Crazy

The New York Times has an article today on the odd alliance between two political foes, Senator Hillary Clinton and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich:

Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker, has been working alongside the former first lady on a number of issues, and even appeared with her at a press conference on Wednesday to promote - of all things - health-care legislation.

But more puzzling than that, Mr. Gingrich has been talking up Mrs. Clinton's presidential prospects in 2008, to the chagrin of conservative loyalists who once regarded him as a heroic figure. Last month, he even suggested she might capture the presidency, saying "any Republican who thinks she's going to be easy to beat has a total amnesia about the history of the Clintons."

Since it's the end of the week, I'd like to throw into the ring a crazy idea.

There are things that make we wretch when I go to the polls: having to vote either Republican or Democrat. I punch the chads with one eye shut. If I vote Republican, a little voice in my head mentally slaps me around for promoting a party that has a weak spot for Pat Robertson and people like Creationists. And when I vote Democrat, the little voice's doppelganger punches my cranium for supporting the relativist, cave-in, self-defeating politics of the Left.

I can't think of two better firebrands for this country's two ideological bases -- Gingrich and Clinton. Their adversarial history is legendary. I love the idea of them swapping political spit in public.

So what's my crazy idea? That Hillary and Newt both quit their parties and start something new. By 2008, each party will have gone to such ideological extremes that perhaps they'll be liabilities, not assets for a presidential candidate. I have grave doubts that Bush's current trajectory is necessarily going to take the Republicans to still-yet higher places in the next election.

I disowned the Democratic party because all the discontent I had for liberals finally crystallized before me in the aftermath of 9/11. But I didn't join the Republican party, either. I'm registered as an independent -- I think of that as my political purgatory until something truly practicable emerges on the political landscape. Perhaps a new party is in order. Even as I write that, it sounds heretical to our binary democracy.

And yet, the first Republican president -- Lincoln -- ran and won when his party was only six years old. It's true that Republicans back in 1860 were inspired by the Whigs, but it was a new party nonetheless. Is that so unthinkable under today's circumstances?

I like the pairing of Hillary and Newt because they're each symbols of hatred by their opposition. If they could work something out between them, I might be persuaded to overlook their past ideological overindulgences and send them a chad of approval. They would, as a presidential team, be formidable to the Bush-like and Kerry-like candidates I expect to see paraded before us in 2008. Lunatic-ideological cream pies would be thrown at Hillary and Newt from the extremists on both sides of the political divide, with equal vigor. And perhaps then, finally, the extremists would be exposed and laughed out of the halls of power, where serious matters need tending.

OK, well -- it'll never happen. Go ahead and tell me why it won't. But if not Hillary and Newt, I would like to hear something that is viable for 2008. Republicans and Democrats are in the thickening mud of their own past ideologies. This fast-changing world challenges us to do more than slog through our ideological past. I'd love to hear some crazy ideas that might be saner than America's current national politics. Throw your best pies and see what happens.

100% Shareholder Owned

On May 10th I published on this post how mystified I was that the town of Huaxi -- where villagers have taken control away from the government -- was given a glowing review in the Guardian. I said that I almost couldn't believe that the Guardian was talking about the same town.

Well, they weren't. Reader rc82 left a comment explaining that I had confused two different Huaxis within China. Clearly, I didn't know Jiangsu and Zhejiang each had a Huaxi.

Simon at Simon World confirmed that there are more than one Huaxi villages in China. So, my apologies to you all, and to the Guardian. I should've listened to my gut when I thought it was impossible to believe. Perhaps I am so routinely left in hysterics by the Guardian's slants that I lowered my guard. But I must take the responsibility here.

And thank you to rc82. His contribution is proof that blogs are on their way to great things. Self-correction is the key. I can only learn from this experience.

- Cicero the Humble


A few weeks ago there was a fair amount of news coming out of the village of Huaxi, China, where 60,000 villagers have protested and rioted against pollution coming from thirteen state-owned factories in the area. The last I heard, the town was run by the protestors, and the government was in exile.

I did a cursory scan around the Web to see if there was an update to the Huaxi story, which seems to have gone silent. I haven't found anything regarding the riots -- anyone with an update is invited to post here related information.

In my search for an update on the riots of Huaxi, I ran across this article in The Guardian, about the very same village and it's enchanting riches. Reading the Guardian's glib account of Huaxi would have one thinking that it is a model of blending capitalism, socialism and nationalism with a few kinks to be worked out. Given that the riots occurred nearly a month ago, the disconnect is so large between the Guardian's take on Huaxi and what I have read about the discontent that I wasn't sure I was reading about the same village. Here's a few snippets from The Guardian -- In China's richest village, peasants are all shareholders now - by order of the party

China's road to riches could not be more boldly signposted than it is in Huaxi, officially the country's wealthiest village. Take the municipal government's stretch limousine across Textile Bridge, pass the smokestacks of the steelworks, speed alongside row after row of symmetrical pale-blue houses, skirt the 15-storey pagoda hotel and then alight for a walk down the red-carpeted corridor of capital.

