Game Change Will Be Political Porn for Democrats

By Brian Tam

An HBO film titled Game Change is due to air Saturday on the Reelz Channel. It follows John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign to his defeat in the general election. Before its premier though, a preview was released to the general public.

It begins with McCain’s advisors strategizing about their next move. The Arizona Senator is in jeopardy of losing the general election to Obama. The “game changer” turns out to be his selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. At first, she seems to play a positive influence on his campaign. The support she had gained from many conservatives proved to be an invaluable asset. A CNN poll revealed that at one point during the race, McCain was tied with Obama.

But then things soon turned sour for Palin, as we know. A series of events tarnished her reputation. Her ABC News interview with correspondant Charlie Gibson, where she mistakes Alaska’s geographical proximity to Russia, is a blunder that damages her name. The documentary suggests that it is at this moment that she feels the overwhelming political pressures and burdens. What happens next is disturbing and alarming. It appears that she is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. The atmosphere changes dramatically. Eerie music plays in the background as Palin says “I miss my baby. I miss sleeping with my baby,” shaking her head in dismay and frustration. Next appears a still image of her unconscious on the floor.

The preview paints Palin as a pawn of McCain’s campaign team. She is manipulated to become what the advisers want her to be. Even if you are not a Palin supporter, you can’t help but sympathize for her slow descent to madness. However, every sane individual knows that is simply based off a true story, and not the true story. It is nothing more than another Hollywood story that dramatizes the portrayal of the former vice presidential nominee.

Honestly, if Palin wanted to escape her traumatically painful past, she would not make herself a public figure. After the election, she wrote a best-selling memoir, agreed to allow her daughter to participate in Dancing with the Stars, went on a national speaking tour, and continued to press her political ideals on Fox News. She was anything but out of the limelight. The film is compelling, but far too unrealistic to take seriously. I think that people who followed the campaign as I had would share my opinion that the events and character of the protagonists were not accurately captured.

Another scene I have a problem with is when Palin states that she single-handedly carried the campaign. Not only is this statement false but it is simply outrageous. McCain’s refusal to end the Iraq war, his disagreeable positions on issues like abortion and offshore drilling, his volcanic temper and public dissatisfaction with the Bush administration are all factors that damaged his campaign. None of these however, were highlighted within the trailer. Palin also has her fair share of stumbles and blunders as the film illustrates, but she is not solely responsible for his campaign’s victories and losses.

I don’t consider this to be a film about politics, but rather a poorly engineered sob story. Palin is cast in an unflattering light, portrayed as a woman professionally unqualified and personally unprepared for the national stage. Although I have not seen it, I know that the parts where I’m supposed to feel sympathetic for Palin will be the moments that I will burst out laughing. I predict the film will be extremely exaggerated, inconsistent with the campaign’s timeline.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPhh7mch5zo

TED Talks Hurt the Free Flow of Ideas

By Brian Tam

A recent editorial in The Atlantic makes the argument that TED (Technology, Entertainment, and Design) — a global conference formed to disseminate “ideas worth spreading” — actually makes ideas smaller. The editorial makes the case that the platform constricts ideas because it facilitates the “ownership of ideas.” TED reinforces the belief that it is more important to patent ideas then to let them develop and take a life of their own. Ideas that were once conversational and free-wheeling now have become intellectual properties.

As a TED-fanatic, I may feel obligated to disagree with the editorial, but there is some validity to its points. The spectrum of ideas allowed at these TED conferences has expanded to encompass the gamut of infinite possible ideas. Leading experts from various backgrounds are coming together to impart their knowledge onto future generations. This project has started a movement, initiating a global ripple effect that inspires others to think more conceptually. However, the structure of the system prevents the public from weighing in on the conversation. It has not been a sufficiently reliable forum for discussion. The talks are organized much like college classes, in that there is more lecturing then there is discussion. In the name of spreading a concept, the talk ends up narrowing it. The topics may be engaging, but the talks are usually not.

To pitch an idea at a TED talk is a validation of sorts that grants only an exclusive number of speakers the honor of establishing their name alongside accomplished intellectual giants that the institution has selected, such as physicist Steven Hawkins, former President Bill Clinton, and billionaire Bill Gates.

