On Immigration for America

The President supposedly called Haiti an “s-hole” country. Actually it wasn’t clear which country specifically he meant since it was reported second hand by Congressional members who met with him last week to hash out details on the upcoming legislation. No Republicans (at least then) argued the specifics of Trump’s comments so it is a pretty safe bet that he said it. It certainly wouldn’t be out of character for the 45^th president to talk about anyone crudely, it’s kind of his MO. The ensuing criticism from the press was typically shocked, annoyed, incredulous.

Whatever the context of his arguments he seems to step on the main thrust by being rude and dismissive. Let me try to make his case instead.

 He was elected on the promise of building a wall and drawing a hard line on illegal immigration. Because of his bluntness voters reasoned his motives were genuine and enough Americans felt our borders are (and were) unacceptably porous. Too many attempts to create workable immigration quotas and restrictions fell flat in 2007 because it always included some type of amnesty. Even when work visas and penalty taxes got introduced as part of a broad framework the plans always failed. Phones rang off the hook at congressional offices during the Bush (43) years from angry voters demanding a wall along the southern border.

I thought then, and I do now, that if a wall were build and tough restrictions put in place Americans would settle for some type of work visa for illegals already in country. But security always takes a back seat to amnesty. We never trusted congress to complete their promise of building a wall after the work visas were in place. That’s why voters were so belligerent over the issue and pushed Trump ahead in 2016. He talks tough on security, terrorism and illegal immigration. All of this played to the one issue (illegal immigration) voters felt they could never get a solid deal on. President Trump is an imperfect vessel for curbing immigration (among other things) but he is also the only vessel. But he is plowing ahead on his promise (so far) to put up a wall because that’s what got him there. He knows it.

Immigration isn’t an all or nothing issue the way it is often portrayed. Either you are for open borders and with no quotas or you’re a nativist who hates brown people. Countries have a right to increase their numbers as well as decrease them based on whichever criteria are deemed important at the time. They are determined like every other issue. We vote on them. Immigration is a truly national issue since Montana and Minnesota can’t decide how many Canadians to give citizenship to. Neither can Texas establish plans to open the border to Mexico and South America.

Federal power is absolute on the borders.

Immigration falls into a couple of problem categories; drugs and crime, welfare state increases, and terrorism. On the first one, our own drug demand is the real problem and not something foisted on us by those “tricky SOBs” in South America. Sorry America, this one is your own doing. Supply and demand explains it. Resource rich countries with poor industry like Columbia will sell to cash rich decadent ones like the US. Customs officers restrict when possible but this is a massive country with an expensive addiction. Enforcement is extremely difficult. Without checking any figures I’d say it is responsible for most of the violence in Mexico. It should be a sobering thought to every American who uses illegal drugs.

The second big issue is with giveaways in food stamps, housing and education to illegal immigrants. Understandably the first few years in a new country are tough financially even for legal immigrants. Most people take whatever help is offered. Who can blame them? But countries with tax burdens for an increasingly stretched safety net cannot survive by doling out generous subsidies year after year. Paying citizens won’t support it because their burden will continue to go up. It isn’t just a math problem either. There is something morally wrong about keeping people in poverty through government transfers. It keeps the cycle of poverty turning. It isn’t just illegal immigrants; this is a problem for poor Americans too.

There is a trade-off for permitting ‘off the books’ type work. Labor intensive industries like farming and hospitality get to pay low wages and stay competitive which keeps prices on bread and hotel rooms affordable. That’s the benefit. The cost is in the welfare and service costs to maintain living conditions. That includes food stamps, Medicaid, Social Security and housing just to name a few. Even if the benefits outweighed the costs, which they don’t, it would be bad policy to encourage such future dependency.

The third issue is terrorism. On terrorism the plan is pretty straightforward and requires diligence on particular countries in the Middle East. The truth is most of them are Muslim majority countries and even without the religious difference from Christianity, the culture is very different. Of course many followers of Islam will (and do) make great citizens and run successful business. At some crucial level, large increases in the populations create problems for democracy. Talk of incorporating Sharia Law with American legal norms has already begun.

