Keith Ellison just wants to be Attorney General, no questions asked.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The November election i not Democrat vs. Republican.
It is Socialism vs. Freedom.
Vote like your country depends on it.
Because it does.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
What’s the True Meaning of Americanism?
By Jonathan Hoenig (See 1 and 1a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More on China from Mauldin. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Can a society be human without having studied the humanities? (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Can a society be human without having studied the humanities? (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There’s a battle in this country over its very meaning. The battle raises questions over whether America has such an animating philosophy as “Americanism,” and, if so, what principles it entails.
A recent CNN.Com headline frames it, “Obama and Trump fight for America’s soul,” as if these two leaders represent two opposite interpretations of Americanism.
Trump’s America is insular and monochrome. As he summarizes it, we are to be “one people, under one God, saluting one flag.” This ideology holds that Americanism amounts to blood and soil—a patch of land that must be walled off from outsiders who would pollute our nation by trade or, heaven forbid, come here to live.
Obama and progressive Democrats claim to offer the alternative to this insularity, extolling an ideology that insists that such a tolerant and open society can only be brought about if Americans come to see themselves as a collective, one in which the government must assert ever-increasing control to meet its objectives.
But neither interpretation is accurate. The spirit of the American republic, as conceived by its Founders, is Individualism. It explicitly rejects the false dichotomy in Obama and Trump’s visions.
It is no accident that Emma Lazarus, whose “New Colossus” poem graces the Statue of Liberty as it welcomes newcomers from abroad, wrote critically against the political Left. Attempts by the State to spread the wealth around—such as those Obama initially suggested when running for President in 2008—were, she deemed, “essentially unjust.”
Nor would the Founders defend Trumpian ethnocentrism. Anticipating “The New Colossus,” George Washington stressed, “The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions . . .” Hence, Washington wrote in one letter, praiseworthy newcomers to America “may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews, or Christian of any Sect—or they may be Atheists . . .”
True Americanism rejects both the collectivist welfare state that Obama espouses and the collectivist nationalism that Trump engenders. It was—and is—the freedom of the individual to do anything that is peaceful, not requiring the pre-approval of any third parties.
In his first draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal & independent . . .” In keeping with the burgeoning philosophy of its time, the Age of Enlightenment, this draft declared independence in a respect even more significant than independence from Britain: that each peaceful adult is independent in how he is to navigate his life. In more context than one, then, America was always to be the Independent Republic. This idea came to known in the late nineteenth century as the spirit of Horatio Alger, and what twentieth-century historian James Truslow Adams later dubbed “the American dream.”
In contrast to both the Left and Right’s collectivism is the individualism championed by novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand: she came to the USA penniless in 1924, barely knowing English, to pursue wealth and, as a precursor to that, her creative expression.
In 1946 she began writing Textbook of Americanism, her political manifesto explaining the philosophy of the country she so dearly loved and understood. The Textbook had remained unfinished, until now, and is as desperately needed as ever.
As Rand explained, the basic principle of America is individualism. That’s what has made America great from the start. And the sooner Americans recognize this on the deepest level, the more prosperous we all will be.
Adapted from A New Textbook of Americanism: The Politics of Ayn Rand, recently published by Capitalistpig.com
Stuart K. Hayashi has worked as a legislative aide at the Hawaii State Capitol. He is the author of The Freedom of Peaceful Action and Life in the Market Ecosystem, both published in 2013, and Hunting Down Social Darwinism (2014), all on political philosophy and published by Lexington Books of Lanham, Maryland.
1a)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
1a)
The Presumption of Guilt
The new liberal standard turns American due process upside down.
The Editorial Board.
As Judge Kavanaugh stands to gain the lifetime privilege of serving on the country’s highest court, he has the burden of persuasion. And that is only fair.”
—Anita Hill, Sept. 18, 2018
“Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed.”
—Sen. Maize Hirono (D., Hawaii)
The last-minute accusation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is an ugly spectacle by any measure. But if there is a silver lining, it is that the episode is providing an education for Americans on the new liberal standard of legal and political due process.
As Ms. Hill and Sen. Hirono aver, the Democratic standard for sexual-assault allegations is that they should be accepted as true merely for having been made. The accuser is assumed to be telling the truth because the accuser is a woman. The burden is on Mr. Kavanaugh to prove his innocence. If he cannot do so, then he is unfit to serve on the Court.
***
This turns American justice and due process upside down. The core tenet of Anglo-American law is that the burden of proof always rests with the person making the accusation. An accuser can’t doom someone’s freedom or career merely by making a charge.
