Considering how frequently liberal western commentators knock Russia for its lack of business transparency, central government meddling in the market, and supposed lack of democracy, you'd be forgiven for assuming the place was in as big a mess as bottom of the ladder third world dictatorships like North Korea and Zimbabwe.
However, compared with the West's favourite ex-Soviet Union states, Ukraine and Georgia, which the West holds up as beacons of democracy and progress, Russia's in pretty good shape. According to the CIA world factbook, Russia ended 2007 with its eight straight year of economic growth, and a pretty healthy GDP per capita of $14,700 (US). In comparison, Ukraine's GDP per capita is about $6,900 and Georgia's a lowly $4,700.
Now sure, a lot of this new Russian wealth has come via rising oil and gas prices, but Russia is also doing better than other oil-and gas rich ex-Soviet countries like Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.
While Ukraine and Georgia have been idly dreamy of pie-in-the-sky western style democracies, Russia's taken a more down-to-earth Hobbsian approach to state building, emphasizing financial stability and basic law and order. The result has been sustained economic growth, higher pensions and fewer citizens on an all-potato diet.
Meanwhile political instability is once again threatening to undermine economic growth in the Ukraine, with prime minister Yulio Tymoshenko falling out with pro-western president Victor Yushchenko. Tymoshenko now wants to pursue a more pro-Russian stance and team up with Party of Region leader Victor Yanukovych.
Hopefully Ukraine can finally start to get its act together and reclaim its status as the bread basket of Europe, as opposed to being a basket case.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Is traditionalism anti-western?
Having not read many blogs over the last few months, I've belatedly been catching up some of the posts on western survival written by Conservative Swede in July and August.
In response to a number of exchanges with Lawrence Auster, Conservative Swede argues that like Marxism, libertarianism and traditional conservatism can also undermine western culture:
"Political views that are heavily ideologized infallibly fall into becoming permanent opponents to our civilization. Communists see our civilization as Capitalistic, and are therefore enemies of it. They will always be enemies of it since no matter what is its real character, they will always see it as Capitalistic. Libertarians see our civilization as oppression by evil states, and are therefore enemies of it. They will always be enemies of it since no matter what is its real character, they will always see it as oppression by evil states. Traditionalist conservatives see our civilization as liberal, and are therefore enemies of it. They will always be enemies of it since it will never be anti-liberal enough for them. This is the reason why traditionalist conservatives will often operate in a similar manner as Communist sectarians within any specific movement. They have an agenda of their own and that's the one they are driving."
Certainly if loyalty to an ideology comes before loyalty to a particular country or civilisation, then the ideology in question can serve to undermine that country or civilisation. For example, if a traditionalist were unwilling to oppose Muslim terrorism on the basis that they felt the west deserved to be punished for anti-traditional practices such as gay marriage or abortion (admittedly a pretty extreme scenario) then that could be seen as being aggressively anti-western.
In the case of liberalism, conservatives also have to take into account that while liberalism is in many respects undermining western civilisation it is also a product of western civilisation, so it would seem that a total rejection of liberal principles would be radically anti-western.
Having said that, it can also be argued that being aggressively pro-western outside the west can also undermine long-term western interests. For example, the United States is currently involved in promoting western values in Iraq and Afghanistan at great expense, while its economy continues to decline relative to that of non-western powers like China.
A paleoconservative traditionalist could therefore argue that such an approach to promoting western values is equally anti-western.
From a conservative perspective, the most prudent course may be to steer a middle line between assertively supporting traditional values, whilst not promoting them to the extreme that the social and economic viability of western countries are undermined or that the majority of westerners equate traditional conservatism with explicitly anti-western ideologies like Marxism.
Given that so little progress has been made in getting liberalism to make any concessions to traditional values, achieving such a balance is is likely to be a very big ask.
