Jonah Goldberg: Maybe liberty isn’t a lost cause in China |
Featured Commentary

Jonah Goldberg: Maybe liberty isn’t a lost cause in China

Jonah Goldberg
Bloomberg photo by Qilai Shen
A Chinese national flag flies as a man uses a smartphone in Shanghai, China.

Here’s a crazy idea: Maybe the forces of liberty will win.

Sadly, few people are rooting for liberty these days, and even among those who are, there’s a dismaying amount of pessimism about its prospects.

Consider China.

There’s a new bipartisan consensus these days: The “elites” made a “bad bet” on China.

We were told by “elites” that giving China access to the global marketplace would deliver huge economic benefits for America. Simultaneously, economic liberalization in China would lead to political liberalization. After all, the history of democratization usually begins with growing prosperity. As the middle class gets richer, it demands rights and protections once enjoyed only by aristocrats — i.e., political representation and the rule of law. This is how liberal democracy emerged in England and Holland in the 16th and 17th centuries, and in much of the rest of the free world since then. The same will happen in China, policymakers said. And since democratic societies tend not to go to war with each other, American and global security will improve.

And now, today’s elites insist that it was all false.

While it’s true that the benefits were oversold and the costs minimized, it’s not clear to me that any of these claims are settled.

On the economic front, plenty of studies show that Americans benefited from increased trade with China. Consumer goods got cheaper. Yes, America lost some manufacturing jobs to China — though it almost certainly lost more to robots. But competition with China also yielded more hiring of Americans in non-manufacturing jobs, a much larger part of our economy. Perhaps this painful transition was necessary and inevitable. (For those interested, Duke Law School’s Scott Lincicome authored an excellent survey of the economic literature at the Bulwark in January.)

In short, the economic argument is a mixed bag. Though the fact that hundreds of millions of Chinese people were lifted out of abject poverty — by markets — is a moral victory for humanity and an important demonstration of the fact that police states alone don’t make life better for the policed.

Which brings us to freedom. Beijing remains stubbornly — and by some measures, increasingly — authoritarian.

China is in a nationalist phase, just as Germany, France, Italy and other former or would-be Great Powers were on their way to democracy. That poses very real dangers to the global order in the same way the nationalist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries did. Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm wanted what he called a “place in the sun” for the German empire, and so did Adolf Hitler. Chinese leader Xi Jinping wants it, too.

Whether it was a young political scientist named Woodrow Wilson hailing Otto von Bismarck’s authoritarian Prussia as the most “admirable system …and most nearly perfected” in the world, or Lincoln Steffens claiming upon his return from Soviet Russia that he’d “seen the future, and it works,” or New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wishing that America could learn from China’s “one party authoritarianism,” virtually every time nationalist and authoritarian regimes seize the reins, countless Western intellectuals became convinced that a better, more “efficient” model of government had been created.

As George Orwell observed, this sort of thinking amounts to power- worship, and this mindset leads people to think that current trends will only continue in a straight line into the future.

But that’s not how the last three centuries have gone. Power-hungry experts love to tell us freedom has had its day, yet liberty keeps winning. The freedom fighters in 2019 Hong Kong may meet the same fate that the protestors in Tiananmen Square did in 1989. But that doesn’t mean they’ll be remembered as victims of a lost cause. Rather, they might be remembered as proof that liberty can win in the long run, when people fight for it.

The great lie about China wasn’t that good things would come from its enrichment, but that the good things would be instantaneous — and easy. Liberty is never easy. It takes work.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.