The President’s ‘ban’ on selected Middle East countries was roundly criticized. But it ignored the fact that the US (and any country) has the right to restrict immigration even when it seems mean spirited and targeted. Follow the news in most European cities where Muslim migrants have emigrated and a picture of conflict appears-between liberal democracy and religious fervor.

Assimilation is a dirty word in our hypersensitive mindset but the process is critical to maintaining unity. Because of some ham-fisted attempts in our history (think Native Americans) we have a bad reference point for it. Assimilation is just a respect for the laws and customs of the host country, including language. American citizens are different in temperament, history, political leanings, and religion. To say nothing of the incredible mixing of ethnicities spread from coast to coast. The similar thread is democracy and capitalism with an underlying Constitution supported by Judeo-Christian principles. Each citizen pursuing happiness generally leads to cooperation and civility.

Wealthy places will always be a draw for those looking to get rich, escape poverty and pursue free expression. It shouldn’t be a surprise that a large number poor people seek a life in the US. It has been this way since before the big immigration boom in early twentieth century.

 I wouldn’t say our strength is because of our immigrant populations through the years, but it is a defining characteristic of the American experience. Our strength is in our liberties and the laws put in place to guard them. As long as we stay true to our values, immigration should remain an important part of who we are. Without unity we fail. 

Chinos and the Man

Winter is officially here. The cold weather means I have to reluctantly give up my penchant for wearing shorts. I can deal with the high forties to mid fifties weather going from office to car to home isn’t too bracing in shorts. Any colder than that and some full coverage is a must. The breezy arctic chill is too much for bare legs. I feel a bit like a hippie for saying it but I just don’t like pants.

If I had to list the problems of pants I would start with the weight. Too heavy and they hang off your butt, too light and they won’t keep the cold out. I’m perpetually hiking them up, both to keep the cuffs from dragging on the floor and to keep them waist level. Nothing is worse than walking into a public bathroom with a semi-wet floor and worrying about how much the cuffed bottoms are soaking up. Also my wallet and phone add extra weight to already hefty trousers. I can only tighten my belt so far before the stomach starts to pinch in the belt buckle. Want to witness an embarrassing spectacle? Just wait for me to hoist that belt one extra hole down the strap and yelp when the stomach flesh rolls up in the metal clasp.

Jeans are a bit of problem too. Because they’re denim they’re rigid and unrelenting. Jeans have a position of their own. No two are alike. They don’t flow and swoop the way polyester golf pants do. They’re more stiff than a corpse and they bind on the thighs, never wielding. Jeans hate us. Oh sure they last a long time. Wash after wash they hold their position. They mock our attempts to control them with fabric softeners and hang dry efforts, useless. The slim cut variety are even worse. Seriously, who needs a tighter fit?

Cargo pants are bulky and massive but necessarily so. They aren’t stylish and they don’t care. Utility is their game. The extra space in the pockets is perfect for tools and snacks, just in case you’re working outdoors and need row of chocolate mini donuts. Pockets on cargo pants are like seagulls at the beach; they’re interesting and even fun at first but quickly become annoying. Most of us don’t need that much space. It just increases the chance of losing more stuff in the washing machine, from gum and coins to cash and toothpickers. For everyday use cargo pants are probably the worst option unless you work construction.

   

Dress slacks are dignified and sharp but I don’t have enough excuses to wear them. If you don’t normally wear slacks to work, try it someday and see what people say. “You going to funeral or something?” or “What’s with the dress up, you coming from church?” The chances to wear them are so seldom you’ll realize when you finally do, they’ve shrunk. Pants are always shrinking. One of life’s mysteries I guess. Also, dress pants fit great while standing but sitting is a nightmarish surprise. They suck up tight and expose your white/sock black/shoe combo if you aren’t careful. Standing quickly back up doesn’t help either. You’ll have to massage the legs portions back down into standing position because they won’t fall gracefully back into place. You can use the kick method, where you kick your feet out to get the legs to slide back down but it will look silly. Movement is a bit restricted while wearing them because if the cloth is old it might rip along the butt seam. This is definitely worse than having everyone know you wore white socks to a formal event.

