According to the US industrialist and world-class bigot Henry Ford, “History is bunk.” Edward Luce, who cites Ford’s assertion, tells the reader that Oliver Wendell Holmes was closer to the mark when he said: “An ounce of history is worth a pound of logic.” But what emerges from Luce’s carefully balanced and often startlingly evocative analysis and reportage is the denial of history by the current crop of American leaders. Every one of the gallery of grotesques that have tried to challenge US President Barack Obama for the presidency interprets the US slide from preeminence as the result of Democrat policies, while Obama himself dismisses all talk of decline. The assumption underlying practically all US discussion is that any slippage in the country’s global standing is the result of misguided policies that can be reversed by an act of will.
It is true that there have been serious errors in policy. Luce, formerly the Financial Times’ south Asia bureau chief based in New Delhi and now the paper’s chief Washington correspondent, spells out these exercises in self-damage in painful and illuminating detail. He shows how the US has choked off the flow of talented scientists and entrepreneurs by making immigration more difficult, while major companies have been encouraged to move offshore so that IBM and General Electric now employ more people overseas than they do in the US. He examines the factors that have de-skilled much of the US workforce, not least failures in public education, and tells some poignant stories of the economic squeeze that is laying waste to the lives of so many. Rightly, he sees the collapse of social mobility as a turning point. What hope have the former middle classes if their children are also trapped in debt and dead-end jobs?
Surprisingly, Luce says little about the foreign policy disasters that have speeded the US’ fall from grace. Though the Iraq war achieved little aside from increasing the influence of Iran, occupying the country has been ruinously expensive. Trillions of US dollars have also been spent in Afghanistan, the principal result being to entrench the position of the Taliban. Yet despite these debacles there is fierce resistance to Obama’s relatively modest proposals for spending cuts in the military-industrial complex. A similar paralysis exists in many areas of domestic policy. America’s debt burden would be less crippling if the US did not have the least cost-effective system of medical care of any advanced country. But as Obama has demonstrated, radical reform is politically impossible. Again, it is mainly the US’ absurdly punitive drug laws that have led to a higher proportion of its citizens being incarcerated than anywhere else in the world. Here too, though, the likelihood of reform must be close to zero.
Those who argue that the US’ decline has been the result of policies that can be changed pass over the chronic dysfunction of the American political system. “Given America’s separation of powers,” Luce writes, “the Tea Party needs only a majority of the majority of one half of one branch of government to have a pretty good shot at ensuring nothing significant happens in Washington ... in light of such a low bar, and given its organizational prowess, it is hard to see a neat end to the Tea Party’s ‘tyranny of the minority’ in the near future.” As Luce implies, deadlock in Washington is a by-product of America’s sacrosanct constitution. One might wonder how a system of government that was framed in pre-industrial times could possibly be suitable at the start of the 21st century. But while the Constitution is often ignored in practice, there is no prospect of the structures of government being reformed. As the Tea Party has shown, a mythic story of the US’ constitutional origins still has powerful resonance.
Another obstacle is the political power of money. In an entertaining aside, Luce quotes the dictum of Mark Hanna, a celebrated 19th-century political operator: “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember what the second one is.” Luce believes that “it is within America’s power to reverse its increasingly plutocratic internal character.” Yet it is hard to see how policy-making can be freed from the pervasive influence of the financial sector. The same banks whose reckless and predatory activities created the financial crisis have shaped the legislation that is supposed to prevent similar crises in future. Luce quotes Nicholas Brady, treasury secretary under former president George H. W. Bush, complaining about the lack of proper consultation on the legislation. Observing that the chief architect of reform, current US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, “just talks to the investment bank chiefs,” Brady concluded that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act “is largely their bill.”
If the capture of US policy-making by financial institutions effectively rules out any serious attempt to tackle the country’s economic problems for the foreseeable future, a still greater obstacle is the incapacity of elites to face the realities of America’s situation in the world. Luce’s book is a call to thinking, but US thinking is stuck in a vice of myth and denial. The country’s politicians, economists and journalists have celebrated globalization as a process in which US capitalism is replicated throughout the world. Contrary to what many assume, China is unlikely to replace the US as the world’s leading power. Instead, there may well be no global hegemon for the foreseeable future. But as new varieties of capitalism come on to the scene, the US’ relative economic position is bound to decline. Even if Washington could somehow be reformed and American policy-making reset, this would not change.
Luce finishes by noting that “America’s biggest challenges are not unique,” and of course he is right. The country’s difficulties are not fundamentally different from those all developed countries face in responding to the global shift of economic power. But by the same token, what may prove to be the US’ greatest weakness is the adamant insistence that it can defy the normal course of history. Pundits who insist that American decline is not a fact but a choice are closing their minds to the only real issue, which is how the US will adjust to a descent from primacy that cannot be stopped. At present the auguries are not good.
In the mainstream view, the Philippines should be worried that a conflict over Taiwan between the superpowers will drag in Manila. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr observed in an interview in The Wall Street Journal last year, “I learned an African saying: When elephants fight, the only one that loses is the grass. We are the grass in this situation. We don’t want to get trampled.” Such sentiments are widespread. Few seem to have imagined the opposite: that a gray zone incursion of People’s Republic of China (PRC) ships into the Philippines’ waters could trigger a conflict that drags in Taiwan. Fewer
March 18 to March 24 Yasushi Noro knew that it was not the right time to scale Hehuan Mountain (合歡). It was March 1913 and the weather was still bitingly cold at high altitudes. But he knew he couldn’t afford to wait, either. Launched in 1910, the Japanese colonial government’s “five year plan to govern the savages” was going well. After numerous bloody battles, they had subdued almost all of the indigenous peoples in northeastern Taiwan, save for the Truku who held strong to their territory around the Liwu River (立霧溪) and Mugua River (木瓜溪) basins in today’s Hualien County (花蓮). The Japanese
Pei-Ru Ko (柯沛如) says her Taipei upbringing was a little different from her peers. “We lived near the National Palace Museum [north of Taipei] and our neighbors had rice paddies. They were growing food right next to us. There was a mountain and a river so people would say, ‘you live in the mountains,’ and my friends wouldn’t want to come and visit.” While her school friends remained a bus ride away, Ko’s semi-rural upbringing schooled her in other things, including where food comes from. “Most people living in Taipei wouldn’t have a neighbor that was growing food,” she says. “So
Whether you’re interested in the history of ceramics, the production process itself, creating your own pottery, shopping for ceramic vessels, or simply admiring beautiful handmade items, the Zhunan Snake Kiln (竹南蛇窯) in Jhunan Township (竹南), Miaoli County, is definitely worth a visit. For centuries, kiln products were an integral part of daily life in Taiwan: bricks for walls, tiles for roofs, pottery for the kitchen, jugs for fermenting alcoholic drinks, as well as decorative elements on temples, all came from kilns, and Miaoli was a major hub for the production of these items. The Zhunan Snake Kiln has a large area dedicated