Years of Poems and Spirits

Just heard the news that McCain has chosen Sarah Palin as veep. It is a good choice, at least good enough to get an Obama supporter like me worried. I like what I heard about Palin so far. She has a life story that is positive and can be related to.

However, this episode is just a distraction of the core contention in this presidential race. To me, this contest is ultimately about race and racism: can America finally get over the mental hurdle of having a minority commander in chief? Or is the political process the real playing field in selecting a President?

To me, both questions are particularly poignant after eight years of unchecked paranoia and fear mongering. America did not get a chance to naturally transition into a minority Presidency: e.g. a black VP after 8 years of peace and prosperity. Instead, Cheney-Bush left the nation in a state of division and confusion: are we really insecure? what’s needed to safeguard America? does government still have a role in national economy? or what is that role?

At this juncture, whether the populace can trust a blackman to be their president really tells how entrenched racism is in America.

First of all, the experience argument is total bullshit. If experience equates to seniority, then Robert Byrd ought to be POTUS 10 years ago. If experience equates to executive credentials, then why not Jack Walsh? Obama ran a half billion dollar (in less than a year, mind you) operation and succeeded in becoming the leading candidate in the race. But he got so little credit for this deed as if he is supposed to be able to do that. Well, if so, how can anyone say that he is too young or too inexperienced?

Secondly, those who bought the experience argument are the usual suspects of racial bigots: white working (hard working, per HRC) Americans. Or sons and daughters of the Southern “heritage”. They are not stupid. They know how to read. They know how to Google (right before Palin was chosen, someone was updating her Wiki entry anonymously). They chose to believe the lack-of-experience crap because even they are embarrassed of what they truly believe.

A recent poll asked people in PA, Ohio how they liked the two parties. The result was almost 2 to 1 in favor of the Democrats. When asked about McCain and Obama, suddenly, the result was tied. If one finds John McCain somewhat un-Republican like, then what is it in Obama that is so un-Democrat? Why those Joe-six-packs love the Democrats in general but not Obama in particular?

Finally, it comes down to this: although Americans have been saying how proud they are of the Tocquevillian democracy, they still give high premium to things outside of democracy, namely, heritage, race and religiosity. Another way to describe this hypocracy is to say that Americans pay lip service to meritocracy but act out aristocracy.

To say things “outside of democracy” is to say they are exogenous to the democratic process–nothing in this process can alter one’s heritage, race or religious affiliation (most of the time). If one looks just at the endogenous factors only, then Obama is the most successful politician in generations: after he stepped out of UChicago campus, he’s lost only a few races. In the heart of darkness that is Chicago politics, he mananged to stay clean while engaged. He was considered an insurgent (not unlike Howard Dean four years ago), but is now the one favored to win: he is doing very thing right within the system and, in terms of achievements, he’s outpaced not only all the pundits bad-mouthing him, but also all his opponents–John Edwards couldn’t even defend his own Senate seat. Clinton has yet to successfully completed anything she initiated on her own (be that Healthcare or the primary). And McCain? He was embroiled in Keating Five when he was at Obama’s stage.

Yet a large portion of the nation still don’t trust him, calling him inexperienced. And more likely than not, it is those people who constantly think of the rest of the world as less democratic, thus less fortunate, than they are.

I am not a religious person, but I do believe in redemption. Hopefully, Obama winning the Presidency will deliver that.

 Beijing Olympics is over today. I think many people I know are letting out a sigh of relief. Given so many misfortunes and unrests happened earlier this year, the summer Olympics once felt like a giant bubble ready to pop. Now it is over, all of a sudden, it dawned on me that 2008 was the best Olympics in my life time. 

Not that I wish it happens again any time soon. Like the Pyramids, and many other human spectacles in history, the success of Olympics is built on the sacrifices and sufferings of counterless unnamed. If Acropolis is a reminder of Athenian democracy, and the Great Wall determined national defense, what is being immortalized by the statdiums? Prosperity? At $2000 per capita, that is a stretch.

Here are some of the good and the bad as I saw them:

The Good:

The competitions! Really a treat for a sports fan. In the States, I missed watching volleyball, handball and track/field. Bu now I have them all together. Badminton is always fun (watching the top players play gives me a sensation of watching human pin-balls). The marathon run around the city and the road bike race to the Great Wall were very photogenic. Although I don’t care for diving or gymnastics, they are surprisingly competitive even to my layman’s eye.

The soccer match between the Nigeria and Belgium is one of the most memorable in my life time. Had there not been so much Michael Phelps (over) coverage, I would have enjoyed swimming even more.

Track is perhaps the most exciting. I played so many ball games in my life, but I don’t always feel an adrenaline surge before every match. Track is different. I can always recall how hard my heart pumped every time I stood behind the starting line. The sensation of turning the last curve and seeing the finish line at the end of the track is beyond words. It is fair to say I play balls for fun but run for the adrenaline.

Yesterday, watched the marathon live on NBC. When the Kenyan runner (he was just so graceful) entered the stadium, the first shot was from his back with the bright light at the end of the tunnel in front of him. Immediately, the view switched to another camera that panned in half the stadium. When the dimunitive runner figure emerged from the tunnel, I could see the stadium erupted in cheers. I trembled. Good God.

The Bad:

I will save it for another day.

Read 驻京办主任 (1 and 2) after Steve C recommended it. He asked me whether I can still “handle” China but I was interested in the central-local relationship.

The book is similar to a pretty stylized mini TV series: bad guys are bad all around and good guys are good inside out, “邪不压正”, etc. And there isn’t as much discussion of central-local tensions till the 2nd series, which, when it comes to that, is very revealing:

 驻京办的迅猛增长，正好契合了中央和地方分权的历史演变，其中尤以1994年中央与地方分税制改革之后为甚，自1994年的分税制改革以来，我国政府财政的集中程度不断提高。分税制的确立为中央政府的财政提供了制度性保障，也改变了中央政府在财政方面高度依赖于地方政府的局面。在财政不足的情况下，地方政府经济发展的任务和公共管理的职能却不断加重，财政支出的压力增大，这就使中央政府的财政转移支付，成了地方政府重要的收入来源。因此，驻京办兴盛的背后，是各部委资源配置权力太大，财政转移支付程序欠透明是一个重要原因，我认为驻京办不可能一撤了之。

Also, according to the book, the central transfers are often NOT included in local’s budgets! No wonder 驻京办事处 become so prominent and prevalent.

Two years ago, I’d thought this is abnormal and is something that can be amended by policy or institutional design. Now, I don’t think so any more: the central-local tension is part of China political economy that is beyond regime or even civilization (薄一波在他的《回顾》中说自建国以来，中国的经济一直是：一放就乱，一乱就紧，一紧就死，一死就叫，一叫又放。)

There is certainly an institutional design component: one may argue that focus on GDP, including the bias toward growth in cadre evaluation, calls for locals to game the system. Therefore, however hard the center tries, it still can’t make 全国一盘棋–even when provincial heads are centrally appointed.

But defects in institutional design do not explain prevalent corruption. Not even the misaligned center-local interests can explain that. In other words, you can have very clean local officials who still undermine national economy in pursuit of local interests.

Corruption seems to be best explained by property rights (and its principal-agent implication). A national economy has a certain amount of endowed assets–land, natural resources or labor that can only be mobilized politically. The marketization of those assets is often a monopolized process (because the assets are considered public), particularly when there is a pretty strong government (i.e. an agent of public interests).

The natural conclusion is that it is an ill that cannot be solved by political reform alone (e.g. corrupt but democratic countries like India). It may solve the agency problem but certainly not the rights ill.

But how can one privatize public assets and keep them efficiently deployed without creating injustice? I think this is the real question. Is Norway a possible exception to this? I really need to study the Scandinavian countries more …