2021年5月18日 星期二

The strange death of American modesty

Why did leaders stop pretending to be humble?
Author Headshot

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

When I was growing up, my father worked as a middle manager at a large insurance company. He was relatively new to the business world — he had previously taught at a community college — and used to marvel at the peculiarities of corporate culture. One thing he remarked on was the emphasis on informality — insincere but, I think, meaningful all the same. My father, his superior, and his subordinates were all expected to be on a first-name basis, without explicit use of titles. Your boss was your boss, and you'd better not forget it, but the power relations were supposed to be implicit.

I saw something of the same phenomenon when I became a professor myself. Some graduate students, especially foreigners, needed to be coached through a bit of acculturation. At first they would treat established figures with exaggerated deference, afraid to criticize their work. Then some would overreact, writing papers about "the stupid Tobin" or something like that. The balance between the reality of hierarchy — academic economics has a very steep prestige gradient, even though there isn't much of a conventional authority structure — and democratic manners took a little while to get right.

So what happened to that America?

The most obvious change has come in the G.O.P. Once upon a time Republican leaders posed as regular guys even when they were anything but: Dwight Eisenhower led an immense military machine to victory in World War II, but his campaign slogan was "I like Ike."

ADVERTISEMENT

Today, of course, the Republican Party has turned into a Trump personality cult, even though Donald Trump's actual accomplishments are hard to find. A failed nuclear deal with North Korea, a failed trade deal with China, a tax cut that never delivered the promised investment boom, a mishandled pandemic? Never mind. Obsequious professions of loyalty aren't just expected, they've become a requirement for those who want to stay in the party.

I've been especially struck by the tendency of Trump acolytes to praise him for virtues he manifestly doesn't have. After The Times offered a description of Joe Biden's working style — not entirely flattering, but reassuring in the sense that he's clearly someone who takes his job seriously and works hard at it — Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, enthused about Trump's physical vigor. (Hey, he drives a mean golf cart.)

When Tomas Philipson, a Chicago economist who worked for a time in the White House, returned to academia, his parting letter praised the famously non-reading Trump as someone whose "economic instincts were on a par with many Nobel economists."

These absurdities probably aren't an accident; they're proof of loyalty. Anyone can offer praise for qualities a man actually has; only the truly subservient will humiliate themselves by offering flattery totally untethered from reality.

ADVERTISEMENT

The G.O.P. has also become a party that, like authoritarians everywhere, goes wild when subjected to ridicule. Incredibly, the Trump justice department tried to force Twitter to divulge the identity of the person behind an account devoted to making fun of Rep. Devin Nunes, a noted Trump loyalist.

Again, what happened?

A lot of this obviously has to do with the psychological sickness that has afflicted the Republican Party. But I also suspect that we've seen an erosion of egalitarian norms throughout American society, simply because we've become a lot less egalitarian. It's a lot harder for top executives even to play-act at being regular guys now that they're paid almost 300 times as much as the average worker, up from "just" 20 times in the 1960s.

True, there was always a strong element of hypocrisy in those democratic norms, but hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, and there were some good aspects to the society we used to be. And I miss it.

ADVERTISEMENT

Quick Hits

How executives lived during the era of relative equality.

Executive pay used to be limited by the "outrage constraint."

Next thing you know they'll be setting up golden statues of Dear Leader. Oh, wait.

Why do loyalists have to humiliate themselves to prove their loyalty? Signaling theory.

Feedback
If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at krugman-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Facing the Music

Not much singing and chanting in the Trump administrationYouTube

Now this is how to praise a charismatic leader.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

New York Times Opinion highlights a range of perspectives and voices. This work is made possible with the support of subscribers. Please consider supporting The Times with this special offer.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/

On Tech: Apple’s bargain in China

Apple touts its commitment to privacy and free speech. That's why its China operation is so striking.

Apple's bargain in China

Irene Suosalo

Apple wouldn't be the company it is today without China. It's where Apple manufactures nearly all of its products and sells many of them.

But my colleagues have a disturbing new article about what Apple's dependence on China costs the company and China's citizens. Reading it left me questioning whether it's worth it for Apple and other American companies to operate in China if it means flouting their principles.

