More from the Times Today

Two more quick op-eds from the Times today.

One, from David Brooks, a real strange one about Chinese grief in the aftermath of the Earthquake- I have little to say about it, other than it struck me as just as weird, but that there are perhaps two unfair points: first, directly after the earthquake the drama was huge, and there was a great deal of grief, much of it put down forcibly by the Government, so calling Americans whiners is not entirely fair, though Chinese people don't whine and moan so much at the little things. It gets beaten out of them as kids. (Not necessarily literally.)

And one from Paul Krugman. Krugman's is a post on nationalism and the economic effects of the Russian invasion of Georgia. China is, of course, an overly nationalistic country, but this worries me less than Russia does, for two reasons. Russia has a democracy in name, but has power vested in a very small member of elites, most of whom see the country along the lines of a military power. Also, Russia has not until recently had an overly strong nationalistic sense, or a sense of nationhood, which is one reason why lawlessness and mobsterism prevailed after the USSR broke down. No one in the USSR (or few) actually loved the USSR, and so its breakdown did not lead smoothly into a strong Russian state. That has taken some time to emerge, and emerge it has. But, the problem is the Russians are just starting, as a nation, on this level of development. It takes quite a long time to really go through it to get to the point the west did after the enlightenment. The point is, Russian nationalism is here to stay, and much of the citizenry will be behind it one hundred percent, ignoring rational cooperative concerns for the honor of the Motherland. (Much of this is based on a theory of development I did not myself invent but subscribe to that I will surely be talking about later.)

This contrasts with China, whose leadership, though all agreed on one thing (the continued and unquestioned rule of the CCP) are more cautious, fractured, and numerous than the Russian leadership. China, though strong in her own country (and as Krugman points out, that includes in their minds Taiwan, though recent deals make a military takeover much more unlikely in the short term and hopefully in the long term) and ruthless, are not as likely to go off on somebody else. This is not absolute, of course, and no one knows what will happen as the country matures, but I still feel better about this than about Russia.

The other thing about China is that its genuine and heartfelt nationalism has been rooted and has been expressing itself for some time. Along with that, the western-philes of the country have been undertaking their own Enlightenment, and while this will take a long long time to find a true root and expression in the mainstream culture, it has already started expressing itself in the highest halls of power. (Though is by no means the dominant force in Chinese politics, far from it.)

What may be interesting is a Russia jostling with its neighbor China, both rising world powers and nationalistic neighbors.

But in any case, while nationalism can be healthy, just as self-confidence can be healthy, and is a necessary step for any country or group of people, helping them find an identity, it does not necessarily bode well for world peace, even as interconnected as our economies have become.

So what's the solution? I do not know, but for some time have been thinking of a global organizing body, much more powerful than the U.N. The U.N., of course, has done some good, but its structure is not equipped for the world we live in. Membership, of course, would be voluntary, and governments would only be allowed to participate that exhibited certain features, like direct democracy practices such as having elected officials, and the ability to depose them, a strict rule of law, the ability for direct citizen participation, etc. etc., perhaps on a sliding scale, (the U.S. would not be among the ten highest, if I can remember correctly that would be Denmark) as well as including considerations of population for power-wielding. This could be dangerous, of course (new world order, anyone?) but if a Rule of Law were established, and the countries joining were already culturally proficient in rule of law, there's no reason to believe that this would become an oppressive system. Nor would it exist to threaten other countries national sovereignty. It could merely be a system, a big party, with its doors wide open to anyone who wanted to join, urging countries forward in development. This, of course, is only the slightest sketch.

But perhaps this is just more junk.

Yes. I read the Times compulsively. It is a fault.

And I really know nothing. I am only trying to provoke thought.