This concrete-covered passageway is a monument to the giddy material progress made by the commune since China's policymakers began mixing their ideological drinks 26 years ago.

...To demonstrate how good that cocktail is supposed to make the locals feel, "Huaxi Road" is decorated with smiling pictures of every family in the village.

Each household's assets are listed in detail: size of the family, value of their property, average level of education, number of members of the Communist party, as well as how many cars, mobile phones, televisions, washing machines, computers, air-conditioning units, motorbikes, cameras, fridges and stereo systems they own.

...Twenty years ago, most were farmers living in small, one-storey houses, who struggled to save the money to buy a bicycle. Now, they are shareholders with an average living space of more than 450 square metres and at least one family car.

...That is a subject of increasing concern to the world. Earlier this year, Microsoft's Bill Gates praised China for developing a "new form of capitalism". Politicians in Beijing prefer to talk about "scientific socialism" or "socialism with Chinese characteristics". Huaxi's model is by no means the only option for villages, but if it becomes a template the future might just as easily be described as shareholder feudalism.

..."People here have five aims in life: money, a car, a house, a son, and respect. We give them that. Every family here is rich. Our target now is to make all of China rich."

...Xie'en says political stability is the base for rapid growth. "I think every era has a different formula for success. The most important thing is to be flexible and open to new ways to thinking. We must do whatever works," he says. "We are not communist. We are 100% shareholder owned."

My search to find out what has happened to the rioters in Huaxi has landed me into a total disconnect, care of The Guardian. It's chilling sometimes to read how the Chinese might merely be trading Mao's totalitarianism for Shareholders'. Yes, it's probably more complex than that -- I don't know if the 'Five Aims' is just a microcosm of The Guardian's spotlight, or representative of China on the whole.

China's road to riches could not be more boldly signposted than it is in Huaxi, officially the country's wealthiest village. Take the municipal government's stretch limousine across Textile Bridge, pass the smokestacks of the steelworks, speed alongside row after row of symmetrical pale-blue houses, skirt the 15-storey pagoda hotel and then alight for a walk down the red-carpeted corridor of capital.

This concrete-covered passageway is a monument to the giddy material progress made by the commune since China's policymakers began mixing their ideological drinks 26 years ago.

...To demonstrate how good that cocktail is supposed to make the locals feel, "Huaxi Road" is decorated with smiling pictures of every family in the village.

Each household's assets are listed in detail: size of the family, value of their property, average level of education, number of members of the Communist party, as well as how many cars, mobile phones, televisions, washing machines, computers, air-conditioning units, motorbikes, cameras, fridges and stereo systems they own.

...Twenty years ago, most were farmers living in small, one-storey houses, who struggled to save the money to buy a bicycle. Now, they are shareholders with an average living space of more than 450 square metres and at least one family car.

...That is a subject of increasing concern to the world. Earlier this year, Microsoft's Bill Gates praised China for developing a "new form of capitalism". Politicians in Beijing prefer to talk about "scientific socialism" or "socialism with Chinese characteristics". Huaxi's model is by no means the only option for villages, but if it becomes a template the future might just as easily be described as shareholder feudalism.

..."People here have five aims in life: money, a car, a house, a son, and respect. We give them that. Every family here is rich. Our target now is to make all of China rich."

...Xie'en says political stability is the base for rapid growth. "I think every era has a different formula for success. The most important thing is to be flexible and open to new ways to thinking. We must do whatever works," he says. "We are not communist. We are 100% shareholder owned."

My search to find out what has happened to the rioters in Huaxi has landed me into a total disconnect, care of The Guardian. It's chilling sometimes to read how the Chinese might merely be trading Mao's totalitarianism for Shareholders' domination. Yes, it's probably more complex than that -- I don't know if the 'Five Aims' is just a microcosm of The Guardian's spotlight, or representative of China on the whole.

I do know that the waters trickling through the village are running yellow with foam, and infant mortality and birth defects have shot up dramatically, prompting riots started by old ladies in bamboo tents. The Guardian mentioned nothing about those issues. This post welcomes more information on Huaxi. I don't expect a lot of accuracy from The Guardian, but this time I was flummoxed. The editors of that publication appear to be 100% shareholder owned too.