Jack Nicas, one of the reporters for the article, spoke to me about their investigation into the compromises that Apple makes to stay in the good graces of the Chinese government.

Shira: It's been clear for a long time that Apple is obeying Chinese laws in ways the company doesn't love. What was new and notable from your reporting?

Jack: We knew that the company had moved data from Chinese users of Apple devices inside China's borders. We knew that Apple had removed apps at the Chinese government's request. What we didn't know until now was the degree to which Apple had acquiesced to the Chinese government's demands in both cases.

Why does it matter where and how Apple stores data from Chinese citizens' iPhones and other devices?

Apple's actions could in some ways make Chinese users' information — such as emails, digital address books, photos and locations — an inviting target for the government.

ADVERTISEMENT

Apple agreed to move data that Chinese users save in iCloud to computer centers that are owned and operated by a Chinese state-owned company. Government employees physically manage the computers. The digital keys to unlock the data are saved on those computers. And Apple is using a technology to encrypt this data that it doesn't use anywhere else in the world because China wouldn't approve its other technology.

Security experts and an Apple engineer who reviewed internal Apple documents for us said that the company almost certainly wouldn't be able to stop the Chinese government from accessing Chinese users' potentially private and sensitive information.

What about censorship of apps? We have known that Apple, like all companies operating in China, blocks material that the government says defies its laws and norms.

What we found is that Apple built a system that is designed to proactively take down apps — without direct orders from the Chinese government — that Apple has deemed off limits in China, or that Apple believes will upset Chinese officials.

ADVERTISEMENT

The system includes training app reviewers on a long list of topics that it believes are not permitted in China and creating software that searches for those topics, which include Tiananmen Square, independence for Tibet and Taiwan and the names of at least one critic of the Chinese Community Party. That shows that Apple in some ways is using its capabilities to augment the Chinese government's restrictions on the internet.

Doesn't the company have to comply with China's laws? Is it appropriate to expect Apple to protect Chinese people from the surveillance and censorship of their own government?

Apple makes morals a central element of its brand. The company touts its commitment to privacy, security, civil liberties and protecting people from government intrusion. That's what makes Apple's actions in China so striking.

In Apple's defense, the company doesn't want to do any of this. And people close to Apple have said that the Chinese people are better off with the company in China trying its best to protect people's data and free speech. If Apple left China, there aren't other companies' phones or computers that can get people around the Chinese government's surveillance or censorship.

ADVERTISEMENT

Are you describing a Faustian bargain: Apple makes billions of dollars in China but at the cost of its principles?

Exactly. The company has its back against the wall. Apple became wildly profitable and valuable in part because it was able to capitalize on China both as a sales market and as a manufacturing hub.

But that success has come with requirements that undercut the values that Apple executives espouse, and that Apple's chief executive, Tim Cook, says Apple is all about. Apple has reaped riches from China, but is now grappling with enormous compromises.

Is this how Apple imagined it would be in China?

I don't think anyone at Apple envisioned how entrenched the company would become in China or the risks that Apple would be exposed to. In the beginning, Apple was setting up a few factories and had relatively small product sales in China. Now Apple is completely dependent on the country, and that gives the government a lot of power over Apple.

But it's also inaccurate to say that Apple has no leverage. China wants iPhones to be available there, and it also values the millions of jobs that Apple's supply chain creates.

Read more about this Apple investigation:

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

Before we go …

  • The name is Bond. Amazon Bond. (I'm very sorry for this terrible joke.): Amazon is negotiating to buy MGM, the movie and TV company that owns the rights to James Bond, the Pink Panther and other characters, my colleague Brooks Barnes reports. Also, read what a reshuffling of big media companies might mean for your favorite streaming video service.
  • "I would say that social media is the mass protest." That's what the founder of MuslimGirl.com told my colleagues Vivian Yee and Mona El-Naggar about online posts and videos that have made pro-Palestinian voices instantaneously accessible for a global audience.
  • Internet access gaps hurt rural economies: My colleague Ben Casselman writes about a rural county outside Des Moines where local leaders say that spotty internet access is holding back plans to attract new businesses and a younger generation of workers.

Hugs to this

This is fine art that you won't see in a museum. A 138-foot-tall hot air balloon of a mouse character might be coming to the skies of a city near you.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. You can also read past On Tech columns.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/