The accuser has to prove the allegation in a court of law or in some other venue where the accused can challenge the facts. Otherwise we have a Jacobin system of justice in which “J’accuse” becomes the standard and anyone can be ruined on a whim or a vendetta
Another core tenet of due process is that an accusation isn’t any more or less credible because of the gender, race, religion or ethnicity of who makes it. A woman can lie, as the Duke lacrosse players will tell you. Ms. Hirono’s standard of credibility by gender would have appalled the civil-rights campaigners of a half century ago who marched in part against Southern courts that treated the testimony of black Americans as inherently less credible than that of whites. Yet now the liberal heirs of those marchers want to impose a double standard of credibility by gender.
A third tenet of due process is the right to cross-examine an accuser. The point is to test an accuser’s facts and credibility, which is why we have an adversarial system. The denial of cross-examination is a major reason that campus panels adjudicating sexual-assault claims have become kangaroo courts.
It’s worth quoting from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling this month in Doe v. Baumon a sexual-assault case at the University of Michigan.
“Due process requires cross-examination in circumstances like these because it is ‘the greatest legal engine ever invented’ for uncovering the truth,” wrote Judge Amul Thapar. “Not only does cross-examination allow the accused to identify inconsistencies in the other side’s story, but it also gives the fact-finder an opportunity to assess a witness’s demeanor and determine who can be trusted. So if a university is faced with competing narratives about potential misconduct, the administration must facilitate some form of cross-examination in order to satisfy due process.”
Consider the limited facts of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against Judge Kavanaugh. It concerns an event some 36 years ago that she recalls in only partial detail. She remembers the alleged assault and rooms she entered with some specificity, but not the home where it occurred. She doesn’t know how she traveled to or from the home that evening.
She told no one about the incident for 30 years until a couples therapy session with her husband. Her therapist’s notes say there were four assailants but she says there were only two. Two of the three other people she says were at the drinking party that night say they know nothing about the party or the assault, and Mr. Kavanaugh denies it categorically.
Democrats claim that even asking questions about these facts is somehow an unfair attack on her as a woman. Her lawyer is demanding that Ms. Ford testify after Mr. Kavanaugh, and that only Senators ask questions—no doubt to bar Republicans from having a female special counsel ask those questions.
We’re told Ms. Ford even wants to bar any questions about why she waited so long to recall the alleged assault and who she consulted in finally going public this year. Such a process is designed to obscure the truth, not to discover it. None of these demands should be tolerable to Senators who care about finding the truth about a serious accusation.
We don’t doubt that Ms. Ford believes what she claims. But the set of facts she currently provides wouldn’t pass even the “preponderance of evidence”—or 50.01% evidence of guilt—test that prevails today on college campuses. If this is the extent of her evidence and it is allowed to defeat a Supreme Court nominee, a charge of sexual assault will become a killer political weapon regardless of facts. And the new American standard of due process will be the presumption of guilt.
2)
China for the Trade Win?
By John Mauldin
With all the trade war talk, we all ask the obvious question: Who will win? President Trump says the US will win. Chinese business leaders say no, we will win. Free-traders on both sides say no one will win. Few stop to ask, “What does a ‘win’ look like?”
This makes discussion difficult. People are chasing after a condition they can’t even define. Victory will remain elusive until they know what they want. Regardless, you can score me on the “no one wins” side. I believe, and I think a lot of evidence proves, that free trade between nations is the best way to maximize long-run prosperity for everyone.
However…
As Keynes famously said, we’re all dead in the long run. Trade war may end with no winners, but the parties will be better and worse off at various times as it progresses. So we have to distinguish between “winning” and “holding a temporary lead.”
On that basis, I think the US will have the upper hand initially, and could hold it for a year or two. This is because, for now, our economy is relatively strong and we can better withstand any Chinese retaliation. Beyond that point I think our current policies will begin to backfire, maybe spectacularly.
Remember, too, China has growing trade surpluses with much of the world. One Chinese insider told me that within four years China can replace lost US exports via increased trading with the rest of the world. I can’t verify that but looking at general statistics it certainly seems plausible. That doesn’t mean lost US trade won’t be felt, but China is not entirely helpless.
When watching a fight, we ask metaphorically, “Who will blink first?” In this case, that’s the wrong question. Neither side will blink but one may eventually fall to the floor, unconscious. So the better question might be, “Who will faint first?”