Sweatpants are a wonderful respite from a tough day. The fleece moves around effortlessly never bunching or tearing. Plus if you spill your drink on them the cotton fibers will soak it up better than a paper towel or whole stack of napkins. Even floor spills are a cinch. Just get off your recliner, put down your beer and sit directly on the puddle. The fleece will suck up the liquid like a shop vac. Don’t put them on too early in the day though. You might have to go out and get some milk or lottery tickets. Very few sweats are good enough to wear at Target. Not that Target is high class, but you don’t want to be accused of someone begging for loose change and have the employees throw you out. Especially with the stains and wet spots on your pants.  Wearing them out to go shopping is like reminding people that you don’t care. Sweatpants say “Don’t mind me I am just having a rough day” and “Could you spare a couple of bucks for gas?”  

Golf pants certainly go in the most improved garment of menswear. The ones I used to buy were cotton and bunched up with even the slightest bit of movement. Now they’re light and wrinkle free. Most even have a layer that prevents wrinkling.  You can wad them up in corner before tucking into bed and in the morning wear them again without worrying about ironing out a mess. Also the textile geniuses have figured out how to make them loose around the legs which is a huge improvement for me. They aren’t too formal either, you wear them with your Pearl Jam t-shirt and you’ll never regret being both ‘adultish’ and ‘hip’.

Until warmer weather I’ll just have to make do cycling through my small wardrobe of khaki and black golf pants. I really do prefer shorts. 

Humility and Leadership

 I glanced over this latest research from a couple academics who studied personality types. More precisely they compared arrogant thinkers to humble ones and came to the conclusion that ‘humble’ leaders are more powerful and effective. I read the Washington Post’s quick summary of the findings, short and neat. I don’t read full academic papers unless I have to. For my purposes a summary by a respected newspaper is enough. The people studied were considered 'intellectually' arrogant or 'intellectually' humble. 

I clicked on the link because it was headline-grabby and seemed to remind everyone what we instinctively know to be true.  Readers can draw what they like from the results. The findings don’t seem surprising for anyone who has experienced poor leadership. Those with the misfortune of serving under a boss with an outsized ego know the pitfalls of pride. Thinking well of oneself doesn’t always mean arrogant however, and being soft spoken doesn’t mean humble. 

First, the study had participants (both arrogant and humble) read from a list of statements and asked how familiar they were with the topics. The topics covered science, history, sociology and a mixed bag of knowledge. Second, they read from a slightly longer list and had to recall which statements were covered on both readings.

 A few fake news items were slipped in.

The arrogant ones mostly skimmed the passages while the humble read with closer detail. Arrogant participants got more items wrong and were susceptible to the fake items as well. Humble participants did better on identifying the correct statements and the false, but also were more open to changing their mind if the true statements conflicted their previous positions. The arrogant rarely changed their mind. Most people who have held any job for any amount of time has encountered bosses who blame others for their failures and refuse to take advice. They also hate giving anyone credit if they can take it for themselves.

 Mostly, humility gets a bad rap, as in “Oh my God I was so humiliated!” As a character trait it describes a person willing to understand their own shortcomings and learn from them. Humble people have a reasonable view of their strengths and weaknesses. If the image of a soft spoken indecisive person emerges, throw out that image. Humility sometimes gets interpreted as milquetoast men afraid of making choices.

Humility is just honest, self-reflection.

When leaders have it you know it. They aren’t afraid of others getting credit but they take decisive moves and improve along the way. They don’t apologize and agonize about wrong choices or bad information, they improve. 

From the study: 

As Owens and Hekman wrote in Academy of Management Journal, “Our findings suggest that humility appears to embolden individuals to aspire to their highest potential and enables them to make the incremental improvements necessary to progress toward that potential.”

The findings show that humble authority figures make everyone better by inspiring performance. The opposite is also true of reckless pride.

There is a great illustration of this from the excellent mini-series Band of Brothers. The film follows E company through much of the war in Germany as they parachute across France in June 1944 to VE day in the summer of 1945. In one harrowing scene the battalion is crossing a hail of gunfire in the Ardennes Forest to occupy a town held by the Germans. The company commander (Dyke) freezes up under the mortar fire and refuses to move from a covered position. The charging men look to their leader shouting "What we do?, We have to move, we're surrounded!" His only reply "I don't know! I don't know!"