TED talks feel more like award ceremonies than conferences. To be a speaker at TED is a testament of merit that permits individuals to introduce ideas that they can claim absolute ownership over. These speakers are being rewarded for their accomplishments, and yet the public, whose ideas may coincide or differ with theirs, is being deprived of having their own voices heard. The speaker’s word is unquestionable because they now have the notoriety to prove it. And since there is no time for debate, their ideas are assumed to be right even though there may be critics. The speaker reigns supreme, with no challengers to threaten his ideas.

Time contributes to this problem. Speakers are limited to only 18 minutes of speech, which generally includes two to three minutes of unnecessary banter and sentimental storytelling. More complex ideas that require a greater amount of explanation are hindered by this time constraint. Oftentimes, a proposition is made without any form of evidentiary support. Further information is necessary, but this demands further analysis. Oftentimes, speakers don’t delve deeper into specifics and ideas are consequently left to linger. The public is left with more questions and more hypotheticals then answers by the end.

This problem could easily be resolved if the atmosphere was more intimate. When students have questions for a professor, inquiries can normally be addressed by simply raising a hand. At TED, of course, this doesn’t happen because of time restraints, event guidelines, and personal preferences. Rather, the audience absorbs the material without having the opportunity to offer criticism, raise concerns, or build upon the speaker’s idea. And because the larger TEDx events — independently organized TED programs — are private, only a select group of individuals would be able to attend. A small minority are given the opportunity to be a part of this learning experience. It would be more educationally rewarding to pay for a college course. At least most professors will take the time to address any reservations. The talks are uploaded on the website and are made open to the public; however, web interaction lacks the intimacy of face-to-face communication. It is more fulfilling to witness the event, to be a part of the experience, then to watch a recording of it.

TED is an innovative platform that can propel ideas forward, but the program ultimately fails to provide communities, organizations, and individuals the opportunity to stimulate dialogue and spark conversation. Although TED events certainly have the potential to inspire others, it has become more of an institution of recognition rather than a channel for innovation. More voices are being silenced than freed. 

What the Academy Awards Can Teach Politicians

The Academy Awards can provide some insight into the flaws of America’s political system and the measures that can be taken to revise it.

The current voting system is imperfect because a candidate may win based not on his merits but the resources that he possesses. Fat cats and wealthy organizations can influence the course of elections because the monetary contributions that they donate will fund projects that will promote candidates. This fundraising competition has become so ingrained into our politics that it threatens the very foundation of the democratic process.

Money talks, but this problem can be resolved if more stringent campaign financing rules are adopted. A recent rule was implemented to barr inviting Academy voters to attend events designed specifically to promote a nominated movie or individual. It is difficult for Oscar nominees to lobby for votes when restrictions like this are in place. However, there are not as many visible limitations like this in politics. According to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, all the presidential candidates involved in the 2012 election have raised more than $330 million to date. This substantial amount can be dramatically reduced if more initiatives like the ones the Oscars have are taken to limit campaign financing.

GOP candidates prepare months before the primaries to get an edge over the competition. A proposition that can be taken under consideration is to reduce this amount of time in which candidates are allowed to campaign. Oscar awardees are given notice of their nomination only a few weeks ahead of time. Once announced, there is a succinct time frame in which they can gain support.

In fact, there is little that can be done to persuade Academy members that they deserve the golden statuette. There are additional stricter rules that the organization has implemented to curb the practice. These include a stop to receptions after film screenings, a ban on negative social media campaigning and Q&A restrictions. Box office sales and popularity also do not weigh into a nominee’s decision. All that is presented to Academy members for judgement is the film’s on-screen work. It is the artistic content that becomes the primary voting factor, and not the means by which votes are gathered.

However, this does not mean that the Oscars should be a model for how voting is conducted. The award show has its own problems. For one, the public is not permitted to vote for their favorites. Instead, only a small selectorate of individuals from the exclusive Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences decide the winners. Only those who have been nominated for an Oscar or those who are elected by two other current members in your field can be chosen to be in this group. This prohibits the average adolescent teenage girl from voting for the last Harry Potter movie. Participation is granted only amongst a minority.

What I am advocating for is stricter campaign laws. Money poisons the voting process. Politics has become a game of flash over substance. The assessment of a candidate should be based on his experience, qualifications, and character.

Are Millenials Screwed?

By Brian Tam

With a recession, a crippling housing market, and a scarce availability of jobs, it seems the American dream is becoming more difficult to obtain. Millennials are called the “Lost Generation” because more individuals are now struggling to find work, get a college education, and create a life for themselves.