Next week we will deal with the tariff situation, as I get that question a lot. But let me state right here: I hope President Trump is engaged in a trade bluff and not a trade war. The market seems to think so. My Asian sources believe that it will be resolved by the end of this year. But make no mistake, an actual trade war along the lines being threatened will impact both economies negatively. Enough to throw the US into recession? Enough to cut Chinese growth in half? No one actually knows, which is a big part of the problem.
Before we proceed, let me remind you that Over My Shoulder members get to see some of the best China and trade war research I get from my worldwide sources. It’s almost like reading, well, over my shoulder.
Better yet, members get short summaries of each item by me or my co-editor Patrick Watson. This saves you time and lets you zero in on the material that’s most relevant to you… a valuable feature as we are all deluged with more and more news.
Right now you can join for just $9.95 a month, 33% off the normal cost. I’ve written a short report to show you how valuable Over My Shoulder is, with some examples from Woody Brock, Charles Gave and Ed Yardeni. Check it out here. I think you’ll see the benefit.
Now, let’s dig into China.
Empire of Debt
I described in my last two letters the many good things happening in China. Businesses are prospering while living standards rise as well. The country’s vast interior is still quite poor but life is improving (with the notable exception of the Uighurs, a Muslim minority in Western China).
We didn’t talk about how they are financing this progress. The answer is, “with a lot of debt.” You often hear about China’s government and corporate debt, but less about households. So let’s start there.
Back in 2015, I wrote about China’s insanely leveraged farmers and others who bought stocks with borrowed money. Most regretted it, some sooner and more intensely than others. But that period seemed to convince the government to keep tighter control over consumer credit.
But note, controlling credit isn’t the same as eliminating credit, or even reducing it. Beijing wants consumers to borrow in sustainable, productive ways, as Beijing defines them. So overall household debt growth has not slowed.
Chinese consumer debt is growing quite a bit faster than Chinese GDP. This means that consumer debt is a growing percentage of the economy. It’s not a big problem now but at this rate will become one soon.
This chart shows how Chinese household debt is growing compared to other economies.
Household debt relative to GDP is near-flat or declining in the US, Japan, Germany, and France. In China, it’s grown from 40% to 50% of GDP in just two years. Yes, those developed countries have higher absolute debt levels, but they also have higher household incomes. So this trend, if it continues, will get more worrisome.
Now, what happens when these indebted Chinese consumers find living costs rising due to a trade war with the US?
One possibility is “not much” because they don’t really need our goods. They have plenty of domestic alternatives in most categories. Nevertheless, removing or limiting US competition could raise prices in some categories.
But the bigger problem is that a trade war will mean lower exports, probably affecting the jobs of some indebted consumers. How many is unclear. China has both domestic demand and other countries it can trade with, should the US decide to raise barriers. Domestic demand might weaken if exporters have to reduce employment and the government doesn’t step in with some kind of stimulus.
The problem here is that any stimulus would probably increase government debt, a problem we haven’t even discussed yet. Not to mention corporate debt rising as companies try to keep operating with lower revenue.
Debt in Pictures
Like everything else about China, its debt is hard to visualize. There’s a lot of it. Here is a chart from Bloomberg that projects three scenarios out to 2022.
Bloomberg’s base case shows Chinese debt-to-GDP reaching 330% by 2022, which would place it behind only Japan among major economies. It might be “only” 290% if GDP growth stays high.
Here’s another look from Citi Research (via my friend Steve Blumenthal). This is private sector credit creation. The US series is only bank credit, by the way, so this isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison. But then much of Chinese debt is bank credit. The “shadow banks” are relatively new. Xi seems to be trying to reduce their influence. However you look at it, China has huge private debt.
Finally, here’s a “Total Credit to Private Non-Financial Sector” graph we made on FRED using Bank for International Settlements data. That means it excludes bank debt. The US has the most such debt at $29.5T as of year-end 2017, but China is not that far behind with $26.5T. China’s debt of this type was quite a bit more than Japan, the UK, and Canada combined.
Even so, Chinese growth has been largely funded by debt. Make no mistake, loans have fueled almost everything. You can argue those loans have funded a great deal of useful infrastructure and housing, with a stimulative effect. But that debt will eventually have to be repaid, and debt is future consumption brought forward. That means at some point Chinese growth is going to slow down. Maybe not for a decade or so, but they have to pay the piper.
Like the US, China also has off-the-books debt that may not show up in the totals. For instance, its social security plan is underfunded amid an aging population and shrinking prime-age workforce. The 29% payroll tax (yes, you read that right) that should be funding it often goes uncollected and the debt goes higher still. One analyst estimated strict enforcement would cut corporate profits by 2.5% and shave 0.6 percentage points off nominal GDP growth. With the Chinese government now making aggressive efforts to collect the tax, which it clearly needs, growth could falter.
