​American Dream used to be the dream of the world. As Americans, they are given opportunities to pursue dreams of their own, from educational choices to career achievements. It is especially manifested in immigrants arrived in the United States where they can find opportunities for making themselves to be somebody not possible at where they were from. The American Dream becomes a symbol of freedom, freedom to better oneself. American Dream can flourish because there is a stable political system supporting the country rich with resources. American Dream is also touted as a symbol of democracy as the United States is proud of her democratic political system. Recently, the American government and her Congress have become a little dysfunctional which is casting a shadow on the American Dream. The American elites are certainly aware of the correlation between American Dream and government effectiveness.

Chinese Dream is a new phrase appearing in the global vocabulary, but it is rapidly evolving into a describable notion. It is first raised into people's consciousness by the Chinese leader Xi JinPing as a simple political slogan - Chinese Dream is to raise the economic status of the vast population of Chinese people to "middle class" measured against the developed countries. Then the phrase of Chinese Dream resonated among more people who find the Chinese society (environment) indeed offering a vibrant environment (society) for them to advance their economic status (measured from a 'materialistic' point of view) but also to gain political confidence (calibrated from a 'psychological' point of view), hence demanding more progress in life. While majority of Chinese are still more focused on advancing their economic wellbeing, the elites of Chinese are very much concerned with where China is heading to in the future, what role she is going to play in the world arena and how China is going to be united as a nation from a historical perspective, in particular, on the issue how China is going to reunify Taiwan with the Mainland.

Chinese Dream may encompass the notion of reunification as stated above, but it does not seem to be clear at all whether the people in Taiwan shares an equivalent dream. In fact, from an intellectual point of view on the question of people's dream, it is questionable whether there is a Taiwanese Dream or what is a Taiwanese Dream? There is not much discussion on the subject matter in Taiwan. On further observation, one may attribute such lack of a Taiwanese Dream to the fact that there is no leader in Taiwan can clearly articulate or advocate a Taiwanese Dream. Through early years of economic development under the leadership of KMT (individual leaders under a stable political environment) , Taiwan has achieved an enviable economic status with GDP based on purchasing power per capita steadily increasing from $5000 (1980) to $45K (2014), a remarkable accomplishment. One might say that was the Taiwanese Dream. In recent years, the KMT administration was challenged by the opposition party, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). DPP promotes an independence movement for Taiwan and articulates the uniqueness of Taiwan people and yet Taiwan’s economy has become increasingly dependent on the mainland China’s market place. Even though DPP did win the 2016 presidential and legislators’ elections, but the people in Taiwan are far less settled in their economic future outlook. In particular, the young people in Taiwan face employment issue characterized by “22K” meaning the entry job salary being only NT $22,000/Month for college graduates. So what is the dream of Taiwanese people now?

There is no doubt that to advance economic development or to sustain a reasonable economic growth requires a stable political system. Many examples can be found in all continents including America. It is understandable that Mainland China is emphasizing such a condition while promoting the Chinese Dream. Xi Jinping has repeatedly declaring China's desire of "rising peacefully under a stable government (led by the Chinese Communist Party)". However, Taiwan on the other hand, seems to have no coherent vision on Taiwan's future both economically and politically. The political parties and their leaders seem to be unable to articulate a vision statement to define and support a viable Taiwanese Dream. The leaders and the political elites in Taiwan seem to have no desire or unable to find out whether the Taiwanese people have a Taiwanese Dream.

Though one does not find "Taiwanese Dream" often mentioned in Taiwan’s mass media, but upon visiting Taiwan and engaging discussion with people in Taiwan, one may find a number of common notions that may be characterized as a picture of Taiwanese Dream. First, the majority of people, especially older people are fairly content with their lives; they are reasonably well off economically. They are satisfied with the services that the government is providing them, environment, housing, transportation, safety, and healthcare. The seniors and government retirees are receiving many benefits; they are used to the peaceful life and being remote from the turmoil in the world. Some senior intellectuals even admitted frankly "Taiwan people are lack of global view or international awareness" and "they are focused on local matters and small issues". The elections in Taiwan, therefore, are principally concerned with Taiwan local issues. Even in the Presidential election, the candidates are deliberately shying away from international affairs and the national reunification issue. If one had to define a Taiwanese Dream based on conversations, it might be characterized as 'we are happy and leave us alone'. The young people in Taiwan face acute career issue but doesn’t seem to be clear with what is happening in the world around them (competition from youth elsewhere) nor what to expect from their political leaders. Perhaps they have been well taken care of by their elders and families; the young people are less concerned with the long-term future of Taiwan both economically and politically than they should.

