With Japan being so much smaller than China how were they still able to successfully combat China in the early 20th century?

My answer on Quora.

At the risk of using another cliche - ‘Size does not necessarily matter.’

The UK, a small island nation, created and built the largest Empire that the planet has ever witnessed with holdings on six different countinents. France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands had their own success in this regard. In the Middle Ages the tiny city state of Venice was a regional power.

What seems to be the key driver in the game of power politics is a combination of aggressive leadership (will to power), economic prowess, geographical positioning, technological innovation and a well organized military.

The Japanese had the edge over China in all five of these aspects, thereby negating the apparent population and size advantages that should have given China the edge.

In the 19th century Japan took it upon themselves to modernize and they did so in rapid fashion. This gave them a tremendous head start over their Asian rivals and it wasn’t long afterward that Japan as a military entity could rival some of the European powers.

The Japanese victory in the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905), where they completed trounced the Tsarist forces was indicative of their progress. This followed on from the Sino-Japanese War (1895) where Japan’s victory against China guaranteed them control over the Korean Peninsula.

Japan’s success on the military front was consistent with the development of a strong land and naval force. However the political revolution that drove this advancement traces back to the Meiji Period (1868–1912) . During this time Japan, initially under the Emperor Meiji. broke from the Feudalistic structure of the Tokugawa shogunate and adopted a new ethos outlined by the Five Charter Oath (1868).

The provisions of the oath were -

1. Establishment of deliberative assemblies;
2. Involvement of all classes in carrying out state affairs;
3. Revocation of sumptuary laws and class restrictions on employment;
4. Replacement of "evil customs" with the "just laws of nature"; and
5. An international search for knowledge to strengthen the foundations of imperial rule.

While the Empire’s position as the ultimate Head of State was ensured, democracy was introduced and the Old Han system (still very much alive in Qing Dynasty China) was abolished. Japan came of age.

Source: Historical jury still out on Japan's Meiji Restoration | The Japan Times

The transition wasn’t as smooth as some like to portray but the Army would emerge as a significant power within the nation taking over the role from the earlier warrior classes. Since Japan is resource poor, territorial expansion was very much on their agenda.

Source: by-yoshitoshi-4 - Meiji Restoration Pictures - Samurai and Bushido - HISTORY.com

China in contrast lumbered for some time with the weak and corrupt Qing dynasty and even after the end of the last dynasty in 1911 (Xinhai Revolution) still struggled internally with disunity and Civil War, up until the Communist takeover in 1949.

Sources:

De Bary, William; and Arthur Tiedemann (eds.) (2005) [1958]. Sources of Japanese Tradition, Vol. II: 1600 to 2000 (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia

Breen, John, "The Imperial Oath of April 1868: ritual, power and politics in Restoration Japan," Monumenta Nipponica, 51, 4

What football moments broke your heart?

My answer on Quora.

As a Liverpool fan there were two that were gut wrenching. I still have nightmares about them to this day.

1977 FA Cup Final - Those damn white shirts. Source: 1977 FA Cup Final at Wembley Stadium : Manchester United 2 v Liverpool 1...

Manchester United 2 Liverpool 1 - FA Cup Final (1977)

I was only eight years old at the time of this match and watching football on TV in South Africa was a rarity (the country had no TV until 1975). However I was hooked on Liverpool from the moment that I started collecting Football cards. Kevin Keegan was my favourite player and in that season Liverpool repeated their performance from a year earlier by winning the League. The Reds had also made it to the Final of the European Cup which they were destined to win a few days later (3–1 against Borussia Moenchengladbach).

However in an era when domestic cup finals meant a lot more than they do today the FA Cup was key in Liverpool winning a unique treble.

Unfortunately it was not meant to be. Despite dominating possession Alex Stepney was a rock in goals for the Devils and Liverpool were out on the back foot early on in the second half courtesy of a Stuart “Poncho” Pearson strike. Jimmy Case drew level for the good guys (an amazing strike) but only three minutes later Jimmy Greenhoff settled it for the Mancunians. Liverpool did their best to salvage but United held firm.

As for myself it was the first time in my life that I can recall being ‘gutted’ by a sports result. It wasn’t to be the last.

