Silence Dogood Wire

Communist Philosopher Karl Marx

One idea at the forefront of liberal circles is that whites and racial minorities have always existed in opposition to each other and if existing institutions are not changed then there will continue to be racial fricitions. This is expressed in the book White Fragility with the statement that, “white identity is inherently racist.” However, the breaking down of society in two separate groups is fraught with errors which make it ignorant and simplistic. It ignores other identities besides mere whiteness and blackness and creates the illusion of perpetual racial strife.

The division of society into two separate groups has its modern day origins in communist philosophy. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels purport that, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” In their eyes, society was divided upon one line of identity; class. They believed that the old society would live and die by class. Either leaders around the globe would willingly accept their doctrine, or more likely, a revolution would occur. Positioning these two groups against each other was a way for them to explain all of the fundamental shifts which occurred in society through the ages. Although it was obviously false and simple-minded, it garnered wide approval, because of its simplicity. This allowed it to be accepted by the masses of people who desired an explanation for their lowly status.

The same phenomenon is occurring in discussions about race. White is said to only exist in opposition to black just as communists believe the rich exist in opposition to the poor. This allows people who hate Western society to take the easy way out and turn an issue that we have, into the only issue that we have. It allows them to ignore all of the nuances that we have in our society and feeds the masses a simplistic view of history which falls in line with their false prejudices.

However, there is a very large problem with this false binary. It ignores the fact that there are infinite numbers of groups that supersede racial considerations. The fundamental assumption which people make when they set up premises that put white in continual opposition to black, is that the loyalties of white people always lie with other white people. However, most white people have loyalties which lie far outside of race. For example, I would feel more comfortable being around someone of any race who is a conservative Christian than I would a white, liberal, atheist. This is true for many people. Political and religious affiliations will almost always supersede racial ones. 

By establishing two groups and creating a false binary, liberal elites create a sense of perpetual racial conflict that allows them to push their narrative that America was founded upon white supremacy. However, most of the conflict between groups in our modern society is between people with different political affiliations, not with different races. You would be hard pressed to find a white liberal who would choose to associate with a MAGA hat-wearing Trump supporter than a black liberal.

Simplifying society down into two groups is a trick to ingrain certain beliefs in people. Intellectuals often attempt to get people to accept the false premise that society is based upon white supremacy, because it allows them to castigate all of our societal institutions as evil. The belief that all of society is based upon race struggles is as ignorant as believing that it is all based upon class struggles. Simple explanations like these are easy to feed to the masses and allow intellectual-supremacists to criticize society as a whole without delving into the specifics which they know nothing about.

Anti-censorship protesters in Australia

Photo Attribution: Tarale / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)

Have you ever been screamed at so loudly that you suddenly decided to change your opinion and convert to someone else’s viewpoint? Or worse, have you ever been told by someone that if you say something you will be fined and possibly jailed for it if it happens again? Neither of these strategies is a great way to get people to abandon their belief systems, even if what they are saying is truly evil. Despite this, the former strategy has been quite prominent for a long time. However, the latter strategy is a relatively new phenomena which has made its way into the halls of the democratic party. A 2017 Cato Institute poll found that 52% democrats believe in laws which prevent hate speech.

Unfortunately, “hate speech” is a very ambiguous term and its proponents find themselves on very shaky moral ground when they propose laws which affect it. A proponent of these laws writing for the Washington Post stated that, “there’s no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is.” Another word that could be used for hate speech is speech that you do not like. Because there is no concrete definition, the legislature will be able to define the term in any way that it wishes. This was illustrated in Canada where bill C-16 which deals with gender identity was passed. When asked whether the bill would criminalize the intentional misuse of gender pronouns a Canadian lawyer stated that, “It might.” In fact, because the term “hate speech” is so unspecific, the prosecution of crimes relating to it would probably depend on the attitudes of the judges and the composition of the government rather than reference to concrete rules of conduct. The fact that a professional attorney did not know the actual outcome of the law means that it is left open to interpretation by those in power.

Aside from the term hate speech, the term group is also left open to the interpretation of the legislature. The dictionary definition of hate speech is “speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people.” There is no limit to which humans can be subdivided down into individual groups. It is quite possible that society could devolve into a legal hierarchy of protected classes with a number of unprotected ones whose views were treated as unworthy of expression. It doesn’t take much to recall when liberals were saying that Trump was a racist for connecting crime and illegal immigration despite the fact that he ended the quote with “some, I assume, are good people.” Therefore, it is not hard to imagine that discussions of policy, such as securing the border, that happened to relate to certain groups could be deemed racist.

Other than the obvious problems with defining terms, there is a much more pressing issue with free speech laws which could lead to a very dystopian future. This is the fact that our cultural institutions are under attack. The American Civil Liberties Union, which used to stand up for freedom, stated that America was founded upon white supremacy. As such, the founding documents must also be racist. In the future, it wouldn’t be surprising to find people calling for the censorship of  these documents and people who espouse their beliefs. In fact, if hate speech legislation is passed and found constitutional, there is no rational limit to what can be defined as hate speech, which is something that is admitted by its proponents. Hate speech laws could easily be used to crush the minority into submission so that they accept a new woke agenda.

All that those who scoff at this dark reality need to do is look at the college campuses and the rhetoric that is spouted across the country. They claim that speech is violence and then go on to define racism in the broadest terms possible The founders recognized that men are not angels and that as their governments are not composed of angels, it is fickle to place your trust in them completely. The composition of legislatures changes and parties shift. Not so long ago, Southern Democrats were known as dixiecrats and would have done anything to stifle the freedoms of black people. Mandating violations of free speech would open the door to usurpations of power in corrupt administrations and would allow institutional elites to define terms in any way that they wished so as to stifle opposition to their so-called anti-racist goals. 

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Plato in the School of Athens, by Raphael

A favorite statement by college elites and those they influence is that “all white people are racist.” Despite the absurdity of this claim on its face, it is important not to reject it as the mere ramblings of a large group of discontented people. This phrase is something much more sinister and is a calculated attempt to overthrow the liberties which this country was built upon. In an interview on Michigan Radio, Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility stated that, “Racism comes out of our pores as white people. It’s the way that we are.” If this be the case then society must be torn up at the roots. However, what many people don’t realize is that when they accept this argument, they are de facto accepting tyranny, which is the logical conclusion of the arguments of people like Robin DinAgelo.

Before illustrating the harm which the idea that all white people are racist can cause, it is important to refute the claim altogether as it has no intellectual backing. A study reported on by Vox stated that 5.64 percent of white people in the U.S. have views aligned with the alt-right, which is a racist fringe movement. It is important to note however, that this study was extremely biased and even if the questions asked were answered in the affirmative, racism could not be imputed as a belief of the respondent. The questions asked how important their race was to their identity, whether or not white people should fight laws that were discriminatory towards their race, and if white people felt discrimination. However, even if we take the study at its inaccurate face value, the remaining 94.36 percent of white people are not racist.

As the idea is a natural outgrowth of the belief that all police officers are racist it is important to refute this claim as well. This can be done with relative ease, given that there is virtually no evidence that police kill a disproportionate number of black men. In an extensive study published in the National Academy of Sciences researchers stated that, “in the typical shooting, we did not find evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparity.” Therefore, while racist incidents may happen, they are not tied to any systemic factors within the police departments

The sheer absurdity on the face of the claim that all whites are racist, should alert people that its covert operation is much more important. In Federalist No. 55 Alexander Hamilton writes that,  “As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.” 

Because our form of government and representative democracy itself presuppose these qualities, what is the natural conclusion of the belief that all people are racist? The answer is that our conduct will be controlled by the philosopher kings that Plato imagined in The Republic. This is one of the reasons that elites are so fascinated with this fabled text. They fancy themselves to be the philosopher kings who will bring goodness into our lives. This is illustrated perfectly by Robin DiAngelo who states that, “As a former professor and current facilitator and consultant, I am in a position to give white people feedback on how their unintentional racism is manifesting itself.” Therefore, even though she is white (and therefore an admitted racist), she believes that she has the moral superiority to lecture us on the way in which we live our lives. Besides the sickening self-flattery of this claim, it is undeniably evident that she believes that people like her should run our society for us. If we are all racist then it takes people like her to counteract that evil and build our society anew.

Robin DiAngelo, college elites, and public intellectuals, who espouse the doctrine that all people are racist are in no way virtuous. They are arrogant, self-conceited bullies, who want to cram their ideas down our throats. The easiest way for them to do this is to claim that we are all racist, because who would allow a society of depraved people to vote? Who would allow them to raise their kids in the manner that they wish to? Who would honor their institutions? The natural conclusion of this evil doctrine of intellectual-supremacy is despotism of the few over the many, the erosion of our God-given freedoms, and the usurpation of power by self-styled philosopher kings.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

One of the most widely used measures to subdue rogue countries and bring them into the sphere of normal activity is economic sanctions. These non-violent means of attempting to bring about change are widely used by the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations. Due to the apparent ease with which they can be imposed, they are very popular. However, it is important to remember that these tools are ultimately meant to bring about change in a country and if they don’t have that effect then they are mostly futile. With that being said it is important to understand whether or not sanctions will be effective when dealing with China and its gross violations of human rights.

When looking at whether or not sanctions will be effective it is imperative to avail ourselves of examples in which they have worked or are currently working. One of these places is North Korea. The reason that sanctions are such an effective tool to use against the regime in North Korea is because the people who live there are already living in squalor. Therefore, any additional suffering brought on by the sanctions will not cause the citizens to turn their ire against the U.S. Instead, they will be inclined to blame their leader, because his policies in the past have also led to their suffering.

Another reason why the sanctions against North Korea are correctly applied is because most of the resources of Kim Jong Un’s regime are consolidated at Pyongyang to uphold his rule. Therefore, extensive sanctions must necessarily encroach on the supplies of the capital which is the center of his power. This, coupled with the specific policy goal of stopping nuclear development could eventually induce the regime to give up their weapons.

However, sanctions are not always a feasible option when it comes to punishing countries. In Lebanon, sanctions could have quite the opposite of their intended effect. They have been imposed in order to bring Hezbollah, the regional terrorist group, to its knees. However, Foreign Policy Magazine states that, “the weakening of the state will in no way weaken Hezbollah, which is armed to the teeth and coming off an eight-year adventure in Syria.” Instead, there will be regions of sectarian instability. Hezbollah will then capitalize on this and assert their dominance in the Southern region of the country. Additionally, because the people of Lebanon do not regularly live in third world squalor, the loss of their resources will come as a shock which will drive them into the arms of our enemies.

With this being said, it is important that we do not impose extensive economic sanctions upon China. We should only confine ourselves to sanctioning national security threats such as Huawei. Additionally, we should impose smart sanctions. These types of sanctions are less extensive, cut off key commodities, and are less likely to affect the average Chinese citizens.

However, a more important means of stifling China’s ambition is through our assertion of military predominance. This can first be done by aiding our natural allies in the South China Sea such as Taiwan, with military ships. It would naturally be the next step in stopping what Secretary of Defense Mike Pompeo called, China’s unlawful actions in the South China Sea. Additionally, it is important to enter into formal military alliances with China’s neighbors. This is of the utmost importance, because when combined, Vietnam, Japan, and India (who are all disgruntled by China)  contain more wealth and people than China. This would be a powerful antidote to Chinese dominance in the region.

Another reason for the extreme importance of the military over economic measures is that it would be a huge blow to the prestige of the Chinese government. Chinese citizens will unquestioningly follow their government because it is powerful and they perceive it to be so. Propaganda has been a major focus of the communist party since Mao Zedong took power. He stated that,

 “We should carry on constant propaganda among the people on the facts of world progress and the bright future ahead so that they will build their confidence in victory.” Military measures by the U.S. and powerful allies would certainly dim that confidence.

Extensive economic action would merely drive the Chinese people further into the arms of their government and fuel increased aggression. On the other hand, Military assertions coupled with “smart sanctions” which are less extensive and don’t drastically affect citizens would severely hurt the reputation of the communist party and prevent them from expanding their influence. 

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Photo Attribution: D.A. Peterson / Public domain

Throughout the recent protests and debates over racial inequality in the United States, people on the left side of the aisle have succumbed to an acute case of tunnel vision. To them, race is the only issue right now. Apparently racial issues are so important that the pandemic has receded into nothingness in their wake. Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, decided to march with protesters and not social distance during the recent protests. This was just three days after she stated that, “Outdoor social gatherings and events are permitted so long as people maintain six feet of distance from one another and the assemblage consists of no more than 100 people.” Hypocritically enough, the protests certainly had more than 100 people. Unfortunately, political virtue-signalling will always triumph over rational thinking when it helps a politician get reelected.

However, even though these protests were not well thought out and congregated large numbers of people during a pandemic, pundits and political leaders alike have failed to recognize one of the largest harms that they create. They force us to focus on issues that are peripheral in extent to what we should be facing as a nation.

The U.S. has gone farther than any other country in extending the legacy of freedom to every racial group. Under the law all people are equal. Additionally, when dealing with police there is virtually no evidence that black people are disproportionately shot. If the U.S. is truly a racist place, then how could a majority elect a black president? How is Oprah one of the highest paid celebrities? Why did many universities stop using the SAT to accommodate students of color? Why is the NBA embracing Black Lives Matter? The answer is because most Americans are good-hearted people who don’t care about your race or background. 

That is not to say that racial disparity is not an issue. However, the conversation has become so divisive and destructive that we are ignoring everything else. We are turning a blind eye to other abuses that are so sickening they make radical left wing groups like Black Lives Matter look absurd.

According to Foreign Policy over 1 million Turkic Uighurs are held in prison camps in China. They are sterilized, raped, killed, and tortured in an attempt to expunge their race from Chinese society. Additionally, around 500,000 Muslim children have been separated from their families and are held in Chinese custody. This is real and material racism to the highest degree.

Racism is certainly something we should address in this country, but the conversation has become so radical that no one can agree. The governmental policies in the United States are not perpetuating racism, but work can be done to stop racist incidents from happening in a calm and collected discussion of policy goals. However, the situation has gotten so out of control that college campuses focus on fighting microaggressions and people spend their energy trying to remove statues of Abraham Lincoln. All the while they ignore the fact that Uighur Muslims are being killed in China. In the United States, prosperity has been extended to all groups to a degree unparalleled in human history. Despite this, we are so stuck on inflated issues in our country that we are too selfish to extend that prosperity to others.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Photo Attribution: John Lucia / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)

In an attempt to show how much they care about racial equality many people have chosen to adopt the slogan black lives matter and march at different protests. The slogan is good. Of course black lives matter. We should do the best we can to preserve the lives of people of all racial groups. However, what people often forget is that Black Lives Matter is not just a slogan, it is also a group with extremely radical designs and it is important to distinguish the two. In the famous words of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist No. 1 “Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate on those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question.” These words express precisely the state in which the BLM movement has found itself. It is not and has never been about police violence. Instead, radical politicians use the honorable pretext of racial equality to push forth political agendas that seldom have anything to do with promoting the welfare of the African-American community.

The #blacklivesmatter slogan originated on July 13, 2013 after Trayvon Martin was killed. The hashtag instantly blew up on twitter and has been growing in use ever since. During the recent protests over the killing of Floyd George many wore this slogan in solidarity with the black community.

The organization on the other hand is an entirely different story. They also have another slogan which has caught hold in the wake of recent events; #defundthepolice. This is not a slogan created to call attention to an issue. It is a policy decision this organization actually wants to carry out. However, if they really cared about black lives wouldn’t they want to see more police officers in Chicago to stop minority children from being shot and killed? It appears instead to be an organized attempt at inserting virtue-signalling nonsense into actual political policy. If it were carried out this idea would undoubtedly lead to more black death and the perpetual impoverishment of crime ridden minority areas. It is not an attempt to help black people. Instead, it is an attempt to mobilize a community of people who wish to see the best done for their neighbors by feeding them completely non-evidence based claims to further an agenda.

The cultural revolution that BLM is trying to bring about is also extremely radical and completely unrelated to promoting black life and prosperity. They are attempting to fight “cisgender privilege” and dismantle a Western family structure. None of these goals seems to be in line with an attempt to curb police violence or promote black livelihood. In fact, the reason that so many black people are suffering appears to be caused by them abandoning the Western family structure. A study that was sponsored by the Department of Justice stated that, “ past research on the family structure of a community has revealed father absence to be a consistent and potent predictor of variation in levels of violence across ecological contexts.” The breaking up of the “Western family” has had deleterious effects on the black community as shown by every available metric.

Policy goals in the economic arena have also expanded themselves in a direction that can only be loosely tied to the interests of black people. The Daily Wire recently reported on the Marxist upbringing of the leader of the Los Angeles Black Lives Matter chapter, Dr. Melina Abdullah. This woman wishes to destroy capitalism in order to promote black equality. However, capitalism has probably been the most important factor in lifting up black people. The fact that the government, especially in the South, didn’t control labor can be considered a massive advantage to black people given that they would have faced even more discrimination than was already present. Additionally, in our age which has become more enlightened on race, firms that choose to hire on the basis of race instead of efficiency drift into obsolescence due to the fact that the market naturally tends to promote the most effective workers regardless of race. However Dr. Abdullah believes that police excessive use of force is tied to a defense of the American capitalist order. The complete lack of evidence for this claim illustrates that her fulminations about racism in America seem to be about promoting a utopic agenda instead of one about supporting African-Americans.

The far left activists of the Black Lives Matter movement and those who attach themselves to it are not doing the black community many favors. They have expanded far beyond their supposed mandate of protecting black people from police brutality. Would George Floyd still be here if capitalism was abolished and the government controlled labor? Would Breonna Taylor be here if instead of having a traditional household with two loving parents she was raised by a large community of people? Would less black people die on the streets of Chicago if law enforcement officers were prevented from doing their jobs? The Black Lives Matter Movement doesn’t answer these questions honestly.

 Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Fibonacci Blue from Minnesota, USA / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)

Today, slavery reparations have become a hallmark policy that has been tied up in the democratic agenda for racial equality. CNN recently reported that in the wake of the George Floyd killing, democrats have sponsored a congressional bill to consider reparation payments to African Americans whose ancestors were enslaved. Unfortunately for anyone who supports this bill, they have the burden of proof. This burden of proof lies in them demonstrating three things. First they must prove that we live in a racist system, second they must prove that slave reparations will be helpful in unifying the country racially, and third, they must prove that their plan is feasible and in accordance with the principles of justice.  If any of these things is untrue then their case falls apart.

One concept that people supporting reparations must prove- that the U.S. is a racist system -is very scantily supported by the evidence. Nevertheless, attempts have been made. In the wake of recent police killings leftists have been very eager to capitalize and appeal to people’s emotions in order to get them to believe that an entire organization tasked with keeping peace and order actually promotes violence and oppression. If they have been successful at emotionally persuading people that the police are racist, they have certainly not been successful academically. In fact, the data do not support the contention that the police are racist at all. Statistics reported by the Wall Street Journal show that “a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.” Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a study in which they produced the self-evident findings that the more often police officers are involved in situations with violent suspects in a specific racial group, the more likely it is that members of that racial group will be shot. The study found “no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police.” The fact of the matter is that African-Americans are not being artificially oppressed by systemic barriers such as police bias.

The second proof also falls apart when it is looked into with an unbiased mind. Reparations would not at all help to racially unify the country. In fact, an AP-NORC poll found that only 29% of Americans favor cash reparations. To say that it is unifying to take money away from one group to give to another when 71% of people oppose it is at best, sheer nonsense. Slavery reparations might benefit a certain group in the short term but it might actually have the unfortunate effect of promoting racial animus among those who are forced to pay.

The third and final proof is probably demonstrated the worst. The plan for reparations is in no way in accordance with principles of justice. The idea of justice being done is that you have had an illegal act committed against you and therefore you will receive payment for what has been done to you either by the transgressor of the wrongs or by someone related to the person who transgressed the wrongs. This was the principle behind the most recent reparations to Holocaust survivors that was paid by Germany. A wrong that was committed is rectified by helping those who suffered the wrong not the descendants of those who suffered it.

Aside from the gross distortion of justice, advocates of reparations have also been unable to prove that their plan would be feasible. In order for reparations to work properly the descendants of slave-owners would need to be the ones required to pay. Otherwise descendants of people who were killed fighting to stop slavery would have to pay. What would then be required is a vast database where everyone in the United States was genetically tested to see if any of their ancestors owned slaves. This would be unconstitutional in the highest degree as it would severely encroach upon the privacy  of individuals.

Although advocates of slave reparations may have good intentions they have sorely failed at proving the merits of their case. Their logic is extremely flawed and even if you agree with them in principle, there is no way to effectively carry out their plans. People advocating for this policy have the burden of proof  and if they wish to have their policies accepted they must attempt to fulfill it much more effectively.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Photo Attribution: © Yann Forget / Wikimedia Commons

As China ramps up its aggression on and around the Asian continent it is important for our foreign policy interests to remember that this aggression comes at the cost of making enemies and offending countries. On the Steve Bannon War Room Podcast, Edward Luttwak, a prominent global strategist who has made a living advising governments, said that China has not learned the lesson that the U.S. has; make friends with your neighbors. This has caused many tensions to be exacerbated and turned public opinion against China.  The Wall Street Journal recently reported on a border skirmish between India and China which left 20 Indian soldiers dead. The U.S. should use this opportunity to increase cooperation with China’s most populous neighbor in order to curb Chinese aggression in the region.

Indian-Chinese relations have been fraught with tensions since the time of Mao Zedong. According to Foreign Policy, Mao Zendong and Indian Prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru agreed on a number of issues, but could not settle the border between the two countries. This dispute has continued to this day. However, with the end of the cold war and Western imperialism, India has less of a reason to be well disposed to China. 

Additionally relations between the U.S. and India have been steadily improving since the end of the Cold War. According to the Council on Foreing Relations, a New Defense Framework was agreed upon by the U.S. and India for maritime cooperation and joint naval exercises in 2005. Unfortunately, India is not yet involved in large-scale international military cooperation frameworks such as NATO. However, the benefits of supporting India and making the country a more integral part of our foreign policy are numerous. According to Statista, India had the third largest military expenditure of any country in 2019 which amounted to 71.1 billion dollars. This, coupled with their large population makes them an extremely valuable ally.

In addition to their conflict with China, India has also had a longstanding conflict with Pakistan over their Northwestern border known as Kashmir. Consequently, relations with this country have also been fractious.  This is important, because in 2018 The New York Times reported on a confidential plan between Pakistan and China which would be a part of their Belt and Road initiative. The plan proposed to increase Pakistan’s production of military equipment for China. Given that Pakistan is now extremely close with China it would also make sense for us to support Indian interests in this area of foreign policy as well.

Most importantly, closely allying ourselves with India would not be substituting one tyrannical regime for another. In fact, a Pew Research poll also found that a majority of Indians believe that democratic values including free speech are not stifled within the country. This makes the country a morally attractive state which could be used to defend Western ideals of freedom throughout the region of Asia.

Now, more than ever, it is important to establish deeper economic and especially military ties with India in order to curb Chinese influence in the region of Asia. Policymakers should seize the opportunity to swoop in and appease China’s disgruntled neighbors. Relations with India have been very good and establishing a NATO type military treaty with Asian countries who are worried by China’s hostilities is very important.  This will ensure military balance in the region and create a block of countries in favor of U.S. interests.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Photo Attribution: Ph_general_map.png: Seav (=Eugene Villar)derivative work: Kpjas at pl.wikipedia / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)

There is no doubt that free trade provides enormous benefit to societies, by stimulating foreign investment, ramping up exports, and increasing the amount of goods and services available. That is why economists have been advocating free trade policies since 1776 when Adam Smith produced his landmark book on capitalist economics, The Wealth of Nations. To see this phenomena in action all you need to do is look to the four Asian tigers. Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Singapore. These countries are all extremely wealthy and are hubs for tech and manufacturing. Compared to their other Asian neighbors such as the Philippines, or even China, their standard of living is much higher for all of their citizens. The fact that these countries are so well developed is extraordinary given the fact that they were not at the centers of the European dominated age of industrialization. Their rise to global prominence can be attributed to nothing less than free trade which has bestowed economic well being on every country that it has touched throughout the modern era. 

Despite the benefits, free trade also creates a huge amount of interdependence among countries which is sometimes a dangerous prospect. Given this fact, the outbreak of Covid-19 begs the question; How reliant do we want to be on China? This is a country who is encircling the sovereign country of Taiwan, asserting its power in the South China Sea, and expanding its international possessions so as to increase its global dominance. In fact, the alarms were being raised at the outset of this pandemic that China would block pharmaceuticals to the U.S. of which they control an immense supply. Although they have not directly blocked these goods the New York Times reported that at one point they actually cut off the exportation of face masks. 

Given the fact that the communist regime which holds power in China committed a massacre in Tiananmen Square and prevented its own citizens from spreading the word about the coronavirus it seems extremely short-sighted to place our fate in the hands of  a government hungry for global dominance. The benefits of free trade, as we know, flow both ways, and it is important not to lend our hand to a country who has taken aggressive action against its neighbors and oppressed its citizenry.

After this crisis is behind us it is important that the U.S. stop handing lucrative trade deals to China. According to the World Bank China has 373 million people living below $5.50 a day despite the fact that they have the second largest economy in the world. This extremely low level of income seems incompatible with the size of the Chinese economy.

The U.S. should instead move a majority of its manufacturing plants to the Philippines which will provide the benefits that come along with cheaper goods as well as curb China’s regional power. The Philippines is a perfect candidate for setting up U.S. owned factories, due to the fact that according to the World Bank they have a very stable economy which was previously expected to grow 6.1% in 2020 and 6.2% in 2021. This economic stability is an extremely important indicator of political stability which is a necessary prerequisite for any investment within a region. 

Additionally, it is important not to give trade deals to countries who let their citizens live in squalor such as China does. The Philippines would also alleviate this moral issue associated with free trade, because of their concern for the quality of life of their citizens. In fact, the Philippines has actually promoted overseas employment since the 1970s in order to increase the economic well being of its citizens, despite the obvious effect of brain waste which causes highly skilled workers to leave the country. This has made overseas remittances an integral part of the country as about 10% of the  population works abroad.

The benefits both morally and politically of moving manufacturing operations to a less aggressive Asian country are numerous. By providing the Philippines instead of China with trade deals, we would alleviate the potential of China using its economic power to cut off valuable supplies to us and we would illustrate to them that we do not support their aggression in the South China Sea. We would also provide a country who has been struggling to provide for its citizens with economically beneficial industries that would alleviate poverty in the region and prevent worker exploitation.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Photo Attribution: This photo is a work of the U.S. federal govt. and in the public domain

With the outbreak of the novel coronavirus and the loss of almost all economic gains made under President Trump, many people are rightfully rethinking their decision on who to vote for in the upcoming election. However, it is important that we as voters do not vote for an opposing candidate for the simple reason that we don’t like the other one. If you don’t look at things carefully you may end up with someone even worse. With that being said we should compare President Trump’s response to the coronavirus to the hypothetical response of democratic frontrunner Joe Biden before we make our decision on who to vote for.

Joe Biden has claimed to be the hero America needs on the covid-19 issue. He has no doubt engaged in a huge amount of politicization of this pandemic and argued that he would be better equipped to address this issue. Additionally he has outlined a plan which he believes would stop the pandemic. However, when one goes over its contents, it is extremely similar to the actions which have already been taken by President Trump. On Joe Biden’s campaign page his plan for the coronavirus includes mortgage and rental relief, employer assistance for job maintenance, interest free loans to small businesses, providing needed jobs, and cash assistance or targeted refundable tax relief. His plan for alleviating burdens on the health side of the equation include making tests available to all and providing a number of makeshift hospitals.

This sounds extremely similar to the measures taken by President Trump. As reported by the New York Times, President Trump has asked Congress to pass funds to provide 500 billion dollars to give directly to taxpayers and early on he ordered federal agencies to prevent foreclosures and eviction before April is over. He also deployed two military hospital ships which is exactly in line with Biden’s proposal to increase the amount of makeshift hospitals. Additionally, he has utilized wartime laws to his advantage to increase production of medical supplies and has been working to increase the number of tests available. All of these actions fall directly in line with what presidential candidate Joe Biden has proposed which suggest that they are more unified on this issue than one might expect. 

If you are unhappy with the way this virus has been handled as many voters probably are, it is important to keep in mind that voting for the other side will not always garner you the results you are looking for. If anything, the response to the coronavirus of President Trump and the proposed response of Joe Biden should be a wake up call to the American people that we can not put all of our trust in politicians to keep us safe. We need to rely on reporting, science, and our best judgement. Freedom comes at the cost of knowledge and if we are not willing to accept that cost then we will have professional bureaucrats such as these making our decisions for  us. 

Instead of voting on the covid-19 response we should instead look to the future and vote for whoever we think will provide us with the best shot at recovery. The politicians have played their part, but now it’s up to them to let the market do its job.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood