Saturday, June 11, 2011

Reforming US and China: The Case of Obama vs. Deng

Reforming US and China: Obama vs. Deng

OBAMA THE REFORMER
President Obama was elected on a platform of radical- economic, political, social, and in time cultural - changes.

Thus far, Obama appears to be serving up much of the same policies as Bush did – protective of the financial industry, aggressive on the anti-terrorism front and dismissive of citizens’ rights, etc.

One of the major complaints with the democratic party base is that Obama has not kept faith with his campaign promise of being ideological pure as a reform leader

A closer look at Obama’s legislative performance and policy actions show that he has been working slowly but methodological, in principle minded and disciplined ways, to advance his agenda; to bring about changes in America, from the bottoms up. The more noteworthy achievements are: the health care reform (much diluted), military withdrawals (much delayed) and legalize anti-terror fights (much compromised).

The question remains, why did President not act in a more resolute, speedy, and radical, or more simply, ideological way to change America in a more fundamental way. As a result, Obama looks weak and indecisive.

The answer is a simple one: as a person Obama holds admirable ideals, as a President Obama is acting pragmatically.

This commentary offers up another way of looking at Obama’s (lack of) performance in office. It argues that before we judge Obama, weak or strong, successful or unsuccessful, we should compare Obama with one of the most successful reformer in the world, i.e., that of Deng Xiaoping of China.

DENG AS A REFORMER
Deng Xiaoping, the putative father of Chinese reform, is credited with transforming China from a primitive economy to a developed one.

In terms of historical background, PRC governance is ideologically anchored, centrally planned, and personality driven. The Chinese modernization reform has effectively destroyed Communist ideology, eroding Party leadership and diminishing personality cult in the process.

The ideology and leadership void left by Mao is filled by Deng Xiaoping’s thought. Deng Xiaoping’s thought provided direction, e.g., securing “people democratic dictatorship” (“renmin minzhu zhuanzheng”), inspiration, e.g., reforming through “liberating the mind” (“jiefang sixiang”), doctrine, e.g., social reconstruction by “progressive policy decision making” (“jian jin juece”), and methods, e.g., hold elected officials accountable to “mass line” (“qunzhong luxian”). Specifically, Deng advocates "building socialism with Chinese characteristics".

Other relevant Deng’s doctrines guiding reform include: “emancipation of the mind” (from old) and “seeks truth from facts” (to new) to liberate new China from the stricture of old ideology in search of new ideas of all kinds, “democratic dictatorship” to put class enemies in check, “crossing the river by touching the stones” in calling for incremental and experimental reform, and “white cat, black cat, and the one that catch the mice is a cat” to conduct reform with pragmatism, i.e., by result.

In pursuing reform, Deng sought radical departure from old way of thinking and doing and preached bold new approaches to established ways and means.

Deng is a doer, not thinker. He is a consummate politician, not a romantic ideologue. He is a practitioner, not theoretician. Deng articulated a number of ideas on how to reform China, but offered no comprehensive theory or master plan to achieved them. In this, Deng is a pragmatist not an ideologue.

Except for insisting on stability and dictatorship, Deng’s theory of reform is open to all kinds of ideas and willing to experiment with anything that might work. Deng’s lack of ideological interest and attachment to pragmatic practices leaves the people in the dark as to what to expect, other than love the Party and money talks.

Deng’s reform policy, justified on pragmatic grounds, is not properly anchored ideologically or clearly explained theoretically. It is difficult to comprehend, still more to apply in practice. This has led a Chinese observer to observe, “In the case of contemporary China, the regime’s ideology is bankrupt. The transition from a socialist to a quasi market economy has created a great deal of social unrest. And the regime relies heavily on coercion to repress political and religious dissent.”

Thus, one of the more challenging problems confronting and confounding Chinese reformers is in seeking an understanding of what “socialism with Chinese Characteristics” portents and entails, in theory and practice. This creates problems in planning and implementing, researching and validating, explaining and understanding, assessing and improving Chinese reform.

