Leithart on China: He Probably Speaks for Many

Peter J. Leithart is a Biblical scholar widely respected and read by people from all camps of the Church, conservative, liberal, and moderate. Few of his blog posts deal with political issues, like this one, where he shows no restraint.

There’s an argument to be made that his negative reaction Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statements in China isn’t really a political pronouncement either. Instead, I see him playing the role played by prophets in ancient Israel: speaking truth to power, demanding that those in power consider what is just. Clinton’s statements ignore the call of justice altogether.

In expressing disappointment that the US Secretary of State doesn’t want little things like the Chinese government’s massive human rights abuses, repression, or persecution of people for their religious views, get in the way of Chinese investment in the US, Leithart is not just expressing a view held by millions of Americans who don’t like the regime in Beijing. He’s also speaking of for millions for whom the Biblical call to justice, whether in ensuring equality here at home or abroad, is deeply important, be they liberal, conservative, or moderate.

I hope that someone points out to our Secretary of State that it was primarily to keep business flowing–the apparent touchstone of her policy toward China–that a guy by the name of Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia away to Hitler. That didn’t turn out very well.

Every US administration since that of Richard Nixon has, more or less, sucked up to the tyrants in Beijing. The Chinese, as a result, may have a bit more money in their pockets, but they’re no more free and we in the US have lost two things: the moral high ground and an economy unencumbered by a malevolent, amoral regime that cares nothing for human life.

Clearly, the US government cannot and should not go out of its way to pick fights with Beijing. We must cultivate as positive a relationship as possible without earning the enmity of future generations of Chinese who will, inevitably, throw off the shackles of the current regime. (We must also work to contain the Chinese government and its political, economic, and military aspirations to dominate Asia, the Pacific, and the US by working mightily on our relationships with Japan and India.) But statements like those made by Clinton in China would seem to make the US a co-conspirator with the Beijing thugs. That’s not change anyone can believe in!

Let’s hope that the new President will hear the voices of people like Leithart and change his Secretary of State’s mind on China.

[This is being crossposted on my personal blog.]

2 Responses to “Leithart on China: He Probably Speaks for Many”

1. greenschemes says:

   February 22, 2009 at 3:21 pm

   Yesterday, Hillary Clinton disappointed human rights activists by degrading the role of human rights issues in her discussions with Chinese. Differences on human rights will not, she said, interfere with the common interests of the US and China.

   Today, she commends the Chinese for bailing out the US by continuing to buy Treasury bonds.

   This is EXACTLY why Clinton is in China. TO BEG FOR MORE MONEY as our democratic buddies run amuck.
2. Don Quijote says:

   February 22, 2009 at 8:21 pm

   he moral high ground and an economy unencumbered by a malevolent, amoral regime that cares nothing for human life.

   People who live in glass houses should no throw stones…

   War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

   I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

   I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

   There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

   It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

   I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

   I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

   During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

   Smedley D Butler