Politically Taiwan is characterized by blue versus green colors. The blue principally represented by the KMT which has done a reasonable job in maintaining Taiwan’s economy while the world has gone through the most severe financial crisis in the past decade. KMT has also achieved increasing trade, business and travel agreements with Mainland China allowing Taiwan to enjoy a healthy trade surplus and a very significant number of tourists from Mainland each year. The green is represented by the DPP which has focused on seeking the governance right for the past eight years. The party is progressive indeed savvy with Internet communication skills hence attracted many young people’s support despite of its scanty policy statements regarding how to create jobs for the young people and how to charter Taiwan’s future. The green party was very successful in ‘coloring’ the Taiwanese people as different from the Chinese, an amazing achievement given that the majority of Taiwanese having the same blood, same name, same language and same culture as the Chinese. This devious achievement may eventually backfire since the DPP does not really have any choice but continue a strong economic tie with Mainland China. If China would reduce trade with Taiwan and discourage tourists to visit Taiwan, there would be a significant impact on the lives of the Taiwan people.
 
Ms. Eng-Wen Tsai, a mastermind of ‘two nations’ concept for the Mainland and Taiwan, may have won the election but she is stuck with a divided people very much dissatisfied with Taiwan’s current situation and totally confused with Taiwan’s hopeless future outlook. As people around the world all strive for a dream, the people in Taiwan hear none. Xi Jinping is destined to raise the majority of Chinese people into middle class that means matching or surpassing the economic status of the Taiwan people. What would happen to Taiwan if it is cut off from ties with Mainland China? Is there any leader in Taiwan caring about a Taiwanese Dream? Will President Tsai define a Taiwanese Dream? What is it? How to achieve it?    


It is not that people in Taiwan do not want to have a dream. The current leaders in Taiwan do not have one.

A local public school story happened a year ago at Piper School Board, Piper, Kansas City, had reached national mass media including CBS and New York Times. The news reporting might have raised a few eyebrows even created a little emotional reaction but the hidden issue the writer, Jodi Wilgoren implied - Declining American Value - in her long article, entitled, School Cheating Scandal Tests a Town’s Values, in the New York Times (2-14-2002) was never answered. A biologist teacher, Christine Pelton, who gave a zero grade to 28 students in her class for plagiarism in their botany project, collecting leafs and do research on them, was at the center of the story. The Piper High School Principal, Michael Adams, and the school superintendent, Dr. Michael Rooney, supported the teacher's decision but after some parents complained and protested to the school board, the superintendent under pressure ordered the teacher to change the grade. The teacher refused and resigned. Her resignation caught the town's attention and aroused a sympathetic support for her including some of her colleagues. This story stayed in my school board file holder undeleted because it raised a serious question on my mind: What did Jodi Wilgoren mean by stating that the incidence had been viewed as “a symbol of decline in American Value”?

In America, we value democracy and accept a variety of forms of democracy. The American public school board is one such unique democratic system established to 'guide and supervise' the public school district. The school board members are elected by the district citizens to represent them. The election of school board is a form of democracy, a rare kind (not like other elections of political offices) that its campaign finance is never an issue. I can attest to that as a school board member of my local community. I have reported honestly that I have received and spent zero dollars in each of my school board campaign. The school board members or trustees receive no compensation of any kind; the elected school board members perform their duties like volunteers. So in the Piper School District incidence, whatever decision the board made should have been done under the democratic school board guideline, an exercise of true democracy. There was hardly any misuse of power or corruption in the board other than the board was under 'public pressure' to make their decision. I use a quote notation on “public pressure” simply to highlight that this public pressure is by no means representing the majority of the school district voters or stakeholders. A few parents or concerned citizens could be loud enough in a school board meeting or diligent enough to collect a few dozens of petition names to make the elected school board members to bow under pressure. After all, the school board members are often not elected by a real majority since often the school board election receives less than 20% of eligible voters’ votes from the district.

The American public school boards face many issues like the Piper School incidence. So the Town Value or American Value questioned in Ms Pelton's article deserves some thinking. In my opinion with the Piper case in mind, we are not losing American value because the plagiarism is on the rise. Sure there are people who plagiarize. For example, Mary Burke, a Democrat running for governor in Wisconsin faced allegations of plagiarism - her jobs plan copied from other Democratic candidates and Dr. Monica Wehby, a Republican running for the State Senator in Oregon was accused of plagiarism as well – copying her health care and economic plans from various Republican sources. Another example, John Walsh was appointed to the junior Senator for the state of Montana after Senator Max Baucus was appointed the Ambassador to China. Walsh, a Democrat was heading into a tough reelection bid, but then Walsh was accused of plagiarism in his master’s thesis from the Army War College. In the above cases, they all lost their elections. So, even there is a rise of citizen plagiarism, we do have tools to judge the extent and intention involved to catch plagiarism, a sort of anti-plagiarism enforcement as done by Our Bad Media exposing the above cases. 

Americans have not lost value in condemning plagiarism. Living under Internet and cell phone environment, using Google search and Wikipedia is not only legitimate but encouraged. The Piper students should be given the benefit of the doubt that they had used the search tools for the right intention. The teacher if suspecting plagiarism was rampant could easily give references to the Internet contents and post questions and assignments to lead the students to do research and thinking work rather than just copy and paste. If the project was over the entire semester, the teacher should bear some responsibility for not communicating with the students/parents leading them to the intended purpose of the project. After all, the ultimate duty of a teacher is to make students learn not to punish them.

However, the town value or American value was not lost on ‘justice’ regarding protection of the teacher's job or duty either. The public support including that of the teacher community and job offers Ms Christine Pelton received was a good indication that American value still included justice. It was utterly unfair for Christine to be pressured to resign; equally unjust even if she voluntarily resigned. The superintendent and the school board obviously had made a mistake in handling this matter ending with such an unfortunate result. Christine's intention was not at fault at all, she might be able to direct the class to avoid an unnecessary confrontation but her dignity and job as a teacher should have been protected by the school board and the school system. From this Piper School incident and many other incidences in our public school systems, I do see a serious Decline in American Value, but not about plagiarism, job discrimination or justice. What is it then?
​
In thinking about this question, I do believe that we are seeing a decline in American Value. What we are losing is the understanding and respect of true democracy our founding fathers left us, the old American value - the majority's position must be honored in reaching decisions. In our practice of two centuries of democracy, we seem to have shifted gradually and now rapidly from ‘seeking the majority opinion’ to ‘covering up or silencing the majority’ through activism based on self-interest, typically done by a vocal minority. Instead of conscientiously seeking out the true public (majority) opinion, the media spin the activists' views to be politically correct hence masking or covering up the majority view. This is happening in foreign affairs (wars we engaged in), national issues (healthcare, gay marriage, immigration, public debt, religious rights ...) and community issues (such as that faced by the Piper school board). Efforts for seeking true public opinions are silenced and never attempted. The end result is the dysfunction of democracy in our school systems, in our town halls and in our Congress. The political process is directed to win (unfortunately from activists positions) not to explore and follow the real majority wish. Sadly, the American politicians seemed to be taught and brought up to firmly believe in the view that the majority does not know how to vote or they don't vote. Hence the politicians only pay attention to the special interest groups rather than seeking the true majority opinion. Pondering on the Piper School incidence and our national political arena, I feel I can conclude that the serious decline in American Value is in the true value of democracy!
 

John Mearsheimer is well known for his Hegemony Theory on national security and foreign relations. He makes reasonable assumptions for his theory and claims modestly that the theory is only right 75% of the time. This allows him to pick and choose past even conveniently to lend credits to his theory as well as to apply the theory selectively to current world affairs. On the question whether his theory can predict the future, he argues that there is no data on future, hence a simplified theory can only help people think and deal with the complicated world politics. So his theory is essential but has limitations in his predictions.

Mr. Mearsheimer is a persuasive speaker, often invited to speak on world issues. John has written many books and essays on his theory based on realism. He has given many lectures now available on YouTube, including, "Why China Can Not Rise Peacefully?" given at the Center of International Policy Studies at University of Ottawa (10/20/2012) and "Realism and the Rise of China", a Harper Lecture Series at University of Chicago (12/18/2013). John's lectures often drew a large audience and a lengthy Q&A session. Mr. Mearsheimer has a large group of followers especially among the U.S. Military industry complex, thus his theory is quite influential on foreign relation policy makers. His writings and talks on China Rise issue raised serious concerns on the outcome of a rising China and implied an adversary hegemony relation between the U.S. and China possibly leading to war, these discussions certainly deserve to be reviewed and commented in this column.

Mearsheimer's recent speeches and essays have often addressed the question, Whether or Not China Can Rise Peacefully?’ His answer is no! He draws that conclusion based on his theory with the following five assumptions: 1. States are principal actors with no higher authority, 2. All States have offensive military capability, 3. No State can be certain of other States' intentions, 4. State's principal goal is survival, and 5. States are rational actors. He then deduces three behaviors based on these five assumptions. First, fear, State will fear each other. Second, self help, State will quickly figure out that State must rely on self help. Third, the best way to survive is to be the most powerful, to be a regional hegemon since global hegemon is too difficult to achieve. Mearsheimer often cites historical facts to strengthen his arguments and he admits he has been frequently challenged; one notable challenge is the effect of nuclear weapon, whether it will have deterrent effect in the hegemony theory. On this point, he will use the 25% uncertainty in his theory to gloss it over.