Liverpool 0 Arsenal 2 (Last game of the 88/89 League season)

Arsenal had been great that season, but Liverpool who were the defending champions, had been on a league run that saw them win fifteen and draw three of their last eighteen matches. Indeed they had come back from a slow season start to place themselves in the drivers seat for the title. All that was needed was to avoid losing by two goals to Arsenal at Anfield. Now emotions on Merseyside were in a state of turmoil. The Hillsborough disaster on the 11th of April 1989 had cut a knife through the city. It was a terrible time. The Reds had given the fans something to cheer for.

The Arsenal game stood at 0–0 at half-time. Alan Smith then scored for the Gunners soon after the break but Liverpool held on. Then as the embers dimmed it happened…Michael Thomas connected with a goal that sunk Liverpool…2–0. No time for a reply. Arsenal were League champions (the first time since 1971). Liverpool, by the closest of margins were runners-up.

Liverpool did salvage part of the season though by winning the FA Cup (3–2 over Everton) in a final that was both entertaining and nerve wracking however it was the Thomas strike was acid in the eyes of every Red Supporter . To this day I grow cold thinking about it.

Oddly enough Thomas would later play for Liverpool in the future scoring the opener in the 1992 FA Cup final that saw Liverpool run out as 2–0 winners over Sunderland.

1989 - Football’s closet ever title finish….Football's greatest-ever title finish? Arsenal's 1989 triumph over Liverpool, told by the players

The rollercoaster ride of a football fan. YNWA.

Are people on the right less intelligent than those on the left?

My answer on Quora.

The problem with this type of question is that it opens up the floor to back and forth name calling and unsubstantiated positions that rarely refer to the evidence. In fact there are three bigger questions that actually precede this one that ought to be looked at first. These are

• What is intelligence and how best do we qualify or quantify it?
• What do we mean by right and left wing?
• What factors may cloud our assessment?

The First Question is the subject of great debate in Psychology. IQ tests exist and many approximate g (general intelligence very well) but a broader intelligence seems more complicated than that. In fact I have seen models posited over one hundred attributes that may impact intelligence. The General Intelligence Factor

Question Two is an issue that sits at the heart of political science. Right and Left are meaningless concepts unless the center is defined. Right or Left in one country is not necessarily the same as another. Also their are several axes of evaluation - economic freedom, authoritarian political structure etc that further complicate the issue. A sliding scale is too simple a proposition for evaluating stances that are multi-dimensional.

Question Three is a problem of Psychometrics. No test is perfect, at best they approximate a few aspects of reality and are subject to various contingencies (anxiety etc) that are difficult to gauge or correct for.

Having said this one can make certain assumptions to answer this question.

• IQ scores from a well normed test (WAIS, Stanford-Binet etc) correlates well with what intelligence is believed to be.
• The right includes both Social Conservatives and Economic Conservatives as well as Libertarians (Classic Liberals). The left includes modern liberals, progressives and various socialists.

Here is some of what I have seen.

1. ScienceDirect - Individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence (2–5 IQ points). Individuals who vote Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence (2 IQ points). Verbal intelligence is correlated with socially and economically liberal beliefs (β = .10-.32).
2. Is there a relationship between political orientation and cognitive ability? A test of three hypotheses in two studies. From the abstract - Study 1, focusing on students at a selective US university (n=7279), found support for the idea that some dimensions of conservatism are linked to lower verbal ability, whereas other dimensions are linked to higher verbal ability. There was also strong support for political extremists both on the left and right being higher in verbal ability than centrists.
3. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org.... Conclusion - Center right and center have the highest IQ - Brazilian study.

Whatever it is, the relationship is complex. Here are some other takes…Conservatives Are Dumber, and Smarter, Than Liberals. Another two from a liberal perspective - The politics of IQ - Macleans.ca and The primitive argument for liberal genius.

Here is an analysis from a British perspective. Whether you look at leaders or voters, Labour is now the stupidest party | The Spectator

In terms of political knowledge though Republican voters score higher than Democrats. Well Known:Public Option, Sonia Sotomayor Little Known: Cap and Trade, Max Baucus (Pew Research link).

In short…I would be cautious about drawing too many conclusions from any of this…Who is more intelligent - left or right? Neither..Follow the arguments on each issue and base your decision on that.

Why are Conservatives so Anti-Environmentalist?

Asked on Quora. My answer.

They are not. The premise that underpins this question is not based on reality.

Take a guess who said the following line?

