Well, it’s inevitable that I write something about what’s going on in the financial world right now. After all—you’ve heard it everywhere—it’s “the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression.”

Is it really? It’s definitely pretty bad, that is, bad enough so that a Republican administration wants to spend $700B to alleviate the economy—alleviate the economy—and not save it, because it’s impossible to totally prevent a recession at this point, but only to make sure it’s not so bad as it could be. It’s also certain that we’re not feeling the full effects of the crisis quite yet and that it’ll last for some time. On the other hand, some people, at least, are probably going too crazy about it, when, really, the good times are going to eventually roll in again. Maybe it’s just my outlook on life, though.

Next, we should think about whether the state doing this and that to simply help alleviate the effects on the economy is going to work. I’m not sure exactly what to think about it. From a purely laissez-faire perspective, one would think it’s crazy. And it very well might be. But, as my parents explained to me, what investors want right now is confidence and assurance, or else the market just goes straight down. The bailout plan may do just that, even if it’s not going to help that much realistically, but it does at least a positive illusion or impression so that investors want to keep their money in the market.

Even so, we have to ask if that’s a wise use of government money, because, hey, that’s seven hundred billion dollars, and it’s not from thin air; it’s our money being spent to alleviate the problems of some huge, once extremely profitable companies who were fiscallly irresponsible. Speaking from a strictly constitutional and free market perspective, it is the wrong thing to do, but with the way people expect the government to do things for them these days, it might be worse to show investors a rough lesson by ignoring their pleas. The government, most believe, has to do something, even if there’s a chance it might not work.

But the government shouldn’t have to do that something. So then what should it do? Something or nothing? Follow constitutional principles or be pragmatic? It’s hard for me to say outright that one of those options is right and one is not, because both have their pros and cons. Maybe the government should do something, but not to that extent and not of that nature. Who knows, anyway? I’m pretty sure the government isn’t so sure of itself, either, and neither is either major presidential candidate, no matter what policy they espouse.

Thursday late afternoon, some of my friends and I went to see the Korean Ambassador to the United Nations give a talk at Baker Hall here at Rice titled, “Beyond the Alliance: The Future of Republic of Korea–U.S. Relations.” I’m glad we have events like this, but I also wish there were more of them as well.

It was really interesting. Mr. Hyun Chong Kim talked about how last year South Korea signed a breakthrough bilateral free trade agreement with the United States, and the positive impacts it will bring to both countries. He also talked about the eventual reunification of Korea, that the government is ready for it, and the role of the United States in stabilizing the Far East region, pacifying the two traditionally opposed nations of China and Japan. He praised the United States’ spreading democracy around the world, particularly in the Far East region, as well as affirming their Republic’s commitment to helping the U.S. in Iraq. (Of course, it would be in the interest of the South Korean state to declare commitment to the United States’ intervention in Iraq, since their own stability rests strongly on their alliance with the United States.)

I am not really in a position to be able to totally criticize someone of his stature, so I will not. Even so, I’d still like to point out some things with relation to the United States’ foreign policy.

I do believe the United States has a critical role in the Far East at this point. However, in fairly extensive agreement with Ron Paul’s foreign policy, I believe the prospects for the United States creating democracy in the Middle East are not too great—at least, with respect to using military force to do so. I don’t understand what makes us believe we can succeed with force there. I once believed it as well, but let’s face it. From a comparative politics point of view, I quite easily see that any government we put in place of another’s in the Middle East suffers an extreme crisis of legitimacy. The cost of creating an unlikely legitimate government is far too high. I believe that democracy has to, in some ways, evolve through their own cultures, from the inside out, not from the outside (us) in.

The United States’ situation in the Far East has been quite different in contrast with that of the Middle East. Mr. Hyun Chong Kim pointed to our success in making Japan a relatively peaceful, prosperous nation-state since World War II, as well as our continued success in preventing the Communists in North Korea from overrunning South Korea. Japan, however, is a unique case. We did not invade them with the idea of creating a democratic state. We defeated them in a military war (World War II), and created a new state in their old state’s place, but the background of Japan from the nineteenth century onward is different from any other Asian country’s. Already in the nineteenth century did they begin to have democratic institutions. They did not have complete civilian democratic institutions until we made them, but for a while, a semblance of democracy lived in Japan under the Meiji Constitution. This encouraged a little bit of a democratic culture. There has hardly been any in Iraq right now.

In South Korea, we defended an authoritarian government against another, North Korea, backed by the Soviet Union and China. South Korea is democratic now, but it is still a new democracy, only having elected its first civilian president in the 1990s—a change we did not force. I think we should remain committed to helping South Korea, but we should probably not be relentlessly attacking countries to “force” them into democracy when democratic culture and institutions do not exist. Simply encouraging it, though—and I do mean simply encouraging it—is probably fine.

We have stabilized the Far East by our presence stemming from the aftermath of World War II. China and Japan are not at war. Generally, North Korea keeps to itself. We do not, however, really have a place in much of the Middle East. In Afghanistan we pursue terrorists, but in Saudi Arabia we sit stationed as a result of old Cold War legacies, and in Iraq we topple a government and have problems creating a new, stable one accepted by the people there.

I am glad we are initiating free trade in South Korea and promoting prosperity in the Far East. We do need to be careful though. The Middle East is not just like the Far East. A military presence should never be taken lightly. We should also never forget social problems the various countries we are involved in face, even if it is not the direct realm of the government.

Let us also hope that the reunification of Korea will not be too turbulent. A lot of things on the international scene would be affected, such as having a strong U.S. ally, Korea, border China.

Finally, here’s a picture of some of my friends, some other Rice students, and I with His Excellency. I look a little angry (haha), but, oh well.

This morning at mass the priest reminded us about how wealth belongs to God and how Catholics should actively aid the needy. This is indeed true, and I do wish more people would actively push for this. But at the same time, I’m weary about the political perspective of modern liberalism on this particular topic— raise taxes, especially disproportionately on the more well-off, and have the government redistribute wealth.

Many Western liberal democracies have a history of excellent, trustworthy civil service. As I’ve studied in my Introduction to Comparative Politics class here, France’s people, for centuries now, have been looking up to their government’s efficient, well-tuned civil service to take care of everything. The United States, however, has never had a widely-respected bureaucracy. (In my opinion, the national bureaucracy lumped under the executive branch isn’t even constitutional, since Congress “created” it without properly attempting to amend the Constitution to allow for it. Congress was never given the power to delegate powers from the legislative to executive branches of government. This, however, belongs to another discussion and is not even one that can be remedied easily.) Not even trusting the national bureaucracy, how could American citizens so easily expect the government to efficiently distribute billions of tax dollars to the poor? It really doesn’t just logically happen.

Now, if, on the other hand, you think you can trust the government with that money, and not simply organize your own method of helping the poor, then think about the morality of the issue. If a government mandates certain taxes so that it can supposedly give to the poor, people across the country are practically being held at gunpoint to help the needy. Where are the civil liberties in that one? On the other hand, if people voluntarily and passionately organize into an efficient, moral organization (or organizations) that strictly focuses on social justice— collecting and distributing (God’s) wealth to the poor, I can assure you that something would get done. Are the people who call for absolute social justice through modern liberalism actively helping those in need, or are they just demanding that everyone be forced to do so by a government backed by the most powerful military in the world?

I’m not saying that we should totally obliterate social welfare. I probably haven’t studied enough economics and sociology to make that judgment. I do, however, wish people would stop pushing for a big government to handle people’s money for them (without asking!) instead of simply using the same passion to donate and help the needy themselves. As for people who don’t care about helping the poor, let them keep to themselves, and, for those of us who do care, let’s do something on our own instead of angrily forcing everyone to follow us. Let’s have neither minority oppressing majority, nor majority oppressing minority.