In response to a number of exchanges with Lawrence Auster, Conservative Swede argues that like Marxism, libertarianism and traditional conservatism can also undermine western culture:
"Political views that are heavily ideologized infallibly fall into becoming permanent opponents to our civilization. Communists see our civilization as Capitalistic, and are therefore enemies of it. They will always be enemies of it since no matter what is its real character, they will always see it as Capitalistic. Libertarians see our civilization as oppression by evil states, and are therefore enemies of it. They will always be enemies of it since no matter what is its real character, they will always see it as oppression by evil states. Traditionalist conservatives see our civilization as liberal, and are therefore enemies of it. They will always be enemies of it since it will never be anti-liberal enough for them. This is the reason why traditionalist conservatives will often operate in a similar manner as Communist sectarians within any specific movement. They have an agenda of their own and that's the one they are driving."
Certainly if loyalty to an ideology comes before loyalty to a particular country or civilisation, then the ideology in question can serve to undermine that country or civilisation. For example, if a traditionalist were unwilling to oppose Muslim terrorism on the basis that they felt the west deserved to be punished for anti-traditional practices such as gay marriage or abortion (admittedly a pretty extreme scenario) then that could be seen as being aggressively anti-western.
In the case of liberalism, conservatives also have to take into account that while liberalism is in many respects undermining western civilisation it is also a product of western civilisation, so it would seem that a total rejection of liberal principles would be radically anti-western.
Having said that, it can also be argued that being aggressively pro-western outside the west can also undermine long-term western interests. For example, the United States is currently involved in promoting western values in Iraq and Afghanistan at great expense, while its economy continues to decline relative to that of non-western powers like China.
A paleoconservative traditionalist could therefore argue that such an approach to promoting western values is equally anti-western.
From a conservative perspective, the most prudent course may be to steer a middle line between assertively supporting traditional values, whilst not promoting them to the extreme that the social and economic viability of western countries are undermined or that the majority of westerners equate traditional conservatism with explicitly anti-western ideologies like Marxism.
Given that so little progress has been made in getting liberalism to make any concessions to traditional values, achieving such a balance is is likely to be a very big ask.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The left and eugenics
On The Rawness blog there's an interesting post on Sweden that touches on the country's eugenics programme,which ran from the 1930s to the 1970s.
A commenter named jaakeli points out that although left-wing intellectuals played a leading role in early eugenics programmes, their role in eugenics is largely forgotten:
"How did they make the leap from eugenics to multiculturalism?"
"It’s not that much of a leap. The eugenicists and racial theorists were the liberal intelligentsia of the time, playing the same heal-the-world role with different ideas. Today you can’t propose helping the poor of the world with breeding schemes but supporting crazy schemes to help the poor of the world without ever actually asking the opinion of the poor of the world is still the mark of a true progressive. The only thing that keeps changing is which schemes are considered good and progressive.
The heart of eugenics programs was a coalition of nationalists (the pagan right) and the left. It would not have worked without some support across the political spectrum because it’s so easy to demonize. The reason it seems strange now is that the leftists have been very successful in covering up their part in it and blaming it all on the nationalists.
Christian conservatives have not forgotten the left’s role in it, but everyone else ignores them since their anti-eugenics is buried under anti-evolutionism."
While the extreme eugenics programmes of the Nazi's, are probably the primary reason why eugenics is now mainly associated with the right, it's still surprising how the left has been able to make such a clean break with its eugenics associations, particularly since leading leftist proponents included Fabian socialists H.G Wells and George Bernard Shaw and the hugely influential economist John Maynard Keynes.
Then again, considering the left's ability to avoid being tainted by the likes of Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong, I suppose it's probably not that surprising.
A commenter named jaakeli points out that although left-wing intellectuals played a leading role in early eugenics programmes, their role in eugenics is largely forgotten:
"How did they make the leap from eugenics to multiculturalism?"
"It’s not that much of a leap. The eugenicists and racial theorists were the liberal intelligentsia of the time, playing the same heal-the-world role with different ideas. Today you can’t propose helping the poor of the world with breeding schemes but supporting crazy schemes to help the poor of the world without ever actually asking the opinion of the poor of the world is still the mark of a true progressive. The only thing that keeps changing is which schemes are considered good and progressive.
The heart of eugenics programs was a coalition of nationalists (the pagan right) and the left. It would not have worked without some support across the political spectrum because it’s so easy to demonize. The reason it seems strange now is that the leftists have been very successful in covering up their part in it and blaming it all on the nationalists.
Christian conservatives have not forgotten the left’s role in it, but everyone else ignores them since their anti-eugenics is buried under anti-evolutionism."
While the extreme eugenics programmes of the Nazi's, are probably the primary reason why eugenics is now mainly associated with the right, it's still surprising how the left has been able to make such a clean break with its eugenics associations, particularly since leading leftist proponents included Fabian socialists H.G Wells and George Bernard Shaw and the hugely influential economist John Maynard Keynes.
Then again, considering the left's ability to avoid being tainted by the likes of Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong, I suppose it's probably not that surprising.
Friday, September 19, 2008
The path to second world status?
A contributer to the Australian website Can Do Better cites a passage from American writer Roy Beck's recent book The Case Against Immigration finds a link between high immigration and Argentina's economic decline in the 1930s (hat tip: Ralph Edwards from the blog Eye on Immigration ).
While the US, Canada Australia and New Zealand slowed down their immigration levels in the 1910s and 1920s, Argentina did not have an immigration timeout. As a result Mr Beck says the country had to borrow heavily on internatinal markets to fund new infrastructure needed to support the burgeoning population, and this led to serious economic problems further down the track:
"How did Argentina cease to be one of the world's richest countries? That puzzle was the challenge for Allan M. Taylor, the Mellon Fellow at the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies and the Department of Economics at Harvard. "More compelling and mysterious examples of failure than the ruination of Argentina are hard to imagine," Taylor said in a 1992 paper published in the journal of Economic History. He concluded that a key factor for Argentina's economic disintegration was the continuation of high European immigration to Argentina after the United States, Canada, and Australia began ending their eras of mass immigration early this century.
No single explanation could account for such a sustained and deep economic demise, Taylor said. But a crucial factor surely was the country's remarkably low savings rate, as compared to Australia, for example. Taylor linked the low savings rate to the high rate of immigration and the high fertility rate of the immigrants. Both immigration and fertility were higher than in Australia and contributed to Argentina having higher consumption and lower savings, Taylor found. The country made up the shortfall of capital for a while by heavier reliance on foreign capital. The differences in Argentina's circumstances-with their roots in the difference in immigration rates-left the country much more vulnerable than the other advanced nations to international events. Argentina's rich, middle-class economy was not able to survive."
The potential link between high immigration and low savings is not something I've thought about before.
In the case of New Zealand it's certainly noticeable that since immigration levels began increasing in the early 1990s, savings rates have remained stubbornly low, and in economic terms the country has been unable to lift itself off the bottom tier of first world countries.
While the US, Canada Australia and New Zealand slowed down their immigration levels in the 1910s and 1920s, Argentina did not have an immigration timeout. As a result Mr Beck says the country had to borrow heavily on internatinal markets to fund new infrastructure needed to support the burgeoning population, and this led to serious economic problems further down the track:
"How did Argentina cease to be one of the world's richest countries? That puzzle was the challenge for Allan M. Taylor, the Mellon Fellow at the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies and the Department of Economics at Harvard. "More compelling and mysterious examples of failure than the ruination of Argentina are hard to imagine," Taylor said in a 1992 paper published in the journal of Economic History. He concluded that a key factor for Argentina's economic disintegration was the continuation of high European immigration to Argentina after the United States, Canada, and Australia began ending their eras of mass immigration early this century.
No single explanation could account for such a sustained and deep economic demise, Taylor said. But a crucial factor surely was the country's remarkably low savings rate, as compared to Australia, for example. Taylor linked the low savings rate to the high rate of immigration and the high fertility rate of the immigrants. Both immigration and fertility were higher than in Australia and contributed to Argentina having higher consumption and lower savings, Taylor found. The country made up the shortfall of capital for a while by heavier reliance on foreign capital. The differences in Argentina's circumstances-with their roots in the difference in immigration rates-left the country much more vulnerable than the other advanced nations to international events. Argentina's rich, middle-class economy was not able to survive."
The potential link between high immigration and low savings is not something I've thought about before.
In the case of New Zealand it's certainly noticeable that since immigration levels began increasing in the early 1990s, savings rates have remained stubbornly low, and in economic terms the country has been unable to lift itself off the bottom tier of first world countries.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The therapeutic state strikes back (again)
The Dominion Post reports this week that teachers are in fact allowed to use force to restrain unruly pupils who threaten teachers or other students.
Inspector Chris Gravenson has apparently told a recent teacher's conference that under the Crimes Act teachers are entitled to use force to restrain violent students, even if it causes bruising.
Sensible stuff you might say.
However, a spokesman for the Children's Commissioner's Office has piped back saying to it is never appropriate to use enough force to cause bruising. Exactly how a violent pupil can be restrained without risking bruising is of course left unexplained.
Clearly the kind of people who inhabit these waste-of-space organs of the therapeutic state aren't open to common-sense discussion.
This is why I was dead against John Key's wishy-washy decision to support the recent Anti-Smacking Bill. By supporting the Bill, albeit in a compromised form, Key allows the left liberal therapeutic state to take a step forward without gaining anything for conservatism in return.
The best stance National could have taken would be to simply to have said NO.
If the bill had been passed in its undiluted form it would have generated serious opposition that could have been exploited by National in the coming election. Instead the Bill's critics have now taken their eye of the ball, and deluded themselves into thinking they have gained some sort of victory from the compromise.
This is how the liberal left still continues to advance - it initiates an arrogant and unpopular piece of legislation, which the majority of the population dislikes. However, the so-called conservative centre-right then suffers a crisis of confidence, and instead of opposing the legislation, decides to support a watered-down version.
Thus not only does the centre left continue to advance its cause, but it does so at an incremental pace, which most people don't really notice. This allows it to steadily take over without attracting any serious opposition.
Its time to start saying NO more often.
Inspector Chris Gravenson has apparently told a recent teacher's conference that under the Crimes Act teachers are entitled to use force to restrain violent students, even if it causes bruising.
Sensible stuff you might say.
However, a spokesman for the Children's Commissioner's Office has piped back saying to it is never appropriate to use enough force to cause bruising. Exactly how a violent pupil can be restrained without risking bruising is of course left unexplained.
Clearly the kind of people who inhabit these waste-of-space organs of the therapeutic state aren't open to common-sense discussion.
This is why I was dead against John Key's wishy-washy decision to support the recent Anti-Smacking Bill. By supporting the Bill, albeit in a compromised form, Key allows the left liberal therapeutic state to take a step forward without gaining anything for conservatism in return.
The best stance National could have taken would be to simply to have said NO.
If the bill had been passed in its undiluted form it would have generated serious opposition that could have been exploited by National in the coming election. Instead the Bill's critics have now taken their eye of the ball, and deluded themselves into thinking they have gained some sort of victory from the compromise.
This is how the liberal left still continues to advance - it initiates an arrogant and unpopular piece of legislation, which the majority of the population dislikes. However, the so-called conservative centre-right then suffers a crisis of confidence, and instead of opposing the legislation, decides to support a watered-down version.
Thus not only does the centre left continue to advance its cause, but it does so at an incremental pace, which most people don't really notice. This allows it to steadily take over without attracting any serious opposition.
Its time to start saying NO more often.
Half-hearted realism
On breakfast TV last week I tuned in to see prominent British journalist Robert Fisk talking about the current situation in the Middle East.
Mr Fisk puts himself firmly in the pessimists camp, claiming things are likely to get a lot worse before they get better.
He says despite the presence of plenty of Middle Eastern Affairs departments in western universities, the West has little understanding of the region, and in return the Middle East doesn't have much of a clue about the West either.
With this track record of failure and mutual ignorance, it might be reasonable to conclude that contact between the two civilisations should be scaled back.
However, in typical left-liberal fashion he only goes as far as suggesting the West should reduce its military presence in the region. No mention of reducing Muslim immigration to the West or restricting the involvement of the western media in Middle Eastern countries.
This is a typical stance of a half-hearted realist who wishes to sound worldly and tough-minded without having to take the risk of being seen as seriously politically incorrect.
Reducing the West's military presence in the Middle East may well be a good idea, but its military presence isn't the only reason why the Middle East is opposed to the West.
France and the low countries for example, have stayed clear of the war on Iraq, but that hasn't stopped elements of their Muslim populations from indulging in anti-western riots. In Europe, Muslim hostility to the West is more about envy of western affluence, and contempt for western liberal values than it is about western oppression.