It’s hard to ignore the reality of our situation. The financial crisis of 2008 slowed the growth of spending and income. The paucity of jobs leaves many middle class families sliding into poverty. However, I’m sick of hearing the “doomsday” scenarios for the millennial generation. It discourages our country from finding a solution.

I don’t think that our future is as bleak as many predict. The advantage our generation has over previous generations is that we are the products of the Internet. It has expanded the free marketplace of ideas on a global level, making it easier for dreams to become reality. The capabilities and resources now have become limitless for us. Many problems lie ahead, but the economic and technological strides our country has made gives me the optimism to believe that we will rebuild a new and greater tomorrow.

A common apprehension of the millennial generation is the state of our economy. However, under the Obama administration, the private sector has added more than 2.3 million new jobs since March 2010. There are fewer net jobs now and a greater unemployment rate than in 2008, but the President has started a trend of consistent job gains. Through his initiatives, economic improvements are becoming more and more noticeable. This is a sign of promising change that our country is seeing. Because jobs are more prominent now, millennials may not be as out of luck as cynics predict.

There are analysts who argue that the Great Depression is repeating itself, but there are flaws in their theories. Unemployment is currently nowhere near as high as it was during the Great Depression and Western nations have acquired more wealth now than 80 years ago. We are in a financial slump, but the nation has overcome such droughts before.

It is true that our world faces the greatest economic crisis since the Depression, but there is hope in these statistics that we can overcome this threat.

I believe that the cure to our financial troubles lies in the advancements our country has made within the last few decades like the Internet, television, radio. The crisis we face will give birth to innovation. New entrepreneurial individuals and growing industries will take the opportunity to forge new business models and jump on technological platforms to revolutionize the economy. A whole digital industry has emerged from such innovation. The Internet has been an indispensable tool that has allowed such creative diffusion to exist.

Our country has already seen signs of this amongst start-up companies. Amidst the recession, 2009 was the year business startups reached their highest level in 14 years, even exceeding the number of startups during the peak 1999-2000 technology boom. According to the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity, a leading indicator of new-business creation in the United States, the number of new businesses created during the 2007–2009 recession years increased steadily year to year. And according to recent Bloomberg.com business intelligence reports, the number has continue to increase in the last year.

There is reason to worry because there is potential for the nation’s financial condition to gradually worsen. But this is not the first time that the United States has risen from the ashes of a recession.The Atlantic senior editor Richard Florida said it best when he suggests using the term “reset,” arguing that the innovations spurred by hard times will fill the landscape of the post-recession economy. It is not just a period of economic decay; a reset is a chance to grow from the rubble.

When Will Jeremy Lin’s Star Die Out?

By Brian Tam

I am embarrassed to say that I’m one of the few Asian Americans who hasn’t created a shrine yet, worshipping the sports star. But it’s not that I haven’t been swept away by the Lin-sanity. I have watched the highs and lows of his slow professional career from the Lakers to the Hornets. Personally, I would argue that he is the most important Asian American role model that exists currently.

 

He is an important figure that is relevant sports-related news no doubt, but the question is, how long will it be before the Jeremy Lin story be considered untimely? I think the main assumption that can be made is that all celebrities, no matter how famous, cannot be preserved. Even tombstones can wither away. And this led me thinking, what can be done to prolong the inevitable decline of fame? I am convinced that most of my generation will be able to tell you who Yao Ming is, but his reputation has not left a legacy. Ask again in a few years, and the response may not be the same.

 

Athletes, unlike most celebrities, are customarily known for their talent. Lin’s fame thus depends more on his ability to maintain an impeccable winning record, rather than his work ethic, appearance, or race. These characteristics will only reinforce the positive image that the mainstream media creates of him. It is true that there have only been four Asian American players within the history of the NBA. These athletes have not nearly received the amount of coverage that Lin has gained (And it’s not just because he has a pun-able name that would make great headline titles). He is a trending subject of discussion not because he is a minority, but because he has skills that are unique to the game.

 

So theoretically, his fame can rise as long as the team wins. But in the last eight games that Lin has been a part of, the Knicks have lost twice. He averages a larger percentage of turn-overs than most basketball players do. This has not stopped the press though from finding some angle to write about.

 

The problem is simple, the standards of Linsanity were too high to begin with. And that is often the case for most athletes. To the general public, we do not hear about an athlete’s name until something remarkable has happened. It is often the zenith point of an individual’s career when news reaches the public. If this bar is not consistently raised, then his reign may come to an end.