"It is mankind and his activities that are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world's climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all."

No its not Al Gore, Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi but none other than the Iron Lady herself - Margaret Thatcher - one of Conservatism’s Great Icons.

Yes, conservatives can indeed be environmentalists and the notion that conservatives are anti-environment is a misreading of history.

Check out - https://scholarship.law.berkeley...

However one quote does not make a case. Lets look at the record then of four Republican Presidents in post-War United States for example

(For those of you who wish to dig deeper into the GOP and its environmental history. There is a great essay here on Teddy Roosevelt -(arguably the granddaddy of American Environmentalism in The Conservationist).

Dwight D. Eisenhower -During Ike’s term in office (1953–1960) when environmental issues were not as apparent on the political landscape the former General and World War II figure established the Arctic National Wildlife Range that safeguarded nine million acres of pristine land in Alaska from exploitation. He followed this up with legislation that was passed in 1958 to provide more funding for the acquisition of wildlife refuges.

Richard M. Nixon - Nixon was a great environmentalist. He set up the EPA in 1970 with the Clean Air Act, worked to halt dumping in the Great Lakes, and championed a $10 billion nationwide clean water program (1970).

Here was the proposed mandate for the EPA.

• Identify pollutants.
• Trace them through the entire ecological chain, observing and recording changes in form as they occur.
• Determine the impact of man and his environment.
• Examine interactions among forms of pollution.
• Identify where in the ecological chain interdiction would be most appropriate

In his 1970 State of the Union Address regarding the Clean Water Act. Nixon had this to say:

It is not a program for just one year. A year's plan in this field is no plan at all. This is a time to look ahead not a year, but 5 years or 10 years--whatever time is required to do the job. I shall propose to this Congress a $10 billion nationwide clean waters program to put modern municipal waste treatment plants in every place in America where they are needed to make our waters clean again, and do it now. We have the industrial capacity, if we begin now, to build them all within 5 years. This program will get them built within 5 years.

Ronald Reagan - Ronald Reagan has received much criticism for his environmental policies. He did indeed clash with the EPA however he always considered himself an environmentalist at heart. His approach was rooted in common sense. Reagan was not a fan of the command-and-control regulatory approach favored by his predecessors. He took a different philosophy arguing that Free Enterprise was the key to a better environment.

Technology and innovation should play a key role in improving the environment and indeed this way of thinking has become the mainstay of Techno-Optimistic Environmentalism. See Techno-Optimistic Environmentalism

Here are some of the successes during Reagan’s term in office (1981–1988)

• the Elimination of new lead production;
• the reduction of carbon monoxide production by a quarter;
• a fall in 40% of particulate pollution;
• he actively advanced the Montreal Protocol that championed action to phase out the production of chemicals that promote Ozone depletion (technological solutions arising from this Protocol have largely been successful);

George H.W. Bush - As an avid fisherman Bush Sr. was concerned about the environment. However he was not a fan of onerous regulation that had the potential for job loss and believed in balancing the economy with the environment. Like Reagan he took a more practical approach.

Here are his achievements

• Strict enforcement of the Clean Waters Act - Bush was very concerned that no wetlands would be lost on his watch (issued the Wetlands manual);
• Promotion of Acid Rain Trading program (largely considered successful - there has been an 88% reduction in sulfur dioxide levels from 1990 to 2018);
• Amendment of Clean Air Act (Pollution Prevention Act 1990);

Bush’s opinion on the environment is best encapsulated by his ‘millions of small decisions approach’ that he expressed here during the Presidential Environmental Youth Awards

"If it's true, as some say, that we're all borrowing the earth from future generations, it's also true that the earth will be preserved by millions of small decisions made every day by every one of us. And they're the kind of small decisions that make a world of difference, whether it's recycling aluminum cans, conserving water, turning off a lightbulb, even just keeping the refrigerator door closed."

In looking at the record of these Presidents and other conservative politicians - Don’t let anyone fool you: There ARE environmental conservatives). It is evident that most conservatives do care deeply about the environment.

The difference in comparison with modern day progressives is that conservatives are more interested in market solutions to these problems and are loathe to follow through with ‘big government’ initiatives that all too often have a substantial negative economic impact with poorly realized benefits.Pragmatism is the driver.

In fact Red States have been at the forefront of wind technology, especially when the economic case can be aligned with that of the environmental. Red States Are Leading the Wind Energy Charge.

Environmental Issues are complex and should transcend ideology, damning one side or another for a different approach is not helpful. The challenges ahead are great. A focus on doctrinal purity in an area ultimately driven by science, will create more problems then is warranted.

For Conservative groups focused on the environment as well as more articles on Green conservatism check out:

1. Home - ConservAmerica
2. The Conservative as Environmentalist
3. CRS Home - Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship

Additional Sources:

1. Dwight Eisenhower on Environment
2. Richard Nixon on Environment
3. Ronald Reagan on Environment
4. George Bush Sr. on Environment
5. Reagan, the Environmentalist

Was Apartheid Good or Bad?

Asked on Quora. My Answer.

I grew up in South Africa during the Apartheid era and despite the fact that it benefited me personally, as someone who was classified as White, there is no doubt that the system was bad.

The greatest evil of Apartheid was that it made it made Identity politics its central maxim. In so doing it sacrificed the right of the individual for that of the group. This runs completely against the foundations of authentic liberalism, that has served as the bedrock for our Western democracies.

Now some have claimed that the policy brought regional stability, and indeed an argument has been made that South Africa is in better shape today (economically and technically) compared to its continental neighbors as a result of Apartheid era policies, however I don’t believe this to be the case.

South African success is a function of a number of factors that include a large mineral wealth base (gold, diamonds, chrome, platinum, uranium etc), a dynamic but small free market economy, an educated elite with ties to Europe, a large labor market and an infrastructure that was largely developed prior to Apartheid. If anything Apartheid limited rather than extended many of these benefits to the majority of the country. South Africa only looks good when you juxtapose the country against nations that were all too often taken over by corrupt demagogues, who pilfered the local wealth, and established autocracies that restricted both individual and economic freedoms in their respective countries.

Apartheid for all intent of purpose was inherently an unstable system as seen by the Sharpeville massacre, the Rivonia trial, the Biko affair, the Soweto riots and the mass protests in the 1980s.

The system was only sustained by a strong police and military presence that created an illusion of stability. At the core, from inception in 1948, it began the slow but soon to be accelerated rot.

Once the political structure was undercut by economic sanctions, political isolation and a further demographic power imbalance it was only a matter of time before it would collapse.South Africa is better for the demise of Apartheid.

The great tragedy now though is the unfortunate reality that the leadership that has succeeded in its wake appears set in making the same errors of governance in power that has afflicted the rest of the continent. This may prove to be another evil.

Why does the Conservative party push progressive politics?

My answer on Quora.

I am not sure what you mean by the phrase Conservative party. Are you referring to the British Tory Party, the Canadian Conservatives, the US Republican Party or something else? The Australian Liberal Party is essentially a conservative outfit as is the Blue Dog Wing of the US Democratic Party, not to mention the Japanese Liberal Democrats, German CDU or the New Zealand Nationalist Party.

Conservatism is a broad framework of thought. It is in the grander scheme nation specific and context focused. In the US the GOP, was driven by Progressive politics during the Administrations of Teddy Roosevelt, William Taft, Herbert Hoover and to some extent Presidents Nixon and Ford.

Very often these progressive policies are followed with the assumption that they will stabilize society, counter deleterious change and further conservative nationhood principles. Roosevelt’s anti-trust focus falls under the former.

The German statesman Otto von Bismarck and the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli both adopted ideas from the socialist left and re-branded them with a pragmatic conservatism. They saw this as a way of countering the rise of political currents forces in their respective nation states that threatened the integrity of the country.

Bismarck needed to safeguard the neophyte German against the rising forces of socialism and Laissez-faire capitalism (while uniting the country) and did so by co-opting the agenda of the one making it more difficult for the other to operate. In a sense his work represented a triumph of collectivist conservatism over the individualistic alternative (for the time). His policies would serve as the vanguard for the Progressive movement in the US and the Fabianists in the UK.

Disraeli did the same by using his Reform Act of 1867 to cement an alliance between the ruling elite and the Working class against the upsurge of Middle Class capitalism.

So in short - A great deal of Conservative motivation centers around the maintenance of a perceived stability. I am not discounting a deeper compassion - although one need not be a progressive to be compassionate - but necessary pragmatism in a world of grays seems to be the key driver.

Whether this is the correct approach to take is one of the great debates on the Conservative side of the political coin.