By Kevin D. Williamson
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
China has a problem: not
enough people.
If you didn’t see that one coming, you haven’t been
paying attention.
More precisely, China’s problem is its shrinking work
force.
According to Beijing’s official numbers, China’s work
force has declined by 25 million workers — about the combined work forces of
California and Ohio — since topping out in 2011. Everywhere in China’s
industrial belt, help-wanted signs hang outside the factories.
After years of officially restricting couples to one
child, the cabal that rules China — never forget that this is a one-party
police state — relaxed that policy a few years ago. But Chinese people did not
start having more children. They’re having fewer, for the same reasons many
Western societies have seen declining birth rates: Would-be parents dread the
expense of children, and women delay motherhood as they pursue professional
goals rather than maternal ones. The Communist bosses want Chinese couples to
have more children, but Chinese couples are not obliging.
Some Chinese officials blame the declining work force for
the country’s declining economic growth. The Chinese economy is still growing,
and growing quickly by many standards — its 6.6 percent growth last year is
more than twice what President Trump dreams of, with his unfulfilled promise of
sustained 3 percent growth — but, long-term, the Chinese forecast is normalcy,
at least as far as economic growth is concerned.
For a regime that has based its legitimacy on dramatic
economic growth, normalcy is a crisis. And a national crisis in China is a
serious thing. The future is unknowable, but the wise man would not bet very
much on Xi Jinping’s career coming to an end because of an election. A
Chinese recession might very well end in a Chinese revolution.
Governments always operate in ignorance, and
authoritarian governments suffer from this more than the governments of liberal
societies. That is because in liberal societies, the spontaneous orders of markets,
civil society, and open intellectual life help to organize and deploy useful
knowledge in ways that centralized bureaucracies cannot.
(Of course that applies to corporate bureaucracies as
well; that’s why an intelligent society allows businesses to die quickly, with
as little disruption as possible. That’s a lesson we Americans keep failing to
learn with our “too big to fail” superstitions.)
You might expect that state of ignorance to produce some
kind of random distribution of errors, which could in theory be partly
self-correcting in the same way that big crowds are, on average, pretty good at
guessing how many jelly beans are in a jar. But that isn’t how things actually
work.
Political actors — not only elected officials but also
career bureaucrats and expert managers — do not err randomly or in ways that
are entirely unpredictable. That is because political actors, even the most
intelligent and well-meaning of them, are not the dispassionate
philosopher-kings of the progressive imagination. Political actors have
incentives, and they act in accordance with those incentives. This produces
biases that are mostly predictable: bias toward bigger budgets and bigger
staffs, bias toward settlements and procedures that minimize institutional
accountability, bias toward relying on metrics of progress that are easy to
measure and likely to obscure or minimize ongoing problems (you can tell a
great deal about an institution by what questions its managers choose not
to ask and which metrics they choose not to measure), etc. Among central
governments, the bias tends to be toward centralization. Among local
governments, the bias tends to be toward localizing power and delocalizing
funding. Police departments are predictably biased against civilian-review
boards. Public-school teachers’ organizations are biased against measuring
performance rather than relying on criteria such as seniority in decisions relating
to compensation and advancement.
The Communist bosses in Beijing have certain ideological
biases that have evolved over the years. Unsurprisingly for an authoritarian
ideology with its roots in agrarian and pre-industrial social arrangements, the
Chinese long regarded themselves as having a population problem. The
peasants may have been lionized as the vanguard of the revolution, but there
were countless millions of them, and the Communist planners regarded them as
liabilities rather than as assets — mouths to be fed rather than a productive
work force. Central planners are reliably unable to cope with the organic pace
of change as it happens in the real world — which does not operate on a series
of five-year plans — and, among their other errors, the authorities in Beijing
continued believing that they had a population problem long after it was
plain that they did not.