 

Another unpredictable factor that may cause problems for Lin is whether or not a new trending star appears. This could very well happen the first few days of a person’s career or the next few years. Lin is one of the sport’s greatest point guards, so it is very likely that his name will be remembered. He has the potential to sustain it. I’m sure that most Asian Americans will have a spot for him in their hall of fame, but I predict that he will never be a household name. I am convinced that his time will come just as all the other Asian American players.

 

 

 

There’s Van Helsing, Blade Trinity, Buffy Summers, and now…Abraham Lincoln, the Vampire Hunter

By Brian Tam

What better way to honor Abraham Lincoln on President’s Day than to create an action-packed supernatural movie about his life? It’s true, our nation’s sixteenth president will preserve the Union in theatres the best way that he knows how, by kicking some fang-biting vampire ass. In June 2012, he will fight demonic creatures in a movie adaptation of Seth Grahame-Smith’s bestselling novel, “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.”

It is blatantly obvious that the movie is a parody, but at the same time, the trailer is engineered to make it seem like a serious action movie. The title itself is comical and yet too strangely intriguing to resist the temptation of viewing the trailer. The opening begins with our president sitting by a fireplace, writing in his diary about an impending war. Although the viewer may assume that Lincoln is referring to the Civil War, the trailer goes on to reveal that it will not be a conflict between man and man. Then, ominous eerie music plays in the background, as Lincoln is confronted with a vampire. But suddenly, he turns into a Blade Trinity superhero, fighting him for about thirty seconds, until he ends it slaying the creature with an axe. Our ex-president concludes with an Oscar-worthy line, “I’ve been a slave to vampires for thirty years.” Remember that this is the same orator who delivered the Gettysburg address.

I had a similar awkward lost-for-words reaction when I saw a preview of “Iron Sky,” a movie about a group of Nazi descendants who are planning to wipe out all human life on Earth from their base of operations on the moon. After hearing about movies like this, I begin to wonder if it is as difficult to make it in Hollywood as everyone says it is. Benjamin Walker, the leading actor who plays Lincoln, has had previous experience playing as historical figures in the past, starring in Broadway’s rock musical incarnation “Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson.” He has also made film appearances in Kinsey, Clint Eastwood’s Flags of Our Fathers, and The War Boys. However, despite his incredible resumé, I feel that it will be a challenge for him to make the transition between these different genres. It may be difficult for him to channel his character, a politician in the morning and a vampire slayer at night given his lack of experience in fantasy movies. However, his oddly diverse portfolio of film cameos shows that he is a chameleon artist of sorts that could actually be perfect for the job.

Although I may never watch his upcoming movie or go theaters simply to laugh at its ridiculousness, I applaud the author for being so bold, innovative, and humorous. Smith has written parody novels before like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and has even produced works on television like “The Hard Times of RJ Berger,” a scripted television comedy appearing on MTV. There is an enormous risk factor to choosing such an outlandish subject like this to write about. I think that it is incredibly difficult for writers to keep readers thoroughly entertained. However, the success that he has had with these projects are obviously a living testament to his writing abilities. It is always refreshing to see something original and I welcome future writers to follow in his creative footsteps.

Check out trailer here:

Ron Paul Allies Make Border-Line Racist Jabs at Jon Huntsman, “The Manchurian Candidate”

The political conversation turned ugly before the New Hampshire primaries when an anonymous group of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) advocates released a video to make a personal attack against fellow Republican presidential nominee Jon Huntsman.

Referred to as the “Manchurian candidate” in the video, Huntsman was criticized for his questionable sense of liberty and patriotism. Although this advertisement was meant to bastardize his legitimacy as president, it backfired and worked favorably for him. Because sweeping generalizations are being made without much evidentiary support, I can’t see anything worthwhile in the content that is provided.

The first of many problems that exists with the video is the lack of context. It operates like a “let-the-facts-speak-for-themselves” slideshow. It first presents random and unrelated dialogue clips of him speaking in Chinese, then a series of questions are posed “What’s he hiding?” and “American Values or Chinese?” To suggest that there is some distinguishable connection between the two, or ulterior insidious motive in being able to speak Chinese is laughable. Under the Obama administration, Huntsman was the ambassador to China for two years. If anything, his background in the language only makes him an ideal candidate for higher office His fluency in Chinese is not substantial enough evidence to support the great accusations that the presentation makes.

And the advertisement continues to lose its worth when his children are up for discussion. Huntsman’s two adopted Asian children appear on the screen after asking the question “Weak on China, wonder why,” as if to imply that his personal family attachments adversely affect the foreign policy decisions that he made.

