Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Twitter
Blog Archive
Links
- Accumulating Peripherals (decent reportage from Vietnam)
- Andrew Sullivan
- Balding's World (good China economics analysis)
- China Law Blog
- Just Recently
- Killing Time On Sport
- My Kafkaesque Life (A Slovene's take on Ilha Formosa)
- Paper Republic
- Peking Duck (Online since 2002, only Hemlock has been going longer in the world of the China blogs)
- The Big Lychee (HK blogger whose been active since 1997)
- The Man Who Would Be Khan (Interesting on-and-off blog about Kazakhstan)
- The Writing Baron (Taiwan-based writer and journo)
- The capital in the north (Jixiang's place)
- Union Herald (arts/poetry blog written by a former Nanjingtonian)
4 comments:
I don't find it that surprising that he is an American citizen, but I do find it surprising that he was donating to McCain's campaign. Or perhaps I shouldn't? After all the values of China's ruling elite have more in common with the values of Western conservatives than they do with Western liberals.
Going to say that I don't agree with that at all Ji Xiang.
The CCP is utterly anti-democratic, oligarchical, but also paradoxically populist. They may have a lot in common with Putin, and by extension perhaps populist movements like Chavez and his followers, but they have little or nothing in common with, say, the French Republicans, or the German Christian Democrats, or the UK Conservative Party, even if Conservative (and Social Democrat/'liberal') governments in Europe and North America seek closer economic co-operation with China.
Left wing and right wing populist nationalist parties (the SNP, Front National etc.) are the nearest analogue to be found in the 'West', but even there they are not really so close.
Obviously the CCP can't easily be placed on the right to left wing spectrum.
I obviously don't think it has much in common with established conservative parties in Europe or with the US Republicans.
All I was saying is that I don't find it surprising that someone like Eric X. Li would support the Republicans, if forced to take a stand on American politics. I think someone like him would have more in common with the Republicans than the Democrats. I am pretty sure he finds the idea of the unenmployed receiving benefits quite unconscionable. The concept of people having to depend on their own forces, without receiving handouts of any kind from the state, probably chimes with someone like him. He also probably believes in law and order, harsh sentencing for criminals, respect for authority, and is conservative on sexual issues (although perhaps he doesn't have a problem with abortion, if he supports China's family planning policies).
Foarp, do you think that, when the political executive jetset meets in Davos or Hainan, there are serious differences about values? I don't think so. What makes you believe that?
Our countries' constitutions (written or unwritten) are still binding to quite a degree, but they are being eroded. I don't think that either Britain's nor Germany's elites care about democracy.
The main issue for the elites is to control mass society. This erodes the concept that every man and woman is unique, and that each of them has certain rights that no state can take away from them.
People like Martin Jacques or Eric Xi are speaking more candidly than officials who still need to seek election. But the difference between the executives and the publicists are minor.
In fact, I think people like Jacques and Xi are useful in that they test the waters, and prepare the ground for yet more nihilism.
Post a Comment