As a boy, I enjoyed kicking a can down a road. It was free. It was fun. It required only a little skill. It sometimes annoyed people I quite liked annoying. However, no great harm was ever caused. Maybe this explains why, as a commentator, I struggle to be outraged by the accusation that a bunch of politicians have kicked another can down another road.
For the last couple of years this can-kicking charge has been repeatedly deployed, from both left and right, against the leaders of the EU for their handling of the eurozone crisis.
There is certainly a lot to criticize about the EU, but it is beginning to look as though kicking the European can may have been a lot smarter than the censorious critics alleged.
This week the can-kicking accusation has been wheeled out once more, to condemn the congressional deal over Washington’s turn-of-year “fiscal cliff” shenanigans.
This week’s deal solves nothing, the opinion-formers charge, of left and right alike. The left denounces US President Barack Obama for bending the knee over taxes on the rich, while the right complains that all spending decisions have been wimpishly postponed — the deficit just keeps growing and the hard choices remain, the same as before the deadline, guaranteeing fresh battles ahead.
However, are compromise and inconclusive outcomes such bad things? The world is not simple. Raising taxes on the rich may be morally right, as well as good politics when times are hard for all, but the enduring reality is that it balances few budget books. So Obama’s concession on the threshold at which the reversion to pre-2002 tax levels kicks in may not make much economic difference, but it splits the Republican Party on Capitol Hill, which is very useful.
At the same time it gives the president the chance to claim wider kudos for demanding and getting a quick deal. It thus clears the decks for Obama’s second inaugural speech and state of the union address, both this month. These are important considerations.
Even more important is that the argument about the spending side of the US deficit has now been divorced from the argument about the revenue side. The two are no longer held hostage by one another.
This is a major defeat for the small-is-good dogma about government. It means spending can be judged for its social and economic effect, as well as its fiscal impact. And while it would be utterly foolish to deny the long-term dangers of debt, there is little sense in lurching into a severe program of federal austerity right now either.
Balancing any budget is important. Nevertheless it is not the supreme public good, eclipsing all others. This week’s postponement may not be pretty. All the same, it makes sense economically and politically. And since a domestically strong Obama is arguably a crucial precondition to securing better global outcomes on issues ranging from climate change and world trade to Middle East peace, the US budget deal could prove to be a can well kicked.
Kicking the can is not invariably the right policy, of course. If the avoidance of taking a stand were an end in itself, former British prime minister Neville Chamberlain would be a revered international statesman and Roman emperor Nero a byword for wise leadership when cities are on fire. Sometimes a risk must be taken. So it would be just as silly to elevate can-kicking into the overriding political virtue as to privilege spending cuts (or spending increases, or anything else) as the acme of public virtue.
However, if, as former German chancellor Otto von Bismarck said, politics is the art of the possible, then kicking the proverbial can may often be a necessary part of that art. Living to fight another, hopefully better, day has always been vital in politics. The reflex of not inflicting avoidable harm on others, a natural can kicker’s reflex, is a worthy one too. And while holding a shared institutional and cultural network like the EU or the US Congress together is not always worthwhile at any cost, it is generally better than the alternatives — a difficult judgment that great leaders have sometimes been forced to make.
That is especially true in modern democratic politics in the post-industrial developed world.
Leaders today kick the can down the road not because they are personally feeble and useless, but because our societies have, in effect, chosen to deny them the authority to boss us around except in exceptional circumstances. Modern political leaders are not all-powerful, thank goodness. They are routinely constrained from taking decisive action by checks and balances that include laws, treaties, elections, coalitions, opinion polls and, not least, markets.
Modern leaders operate under formal and informal rules with which, broadly speaking, modern electorates feel comfortable most of the time. Sometimes the electorates are wrong and sometimes right. The Iraq war, 10 years ago this spring, is an example of the latter. Much of public opinion preferred then-US president George W. Bush and then-British prime minister Tony Blair to kick the Iraqi can down the road. Bush and Blair refused and set themselves against the public. Once the war had failed, the public punished them. Today’s politicians have learned the lesson.
The media encourage can-kicking too, often unintentionally, especially in Britain. By treating political leaders as figures of derision and even abuse, rather than men and women who may sometimes be worthy of respect, the media help to ensure that political leaders are weakened and cautious. Faced with a can in a road, they therefore kick it.
Opinion-formers make a particular contribution here. By fostering the impression that the courses open to political leaders are much clearer, simpler, more moral and more radical than in fact they are almost all of the time, commentators of all persuasions can set governments up to fail. In that sense, the media are integral parts of creating the culture of can-kicking of which, in other modes, they so grandly disapprove.
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
During my twenty-two years in the US Senate, I became a student of Taiwan and its history. I was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific and International Cybersecurity Policy, and have made at least 25 trips to Taiwan and have been invited as an observer to two of the nation’s presidential elections. Taiwan’s continuous economic miracle has seen the nation transition from a mixed agricultural-industrial society at the end of Japan’s 50 years of jurisdiction to today’s economic powerhouse, unmatched by most nations of the world. Just as outstanding has been Taiwan’s decades of resistance and