OBAMA AND DENG COMPARED
As far as bringing about changes to America, Obama acts more like Deng, than Bush (single minded (America right or wrong), narrow perspective (do not read newspaper, I do not discuss invading Iraq with my father on earth, but father in heave), dogmatic personality ("I am the decider", inflexible approach (no precondition to negotiation with Korea).

Obama as with Deng speaks the language of an ideologue but act the role of a pragmatist: making changes incrementally, experimentally, and above all else with stability and continuity in mind. Compromise is the game, concession is the rule, and middle ground is the objective.

As reformers, Deng and Obama understand, people love to dream big (to have hope), thus talking up ideology is as important in China (socialism) as in the United States (democracy).

But Deng and Obama also understand, perhaps more so Deng than Obama, people everywhere need bread and butter (“minsheng” in China or a "good life" in the US ) more so than democracy and rights; what good is having rights when people do not have a job.

If you are a social scientist, seeking to proof “good life” is more important than “right governance” you do not need to go too far:

People in China want to be a Party member less (or not) so because they believe in the socialist cause but because being a Party member provides them with power and with it money (corruption).

Turning to America, people in the street know at heart that all the talk about ideology (democracy and equal rights) does not hold up against the reality of the market economy

People need a job for survival. People rarely need the government to do things for them; nowadays all major functions of government are privatized, from security, to ambulance, to mail etc.

Government can be replaced and lawmakers have term limits, but corporations last and last.

One can talk back to the government but never, ever, against the boos. Yet more people are happy with working for dictatorial corporations than being served by democratic government!

AFTERWORDS

The purpose of this commentary is to provide the readers with a new perspective in understanding President Obama as a reformer; to clear up some misconception. Instead of faulting Obama for not delivering as promised or not doing as much as as he can, one should realize what people (all over the world) really want of their government - ruler.

The truth of the matter is: "Man do not live by words alone." In the ultimate analysis and in the real world, Obama is to be judged by deeds (job growth), and not by words(spreading democracy).

Roses are for dating, bread and butter keep a family going. In China there is a saying: "Firewood and rice makes for a marriage." I concede that they are necessary but not sufficient conditions to keep any marriage going.

Now perhaps you understand why Romeo and Juliet is doomed to fail (and fell out of love), and arranged marriages have a higher success rate (in providing for security). In China, as a male, if you do not have a job, a car and a house, you do not get a date, much less getting married. That simple.

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Art of War and Art of Politics

THE ART OF WAR (孫子兵法) AND ART OF POLITICS

US IS WINNING TERROR WAR
A recent news headline reads: “Bin Laden documents sharpen US aim.” It then proceeds to tell us blow by blow how the FBI – CIA is processing the captured information from the Bin Laden raid: “The new information is the result of five weeks of round-the-clock work by a CIA, in real time-led team of data analysts, cyber experts and translators who are 95 percent finished decrypting and translating the years of material and expect to complete the effort by mid-June, two U.S. officials say.”

The news report also inform us what was discovered: “A law enforcement official briefed on the process said investigators have been analyzing raw digital data found on multiple hard drives and flash drives, and that some of it consists of sequences of numbers. Investigators were trying to discern potential bank account or phone numbers that might point to al-Qaida contacts in the United States or elsewhere, or codes that could produce other leads, said the official, who was not authorized to publicly discuss the analysis and spoke on condition of anonymity.Especially useful in the communications between bin Laden and his followers from Asia to Europe to Africa is the light they shed on the personalities of known al-Qaida operatives and what drives the various terrorist commanders who corresponded with bin Laden, officials said..” “(Bin Laden documents sharpen US aim,” AP June 8, 2010. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110608/ap_on_go_ot/us_bin_laden_trove)

All in all it makes for interesting reading. Like a James Bond movie.