The Chinese are not alone in this. In the West,
progressives have been for many years hostage to the deathless superstition of
“overpopulation” and all of the predictable Malthusian errors that go along
with it. Paul Ehrlich, the wrongest man in the history of modern American
thought, captivated a generation with his Population Bomb and his
predictions that the world would soon run out of . . . everything, really:
food, energy, industrial metals, etc. In 1970, he predicted that “in ten years,
all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.” He predicted that the
United Kingdom would cease to exist, that hundreds of millions would die in
inevitable famines, etc. Subsequent prophets from Al Gore to Greta Thunberg
have offered variations on the same theme. Thank goodness we were not persuaded
by their forebears back when they were insisting that we were on the verge of a
“new ice age” and drawing up plans to cover the polar ice caps in coal soot in
order to warm up the planet and thereby prevent . . . climate change.
This kind of thinking exercises powerful influence over
the thinking of progressives, from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s enthusiasm for
abortion as a means of reducing “populations that we don’t want to have too
many of” to Senator Bernie Sanders’s recent invocation of taking steps to “curb
population growth” — where? — “especially in poor countries.” The “Planned” in
Planned Parenthood is very much like the “planned” in “planned economy.”
Remember that many so-called liberals in the Western world celebrated China’s
one-child policy as the height of wisdom even as they shed a few tears, some of
them possibly sincere, over the brutality of its implementation.
Central planners are always fighting the last war. Even
as the world’s population is projected to peak and then decline in the
not-so-distant future (only 20 or 30 years) “population control” remains a
going concern among progressives. It isn’t about population: It is about control.
The same is true of gun control and “putting the economy under some measure of
democratic control,” as Jamelle Bouie recently put it in the New York Times.
In the progressive imagination, the perfection of society — and the perfection
of man — is only a matter of control, and choosing the right controllers. This
is how you end up with a callow young bartender with no relevant experience or
knowledge drawing up grand plans to reorganize the entire world economy, which
is understood to be a fundamentally moral question — ask young Miss
Thunberg or Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — with the technical
details to be addressed by a bureaucracy to be organized later.
Moral imperatives are attractive in that they do not rely
on any particular verifiable expertise or measurable outcome. Millions were
starved to death in the Holodomor by those who were whitewashed as being
nothing more than “liberals in a hurry.” That, too, was an economy under some measure
of political control by people who said they were acting in the interests of
the majority of the people.
The American Left is at the moment engaged in a peculiar
assault on American liberalism, especially its protections of individual rights
and the interests and rights of minorities. The First and Second Amendments
both are under attack, as are the Senate and the Electoral College, and other
counter-majoritarian institutions that form an important part of the American
constitutional architecture. The everything-is-racist campaign of the past few
years is intended largely to discredit these institutions. Representative
Ocasio-Cortez has judged the Electoral College both “racist” and a “scam,” a
common view among progressives. Paul Krugman and Will Wilkinson, both writing
in the New York Times, have insisted that projects ranging from
liberalizing regulations to defending the Bill of Rights are, somehow, racist
enterprises. Michelle Goldberg, also writing in the New York Times,
dreams of “an end of the GOP” for the crime that Democratic pollster Stanley
Greenberg describes as conspiring “to stop the New America from governing.”
Greenberg dreams of an unchallengeable Democratic monopoly on power “liberated
from the nation’s suffocating polarization to use government to advance the
public good.”
Polarization is what happens when there are two opinions
about something. What happens when there is one opinion — one permitted opinion
— about something is: China, roughly.
The main reason the modern United States has not, for all
its errors and failures, pursued something as destructive as China’s one-child
policy is that no one actually has the power to do so. Those dusty old terms
from the long-forgotten civics textbooks — separation of powers, federalism, unalienable
rights — have saved us many times from the worst kinds of tyranny. And, as our
founders knew, the worst forms of tyranny very much include majoritarian
tyranny. One might think that the Trump presidency would cause progressives to
think twice about what William F. Buckley Jr. dismissed as “the authority of
political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth.” But they cannot
endure such a thought. That is why they remain unable to intellectually
progress from November 2016 without convincing themselves that the election was
somehow illegitimate.
To face the facts would be to understand themselves to be
devotees of another god that failed. They may believe that they are not
followers of the same god that has failed in China, but that is only a matter
of comparing Zeus to Jupiter. They are slowly beginning to understand what’s
happening in Beijing, if only because the bosses there have no other choice but
to accept reality or risk a fate a good deal worse and more bloody than mere
electoral defeat.
But Beijing’s errors are not so different from our
errors, which will become more apparent the farther down the same road we go.
No comments:
Post a Comment