 Soldiers are being killed all around until another lieutenant (Speirs) storms in and starts directing men. He takes over swiftly and urges the men to move and fire. Staying in one place and getting shelled is what is hurting them. He takes over command from Dyke who seems more concerned with his own safety. The battalion takes the town with heavy losses but if not for quick thinking leadership E company might have lost every soldier.

Lieutenant Speirs’ humility is seen in other scenes as he praises individuals and delegates responsibility. He is humble where it counts. He shows bravery and gives orders under pressure but he also has shortcomings in administrative functions. His character is quiet for much of the movie, only popping up with advice when needed. Dyke is arrogant because he doesn’t bother with the details of leadership (preparing for battle, making decisions) and is only around when necessary. It’s a tough scene to watch knowing that battles often play out exactly like that, when lives are at stake and decisiveness makes a crucial difference. A big theme in the series is leadership. Few events prove it out like war.

It might be a little fuzzier in the business world but the essential character of a humble leader will play out the same. Bosses have different personality types but one who can honestly assess a situation and improve the result is effectively humble. 

Research that supports my intuition is always welcome. I usually ignore findings that don’t. Some might call that arrogant though.

Death, Taxes and Angry College Football Fans

Benjamin Franklin once said “…nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.” If he were alive today he would probably include fan anger over college football rankings. The limited number of slots in the playoffs practically guarantee an surge of 'righteous' anger from a neglected team. There are 5 power conferences that contain the best teams. The SEC, the ACC, the Big Ten, the Pac 10 and the Big 12. Additionally, the few games played each season means that analysts have to determine the best teams from a small sample. The number of variables considered when establishing a teams’ credentials can be technical. Strength of schedule, margin of victory, road wins against top opponents, and something called the ‘eye test’ are just some of the variables the selection group considers when assigning slots.

The eye test is exactly what it sounds like. How does this team actually look on the field? Do they execute plays and hold up under pressure? Do they beat themselves with dumb penalties and turnovers? Do their skill position players have speed? Does the defense shut down high caliber opponents? The eye test gets criticized by stat wonks who love to spreadsheets showing how Middle Tennessee State gets great production, but who cares. The big conferences matter. Stats are one measure of progress but football fans know a good team when they see one. A good team has NFL talent and performs every week. Not that they never lose but they keep loses to a minimum and win on the road. Teams like Alabama and Georgia are great, Illinois and Purdue are not (sadly).

Good stats in football filter out ‘garbage time’ numbers. Those extra 65 yards your team’s running back got on a night when they were played North Eastern Delaware A&M, that’s garbage time. Numbers and measurables can explain a lot but they don’t help with the eye test. I’ll always take the eye test over almost any other measure of tracked skill. Football talent gravitates toward certain schools and we already know which ones they are. They’re called the power 5 for a reason. A quarterback who averages 300 yards passing per game at Ohio State gets more attention than one at Montana Tech. This isn’t news.

I watched Ohio State beat Wisconsin last night and one thing was clear from the start, Ohio had much better athletes. The fact that Wisconsin only lost by 7 was an indication that crowd noise and intensity of the moment play an outsized factor in the college game. These are kids after all, average age is probably 21 or so. They get nervous and make mistakes but the really talented teams like OSU can make a few and usually finish with a win. In an outdoor stadium with less noise Ohio should have run Wisconsin off the field. I did hope the Badgers could pull off a miracle come back but their offense looked slow footed and not used to having to throw to get out of trouble. Badgers run first, always. 

The Big Ten conference game last night was a default play in for Wisconsin and a little more complicated for the Ohio State. They had a chance with a win but it wasn’t enough. The committee decided against them. Buckeyes have 2 loses for the season after all. That’s 1 more than any playoff team should have.