What was not revealed however was the story behind his two adopted children. They were both born into unfortunate circumstances. He has one daughter named Gracie Mei from China who was abandoned at two months and left in a vegetable market. His second adopted daughter, Asha, was born in India and left to die on a dirt road before she was safely sent to an orphanage. By taking these kids under his wing and providing for them, Huntsman proves that he is a real man of character. This admirable side of him was obscured so that these allegations could sound somewhat plausible, but it is certainly not the case.

Also, reservedness is not a sign of weakness. He stresses the importance of maintaining an amiable relationship with China because it is an economic powerhouse that has provided much financial aid to our country, over $400 billion-worth. And although there seems to be an ensuing cold war, keeping peaceful relations with China for the last 40 years has been an invaluable economic advantage to the United States.

And finally, the video ends with a ridiculous photo-shopped image of Huntsman’s head cropped on Chairman Mao’s body and uniform. Comparing him to a Communist leader is a radical statement that immediately thrusts doubts in the viewer’s mind. He has been active in government since the late 1980’s under the Reagan administration. He was governor of Utah for four years. Anyone who believes that he is a Communist is as Huntsman calls the ad, “stupid.”

This advertisement was only a poorly constructed montage of absurd statements created to undermine the governor. But Jon Huntsman leaves unscathed from the slanderous tactics of the Ron Paul supporters. When voting, none of this should be used to evaluate his legitimacy as president.

SOPA and PIPA Help Eliminate Online Piracy, Dangerously Slows Innovation

Wikipedia is participating in a 24-hour black out on Wednesday to protest the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA). This law would allow copyright holders to use court orders and lawsuits against websites accused of streaming unauthorized content.

After a majority of congressional representatives voiced their disapproval of the bill, it was temporarily shelved in the House until a consensus could be reached. However, its sister counterpart, PIPA, has sneaked its way into the Senate, with little detection from opponents. Like the SOPA, PIPA would grant copyright holders the police power to monitor and block websites accused of infringement.

It is morally reasonable to argue in favor of these two acts because online piracy is illegal. More governmental action should be taken to make internet security stronger. However, allowing such a law to pass would be a danger to one’s civil liberties. The web enables billions of people to freely express and communicate their ideas, but by silencing these voices, such a law would only discourage diversity and individuality. For that reason, I cannot show my support for this legislation, but I believe that there are alternative means of dealing with the problem.

If a law like PIPA is passed, many internet operators’ websites like Facebook and Reddit could risk losing their user addresses instantly and indiscriminately without any kind of formal hearing. Both large companies and start-ups alike would be under strict scrutiny. Imagine the great societal ramifications of losing such web giants.

The central issue of the law is that it comes in conflict with our democratic ideals. The very foundation for our country would crumble if we did not have our basic freedoms to support us. Our society is so invested in the internet that denying individuals online privileges would disrupt our very way of life. Web-surfers can browse and research various subject matters through a number of different shared websites, blogs, and search engines. By slowing the circulation flow of information, individuals would be deprived of outlets for intellectual stimulation.

The music and film industries have expressed outrage over the matter, but they benefit from this exposure as well. Although they are not making deserved profits, their content is being showcased to others, building on their public image. This certainly should not justify online piracy, but artists gain notoriety, experience, and inspiration when their work enters this marketplace of ideas.

Although online piracy is a serious problem that demands the attention of the government, other approaches can be taken to remedy the situation. Google can be used as a model. Their company has taken the initiative to ending copyright infringement. They have invested more than $60 million in the fight against bad ads and removed over 5 million foreign rogue websites without asking U.S. companies to block them.

Censorship is never the answer, no matter what is at stake. Wikipedia is doing the right thing by protesting against this act. Freedom of speech and expression are necessary cornerstones of our society, extinguishing these would only stunt the intellectual progress that has been made.

On the Anniversary of Gandhi’s Assassination, Fighting Terrorism in India-Pakistan A Major Concern

Monday marks the 64-year anniversary of Indian activist Mohandas Gandhi’s assassination. The ideological leader helped free India from British control through his iconic non-violent protest and civil disobedience methods. He also led nationwide campaigns for increasing civil rights, reducing poverty, and ending religious animosities in the country.

However, the short peace that India enjoyed soon ended with his death. Since then, the country has faced violent political unrest by extremist groups. From 1970 to 2008, over 4,100 terrorist attacks have been reported, many of which were public bombings or assassinations.

