Western democracies still attractive places to be fed up

Risk managers and futurists who rank the winners for the new century picked the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) well before the financial crash of 2008. Today, it’s conventional wisdom among decision-makers. At ground level, however, the story is more complicated.

Capitalists wake up worrying about the morning’s market. Western business leaders fear that their politicians aren’t strong enough to lead and that government economic relief, including tax cuts, will only be temporary. On the other hand, capitalists in Russia and China talk off the record about leaving.

Western political incumbents get very worried when a majority of the people openly declare that their country is “on the wrong track.” It’s not known how leaders in Moscow and Beijing feel about stories that their best and brightest imagine simply getting out.

The US Census Bureau’s latest population forecast anticipates annual US net legal immigration of 880,000 per year. That’s the mid-range; it assumes continued decade-long waiting lists and little progress in Washington in modernizing immigration law. The Bureau has no reason to worry that millions will continue to join the queue.

Here are two stories about malaise in China and Russia—the most powerful BRICS—that put the crisis of confidence in the West in perspective.

Last week, The Globe and Mail ran as story from Beijing by Louise Watt entitled, “For China’s wealthy, a fond wish: to leave.”

“The United States is the most popular destination for Chinese emigrants, with rich Chinese praising its education and health-care systems. Last year, nearly 68,000 Chinese-born people became legal permanent residents of the United States . . .

“In China, nothing belongs to you. Like buying a house. You buy it but it will belong to the country 70 years later,” said Mr. Su, lamenting the government’s land leasing system.

Getting a foreign passport is like “taking out an insurance policy,” said Rupert Hoogewerf, who compiles the Hurun Rich List, China’s version of the Forbes list.”

Click on: www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/for-chinas-wealthy-their-fondest-wish-is-to-leave/article2157290/

This week, The Economist is even harder on Russia. In a briefing entitled “Time to shove off,” it reported:

“A recent opinion poll by the Levada Centre shows that 22% of Russia’s adult population would like to leave the country for good. This is a more than threefold increase from four years ago, when only 7% were considering it. It is the highest figure since the collapse of the Soviet Union, when only 18% said they wanted to get out. Those who are eager to leave are not the poor and desperate. On the contrary, most are entrepreneurs and students.

The Levada Centre recently conducted a survey of people aged 25-39 living in large cities and earning five-to-ten times the average income in Russia. Almost a third would like to emigrate permanently.”

Click on: www.economist.com/node/21528596

These stories do not argue that the BRICS will lose. And they certainly don’t make it easier to believe that history will be quiet elsewhere as the West sorts out its finances. However, they should remind conservatives as well as liberals that our social, political and economic systems still beat the alternatives—and are worthy of respect when we think big about fixing our problems.

When a cartoon of reality becomes a joke

Two of America’s best-known Republican intellectuals may have reached the outer reaches of their credibility. If they keep it up, we’ll start hearing branches falling off the GOP. Peggy Noonan whispered to Obama to hire a “special assistant for reality.” Saying:

“What a president should ideally have, and what I think we all agree Mr. Obama badly needs, is an assistant whose sole job it is to explain and interpret the American people to him. Presidents already have special assistants for domestic policy, for congressional relations and national security. Why not a special assistant for reality? Someone to translate the views of the people, and explain how they think. An advocate for the average, a representative for the normal, to the extent America does normal.”

Rehearsing for the job of second-guessing 536 elected representatives of the American people, she proceeds to explain the fuss at the airport. It’s that inner John Wayne, the muse of her speech-writing career for President Reagan. Savour this:

“John Wayne removes his boots and hat and puts his six-shooter on the belt, he gets through the scanner, and now he’s standing there and sees what’s being done to other people. A TSA guy is walking toward him, snapping his rubber gloves. Guy gets up close to Wayne, starts feeling his waist and hips. Wayne says, “Touch the jewels, Pilgrim, and I’ll knock you into tomorrow.”

Click on:http://peggynoonan.com/ 

Do normal Americans check in with their John Wayne fantasy when waiting at airports? Do frustrated, tired voters put their X compulsively beside the hardest ass on the ballot?
Are traditional American characteristics of practicality and respect for the complexity of modern life only alive amongst elites?
Charles Krauthammer, the Mars of conservative polemicists, probably doesn’t really care. His antagonism toward Obama seems existential; in serving it, he feels better. However, his screed, “The irrelevance of START,” baldy appeals to those who think telling Obama to “man up” is wit. Dismissing a treaty that would further shrink nuclear arsenals and resume mutual verification, he asserted:

“A nuclear exchange between Washington and Moscow is inconceivable. What difference does it make how many nukes Russia builds? If they want to spend themselves into penury creating a bloated nuclear arsenal, be our guest. …Moreover, Obama's idea that the great powers must reduce their weapons to set a moral example for the rest of the world to disarm is simply childish.”

Click on: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/25/AR2010112502232.html
Was it only the clash of ideas that kept us up during the Cold War? Have Russian generals stopped drinking vodka? Can American military strategists never have nervous breakdown? Can the world be assured that the two powers that hold over 90% of the world nuclear weapons are fail-safe? Not a single former Republican or Democratic Secretary of State agrees. They see substantive merit in reducing nuclear weapons now and increasing respectful, reliable relations with Russia.
Krauthammer sees Obama’s efforts to get the Senate to ratify the New Start treaty as a distraction. It is a distraction to him because he’s not interested in joint Russia, US, and UN Security Council measures to dissuade Iran, or in joint China, US, and South Korean measures to dissuade North Korea. His inner John Wayne is still on his horse: diplomacy, economic boycotts, and alliances with others are for children and dwarfs.
The Russian defense machine could spend Russia into penury, but America can afford to keep its growing forever. Apparently, America can tame Iran without the cooperation of her neighbours, including Russia. And can handle North Korea that way too.
Presumably, Krauthammer’s America can afford to act unilaterally and violently on another two fronts. Inside the bubble of responsibility, however, Obama and his advisors have chosen a different approach. Along with reality, they may end up with politics on their side as well.