What if there had been no bailout and no stimulus? What if
China had not instituted the one-child policy? What if, each time I criticized
Barack Obama or Deng Xiaoping for their part in those actions, I were required
to imagine the consequences of their not being done, or to say what I would
have done at the time?
Yesterday I heard, probably on CNBC, the 553rd Republican
complain that the bailout or the stimulus had failed and on the same day read
in the Economist (7-23-11) that the one-child policy had had oh-so-many bad
effects. The politician did not say what, in his mind, would constitute
success, or how he, at the time, would have put us on the road to it. The
journalist said nothing about the bad effect, over-population, that the
one-child policy was designed to counter, and did not consider what a
multi-child China might now look like.
Reviewing world events is like reading a novel: we can do it
sharply or dully. Dull readers of Billy
Budd see Billy hanged and say, "Oh this is unbearable! This good man!
These cruel men!" Sharp readers see Captain Vere hanging Billy and say,
"This is unbearable! This good man! This world where choice is so limited
and good men have to be so
cruel!"
Captain Vere hangs Billy in order to prevent a mutiny. It's
a choice that can be justified only by the closest attention to Melville's
world, a world in which England's victory over Napoleonic France depends on
such choices, however multiple. Sharp readers ask, "What if Billy had not
been hanged?" They answer, "England would be defeated." They
visualize that defeat and don't want it. They sympathize with Vere. Dull
readers deplore Vere's actions and go no further.
No comments:
Post a Comment