Partly to stem such attacks, India last week sought a strategic partnership with regional neighbor Thailand. This dual alliance with a state like Thailand will play an integral role in stopping the root of terrorism, but it will not suffice. The country must extend their partnership to other countries and build upon its police power. It’s important to note that India should not be on the offensive, but always on the defensive. Action is necessary, but violence should only be used if the situation absolutely demands it. In that sense, Gandhi’s peaceful methods can be observed and practiced as a model for containing the threat of terrorism.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Thai counterpart, Yingluck Shinawatr signed six pact agreements in areas ranging from military cooperation, prisoner exchanges, and defense. They both agreed to set up a working group on security to tackle transnational crime, domestic terrorism, and drug trafficking.

Their efforts should not stop there though. If conflict is to end, the nation must call upon their neighbors, from both the East and West, to aid immediately. International support must come from as many different sources as possible. If India was to gain the support of more developed countries, then terrorists would feel more discouraged to act out.

This plan will reduce the criminal activity that exists outside of India’s borders, but will not dramatically control the threat of terrorism that exists within the country’s walls. And therein lies the central flaw of this partnership. It has some merit, but India should also strengthen its own military defense. A strong anti-terrorist police organization is a necessary contingency plan to have.

However, violence is not the answer. Gandhi was right when he said that India needed to be tough, not reactionary. The government cannot simply sit by while this recurring issue plagues the land, but at the same time, scouring the land for could-be terrorists would only cause panic and distress amongst citizens. As a rule of thumb, the country should show restraint. Violence should be used as a last resort. With assistance from other countries and a stronger domestic police force, India will be able to restore to its former state of peace and prosperity under Gandhi.

East vs. West: President Hu Jintao Leads China’s Culture War

Recently, the Washington Post published an article about Chinese President Hu Jintao’s recent speech regarding the threat of hostile forces abroad feeding unwarranted Western culture to his nation as an attempt to sow division. Wary of the potential danger, he urges party members to remain vigilant.

“We must clearly see that international hostile forces are intensifying the strategic plot of Westernizing and dividing China, and ideological and cultural fields are the focal areas of their long-term infiltration,” Hu said.

Although this sounds like a ridiculous conspiracy plot, there is some truth in the president’s words. For years, Chinese authorities have been able to block content, monitor multimedia activity, and reinforce socialist principles and values through censorship. But Jintao is correct in saying signs of Westernization have leaked into the nation. This infiltration has only slightly watered down the culture, but a uniquely overwhelming Chinese presence makes the country’s own culture distinct from Western culture.

However, that does not mean China should not embrace this culture or that it will divide the country. The consequences of integrating Western and Chinese culture may not be as grave as Jintao thinks. They may even work in his favor.

Japan provides a good model. During the Meiji Restoration in Japan, Western ideas were first adopted by an Asian country. With rapid economic growth, new political leadership, and innovative cultural breakthroughs, the country became a formidable force, rivaling even Western countries.

There are parallels that can be drawn between the turmoil that the Japanese faced and that the Chinese are facing today. Currently, China struggles with domestic issues that have caused dissatisfaction among the public such as income inequality, environmental pollution, a poor health care system, a lack of natural resources, and urbanization on a massive scale. And although there are many factors now that work against producing the same effects, China should look at this Restoration period as evidence for the advantageous social, economic, and political effects of Westernization. If Hu is worried about dissolution, then these internal problems need to be addressed first.

And in terms of Western culture, the popularity and lucrative profits made from foreign movies show that at least much of the youth is openly receptive to the idea and that aspects of it are already embedded within the society. Some of China’s modern music and dance draws influence from artists in the United States and Europe. Pop stars Lady Gaga and Britney Spears top Chinese billboard charts alongside notable local singers, but many songs are banned simply because they are not translated in Chinese or contain inappropriate content.

American blockbuster hits like Avatar and the Transformers franchise, and the Harry Potter series come unrivaled against China’s nationalist productions. The Chinese government has attempted to produce their own cultural products, but it is evident in the consistent failures of their movies like Beginning of the Great Revival that the country is currently unable to challenge Western nations in film, television, and other entertainment industries.

If the nation hopes to attain a greater level of cultural enrichment and meet the socioeconomic problems it faces, then the president must not cut the country off from the rest of the world. What he needs to do now is open with welcome arms the thoughts and ideas of the Western people.