The liberal values problem is particularly embarrassing for those on the liberal left.
While staunch right liberals can openly defend western liberal values against Muslim traditionalism, the liberal left's tolerance for diversity means it is caught between defending its own liberal values and having to tolerate clearly anti-liberal Muslim values
Mr Fisk hopes that “cultural exchange” will help reduce tension between the two sides, but with such a big cultural gulf its difficult to see how such exchange can help. Only a small number of cosmopolitan elites from the West and Middle East will be able to tolerate living and working in each others world's without feeling the urge to undermine the host culture.
Mr Fisk puts himself firmly in the pessimists camp, claiming things are likely to get a lot worse before they get better.
He says despite the presence of plenty of Middle Eastern Affairs departments in western universities, the West has little understanding of the region, and in return the Middle East doesn't have much of a clue about the West either.
With this track record of failure and mutual ignorance, it might be reasonable to conclude that contact between the two civilisations should be scaled back.
However, in typical left-liberal fashion he only goes as far as suggesting the West should reduce its military presence in the region. No mention of reducing Muslim immigration to the West or restricting the involvement of the western media in Middle Eastern countries.
This is a typical stance of a half-hearted realist who wishes to sound worldly and tough-minded without having to take the risk of being seen as seriously politically incorrect.
Reducing the West's military presence in the Middle East may well be a good idea, but its military presence isn't the only reason why the Middle East is opposed to the West.
France and the low countries for example, have stayed clear of the war on Iraq, but that hasn't stopped elements of their Muslim populations from indulging in anti-western riots. In Europe, Muslim hostility to the West is more about envy of western affluence, and contempt for western liberal values than it is about western oppression.
The liberal values problem is particularly embarrassing for those on the liberal left.
While staunch right liberals can openly defend western liberal values against Muslim traditionalism, the liberal left's tolerance for diversity means it is caught between defending its own liberal values and having to tolerate clearly anti-liberal Muslim values
Mr Fisk hopes that “cultural exchange” will help reduce tension between the two sides, but with such a big cultural gulf its difficult to see how such exchange can help. Only a small number of cosmopolitan elites from the West and Middle East will be able to tolerate living and working in each others world's without feeling the urge to undermine the host culture.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Finishing-off the old right
As the country's journalists enthusiastically sharpen their knives in preparation for finishing off Winston Peter's, Michael Laws points out their over-zealousness may well-backfire.
It's not just the fact they're clearly enjoying questioning Peter's over his fast and lose financial dealings, but the fact they've jumped straight into the role of judge and executioner.
A few months out from the election, Peter's looks to be in big trouble, and the smart thing for his media critics to do would be to simply back-off a little and let public opinion decide his fate.
Instead, over excited political editor's like Colin Espiner have jumped in to spout their personal indignation about Peter's and practically ordered him to resign.
This gives Peter's a small glimmer of hope that he can rally enough anti-liberal sentiment to get past the five percent threshold in November's national election.
To what extent the media's dislike of Peter's is due to his old-right ideology, or to his evasiveness and grandstanding, is hard to figure out, but there certainly seems to be a lot of right and left liberals who would love to see the back of him.
One thing that even Laws has overlooked is the fact that as National's policies have moved closer to NZ First's, Key's attacks on Peters have intensified. Under Key, National has assumed NZ First's centrist stance on Foreign policy and its Keynesian stance on infrastructure spending, and its also toned down its neoliberal stance on privatising state assists.
Maybe this isn't a bad thing - if National is toning down its right liberalism, then New Zealand First becomes more irrelevant as a political alternative.
The thing that disturbs me though, is that this sudden desire to decisively knock over NZ First, whilst assuming some of its policies, could be a ploy by National to make the country think its becoming more conservative, and use that as cover for increasing immigration levels.
After all, whatever one thinks of Winston Peter's populist style and NZ First's amateurism over party administration, NZ First has been only the break on unpopular immigration expansionism over the last 15 years. Sure their success in this regard may have been modest, but without NZ First's strong showing in the 2002 election, it seems unlikely Labour would have shifted its focus to skilled workers and tougher English-language requirements.
Similarly, when National opened the doors to East Asian immigration in the early 1990s, there was no political party to represent the interests of immigration restrictionists. Knocking over NZ First would once again leave the main parties in total control of immigration policy without having to worry about public opposition.
On the other hand, the removal of Peter's would make it easier to untangle the personal animosity from the ideology. If New Zealand First were able to survive without Peter's as leader (admittedly, a big ask) then it would be easier to see whether the media was actively trying to oppose old-right policies like immigration restrictionism - which a supposedly objective media shouldn't be doing - or whether it was just rallying against Peter's populism and sloppy party administration.
The other thing about the donations saga that hasn't been touched upon is that there doesn't seem to be any ideological intent behind them. It's seems strange for example that a right liberal like Robert Jones would want to give money to an old-right party he claims to be ideologically opposed too.
Similarly, if Owen Glenn supports NZ First’s political manifesto, why does he want a show down with Peter's over alleged statements made in regard to donations. Surely if he supported the party then he would want to keep things quiet.
In the weird world of political donations, people rarely seem to donate large amounts of money to political causes for straightforward reasons.
Since corporations prefer giving money to left-liberal, anti-business causes so as to improve their public image, then perhaps businessmen also like to donate to causes they don't support in order to improve their image or sway their opponents in a direction more to their liking.
It's not just the fact they're clearly enjoying questioning Peter's over his fast and lose financial dealings, but the fact they've jumped straight into the role of judge and executioner.
A few months out from the election, Peter's looks to be in big trouble, and the smart thing for his media critics to do would be to simply back-off a little and let public opinion decide his fate.
Instead, over excited political editor's like Colin Espiner have jumped in to spout their personal indignation about Peter's and practically ordered him to resign.
This gives Peter's a small glimmer of hope that he can rally enough anti-liberal sentiment to get past the five percent threshold in November's national election.
To what extent the media's dislike of Peter's is due to his old-right ideology, or to his evasiveness and grandstanding, is hard to figure out, but there certainly seems to be a lot of right and left liberals who would love to see the back of him.
One thing that even Laws has overlooked is the fact that as National's policies have moved closer to NZ First's, Key's attacks on Peters have intensified. Under Key, National has assumed NZ First's centrist stance on Foreign policy and its Keynesian stance on infrastructure spending, and its also toned down its neoliberal stance on privatising state assists.
Maybe this isn't a bad thing - if National is toning down its right liberalism, then New Zealand First becomes more irrelevant as a political alternative.
The thing that disturbs me though, is that this sudden desire to decisively knock over NZ First, whilst assuming some of its policies, could be a ploy by National to make the country think its becoming more conservative, and use that as cover for increasing immigration levels.
After all, whatever one thinks of Winston Peter's populist style and NZ First's amateurism over party administration, NZ First has been only the break on unpopular immigration expansionism over the last 15 years. Sure their success in this regard may have been modest, but without NZ First's strong showing in the 2002 election, it seems unlikely Labour would have shifted its focus to skilled workers and tougher English-language requirements.
Similarly, when National opened the doors to East Asian immigration in the early 1990s, there was no political party to represent the interests of immigration restrictionists. Knocking over NZ First would once again leave the main parties in total control of immigration policy without having to worry about public opposition.
On the other hand, the removal of Peter's would make it easier to untangle the personal animosity from the ideology. If New Zealand First were able to survive without Peter's as leader (admittedly, a big ask) then it would be easier to see whether the media was actively trying to oppose old-right policies like immigration restrictionism - which a supposedly objective media shouldn't be doing - or whether it was just rallying against Peter's populism and sloppy party administration.
The other thing about the donations saga that hasn't been touched upon is that there doesn't seem to be any ideological intent behind them. It's seems strange for example that a right liberal like Robert Jones would want to give money to an old-right party he claims to be ideologically opposed too.
Similarly, if Owen Glenn supports NZ First’s political manifesto, why does he want a show down with Peter's over alleged statements made in regard to donations. Surely if he supported the party then he would want to keep things quiet.
In the weird world of political donations, people rarely seem to donate large amounts of money to political causes for straightforward reasons.
Since corporations prefer giving money to left-liberal, anti-business causes so as to improve their public image, then perhaps businessmen also like to donate to causes they don't support in order to improve their image or sway their opponents in a direction more to their liking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