Mearsheimer refers to history particularly American history to illustrate the appetite of the U.S. to be a hegemon: applying the Monroe doctrine to her advantage; thirteen colonies murdered native Indians, the U.S. stole from Mexico, and she did gun on Canada and Canada feared the US appetite of conquering. Therefore, Mearsheimer thinks that the U.S. foreign policy is very much like his theory. Regarding how is China going to be, he makes the following statements: China remembers her weak state in history; she wants to be 20 or 50 times more powerful than Japan. China wants her own Monroe Doctrine remembering the Cuba Missile crisis. China would like to push the U.S. away from Asia just like the U.S. had pushed the Europeans away from America. The US response has been following the theory of hegemony, the U.S. would not tolerate the existence of other regional hegemon to exist, hence 'pivot' to Asia. China's neighbors also think and behave according to the hegemony theory, so Japan and India jumped into bed with the U.S. and so did other ASEAN countries because of fear. China sees the neighbors and the U.S as encirclement threatening her survival, she will increase military spending. Then the arms race spirals up, Japan offers weapons to other small Asian countries, the U.S. even sells frigates to Taiwan certainly not with the intention to help China and Taiwan to unite.

When one hears Mearsheimer's arguments he selected to support Mearsheimer’s theory, it seems to be very persuasive. However, from a foreign policy point of view, one must go deeper in thoughts from assumptions (its logical basis) to facts (comparing opposing facts) and to conclusions (considering both angels and Devils' advocate). I would like to tread such a thought process on Mearsheimer's five assumptions, the relevant facts related to the rise of China and critique his conclusion - China cannot rise peacefully, implying hegemonic confrontation leading to war, possibly WW III.

On his first assumption that State has no higher authority, there is definitely fallacy in it. Aside from moral higher principle (faith power realists tend to ignore), there is the United Nation. Granted, that the UN has not progressed rapidly and effectively but nevertheless it has made significant progress since WW II. The powerful nations may tend to exhibit hegemony behavior, but there are consequences to bear and real constraints even the strongest nation would fear. The U.S. might have felt occasionally there wasn't any higher authority than the White House and US Congress but in reality, particularly over long term, as the world is progressing to democracy and global integration, a higher authority would definitely emerge, hopefully being the UN or perhaps a G2 or G3. On this assumption, China appears to believe and think differently from the U.S. China works diligently and pays more attention to the UN organization and its constituents seriously. The U.S. might have understood this since the Iraq war. Whether she would change her philosophy in conducting her foreign policy or not remains to be seen. If Mearsheimer's fifth assumption (States are rational actors) were right (I certainly hope so), we would expect the U.S. and China will not irrationally pursue a hegemony path, rather they will work for mutual benefit as if there is a higher authority.

On the question, Whether China Can Rise in Peace?, the real sensible thought process is to ask two questions, 'Will the U.S. let China rise in peace?' and ' Will China follow a hegemony path to rise?'. To the first question, I hope the U.S. will not be blindly led by an unproven hegemony theory (hegemony will never establish a stable world as the theory itself projects constant confrontation and instability), rather she will act rationally to understand what are the real challenges coming from where. To the second question, I think China has always been taking prudent and careful steps in foreign affairs based on a deep philosophy, war is evil and 'WANG Dao' wins (by persuasion via soft power) and ultimately win-win prevails. In fact, China has a lot more respect to the soft power of the U.S. than the U.S. herself. Naturally, even soft power, just like corporations, may practice 'hegemony theory' which I believe the world should avoid and could avoid by embracing all cultures and all societies with open mind. 

I am not the only person who has an opposing opinion to the hegemony theory. There are many other political analysts disagree with Mearsheimer. I would especially mention here two young scholars who are concerned that Mearsheimer's theory might have unintentionally led the world politics into the wrong direction. These examples commenting on Mearsheimer's work may offer you some comforting thoughts. Laurence Vincent (3-8-2013) in a thesis for the University of West of England, Bristol, and Sverrir Steinsson (3-6-2014) in his thesis for the University of Iceland, both published by E-IR (international Relations Students publishes student essays and dissertations) provided organic food for thought. In conclusion, let me paraphrase William Arthur Ward by saying: The pessimist believes bad things will repeat, the optimist expects justice will prevail, and the realist applies rational thinking carefully to charter the course.