The controversy was over who gets the open slot for the playoffs, only 4 are allowed after all. The teams announced just a few hours ago, Oklahoma, Georgia, Clemson, Alabama. Bama was the wild card since they didn’t play for a conference championship but still managed a 1 loss season. The loss was to Auburn who was a top ranked team at the time. I don’t like to criticize the committee, they have a lot to consider. But putting two teams from the same conference in the playoffs is a sketchy move. I imagine they included the Tide because of their quality wins and 1 loss season. The alternative would have been Ohio State with two losses and a conference championship. If they put the Buckeyes in it opens the door for questions about why they didn’t include the USC Trojans, who basically had the same season. 

Buckeye fans will complain for sure. Every year some team gets left out that probably deserved to be included. With the limited spots it is unavoidable. Most fans will want to expand the field to include 8 teams. For now though there isn’t enough time or games in the season without seriously affecting academics (don’t laugh). That’s the official reason at least from the NCAA for keeping the 4 team playoff. I imagine it will get to that point in the near future. The playoffs should be fun though.

American Assassin

Vince Flynn is the author, Mitch Rapp the killer who hunts terrorists.

This isn’t about the movie, just the fast paced novel that focuses on training and turning lose a young recruit on terrorists and their financiers.

This origin story has all the usual elements of the great bad asses, Reacher, Bond, and Bourne. It does follow a typical narrative track for a while, a secretive government program run by the CIA for assassins. It tells how Rapp lost loved ones in the Pan-Am Lockerbie flight that was shot down in ’88, the event forming the basis for much of his anger. Flynn doesn’t give the kid (Rapp) a military background which most spy types usually have as a precondition. He is a star athlete instead. It works though. Tell a good enough story and most readers are hooked. This is good story.

I am no expert on dialogue but Vince Flynn’s has always struck me as a little flat. He uses obvious lines for his characters when action and mood might work better. But then again, maybe not. Tom Clancy type detailing doesn’t work for action scenes and I can’t imagine this story would be improved through complex examination of financial links between the Muslim Brotherhood and Russian Oligarchs. He prefers to plow ahead with the scenes instead of detailing the setting. More killing less fireside chats “When you have to shoot, shoot…don’t talk”—Tuco. The Good the Bad, and the Ugly.

 It’s a style technique perfectly suited to the author’s philosophy. Train the killer, attack the enemy. The chapters are short and the reader won’t get lost in the rabbit trails of political intrigue and national histories. Vince Flynn assumes his readers know enough about current events to pick up on some of the socio-political layout. The person of Mitch Rapp is the story and events are directly related to his circle of influence. Not that Flynn doesn’t expand the plot from different points of view but he keeps the core intact, not introducing too many characters and side stories.

Another thing unique to Flynn is his black and white understanding of morality. Not an ounce of moral ambiguity seeps through. The author explains dysfunction and politics in Washington D.C. without implicating it for all the world’s problems. Mitch Rapp is a good guy in every way and despite his penchant for violence, it is always warranted—apologies be damned. His is a righteous anger. This may be unfair to other writers who have solitary tough men in the lead role. I never read the Robert Ludlum series but the Bourne movies veer into a “What if WE are really the bad guys?” type questioning. Flynn gives a refreshingly honest assessment of the political problems while still making the lead heroic and the criminality solvable. 

I hope this isn’t true of the ‘Assassin’ movie but I haven’t seen it yet. Movies can’t marinate in full stories like books can, but good ones will find the plot’s core message and build an engaging thriller around it. Bad ones take an engaging thriller and redesign the core message.

I’ve only read one other Flynn book that used Rapp as the character and always hinted at his past. I don’t know if this was first in the series or if he wrote it after the others, as a kind of ‘look back.’ Lee Child did this with Jack Reacher, telling the origin story much later.

When I read the jacket cover of American Assassin I rolled my eyes “Not another bond rip-off?” The reason readers like spy stories and secret agents is the intrigue, the mystery and danger. It’s why writers can keep using broad outlines and tough characters shrouded in secrecy. This isn’t anything like a James Bond thriller, but the secret nature of the agent’s work creates international connections that thicken the narrative. 

Two ingredients of a good novel (to me) are interesting characters and a quick moving plot. Both have to be present. American Assassin has both and delivers an engaging current story with a lot of violence. The dialogue is a little straightforward but guys in a hurry don’t wax poetic about the universe. Now I’ll have to see the movie. 

