Four score and seven years, the Cheney version

"There's a lot going on. This is a very important time. There's a lot to talk about."

Stirring words indeed from VP Cheney during his surprise visit to Iraq today, as quoted on Yahoo! News at least. I need help, as I have a terrible middle-aged memory. So for those of you with more retained perspective: is it me, or has the quality of folks who are attracted to the leadership of the United States of America (the most powerful sovereign nation on the planet) fallen off the cliff somewhere?

I have this fanciful notion that the nation once attracted people worthy of deep respect, in many dimensions. People who could incite a revolution, including by drafting an amazing declaration of independence - read it again some time when you have a few minutes. People who could lead resolution of a huge civil war. People who spoke with dignity and sincere emotion about times of world wars. People who had a clear plan for dragging a country out of deep economic depression. People who called upon citizens' innate desire to serve. People who were eloquent about the equal rights of all humans.

Then I think about people like Mr. Cheney, Messrs Bush, the Bush cabinet, Mr. Kerry, and the gaggle of candidates now campaigning for the Presidency. In the estimation of thinkers, who among these is even in the same universe as those who went before? Can we just stop and be candid for a minute - would you want any of these people teaching your children, or managing your business, or serving your legal needs? Would you trust their instincts and effectiveness?

I am hoping here that at least some of you are answering "yes, we would". But I am not. I have such (silly?) hopes for my kids and their future, that these people can't even make it to the testing table, much less pass. On the other hand, I meet people regularly in my daily life and affairs who I would gladly trust in this way. Elementary school teachers, economists, hedge fund managers, lawyers, heck even diplomats and bureaucrats. People who are passionate about their goals, who are persuasively articulate, and who exude competence. People whom you would want by your side if you were starting a business or lost in the desert.

What do we make of all this? Could it be that the rewards of leading the USA are so diminished that quality people just do other things? Could it be that the post-Nixon White House is so sullied that we should generally expect buffoons "to lead" us? Am I perhaps just unable to preserve perspective in the shadow of the current administration's shocking incompetence and lunacy? I really need some help. Because Cheney's dolt-like remarks remind me that I once thought the US Government could be a force for powerful benefits in this world. I suppose I still want to believe that, notwithstanding the general tone of this weblog. But thankfully Dick is constantly there to prod me to my senses.

"Corrupt" - "Altered from the Model" or "Morally Depraved"?

Caution: if you believe that Western means of government are the best, you will likely find this post patronizing.

China is often said to be corrupt. It is widely agreed that unpublished and therefore unpredictable fees - bribes - must often be paid to government officials if businesses wish to obtain results (e.g., licences, concessions, approvals, etc.). There are laws against this kind of behavior, within China, in the USA, and elsewhere. And violation of these laws in practice is certainly an alteration from the model.

But is it morally depraved? And could the answer to the latter question depend on the culture from which one comes? If one is willing to consider that sovereignty is a commercial enterprise, then how could one consider that a government official - say, one in charge of a particular agency whose approval is needed - should not be able to charge whatever price for the requested approval that the prevalent conditions will bear? In fact, that is just how things have long been viewed and worked in many parts of the world.

But, Western minds generally consider that sovereignty is not a commercial enterprise (query what it is then), and they elevate governments to a different plane. A plane where it is somehow morally depraved to demand a market-clearing price for a requested approval or other service. The best argument that occurs to me for this position is that the government has a kind of monopoly - it sets the requirements and also administers them, and it should not be able to command such concentrated power without published constraint. It is for this reason that no self-respecting Western society would countenance anything close to such a concentration of power in commercial markets, aside perhaps from the odd minor exception like the energy industry or the defense industry.

When the WTO joined the PRC, it took on a cultural integration project, and mutual understanding of longstanding business and bureaucratic attitudes and practices is critical - in both directions - if the team-up is going to work. The PRC states that it wants to tackle "corruption" in the Western sense, though I doubt the Chinese have attributed a "morally depraved" aspect to their definition. As we should well understand by now, that tackling process will evolve very slowly, growing out of the previous system. To expect sudden change to the Western model is silly. And to label thousands of years of customs as "morally depraved" is not constructive.