The feeling I got, as a citizen – reader, is that: (1) We are winning the war against al Qaida (AQ). (US IS WINNING. AQ IS LOSING.) (2) Our government is really working hard to protect us from another attack. (CIA-FBI IS WORKING HARD.) After I read many of the comments (851 comments, as of 6.48 am, June 9, CT), I found that most people feel that way. (“This is just fantastic . While I am sorry they could not take the creep alive at least the SEALS brought back what may become worth more than gold . Againg my complements to the professionalism of the SEALS . All thier training and the risks they took may very well save thousands of lives and not in this country alone !)

Then it suddenly dawn on me that such disclosures of intelligence gathering is penny wise pound foolish:

Why do we tell our enemy what the source and method, ways and means, in this terror fight? More importantly, what are we trying to achieve? (“For those of you who think they're divulging too much info...maybe this isn't even a fraction of what they actually know. Just relax, the top Al Qaeda members are going to start dropping like flies, just watch.”)


THE ISSUE: RIGHT TO KNOW VS. OPERATIONAL SECRECY

As a citizen I am for freedom of inform (FI) to a fault. Transparency helps with public decision making. Transparency is a check on abuses. No democratic nation can do without. The more information the merrier.

As a legal aid lawyer, time and again, I mounted FOIA suits against the government for with holding public information.

As a professor, I have written about, and condemned, the Bush-Cheney as one of most secretive administrations in US history (Impact of USA Patriot Act on American Society (2008).

As a police commander, I am for secrecy of military operations, to a fault. Sun Tzu (722–481 BC), the greatest war strategist in China, wrote the classics THE ART OF WAR, now a required reading at West Point, called for secrecy in military operations. (McNeilly, Mark R., Sun Tzu and the Art of Modern Warfare, (Oxford University Press (2001).

Sun said “知彼知己, 百戰不殆, 不知彼而知己, 一勝一負, 不知彼, 不知己, 每戰必殆 “ (“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”)

In this the Bush administration got it right. Keep your enemy guessing. Bush imposed total blackout of investigation, arrest and detention of terror suspects after 9/11. (“Ten days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy issued a memo to all immigration judges requiring them to close proceedings to the public and press whenever the Justice Department advised them to do so. The order was challenged in two lawsuits, which came to opposite conclusions.” http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/immigrants.html)

I do not agree with Bush on many issues, especially the use of 9/11 for political gain (expose of a CIA agent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame_), but I support President Bush’s decision to keep information out of the hands of would be terrorists, bent on attacking USA.

In fighting terror (or any other war) secrecy is the golden rule.

POLITICS AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

If information is so important in fighting – winning (terror) war, why is it that the Obama administration is conducting a public briefing in prime time on the Bin Laden documentary – intelligence finds? Part of the answer might be that President is a true believer of FI. I have little doubt on this.

But I am equally convinced that the bigger reason is for President Obama to show off his military – anti-terror achievements for political gain, i.e. to enhance his election prospect. (In this regard, we can also ask about timing of Bin Laden execution.)

If indeed the President Obama is motivated by making himself looks good in the public eyes as a fierce, unrelenting and effective terror fighter, at the expense of national security, then he is not doing his job in keeping the nation save. (I like Obama, and still do.)

My research shows that coincidentally, the Bush administration has also done the same thing – politicizing the war on terror. President Bush – Cheney has raised the color coded terror warning signals a number of times, whenever it is to their advantage, politically, e.g., renewal of USA Patriot Act. appointments of intelligence staff, or in election year.

AFTERWORD

Sir Robert Peel, father of modern policing, was once asked. How do we know that police are doing their job. Peel replied, famously: “The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.”

The less we hear about CIA – FBI – Navy Seal, the better for the nation.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Duties Over Rights

THE FACTS
A person is jilted by his girl friend. (We were not told the reason. In fact much is unknown about the case, including identity of the lady involved or actual disposition of kid to be. “Something tells me the reporter is once again giving only half of the story.”).

To take revenge (I do not know the motive), he put up a billboard on a main thoroughfare with the man (35-year-old) holding the outline of an infant, with the sign: "This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!."

The ex-lady friend now sued for harassment and breach of privacy. Who is in the right? (“Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard,” AP June 5, 2011.)

After reading many of 2,569 Comments (as of 4.3 am, central time, June 6, 2011, USA). I find that most of the comments were about right vs. wrong, winning and losing in court.

Some argued that there was no privacy claim to truth telling. (“The rule has always been that you are free to publish or speak derogatory statements about others as long as they are true. I don't know where the privacy twist gets into it.”)

Others suggested that the person has no right to cause intentional emotional harm to others. (“The bad thing is, he put her name on the sign and told that it was meant for her. In any case, he sounds like a jerk since he admitted he isn't even sure she had an abortion. “)

Still others thought it was best to engage in safe sex. (“A box of condoms is cheaper than a billboard.”) Each to his/her own. All make for good discussion, debate.k

My comments make/elaborate on one point that some commentators alluded to, but have not been taken seriously. Why right? Why not responsibility? (“Rights, rights, rights. What about responsibilities?“)

THE DISPUTE

The dispute in the case is classical American – who has the right to do what to each other: right of privacy vs. right to free speech, both constitutional rights of the first order.

Ultimately, who is in the right, or more right than the other.

THE REAL ISSUE?

The real issue in this case? Why everyone is insisting on his/her right, no one is seriously talking about his/her duty.

If we were to start to discuss the role of duty in this case, the narrative suddenly changes:

What is the duty of the man to the lady? I submit that we as humans have a universal duty to not cause harm to others, even when we have a right to do so. Police officers is a good example. Just because they have a right to shoot to kill, does not mean that they should, in every case. That is what discretion is all about. That is also why good judgment is so, so important in policing. However, increasingly, US police training has been titled towards shoot (now taser) first and ask question later. UK police do it differently. Every effort is made to avoid using force, even in the face of violence, and warranted by the situation. Sir Robert Peel, father of modern policing, famously said: "Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient." That I believe is call sensibility and compassion, both duties of the most fundamental kind if we are to have a sustainable - harmonious society. (Later on substainability of society.) Why heap on pain, when the love is gone? (Here again, I “assume” that having baby is about love, not one night stand.)

What is the duty of the lady to the man? We as sex partners (or simply partners) have a duty to discuss with each other whether we want to have a kid before sex, and how to take care of him/her after. This is basic parenting. More simply, being responsible, to self and others. No one should have kids, accident or otherwise, if they do not want to assume their duties as potential parents.

What is the duty of both to the kid to be? (There is sure to be a debate abut when life starts/ends.) We as potential parents, have a duty to give birth to and take care of babies we made together. Alternative, as parents, we need to think about the future best interest of the kid. For the man, why have (unprotected) sex, if there is no common understanding that the kid would be taken care of. For the lady, if no baby is wanted, then she has a duty to tell the man so, before, not after sex. Alternatively, take precaution.

DUTIES OVER RIGHTS

In the US Military Academy (USMA), 18 years old are taught about: Duty, Honor, Country.

In America society, everyone is expected to look out for number one: my rights first and last. Worse, my rights first, your rights last (or not). (Wall Street I: “Greed, in lack of a better term, is a good thing!”)

USMA taught our kids to sacrifice ones most precious thing (life and limb) in service of a nation. An “others – collective” welfare is ones dominant concern mentality. That is what a duty bound society requires. Pat Tillman exemplifies this world-view. He gave up millions to live a Ranger’s challenge. The nation applauded.

US society (corporation really) taught us all that in order to be rich, famous and happy we need to walk all over others. A “me – individual” interest is ones exclusive consideration attitude. That is what a right based society promotes. Sarah Palin personifies this life perspective. She earned millions by selling a Cinderella presidential dream. The public demurs.

WHY DUTIES OVER RIGHTS

I start with a few simple suppositions:

A RIGHT to do things, does not make it right to do certain things, and in a certain way.

