Tik Tok

China is a real geopolitical threat because of Xi.

TikTok is Chinese owned and the potential for data mining is real. But Washington’s reflex has been fear mongering rather than analysis; turning a genuine security concern into an excuse for domestic control.

Technological advances have always favored tyrants, so we are right to be circumspect. But there is a very dangerous expansion of US governmental powers in the vague language of the Restrict Act. We have been here before and should recognize the clear and present danger in this proposed legislation: it is just as odious as the Patriot Act.[1]

Legislation predicated on fear is never prudent.

Under the Act, the Department of Commerce would identify and ban information and communications technology products that a foreign adversary has any interest in, or poses an unacceptable risk to national security. The current list of “foreign adversaries” includes China (as well as Hong Kong); Cuba; Iran; North Korea; Russia, and Venezuela. That list can change without new legislation by administrative fiat.

Protecting US interests is critical and restricting our governmental use and purchase of products and services from foreign adversaries should be a given. We shouldn’t be buying chips produced or software developed in China for use in governmental or military applications – clearly. But allowing the government to regulate and punish (with 20 years jail time!) its citizens who use these platforms and technology is a brazen over-reach.

I fear that the legislation will in fact be enacted.

Why do people forget the very purpose of the Constitution was to limit governmental powers and not enumerate them? True leadership is needed to avoid trying to solve problems with legislation. The Founders knew the frailty of human nature and built safe guards within the framework. Yet from the beginning we have chipped away at those bedrock restraints, usually in the name of safety or virtue.

My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position [imposing “the good”] would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock

Too many historians of American politics laud the ambitious moralists without understanding the damage done. FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society expanded governmental power to its current near-regulatory omnipotence.

Just read closely the implications of Wickard v. Filburn. The Commerce clause and the Department of Commerce is perhaps the single most powerful legislative arm the US government has in controlling the behavior of its citizens.

Tremble before Leviathan.

_____________________

With serendipitous timing, I decided to re-watch Rising Sun (1993) with Sean Connery and Wesley Snipes. I had forgotten the plot of the movie which is boiler-plate detective but is worth watching because it shows the importance of understanding cultural nuance, and more importantly, memorializes American fears about Japan in the early 90s.

The story revolves around an apparent murder connected to the Nakamoto corporation which is in the midst of sensitive negotiations for the acquisition of an American semiconductor company. The acquisition requires Congressional approval and after the murder, a key Senator – who was a guest at the party – abruptly changes his stance and signals he is now in favor of approving the sale. The game is afoot!

The parallels to our current concerns about China are striking. In the early 90s, Japan proved its industrial prowess – dominating (and decimating) US production in several sectors: primarily automotive and consumer electronics. (The movie also highlights early video imaging and editing technology – a key plot device that should heighten concerns on current AI capabilities.)

The political fears were palpable – three Republican members of the House destroyed a boombox in chambers in protest of Toshiba indirectly selling sensitive technology to USSR. The Coming War with Japan (1991) predicted the inevitability of a shooting war with Japan.

None of these fears materialized. Although Japan was running a mammoth trade surplus in 1993, that was no guarantee of economic success and in fact their domestic bubble was about to burst.

Although he doesn’t address the US fears of Japan (including Clinton’s hot-mic bashing) in the early 90s, Peter Zeihan provides a concise summary of the current state of relations between Japan and the US. Japan’s challenge to the US economy was brief and unsustainable, and more significantly, Japan now clearly understands its dependence upon the US.

Given this historical arc, does that mean our current fear of China is overblown? No – precisely because Xi has consolidated power in manner no Japanese minister ever could. A totalitarian concentration of power makes the entire nation state subject to Xi’s whims and makes his flunkies dangerously skittish. Until the people can assert their agency, China will remain an unpredictable but very real threat.

__________________________

__________________________

[1] I hate politicians precisely because of their dissembling character. In a hasty response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress enacted “The USA Patriot Act: Preserving Life and Liberty.” Like most legislation, its title promised what its text revoked. The liberty of US citizens was trampled and the lives of suspect terrorists were made forfeit at the whim of US presidents. Bush II at least had vengeance as an excuse (petty as it was), but Obama – who won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” (farce!) – happily renewed this travesty of law under the new sobriquet “The USA Freedom Act.” Legislation he as a Senator railed against, he endorsed when it was his turn to wield its power – and using it drastically more often than Bush II. So much for international diplomacy. Watch Judge Napolitano and spend An Evening with him.