Not Too Swift, At All

So Paul Kane's piece on selling Taiwan to China for debt forgiveness, which I commented on here, was satirical. Apparently, he thinks the problem that nobody on Earth recognized it as satirical in the fine tradition of Jonathan Swift is our problem of reading and not his problem in writing.

He defends his humor by reminding us that he served in combat and that humor is necessary to survive. Fine, he has my thanks for serving in combat. Sincerely. But he didn't learn to write good satire in combat, that is for sure.

The problem with his piece is that it is only a more specific proposal of a kind that has been going on for a couple decades now--abandon Taiwan and we can appease China so all will be well in the world. Many writers have seriously put forth only slightly less ridiculous bargains with China that involve selling out Taiwan.

In his defense, Kane says that his real point is that GDP is more important than military force for power. In the long run, he is surely right. But you need balance or you are just a rich man with no means to defend your wealth. Plus he does not establish a link between our military power and problems with our GDP. He just asserts it is so. But our military spending has been shrinking over the decades both as a burden on our economy and as a percent of our government spending. Why is our military spending causing our budget problems? And I'll note that our economy is still much larger than China's, that their per capita GDP is minuscule, and that predictions of China overtaking us should have that disclaimer "past performance is no guarantee of future earnings."

His examples of what he really meant in his New York Times piece are pointless. Our Navy protects Chinese overseas trade while China instead focuses on getting overseas supplies of raw materials to feed their economy for "a generation?" Not terribly likely. Our Navy's provision of security allows anyone not at war with us to take advantage of it. And nowhere does Kane explain how our defense of a global economy set up according to our rules is bad if China, too, plugs into it. Further, China's lack of a blue water Navy to protect those trade lines would be rather apparent if we wage war. China will have no trade lines and we will have access to those raw materials. How good a deal will that be then?

He says China owns 8-9% of our government debt? So it is bad that China financed our Navy that will cut off their raw materials in case of war? And see those debt assets disappear as we disavow the debt we owe an enemy? What is it that China will do with that debt to harm us? One critic of Kane's piece argued that China couldn't even afford to use that debt bomb against us without tremendous collateral damage to their own economy. Don't get me wrong, I'm greatly concerned about our deficit spending and debt, but not because China loaned us a chunk of that money. I'm no less concerned about our debt that Britain owns.

If Kane wants to complain about our deficit spending, great. Have a go at it. But linking that problem to our defense spending and then linking that problem to the existence of a free Taiwan that we sort of pledge to defend isn't swift at all. It's simply bizarre. As is his preening about how tremendously clever he is, which is proven in his mind by the fact that nobody got his satire. And I'd guess that the New York Times editors didn't get that angle, either.