A RIGHT tells us what things we can or cannot do, not whether we should or should not do certain things (in certain way).

RIGHTS without corresponding DUTIES bring out the worse in humans:

The sub-prime crisis is an example; in the name of profit, wall street bankers sell “junk” papers and defrauded the nation, world, with many kids doing without their first breakfast and last milk and still more seniors having to do more to make ends meet, in their twilight years. MBAs with huge mansions and fast boats, makes billions. MISs (man in street) with obligations and debts, lose everthing.

Our war effort in Pakistan is another; in the name of pre-emptive self-defense (Bush doctrine) we invaded Pakistan and killed thousands. US security paid with life and blood of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Muslim people.

A MANIFESTO OF DUTIES

In the US we have a Bill of Rights. In China (actually all around the world, known by different name) we have a Manifesto of Duties. We know a lot about Bill of Rights. We know little about Manifesto of Duties.

A Manifesto of Duties would read something as follows:

(1) People are born to duty and with duties, not rights.
(2) Duty comes before right.
(3) Duty trumps right.
(4) Right is contingent on duty.
(5) Rights are created by man, and enforced by law.
(6) Duties reside in nature, and compelled by morality.
(7) As humans we have the following duties to our fellow human beings:
(7.1) We have the duty to do the right thing.
(7.2) We have a duty to do good, not evil.
(7.3) We have a duty not to cause harm to people and damages to thing.
(7.4) We have a duty to create happiness and utilities.
(7.5) We have a duty to not to create suffering and do harm.
(7.6) We have a duty to help others to pursue life, liberty and happiness, the way they want it.
(7.7) We have a duty to think about others, first and last, before we think about ourselves.
(7.8) We have a duty to think about collective interests, more so than individual rights.
(7.9) We have a duty to think about the future interests, not just present rights.
(7.10) We have a duty to think about peaceful resolution of disputes.
(7. 11) We have a duty to avoid the use of violence, unless for self-defense, and then only as a last resort.
(7.12) We have a duty to leave the world a better place to live, work and play than when we found it.

AFTERWORDS

If the above sounds familiar to you. It is. It is so because you (as parents, neighbors, friends, strangers) are already embracing duties not asserting rights, every day,willingly and instinctively. (That is also why the news story is so hair raising.)

Duty is in our blood, naturally, until wall street, military industrial complex, and politicians come along.

We need a Manifesto of Duties to safeguard our national heritage.

Again, long, long before we invented rights, we are born naturally with and to duties.

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Who is parenting Hong Kong kids?

HONG KONG TIGER PARENTS?

The headline of a news report reads: “Hong Kong's 'tiger parents' face the pressure,” (AFP June 5, 2011). The story line is tried and a bit old – Hong Kong people are driven to success (economically) and place high expectation on their kids (academically), with higher still pressure to match. “So as parents climb the ladder in one of the world's most competitive economies, they and their children must also contend with the academic equivalent.”

The term “tiger parent” refers to a certain style of parenting (by Chinese) made famous by a Yale Law Professor Amy L. Chua in her book: BATTLE HYMN OF THE TIGER MOTHER (2011) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/books/20book.html?_r=2

The book distinguishes Western vs. Chinese parenting style (free choice vs. disciplined), content (rounded vs. academic) and goal (happiness in life vs. academic success). As summed up by Professor Chua: “Instead, the vast majority of the Chinese mothers said that they believe their children can be “the best” students, that “academic achievement reflects successful parenting,” and that if children did not excel at school then there was “a problem” and parents “were not doing their job.”

The book started a cultural war of sorts: “Refreshingly, and perhaps uniquely, Chua instead catalogs the various ways she tortured her two young daughters, all in the name of Chinese tradition and the goal of reaching Carnegie Hall (or at least the Juilliard precollege program). “http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/books/review/Dominus-t.html?ref=books)

I am originally from Hong Kong, and have taught and visited with many of the universities there, now and then. I know Hong Kong.

The story has a ring of truth to it, at least with its central thesis: Hong Kong people work very hard in a competitive economy. Parents try very hard to mold their kids to be successful in life, academically and otherwise.

But as with most news stories these days, the above story (with catchy headline) is written to sell papers, more so than giving us the whole picture of parenting in Hong Kong, in a balance, nuanced and insightful way. For example, not all Hong Kong parents are “tiger parents” nor children are geared towards academic study. As Professor Chau said: not all American parents are alike.

As counter point - fact checks to the story, when I started teaching in Chinese U. of Hong Kong some 25 years ago, only top 5% made universities, now it is 18%, with many other opportunities for getting ahead, e.g., one can be a police officer (including being inspector without going to college. Though in reality, a university degree is still the golden standard for success in life, and as a person.

I do not want to get into a cultural world between East vs. West, a no win exercise, I certainly do not want to take sides, at least not within the confine of this blog (1000 words).

This blog offers up a simple observation (a question really) that should add more fire to the debate of what is proper patenting – goal, style, content – for Hong Kong kids.

“TIGER MOM” vs. “HELICOPTER DAD”?

In order to do parenting, good or bad, we need to apent time with the kids, less mining their business and more having their interest in mind, in a most personal, intimate, and above all else, involved ways. Practically, being a parent is a 24/7 job. Parenting takes time.

In the US “soccer patents” come to mind. (Of course I am being political correct here. It really should read “soccer mom” because mothers all over the nation still assume most of the child rearing responsibilities, as they struggle with economic security at home, even before the most recent sub-prime crisis!)

In Hong Kong, if truth be known, most of the parents are not there when the kids need them, the daily sort of way – “dad can we read a book/take a hike together?” Not just a “helicopter parent” – hovering around in all sort of ways, to keep an eye on the kids.

Ironically, “helicopter parenting” now has a new meaning – JIT (just in time) parenting., or MBA parenting if you like. Parents drop in JIT for the kids concert performance or HS ball game., to show concern, to allay guilt, to keep up with the Jones? Here I am surprised and amused that N.J Governor did not excite another culture war, this time between rich vs. poor parents. Gov. Chris Christie can afford spending $2000 plus for a state helicopter ride to attend his son's high school baseball game, when the working poor cannot afford a car to drive the kids to the park.
(Still recall the $25,000 dress, for a NJ HS pomp night.)

WHO IS RAISING HONG KONG KIDS

If HK parents are too busy to parent their kids, who is doing the job of real parenting, again day in day out (the “first in the morning” and “last in the day” test) , in the most minute sort of ways (from ironing the uniform to cooking the meals).

The answer is: domestic helpers: foreign and locals.

“In 2010, there were 284,901 foreign domestic helpers in the city, of which 48% were from the Philippines, 49.4% from Indonesia, and 1.3% from Thailand. They usually live in their employer's residence and perform various household duties such as cooking, cleaning, and child-minding.: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_domestic_helpers_in_Hong_Kong

If there were 284,901 foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong, here were at least that many in local helps (who worked illegally). That makes for 500,000 helpers. (One study show that nearly all (99%) domestic helpers are foreign, with 1% from China or locally, legally).

In 1996, there were about 1.8 million households. Of those about 1.1 millions have income between $15,000 to $45,000 (government income eligibility for hiring is $15,000; real life actually income is $17, 300) making them economically affordable for them to hire foreign help. In essence one out of 2 affordable families have a live in help.

IMPACT OF FOREIGN “SHEEP” PARENTING

If indeed many of the Hong Kong rich families’ kids are raised by domestic helpers, half of them from abroad, it would be interesting to ask: How do “foreign parenting” affects the net generation of Hong Kong ideas?

(1) The impact of the blood parents is much diluted by the presence of live in helpers who for all intent and purposes are the kids’ psychological parents. (Both of my kids were brought up by Pilipino maids).
(2) Since helpers are not there to maintain discipline, at least not acting as “tiger”, the kids are not really disciplined, beyond in the presence of their parents. In essence, we have “tiger parenting” by absentee parents and “ sheep (following order of price/princess) parenting” by daily routine domestic helpers.
(3) The kids will be affected by the language, education and cultural background of the domestic helpers of which 41% has post secondary education. (The most educated are the Pilipino.) For example, many of the kids now speak better English than my generation, less because of school but because of live in help.

AFTERWORS

The moral of the story is that it take more than “tiger parents” to turn out “tiger” kids. Education and molding kids happen in many ways, some planned, most happened by accident and by default.

Internet parenting, anyone.

Thursday, June 2, 2011

How to fight a war on drugs and win!

INTRODUCTION
War on drugs is a failure. That is a given. The question is why? That is not so clear.
“Global war on drugs a failure, high-level panel says”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110602/wl_nm/us_drugs_commission

Of course, the remaining question is can we fight a war on drugs and expect to win (at least reduction in drug use).

This commentary address the above questions in turn.

WHY WE FAIL IN WAR ON DRUGS?
Depending on whom you ask, there are many reasons why we fail in war on drugs.

For prohibitionist, it is because we are not punishing harsh enough. But China has zero tolerance for drugs, with capital punishment to match. China still has a drug epidemic on hand, and growing fast.

For liberals, it is because we are punishing too much. But drug rehabilitation program has proven not as successful as people claim, though it is certainly more effective than punishment.

The issue with fighting a successful drug war is much more complicated. Let me explain.

WHAT IS A DRUG WAR?
When we are launching a war on drugs, what are we fighting against? It is certainly not about fighting drug use per se. Drugs are any chemical that induce physical – psychological changes. Since we use drugs every day, from Red Bull to beer to coffee, we can hardly do without. In essence, we need to be more specific about our war objective.

The war on drugs is a war on harmful addiction of all kind, of which drug addiction is consider the most prevalent and harmful, to self, to others.

WAR ON ADDICTION
The American Society of Addiction Medicine has defined “Addiction” as:

“Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in the individual pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors. The addiction is characterized by impairment in behavioral control, craving, inability to consistently abstain, and diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships. Like other chronic diseases, addiction can involve cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.”


Fighting addiction (of drugs, alcohol, texting) is thus a fight against a personally rewarding “habits” – more generally a “high” experience.

If fighting “addiction” is fighting a “high” experience, we need to do one of the two things (or both):

(1) Reduce the “high” experience, at least link the “high” with the “low”. This cannot be achieved by punishment alone, as we have learned so far. The reason is a simple one. After habituated, getting “high” is not a logical process; it is an automatic response that deny rationality of choice. (That is why the Internet craze is so bad on our students. They cannot concentrate without checking their text every second. For executives, it is the e-mail.) The only hope we have is perhaps to link “high” with “low” experience sufficient to rid people of bad habits. Many people get out of alcohol because of the morning after hangover. With technology today, we can induce the same reaction when people drink or use drugs. (By making this proposal, I am not arguing for such drug reduction policy. There are other weighty issues involved, such as paternalism and privacy. However, I am offering up a workable solution, if society so chooses. )

(2) Substitute the “high” experience (with harmful consequences) with other equally “high” experience. (with little consequences). I once posed the question that few can give me an answer. If smoking (illegal) marihuana give people high and drinking (legal) beer get people high, why do people still the first, and not the second. Inherent in the question is this idea – fight illegal drugs with legal drugs. While I am not so sure that all drug users will shit to using alcohol as a substitute goods, overnight, but I am dead sure that with enough education people will use legal drugs instead of illegal one, at least in the margin. That way, we still have a drug problem, but it is of a lesser magnitude, by health effect (doubtful) or social costs (most certainly, reduce demand on illegal drugs, generate tax etc.)

(3) Sight people from physical “high” to mental (spiritual, psychological) “high”. This is by far the best and most effective way to get people from addiction. Empirically, people who are happy until themselves – mentally ‘high” – have no need for drugs. In our society (US) we do not educate people to understand the two kinds of high end/high grade “high” (e.g., spirituality, achievements) and low end/low grade high (e.g., sex, drugs, gambling). This possibly is the better way to do to get ride of destructive addictions of all kinds, from drugs to media attention.

How to fight a war on drugs and win!

INTRODUCTION
War on drugs is a failure. That is a given. The question is why? That is not so clear.
“Global war on drugs a failure, high-level panel says”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110602/wl_nm/us_drugs_commission

Of course, the remaining question is can we fight a war on drugs and expect to win (at least reduction in drug use).

This commentary address the above questions in turn.

WHY WE FAIL IN WAR ON DRUGS?
Depending on whom you ask, there are many reasons why we fail in war on drugs.

For prohibitionist, it is because we are not punishing harsh enough. But China has zero tolerance for drugs, with capital punishment to match. China still has a drug epidemic on hand, and growing fast.

For liberals, it is because we are punishing too much. But drug rehabilitation program has proven not as successful as people claim, though it is certainly more effective than punishment.

The issue with fighting a successful drug war is much more complicated. Let me explain.

WHAT IS A DRUG WAR?
When we are launching a war on drugs, what are we fighting against? It is certainly not about fighting drug use per se. Drugs are any chemical that induce physical – psychological changes. Since we use drugs every day, from Red Bull to beer to coffee, we can hardly do without. In essence, we need to be more specific about our war objective.

The war on drugs is a war on harmful addiction of all kind, of which drug addiction is consider the most prevalent and harmful, to self, to others.

WAR ON ADDICTION
The American Society of Addiction Medicine has defined “Addiction” as:

“Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in the individual pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors. The addiction is characterized by impairment in behavioral control, craving, inability to consistently abstain, and diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships. Like other chronic diseases, addiction can involve cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.”


Fighting addiction (of drugs, alcohol, texting) is thus a fight against a personally rewarding “habits” – more generally a “high” experience.

If fighting “addiction” is fighting a “high” experience, we need to do one of the two things (or both):

(1) Reduce the “high” experience, at least link the “high” with the “low”. This cannot be achieved by punishment alone, as we have learned so far. The reason is a simple one. After habituated, getting “high” is not a logical process; it is an automatic response that deny rationality of choice. (That is why the Internet craze is so bad on our students. They cannot concentrate without checking their text every second. For executives, it is the e-mail.) The only hope we have is perhaps to link “high” with “low” experience sufficient to rid people of bad habits. Many people get out of alcohol because of the morning after hangover. With technology today, we can induce the same reaction when people drink or use drugs. (By making this proposal, I am not arguing for such drug reduction policy. There are other weighty issues involved, such as paternalism and privacy. However, I am offering up a workable solution, if society so chooses. )

(2) Substitute the “high” experience (with harmful consequences) with other equally “high” experience. (with little consequences). I once posed the question that few can give me an answer. If smoking (illegal) marihuana give people high and drinking (legal) beer get people high, why do people still the first, and not the second. Inherent in the question is this idea – fight illegal drugs with legal drugs. While I am not so sure that all drug users will shit to using alcohol as a substitute goods, overnight, but I am dead sure that with enough education people will use legal drugs instead of illegal one, at least in the margin. That way, we still have a drug problem, but it is of a lesser magnitude, by health effect (doubtful) or social costs (most certainly, reduce demand on illegal drugs, generate tax etc.)

(3) Sight people from physical “high” to mental (spiritual, psychological) “high”. This is by far the best and most effective way to get people from addiction. Empirically, people who are happy until themselves – mentally ‘high” – have no need for drugs. In our society (US) we do not educate people to understand the two kinds of high end/high grade “high” (e.g., spirituality, achievements) and low end/low grade high (e.g., sex, drugs, gambling). This possibly is the better way to do to get ride of destructive addictions of all kinds, from drugs to media attention.