Six years ago, the US sociologist Alan Wolfe published One Nation, After All: What Middle-Class Americans Really Think About, an essential text for understanding the pulse of modern America. \nWhat makes it important is that Wolfe painted a picture radically at odds with the exaggerated perception, both in the US and abroad, of the US as a nation of entrenched and embattled ideological extremes. \nIn fact, Wolfe argued that middle America was not so much a land of culture wars as of cultural pragmatism. "I have found little support for the notion that middle-class Americans" -- a category within which three quarters of all Americans define themselves -- "are engaged in bitter cultural conflict with each other over the proper way to live," he wrote. \n"Reluctant to pass judgment, (Americans) are tolerant to a fault," he concluded. "Not about everything -- they have not come to accept homosexuality as normal and they intensely dislike bilingualism -- but about a surprising number of things, including rapid transformations in the family, legal immigration, multicultural education and the separation of church and state. Above all moderate in their outlook on the world, they believe in the importance of leading a virtuous life, but are reluctant to impose values they understand as virtuous for themselves on others; strong believers in morality, they do not want to be considered moralists." \nWolfe's book came out at the height of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and his findings were \nvindicated by the response of public opinion to the president's misdemeanors. While Republican fanatics used the affair to try to drive the president from the White House, moderate middle America failed to rise to their bait. Instead they kept former US president Bill Clinton's wrongdoings in proportion and rallied behind him, just as a reading of Wolfe's book suggested they might. \nelection year \nBut that was then. In this election year, the talk is of a deeply divided nation, of a Disraelian Two Americas, the title of a recent book by the pollster Stanley Greenberg. Six years on, in the wake of the split-down-the-middle presidential election of November 2000, in the light of the ideological drivings of the Bush administration and, above all, in the confrontational aftermath of Iraq, how does Wolfe's late-1990s vision of a tolerant consensual America stand up? \nWhen I put this question to him last week, Wolfe argued that the past four years have confirmed rather than destroyed the essential thesis of his book. By any standard, he reckons, Americans are less divided in their view of life, the nation and the world, than they were in the past. One nation, after all, again. \nThe essence of Wolfe's case is that the great wedge issues of the late 20th-century culture wars have simply shrunk in significance. \nThe most important of these, as always, is affirmative action on race, where the US Supreme Court has managed to strike a sensible compromise. Nor, he argues, does abortion still have the divisive potential of the past, though if a \nre-elected US President George \nW. Bush attempts to nominate a Supreme Court dedicated to overturning the Roe versus Wade judgment that legalized abortion of 1973, that could change. Having won the political argument over what it calls partial birth abortion, though, Wolfe reckons the right is less angry than it was. \nThere's much about the US this year that bears this out. Over the past couple of months, Bush has spent $50m on campaign ads designed to promote his opposition to gay marriage. As Wolfe's original research found, gay equality remains one of the issues on which middle America remains to be convinced; yet you would have to search long and hard to find many people who believe that gay marriage is the great dividing issue in America. At the margins, Bush's advertising may help to motivate some social conservatives to vote Republican, but mostly it has sunk without trace. \nWhich brings us to the paradox. If Wolfe is right, even this year, and most Americans are indeed part of the shared values of One America, then how does this square with an electorate that, according to most of the current opinion polling, is now so sharply polarized into Two Americas? \nA possible explanation is that the polarization of 2000 and this year is simply untypical -- most US presidential elections are not nearly so close as the last one was and the next one promises to be. In that case, some special factor -- the disabling effect of the Clinton scandals on the Democratic cause in 2000, perhaps, or the mistrust toward Bush's Iraq policy and his tax cuts this time around -- may have made these two contests more impassioned than they might otherwise have been. \nA second is that the practices of modern campaigning and media, by giving voters a relentlessly inaccurate picture of the choices they face, presenting their own candidate in an unbelievably favorable light and their opponent in an equally unbelievably negative light, conspire to create a polarized contest between core electorates and to drive down participation. \nno monopoly \nAs US journalist Jack Germond says in his new memoir, the Republicans do not have a \nmonopoly on such tactics -- \nthey just seem better at it. \nThere is, of course, a third possibility: that Wolfe's "one nation" theory is just wrong. In the end, though, a complete explanation surely also involves a critical assessment of the tactics of the Democrats, in particular the intellectual defensiveness that E.J. Dionne, in another necessary new book, Stand Up Fight Back, dubs "the politics of accommodation" and which Garry Wills, in a brilliant essay in the New York Review of Books, describes as Clinton's legacy of "omnidirectional \nproneness to pusillanimity and collapse." \nDionne's answer has lessons not just for the Democrats but for the Labour Party. His argument is that progressive parties must not be so fearful about affirming the traditions from which they come, while simultaneously recognizing that the tradition is "pragmatic, experimental and open to new approaches." \nIn the US, writes Dionne, this means being more explicit about government's role to help the worse-off, protecting the courts from right-wing judges, reforming campaign finance laws, promoting "tolerant traditionalism" in social policy while, in international affairs, adopting a vigilant optimistic "Lockean" strategy based on alliances, democracy and justice. \nReading Wolfe, there is little doubt that this meshes with the "mature patriotism" and "tempered internationalism" which characterize middle-class America's view of the world and that a campaign based on such approaches would make Bush's re-election much more difficult. \nWill it happen? There were signs in Boston last week that Senator John Kerry has begun to embrace some of this. But the picture is incomplete, there is a long way to go and -- as Germond reminds us -- the Republicans \nare very good, and very ruthless, campaigners.
French firm DCI-DESCO in April won a bid to upgrade Taiwan’s Lafayette frigates, which has strained ties between China and France. In 1991, France sold Taiwan six Lafayette frigates and in 1992 sold it 60 Mirage 2000 fighter jets. To prevent arms sales between the nations, China negotiated an agreement with France and in 1994 in a joint statement, France promised that there would be no future arms sales to Taiwan. From China’s point of view, the DCI-DESCO deal constitutes a breach of the agreement, but the French stance is that it is not selling Taiwan new weapons, but instead providing a
Chung Yuan ChristiaN University is clearly in bed with the People’s Republic of China. This can be the only explanation why the school’s authorities have done their utmost to shield a student, who lodged a complaint against an associate professor, and then used thuggish tactics to compel the teacher to issue two separate apologies to China. The original complaint, filed by an unnamed Chinese student, was for remarks by associate professor Chao Ming-wei (招名威) during a class on the origin of COVID-19. A second complaint was filed by the same student after Chao, during an apology, stated that he was a
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in her inaugural address on May 20 firmly said: “We will not accept the Beijing authorities’ use of ‘one country, two systems’ to downgrade Taiwan and undermine the cross-strait status quo.” The Chinese government was not too happy, and later that day, an opinion piece on the Web site of China’s state broadcaster China Central Television said: “While Tsai’s first inaugural address four years ago was read by Beijing as an ‘unfinished answer sheet,’ the one she presented this time was even more below-par.” Speaking to the China Review News Agency, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies vice president
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to wreak havoc worldwide. Despite countries being under pressure economically and from the novel coronavirus, China’s National People’s Congress last month passed national security legislation for Hong Kong, a decision that has shocked the world. Let there be no doubt: This move is the beginning of the end of China’s plans for “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Proposed amendments to extradition laws last year ignited massive protests in Hong Kong, with millions of participants, shocking the world and making confrontation between government forces and those who opposed the change a permanent part of Hong