January 7, 1996
There is no poverty in the United States. None. If you want to see poverty, go to Sudan or Calcutta. In the United States, there is no city in which it is impossible to find shelter, clothing, food, and medical assistance on short notice, which is the precondition for poverty in the real world. Only in the fantasy world of the professional poverty pimps does having insufficient money to pay for necessities equate to poverty.
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.
... Thomas Jefferson
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
... H. L. Mencken
China will never accept U.S.-style human rights.
... Li Peng, Prime Minister of PRC
He may be a quite wrong about that.--Ed.
The left writes and talks ceaselessly about the "social contract". What is it? where do they keep it? Of course, there is no such thing; it is a chimera, used to invent and promulgate new obligations that the left wishes to impose on the public. If only there actually were a social contract, then I could refrain from signing it.
As the annual renewal time for Communist China's "most favored nation" trade status rolls around this spring, we can expect to be bombarded with propaganda about how the despicable leaders of that billion-man prison are "liberalizing", "putting a human face on China's government", "becoming Westernized", or even (testing our credulity) "embracing capitalism". Of course, the choice of terms for the State Department's category of nations upon which are applied the least restrictive (and normal) set of tariffs is grossly unfortunate and rather misleading. By itself, it does not mean we favor the PRC above any other nation in any but a purely commercial sense: it is simply the jargon of international trade. Most nations are accorded the "most favored nation" status.
But the term strikes a chord with us. Its very formation raises the question, "What do we see in the People's Republic of China or its actions that would lead us to favor or support any of their aims or interests?" Invariably (thank goodness), someone in Congress or government raises the question of the degree of respect for human rights in China, pointing out that, by law, trade with China is tied to Chinese respect for human rights. What happens after that is one of the most disgraceful morality plays regularly produced by our government.
First, the President (in the past, both Bush and Clinton) and his Cabinet make some sort of statement asserting that the PRC is making progress on human rights, or starting to make progress, or talking about starting. Without being required to produce tangible, or even plausible, evidence for this assertion, they then issue their waiver on China's human rights record to a committee in Congress. Next, the committee accepts the waiver (sometimes under protest, sometimes not) and reports to the Congress a resolution upholding the PRC's claim to "most favored nation" trading status. Finally, Congress passes this resolution, and business continues as usual with the butchers of Beijing.
This is a disgraceful policy. The Chinese tyrants keep their own people in slavery, murdering such of them as they find it useful to, while they threaten their neighbors. I cannot understand why anyone respects what Nixon (with Henry Kissinger's help) did: abandoning our sworn allies in Taiwan, embracing despots, toasting with tyrants. Why was it necessary to confer any legitimacy on a government run by thugs? Taiwan may not have been perfect, but people have some rights in Taiwan; in the PRC, they do not have any.
Kissinger may be a very clever man, but he did a bad day's work when he "opened the door to China." China has nothing we want, nothing we need, and nothing to offer except more of the same. By treating with China, we waste our precious moral capital, spending it like water in a vain hope that the Chinese leaders will suddenly be transformed from outlaws into civilized men.
Our moral stance on China and most of the other totalitarian regimes in the world is ridiculous. Jefferson held that governments are instituted among men to secure their rights, rights they had before anyone ever asserted them, rights not given to them by government but, at the most, upheld by government. Why does our government not act like it believes this?
I do not want to hear anything more about progress on human rights: all that means, if true, is that the dictators are torturing fewer people than they used to. I do not want to hear about an improving human rights record, true or not. The only thing I am interested in hearing is that China is in absolute compliance with and complete conformity to the accepted minimum standards for civilized behavior: NO torture, NO slavery, NO political prisoners, and completely free political institutions, speech, press, assembly, and religion.
Until that time arrives, we do not need ambassadorial relations with the PRC. We should not dignify that regime with the respect accorded to civilized nations. We should restore the position of Taiwan in the United Nations and renew our ambassadorial relations with the Taipei government (that we so loathsomely withdrew in 1979 under Carter, as a way to seal our unwholesome deal with the PRC) and to re-affirm it as the sole legitimate government of China. We should recall our embassy from the PRC and, in these days of instant world-wide communications, give Beijing an 800 number to a special desk in the State Department. If they have anything to say, they can call.
It is tempting to condemn both Houses, Representative and White, for the impasse that presently prevents the government from..., well, not functioning exactly; let's say, convening. It never has functioned very well, except in wartime, and not always then. But it is worth noting that the Congress has passed several budget measures that the President had only to sign in order for the government to get back to doing what it normally does. To all appearances, most of what it does is "nonessential," in both the formal and actual senses, which is a profound comment on the nature of government in our time. It is also important to remember that, while the parties in question are arguing over whether to spend $13 trillion or $14 trillion over the next seven years, if it were not for the Republican freshmen in Congress, we would not even be discussing balancing the budget.
This war of words and intentions is an important part of the process, and it concerns a new and vital movement afoot in our country. Let it work itself out. Personally, I do not see a lot of "suffering" yet. Let's keep this in perspective: losing a limb is suffering; losing a loved one is suffering. A few disappointed tourists and a few late payments on bills do not add up to anything more than a headache. The media's focus on "suffering" as a result of the government's partial shutdown are an attempt to suborn a whiner's response, to create a nation of snivelers and crybabies. I think better of the nation's employees and a lot better of the nations citizens. I think we will all manage somehow.
I had the privilege, over the holidays last month, of visiting the Salvador Dali Museum, located in Sarasota, Florida. This is a tremendous collection, and I urge anyone who comes near it to take the extra time to see it. They have works spanning Dali's painting career. Particularly memorable are "Disintegration of the Persistence of Memory," an echo of the famous painting "The Persistence of Memory" that hangs in the Museum of Modern Art; "Slave Market with the Disappearing Bust of Voltaire," which I find to be a fascinating geometric effect; and "The Discovery of America by Christopher Columbus." The last is a tremendous work, deeply moving, painted in honor of the 300th anniversary of the death of the Spanish master, Velasquez. I was also moved by "Ecumenical Council - 1960," a painting I had never before seen even in reproduction. This painting honors Pope John XXIII for his initiative towards uniting the churches.
Dali's technique is profound and his work prolific. This collection has 93 oil paintings and hundreds of drawings by the master. It is very impressive. By the way, the photographic quality of Dali's techniques did not require hours of time-consuming labor: "Persistence of Memory" was completed in an afternoon.
All contents © Copyright 1995, 1996 by Redmon Barbry ¶ 8:32 PM
