HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_032198.jpg
2.62 MB
Extraction Summary
5
People
0
Organizations
10
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Page from a political analysis book or report
File Size:
2.62 MB
Summary
This document discusses the contrast between Western political philosophy and Asian ideologies, specifically Confucianism, arguing that the latter prioritizes order and community over individual freedom. It explores the moral complexity of autocratic regimes in Asia that have delivered significant economic growth, citing Deng Xiaoping's transformation of China as a primary example of a "good dictator" despite human rights abuses.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mill | ||
| Berlin | ||
| Mubarak | ||
| Ben Ali | ||
| Deng Xiaoping |
Timeline (1 events)
Tiananmen Square atrocity
Locations (10)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
Relationships (2)
→
helped perpetrate
→
→
stand in opposition to
→
Key Quotes (3)
"The Western—and particularly the American—tendency is to be suspicious of power and central authority; whereas the Asian tendency is to worry about disorder."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_032198.jpg
Quote #1
"But is a chaotic democracy better than the rule of autocrats who have overseen GDP growth rates of 10 percent annually over the past three decades?"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_032198.jpg
Quote #2
"Deng Xiaoping... was, despite the atrocity of Tiananmen Square that he helped perpetrate, one of the great men of the twentieth century."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_032198.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,068 characters)
28
current headlines, begin with the Arab world, but the answers such as
there are will, nevertheless, ultimately come in from the East. It is in
those Asian lands that conventional Western philosophical precepts
are challenged. The ideology by which Asian autocrats stand in
opposition to the likes of Mill and Berlin falls—to some extent—
under the rubric of Confucianism. Confucianism is more a sensibility
than a political doctrine. It stresses traditional authority, particularly
that of the family, as the sine qua non of political tranquility. The
well-being of the community takes precedence over that of the
individual. Morality is inseparable from one’s social obligation to the
kin group and the powers that be. The Western—and particularly the
American—tendency is to be suspicious of power and central
authority; whereas the Asian tendency is to worry about disorder.
Thus, it is in Asia, much more so than in the Middle East, where
autocracy can give the Western notion of freedom a good run for its
money. The fact that even a chaotic democracy is better than the rule
of a Mubarak or a Ben Ali proves nothing. But is a chaotic
democracy better than the rule of autocrats who have overseen GDP
growth rates of 10 percent annually over the past three decades? It is
in places like China, Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam where good
dictators have produced economic miracles. These in turn have led to
the creation of wide-ranging personal freedoms, even as these leaders
have compelled people against their will on a grand scale. Here the
debate gets interesting.
Indeed, probably one of the most morally vexing realizations in the
field of international politics is that Deng Xiaoping, by dramatically
raising the living standard of hundreds of millions of Chinese in such
a comparatively short space of time—which, likewise, led to an
unforeseen explosion in personal freedoms across China—was,
despite the atrocity of Tiananmen Square that he helped perpetrate,
one of the great men of the twentieth century. Deng’s successors,
there are will, nevertheless, ultimately come in from the East. It is in
those Asian lands that conventional Western philosophical precepts
are challenged. The ideology by which Asian autocrats stand in
opposition to the likes of Mill and Berlin falls—to some extent—
under the rubric of Confucianism. Confucianism is more a sensibility
than a political doctrine. It stresses traditional authority, particularly
that of the family, as the sine qua non of political tranquility. The
well-being of the community takes precedence over that of the
individual. Morality is inseparable from one’s social obligation to the
kin group and the powers that be. The Western—and particularly the
American—tendency is to be suspicious of power and central
authority; whereas the Asian tendency is to worry about disorder.
Thus, it is in Asia, much more so than in the Middle East, where
autocracy can give the Western notion of freedom a good run for its
money. The fact that even a chaotic democracy is better than the rule
of a Mubarak or a Ben Ali proves nothing. But is a chaotic
democracy better than the rule of autocrats who have overseen GDP
growth rates of 10 percent annually over the past three decades? It is
in places like China, Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam where good
dictators have produced economic miracles. These in turn have led to
the creation of wide-ranging personal freedoms, even as these leaders
have compelled people against their will on a grand scale. Here the
debate gets interesting.
Indeed, probably one of the most morally vexing realizations in the
field of international politics is that Deng Xiaoping, by dramatically
raising the living standard of hundreds of millions of Chinese in such
a comparatively short space of time—which, likewise, led to an
unforeseen explosion in personal freedoms across China—was,
despite the atrocity of Tiananmen Square that he helped perpetrate,
one of the great men of the twentieth century. Deng’s successors,
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_032198
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document