 35% of their cremations come from hospitals right now.  About 65% are coming directly from residential compounds.  No one knows how many of those from residences are virus related. But in normal times, one would expect very few deaths at home.  The same crematory director said that on average, they would deal with about 30 cremations a day.  On a recent day, they had about 120 bodies that had to be cremated that day, presumably due to viral infection.  There are eight crematories in Wuhan.  And the number of official deaths don’t match such cremation statistics.  

On training and expertise – CCP does continuous training for officials, both technical and political.  This is a bit of a deficiency in American government, compared with that in other countries.  But the training in China cannot obviate differences in provincial education quality and local political priorities.  At least some of the difficulties in Hubei and Wuhan could be attributed to lesser quality of both leaders and officials, compared with those in more sophisticated places like Zhejiang, Jiangsu, or Shanghai. The Wuhan mayor does not have an academic university degree, only a Party School degree.  Education is not everything, but Party schools do differ, as much as a University of Michigan differs from a local junior college. In the US, only a third of the Trump cabinet and high official appointees have had public sector experience.  Most seem chosen for their conservative political views and their obvious wealth, and most certainly not because of their education or wisdom.  

The CCP mantra is a good one – serve the people.  Serving the people requires that all voices be heard.  In a rigid hierarchy with heavy censorship and punishment of those who speak out, the truth dies.  “No one should comment unless they know all the facts” – this meme has permeated Chinese culture for decades.  Since no one can ever know all the facts on any topic, this serves as a warning for people to say nothing.  “Trust the leader” has long been a political premise in China.  We have this in the US now, for people unwilling to ask questions. 

CCP could learn the peril of trying to control information in a modern world.  The Party has always been flexible, and adaptable – this is a strength.  But it runs into a conceptual wall with free flow of information.  A communist regime needs to have the Truth about everything.  Years ago, when I asked Party members about the source of truth, they told me what I already knew – the Party has the truth.  But that is a dilapidated concept hindering success in a modernizing state.  Suppression of information is a good part of what has led to the worldwide panic about the coronavirus. The flu in America kills tens of thousands each year; but we don’t panic about flu. No one trusts the Chinese government – not Chinese, not foreign governments, not foreign people. When there is no trust, and information is in great demand, the market supplies rumor and anxiety and hoarding. 

On volunteering – To volunteer is dangerous in an authoritarian state, but when lives are at risk, Chinese will plunge in.  The difference with volunteers in the Sichuan earthquakes, the Wenzhou train disaster, and other recent events is that now volunteers have their own health and lives at risk.

One wants to encourage Chinese volunteers – “The People. United. Will Never Be Defeated.”  But that is probably a bit too socialist, a bit too revolutionary for a Communist party to tolerate.  And the volunteers were never united, could not organize, and certainly would not maintain solidarity, except silently.  Mr. Xi may have to intensify strangling people’s access to information, and Chinese who complain bitterly about it will nevertheless concede.  The US Senate has conceded also, albeit without complaining much. 

Lessons from the China model

There is no chance that lessons will be learned in China. There is no chance that the crisis will destroy Mr. Xi.  If he needs to crack down harder on dissent, well, that option is always available.  Keven Rudd said more or less the same thing in a recent Project Syndicate piece.

The crisis is by far the biggest challenge for Mr. Xi in his term.  His response has been puzzling – he wants to be in charge, but does not want the responsibility, which is being passed off to the provinces and cities.  Mr. Xi will continue to lay low for the next few months, as his response has been underwhelming and citizen anger is palpable all over China.   This crisis is not Hong Kong, or Xinjiang, or Tibet.  It is not blacks or Puerto Ricans or immigrants who can be written off.  Hubei is real Chinese people, and all Chinese know that.

Over the next few months, watch for further efforts to strangle social media and expressions of outrage at the unfeeling manner in which the government is “serving the people.”  While some more expression is being permitted right now, in response to people’s outrage across China, this will end and the mask of disinformation will return. I don’t see how greater social media freedom could be permitted, but if it were to happen, it would begin with local censors, at the permission of some leader, choosing to not delete some wechat posts.  The hashtag #wewantfreedomofspeech# posted response to the death of Dr. Li lasted for five hours before it was deleted Friday morning the 7th. It had more than two million views and 5,500 related posts by that time.  If a future similarly poignant post were to last for 12 hours, or 24, that would be significant.

It is not clear what will happen to the mayor and governor and Party leaders in Wuhan and Hubei.  If they were to be sacrificed, it should have happened by now.  They must all be Xi appointees by now, after seven years of Xi in power, and he may not want to simply dump them.  That might worry other Xi appointees, particularly as we approach the putative change in leadership in 2022.  The international brand of China and CCP is certainly damaged in this crisis, and world leaders, perhaps even business leaders, will be less willing to show obeisance to Xi.  The image of China as having a meritocratic and superior form of governance is certainly destroyed. The Chinese government response in this crisis will hasten the exit of foreign businesses and foreigners from China that began with the trade fiasco.  Warren Buffet reminded us that it is only when the tide goes out that we see who is swimming naked.  Chinese political governance is showing itself every bit as incompetent as the American political response to Hurricane Maria or gun violence or education failure.

The lessons are there for us, too.  Chinese students are taught from early on that positive attitude is the way to end all written schoolwork – something on the order of, “if we all work hard, tomorrow will be better.”  It is a trite formulaic ending to school papers.  What is not valued in working hard is learning to tell the truth.   Such training is unnecessary, since government will always provide the truth when it is needed.

There are two masked lessons for Americans to heed – masked because they are hidden at first glance in media and journalism.  First is that government does contain experienced, thoughtful, smart people who are committed to doing good.  To ignore them, to sideline them, is to put us all on Plato’s ship of fools. We seem committed to that path in the US now. 

Second, government always needs a counterbalancing voice, whether the Church or real political opposition or civil society or free journalism or social media or experienced and wise people in government agencies.  That alternative voice can be the voice of truth and the spur to action. Otherwise, we are all at greater risk of the unforeseen virus.  Remember the last sentence of Camus’ The Plague – paraphrasing – “the plague bacillus never dies out completely … even in happy times, it waits beneath our notice, until it decides to rouse its rats again and send them forth to die in a happy city.”

Viruses thrive when there is only one voice of authority that sees self-preservation as more important than serving the people.  That is the lesson for America and the world from the coronavirus.