Where the Dough is

It’s amazing how much difference one person can make to a business.

There is a local donut shop I like to go to on Saturdays. The owners have a few in the region and a location where they bake the sugary goodness early in the morning. When I started going I got to know one of the sons of the family who ran the front counter for walk in customers. He had a friendly demeanor and worked quick, always asking if there was anything else he could do, offered deals on dozen boxes. He had a natural customer service attitude, the kind all retailers depend on. He didn’t miss much work, as I could tell, and was always sunny and attentive. He wasn’t likely to leave for another job but anyone needing a salesman for their business might have easily snatched him up.

He does other work now for the family. I talked to his brother this morning who has taken over daily service duties, bagging donuts for walk in customers and selling coffee to hurried workers. He isn’t the attentive employee his brother was. He seems to be fighting off sleep most days and his tone suggests he has better things to do. He isn’t completely rude but he is dismissive and moves slowly through the morning, reluctantly stuffing doughy treats into sacks and punching sales totals into the register. He doesn’t talk much and gives the impression that walk in customers are interrupting something, probably just his empty thoughts.

Customer service isn’t a lost art but I wonder how much businesses really focus on it nowadays. Given enough time people go where the food is good and the service is friendly. Local places can survive for a while on legacy and exclusive offerings but service keeps people coming back. Small companies are especially slaves to friendly sales associates because they lack a managing hierarchy that angry customers can appeal to. 

 Who gets the complaint if the service is lousy? The boy’s mom? She might scold him in the moment but family dynamics always come into play. The dressing down isn't likely to stick. "That's just mom nagging me again" he is likely to think. Family relationships come before boss and employee relationships. Better to hire out, it’s less messy that way.

Successful stores have an established code of behavior for workers and evaluate that behavior on regular basis. This is apparent in companies that expand and grow. When employees understand the specifics of their job and are held accountable they flourish, or get fired. The attitude of one employee should never determine the success or failure of the overall project.

Small companies often don’t consider this when beginning a venture. After securing the financing and selecting the logistics, raw materials, wholesalers, buildings, city code compliance, there isn’t time for training. Just get the project up and running the thinking goes, so training gets overlooked. If they’re fortunate, an effective and eager employee, maybe a family member, handles the job well. If unfortunate, the struggling company will run off customers quicker than a listeria outbreak.

It's tough to add another critical 'to do' to already expansive list owners have to consider, but in dealings with the general public don’t skimp on friendly and attentive. Either teach it or hire git from somewhere else. It should be self-evident that people who are giving you money need to be treated like… well, like someone giving you money.

Don’t overdo it. Just smile, be quick and greet them coming in. Some stores have gone a little far with the warm greetings and “How can I help you?” type queries. I am not crazy about the “My pleasure” phrase that Chik-fil-A uses. I can tolerate the energy soaked barista at the gym juice bar, “Bro! you got to try this, loaded with protein!” But if they go too far it is because they’ve learned the lessons of pissing off the wrong customer. They see value in good service.  

Some, like Quick Trip, are legendary for speed and convenience. The model works. The gas station/short order/market puts up new stores about every 5 minutes (not quite). Keep the employees moving fast and teach them to be nice. Oh and most importantly, fire the ones who don’t get it.

Small shops and businesses hoping to grow should focus on customer service for employees, if not they flip a coin on success. Learn from the big stores on this.  

  

Security and Liberty

I was at a night club in Beijing talking to a slightly inebriated African artist. I say “African” because I can’t remember which country he said he was from. I am sure he told me but it was loud. “I like you’re W Bush!” he said in a straight-forward tone.

 I thought maybe I heard him wrong so I tried a different approach. “You mean the president…our president?” I said loudly hoping to be heard over the energy fueled thumping bass the DJ happily pushed out.

“Yes of course! He is like a parent spanking a bad child” He was referring to the war effort in Iraq, Afghanistan and the despots like Muammar Gadhafi that had surrendered their nuclear programs to international observers.

“I am sorry did you say you were an artist?” I said, shocked at his gratitude for a president who was universally despised outside the United States, at least I thought. Here was an artist (bohemian, liberal) who saw Bush in a positive light. Not only in a positive light but also someone with the moral authority to ‘punish’ evildoers. This was a first for me. After traveling around China and hanging with expats I just assumed the American president to be a figure of scorn and ridicule, at least this president.

I didn’t feel that way myself of course but defending one’s own culture to a vastly different one can be exhausting. I never took it personal. I didn’t understand some of the unsavory aspects of Chinese life either. The open air pet shops are a cultural blight I couldn’t un-see if I wanted to. The dogs and cats were crammed into a tight metal cage without enough room for each one to turn around in place. I felt like buying them all and letting them run away. Culture is unique to different parts of the world and I never wanted to lecture on minor points. So I let the criticisms of the US and Bush slide without much fuss. The harshest critics were back at home anyway.

The encounter with the African man at the expat bar taught me that Africa is different from Europe and America, as if you didn’t know. I can’t say for sure how representative he was of his countrymen but I didn’t meet too many Africans (a few Nigerians) from any country while in China. It is fair to assume a significant amount had no problem with the war in Iraq and even applauded the effort to rid the county of Saddam Hussein.

“You’re the first person to say that to me!” I smiled while shouting over the pulsating tracks. Still a little slurred but being friendly he suggested we visit his exhibit. “I have a show tomorrow at the embassy if you want to come.” he said. He pulled out 2 pamphlets for the event, signed them and handed them to my friend Andrew who was still as surprised at me about the Bush comment. The “show” was for artists from the area, I guess, at the Democratic Republic of the Congo embassy in Beijing. The details of the event were a little fuzzy even at the time but we did attend. It isn’t every day I get invited to any embassy. Turns out they speak French in the DRC, we didn’t understand a word from the speaker.

The incident at the bar was one of my first stark reminders that all corners of the world understand things like war and suffering differently. The reasons are varied. I couldn’t begin to put together all the personal accounts and experiences to fill out a complete picture. National histories, economics and international exposure all come into play. Many people associate ‘greatness’ with recognition only. As was the case with my Mongolian students who told me (through broken English) that Hitler was a great German leader.

I assume they meant “recognizable” and therefore “great”. At least I hope that’s what they meant.

When I say “understand things like war and suffering differently” I don’t mean it in the moral relativist way like, “Corruption is a way of life in every country, who can say it’s wrong”, or apologizing for drug dealing because jobs are hard to come by. Most of us are guilty of doing this logic some of the time. We want to justify wrong by contrasting it with larger wrongs.

Concrete institutions we as Americans take for granted like the rule of law and economic liberalism aren’t fundamental to many others. Not that citizens of DRC or even China wouldn’t love a just legal code with freedom of movement and the freedom of religion. Of course they would, but experience and practicality put those notions out of reach. Also cultural norms often dictate what change is possible.

Corruption is indeed a way of life and changing it requires a herculean effort. Only strong and determined leaders can stop it, and even then only through fear. People hate corruption because it disadvantages those who can’t afford to participate and it puts the 'machinery' of the state up for sale. It sends a strong signal to everyone, “If you want government to work be prepared to pay.” When paying bribes is a way of life no one can imagine life without it.

Much of the world doesn’t get to experience reliable institutions (imperfect as they are) year after year. In the US we have a legal system rooted in notions of liberty and justice, we complain of course but mostly it doesn’t change when the administrations change. In other words presidents don’t get to establish new courts and throw out governors or Senators because they want to. They can’t introduce new currency into the economy or kick in doors in Pennsylvania and arrest Quakers. Attempts at overreach are met with legal smack downs or citizen protests. Presidents aren’t kings. The conflicts are messy but the system prevails and security is maintained overall.

Security is not always transferable in the third world (however you define it) from outgoing to incoming leaders. Transfers of power can be contentious and violent. An official on a losing side can be imprisoned or killed. Poor leaders who are interested in nothing more than power are destructive in the long term.  This is a big part of why security is valued more than liberal thought and democratic norms. For many people it changes like the weather.

My friend from the DRC embassy probably recognized the injustice of those dictators in Afghanistan and Iraq. Or maybe he just had too much to drink.