Any way you look at it, China has a staggering amount of debt. Maintaining it will grow more difficult if the economy turns down. The same is true for the US, of course. Which country is better equipped to survive a trade and currency conflict?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
By Paula Marantz Cohen
The greatness of these works is that they don’t excuse the conduct in question, but they do help explain it as a function of human frailty and misguided motives, sometimes of the most high-minded sort. They expose the back story that otherwise would be hidden from us so that we can, if not sympathize, at least go some way toward understanding what happened. They humanize what would otherwise look like simple stupidity or evil.The assumption these days is that people are monolithic—either completely good or completely bad. The best way to repudiate that assumption it to study the humanities, which illuminate human life in all its complexity. How can you think about crime or misconduct in such an unimaginative way if you’ve read great literature: adultery after “Anna Karenina,” bad parenting after “Death of a Salesman,” political extremism and even murder after “Julius Caesar”?
3)
The Humanities’ Decline Makes Us Morally Obtuse
Many ‘educated’ people are too ignorant to realize the same person can be a victim and a villain.
By Paula Marantz Cohen
The great works of literature, history and philosophy that used to be at the center of a college education have been shunted to the sidelines or discarded entirely over the past two decades or more. This is a loss on many fronts, but one example is the debate around Asia Argento. One of the first whistle-blowers against Harvey Weinstein, Ms. Argento has since been accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year old boy.
For some, Ms. Argento’s action cancels out her earlier complaint. Others feel the need to dismiss the accusation against her as either fraudulent or trivial. Both approaches strike me as ignorant. This woman could certainly have been the victim of abuse and still be herself a perpetrator. One doesn’t negate the other. It simply shows that people can be blind where they should be most acutely conscious. We see this all the time when our friends complain about traits in others that are prominent in themselves.
Few people seem to be able to reconcile two overlapping truths—that someone can have a valid grievance in one context and be guilty of some version of the same thing in another. I see this as a failure of education. By “education,” I do not mean the workshops that teach us what not to say or do to avoid offending others. That is training, not education (and I’m not sure how well it actually sticks).
The greatness of these works is that they don’t excuse the conduct in question, but they do help explain it as a function of human frailty and misguided motives, sometimes of the most high-minded sort. They expose the back story that otherwise would be hidden from us so that we can, if not sympathize, at least go some way toward understanding what happened. They humanize what would otherwise look like simple stupidity or evil.The assumption these days is that people are monolithic—either completely good or completely bad. The best way to repudiate that assumption it to study the humanities, which illuminate human life in all its complexity. How can you think about crime or misconduct in such an unimaginative way if you’ve read great literature: adultery after “Anna Karenina,” bad parenting after “Death of a Salesman,” political extremism and even murder after “Julius Caesar”?
When we read the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as first written, the disjunction between their call for freedom and equality and their maintenance of a slave-holding society is appalling. These documents imply an ideal of which the founders fell abysmally short. But this need not negate the greatness of their vision or incite us to denounce these men as entirely benighted. Both the ideal and the reality are part of the story that needs to be taught.
Education is the immersion in “the best which has been thought and said in the world,” as the 19th-century critic and poet Matthew Arnold put it. That “best” can be difficult, unclear, even contradictory. Part of being “the best” is that a work doesn’t reduce to a formula. It can also be written by people who are far from exemplary.
The emphasis on STEM fields in higher education reflects the need for expertise in a high-tech world. But this has tended to make the “soft” fields of the humanities seem weak and easy. Science, engineering and finance may be hard, but literature, history and philosophy are complex—impossible to resolve with a yes-or-no, right-or-wrong answer. This is precisely what constitutes their importance as a tool for living. Metaphysics takes its name from the idea that it goes beyond “hard” science into the realm of moral and intellectual speculation, where no empirical proof is possible.
The humanities teach understanding, but they also teach humility: that we may be wrong and our enemies may be right, that the past can be criticized without our necessarily feeling superior to it, that people’s professed motives are not the whole story, and that the division of the world into oppressors and victims is a simplistic fairy tale.
We speak about the decline of the humanities without fully recognizing how it has hurt our society. If we want our nation to heal and thrive, we must put the study of literature, history and philosophy back at the center of our curricula and require that students study complex works—not just difficult ones.
Ms. Cohen is a dean and English professor at Drexel University
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment