Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Putting the World to Rights
NRO ^ | April 04, 2006 | John Derbyshire

Posted on 04/04/2006 10:15:25 AM PDT by neverdem

E-mail Author

Author Archive

Send

to a Friend

Version

11:32 a.m.

Putting the World to Rights

My 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica lists 152 countries in the world. Question: How many of those countries made it from 1911 to today, nearly a century later, with their systems of government and law intact (allowing for minor constitutional adjustments like expansion of the franchise), without having suffered revolution, civil war, major dismemberment, or foreign occupation?

I’ll stand open to correction here, but I make it six: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.S.A. Not even Britain qualifies, because of the secession of the Republic of Ireland, nearly 30 percent of the area of the 1911 United Kingdom. (There are a scattering of marginal cases you might lawyer into the list, South Africa for example, but I’m going to apply a strict standard.)

Plainly a person alive in 1911 who wished to see his nation get clear through to 2006 without suffering any of the above-mentioned traumas needed to be a citizen of either one of the big British-settler nations or a smallish, out-of-the-way European country speaking mainly some language of the Germanic family and having a name beginning “Sw — .“

I mention this only to point out that while it is certainly true, as Adam Smith said, that “there is a deal of ruin in a nation,” it is also true that the modern age has offered a deal of opportunities for nation-ruination, albeit often of only a temporary kind. To put it another way: To get a nation up and running under a stable, modern constitution and legal system, and to keep the whole thing on the tracks for a few decades, is no mean feat. If you are not an Anglo-Saxon nation, in fact, it needs something close to a miracle.

These thoughts came to mind as I was reading the leader article on the recent fuss over illegal immigration in my current (4/1/06) issue of The Economist.

[F]aster economic growth in Mexico would do more than any legislative fix to take the heat out of America's immigration argument.

When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into force in 1994, it was hoped that Mexico's economy would quickly converge with the United States. That hasn't happened. In the late 1990s, Mexico's GDP grew half as fast again as America's. No longer. China has partly displaced Mexico as a supplier of low-wage manufacturing. Nowadays, Mexico creates decent jobs for only around a quarter of the 800,000 who join its workforce each year.

The main way to change that is for Mexico's next president, who will be elected in July, to push through long-delayed reforms of taxes, energy, labour and competition laws. But there is one way the United States could help. Lack of roads and railways mean that the benefits of NAFTA have been largely confined to northern Mexico, rather than the poorer centre and south where most migrants come from. A North American infrastructure fund — in which the United States matched Mexican investment — makes much more sense than spending money on a border wall. In the long run, a richer Mexico means a richer and more secure United States.

Now, The Economist is an open-borders magazine, a thing which, if you didn’t already know it, you would quickly glean from their “news” story on the immigration fight in this same issue. The story quotes open-borders advocate Tamar Jacoby with approval, and refers to Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, who wants current laws enforced, as a “rabble-rouser.” The Economist is also, of course, a magazine with a strong tilt towards economics, and thus a tendency towards “economism” — the idea that all the world’s affairs are driven by economic factors, and that nothing else matters much. With that mindset, it is natural to think: “If the Mexican economy could just be fixed, the problem would be solved!” Which might actually be true.

But who is going to fix Mexico’s economy? Why, Uncle Sam — who else? That was the point where I covered my face with my hands and groaned. Not only do we have a mission to lick Iraq into constitutional shape, we also have to put Mexico’s economy right! Any other countries need us to straighten them out?

And why, in any case, is Mexico’s economy in such bad shape? Mexico is a big country, rich in natural resources, entirely in charge of its own affairs for 185 years. Its people are, as the advocates of illegal immigration never cease to remind us, enterprising and industrious. So... why is Mexico so darn poor, with a median income only one-sixth of ours? The standard Mexican and guilty-American-liberal answer is some variant of the one given to P. J. O’Rourke in Holidays in Hell: “Because, Señor, you yanquis stole half our country — the half with all the good roads!”

The real answer is that Mexico is poor because Mexico has lousy government — corrupt, lawless, and dysfunctional. But why is that? Why, in fact, do most of the countries in the world have such poor government? The usual answer is “culture.” But what does that mean? Why do people here organize their affairs like this, while people there organize their affairs like that? To say “because they have different cultures” doesn’t really get us anywhere. It just restates the fact. Why do they have different cultures? As an engineer would say: What are the upstream variables? And even within the constraints of culture, can’t people change their politics from bad (nation-impoverishing) to good (nation-enriching)? The politics of 1930 Japan and the politics of 1960 Japan were both “very Japanese” culture-wise, but they don’t otherwise bear much resemblance. Could not Mexico, or Iraq, likewise move to rational, transparent, honest governance? Without the inconvenience of having two atom bombs dropped on them? (Amartya Sen takes a swing at “the illusion of cultural destiny” in Opinion Journal... though please note that Sen is another economist).

I don’t, of course, know the answers to any of these questions, and neither does anyone else. Perhaps the human sciences, which are advancing very rapidly in the relevant areas, will give us some clues in the next few years. Until they do, though, all we can really say is that stable consensual government is hard to get and hard to keep. To stake our own nation — its prospects, its security, its economy — on our ability to create good government in foreign places, close or far, is unwise. Let’s look to our own affairs, and do what’s best for our own people, without any illusions that we have the knowledge, or the power, to put the whole world to rights.


 

 
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200604041132.asp
     



TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Business/Economy; Canada; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Germany; Government; Mexico; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: derbyshire; economy; illegalaliens; illegalimmigration; immigrantlist; immigration; immigrationlist; johnderbyshire; marxist; mexico; oil

1 posted on 04/04/2006 10:15:27 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
The Hispanic Challenge (To America) A MUST READ Samuel Huntington (Long But Good)

The Mexicans are unlike previous immigrants. This definitely needs to be read by everyone at least once! It should be linked on pertinent immigration threads. Here's an interesting link about Samuel Huntington:

"Strangely enough, despite the fact that he was buddies with Henry Kissinger at Harvard, he is registered as a member of the Democratic Party, and has written foreign policy speeches for Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, and Jimmy Carter."


2 posted on 04/04/2006 10:17:49 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
the idea that all the world’s affairs are driven by economic factors, and that nothing else matters much.

I believe Karl Marx had a similar worldview.

3 posted on 04/04/2006 10:18:32 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; King Prout; ..
devil's advocate ping

hey, y'all - please see post #484

The Threat of an Avian Flu Pandemic is Over-Hyped Michael Fumento, definitely worth the read!

4 posted on 04/04/2006 10:31:45 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
So, "patriotism", and "trditional American vaues", are harmful to their communities, huh? Well then, I would suggest that those communities have no business being in America or wanting to be considered in any way shape or form, American.

...and that's exactly what we want our representtives to put forward.

5 posted on 04/04/2006 10:39:12 AM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
A quibble re the Brittanica:

Like most folks, including myself in the past, Mr. Derbyshire confuses the edition(the 11th), with the year of publication, 1910.

In any event, it is a necessary element of a useful library, providing as it does a pre-WWI benchmark of human civilization.

I always have at least one volume on the go!

6 posted on 04/04/2006 10:46:10 AM PDT by headsonpikes (Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
“Because, Señor, you yanquis stole half our country — the half with all the good roads!”

LOL, but true in the world's view. Sooner or later, it always gets around to 'it's the Americans' fault'!

7 posted on 04/04/2006 11:01:13 AM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Why do they have different cultures? As an engineer would say: What are the upstream variables?

Seems, as a general rule of thumb, that where the Spanish colonized, they didn't leave behind very good governmental systems. Same with the French. The British on the other hand.....

8 posted on 04/04/2006 11:04:34 AM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

I pointed that out to an Argentine friend of mine some time back. he was lamenting the fact that no latin nation could seem to form and keep a stable relatively honest government for any reasonable length of time. I pointed out that as a general rule, Spanish culture is prone to authoritarian rule by the "uniformed man on the white horse". There is absolutely no tradition of the middle class entrepeneur and everyone expects the government to be the source of all wealth. Laws are changed at the whim of the ruling party, so a stable rule of law does not exist. Everyone exists to rip as much as he can from someone else, preferrably through the government.

At first he was so pissed at me who got up and left. A couple of days later he came to me and apologized, saying that a couple of days of thinking about my comments made him see I was right. Even his nation with a lot of immigration from England, the dominant Spanish culture trumped. In every Latin nation, there is a history of military intervention in the government when things get too bad, only to create a new bunch of kleptocrats.

As far as I can see, only Costa Rica and Chile have broken from this mold. Personally, I think that the only thing that can save Mexico is for them to be conquered or absorbed by the US. In 10 years it would be a wealthy set of states.


9 posted on 04/04/2006 11:38:42 AM PDT by nuke rocketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; ...
Brothers in Christ

The Socialist influence in Mexico

CRISTEROS   VIVA CRISTO REY

10 posted on 04/04/2006 11:42:58 AM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Interesting. But the beauty of numbers game is that anybody can play it.

Derb's starting point of pre-WWI is a good one. But let's look to the trends. There are more free countries now than ever. There is a definite trend toward democratization (that is not just voting as we all know). Another major time-point is WWII: if we look into the last 50 years - a much larger percentage of countries pass the Derb's test. (Too early to say maybe, but lacking a worldwide cataclysm, its how it gonna stay).

He makes a point that its hopeless to try to build free countries because its unpredictable; and that there was something in the Anglo-Saxons' tradition that allowed them to stay free. Fair enough, but  I think its less unpredictable now because Anglo-Saxons did share their tradition with the world and the global trend toward freedom is observable fact. I'd say that the great generation that helped Japan, Germany, Italy, and South Korea had much more uncertainty in front of them as measured by today's standards (its good they had their own). Where we are indeed in disadvantage is that we lack their self-assurance that their (our) way is the right way and ability to commit to it.

Patience, please!

PS: see very interesting site of R.J. Rummel, a Freedomist, who defends with numbers the idea that power kills and the road to the peace lays through democratization: http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP.CLOCK.HTM:

Democratic Peace Clock years 1900 and 1950 Democratic Peace Clock year 2000

 

11 posted on 04/04/2006 11:58:34 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; Tolik

Thanks for the links.

I think democratic capitalism seems fairly tenuous overall, even in the Anglosphere. Populism and socialism has made a lot of recent progress, e.g. France, Spain, Bolivia, Brazil, Hamas, not to mention stuff of the La Raza type.


12 posted on 04/04/2006 12:26:36 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Excellent article. I agree 100%. Derb is by far my favorite columnist. Thanks for posting!
13 posted on 04/04/2006 7:22:54 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nuke rocketeer
As far as I can see, only Costa Rica and Chile have broken from this mold.

Spain's been doing okay, too. Seems like Latin nations need a Pinocet or Franco to set the straight before they become capable of modernity.

14 posted on 04/04/2006 7:32:40 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
Derb's starting point of pre-WWI is a good one. But let's look to the trends. There are more free countries now than ever. There is a definite trend toward democratization (that is not just voting as we all know).

The "trend" you proport to be identifying was more like two leaps. One was immediately post-WW2, and the other was the fall of the Soviet Union. Other than that, there's been very little progress.

15 posted on 04/04/2006 7:35:58 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson