This 'Strong Nation' Business: Is It Really the Only Way, Or Are We Missing Something?

 

This 'Strong Nation' Business: Is It Really the Only Way, Or Are We Missing Something?

(Visual: Andy Rooney sitting behind his familiar desk. On the desk is a world map, and he's lightly tapping a few countries with his finger. Next to it, there's a small chain model that he occasionally fiddles with.)

We just talked about this "strong nation" idea, and why China seems so fixated on it. Sounds like they have to be strong, otherwise they'll get picked on, they'll get split up.

But if you think about it, isn't that a bit too absolute? Does it have to be that way? It's like saying a person has to look like a bodybuilder to avoid being bullied and to have a good life. Is that right?

You see, there are countries in the world that aren't what you'd call "strong nations." They don't have massive armies, no aircraft carriers sailing all over the globe. They're just small countries, like Switzerland, or Norway, or Costa Rica. And they're doing just fine. They haven't been split up. Their people are pretty happy, self-sufficient, and they play by the rules. How do they do it? They're not relying on "strength." What are they relying on? Maybe it's smarts, it's neutrality, it's getting along with your neighbors, it's keeping your own house in order.

So, is "strength" really the only condition to avoid being split up? I don't think so. If you let your own house fall into disarray, if you're fighting all the time, even if you have ten bodybuilders in your family, that family's going to fall apart sooner or later.

And conversely, even if you do become a "strong nation," are you really free from worry? All those powerful empires in history, didn't they eventually crumble? The Soviet Union was strong enough, wasn't it? What happened in the end? It just fell apart on its own. If a country's people aren't happy, if it's riddled with internal conflicts, if it's always bullying others, no matter how strong it is, that "strength" is like a balloon blown up, shiny on the outside, but empty inside.

They say "strength" is for "happiness," "self-sufficiency," "rule-abiding." But if you think about it, isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Can't you first make your people happy, first achieve self-sufficiency, first establish rules, and then, naturally, you become strong?

It's like saying, I have to become a millionaire before I can buy a good loaf of bread. No, that's not right, is it? You go to work first, earn some money, and you can buy bread. Once you've eaten enough bread, you'll have the energy to earn more money and become a millionaire.

So, where's the crux of this problem? Is it that our definition of "strength" is too narrow? "Strength" shouldn't just be about muscles and fists. A country's true strength, according to a guy named Eli Goldratt, who wrote about "constraints," is like a chain. The strength of that chain isn't determined by its strongest link, but by its weakest link. You can make the strongest link ten times thicker, but the whole chain is still only as strong as that weakest part.

Now, let's apply that to China.

China's history, especially its modern history, that was a big trauma. They felt very weak, got bullied terribly. So, in their view, the country's "weakest link" was "external vulnerability and humiliation." That's like a rusty, almost broken link in the chain.

So, what's the solution to that problem? Naturally, you thicken that "weak link" and turn it into a "strong nation"! So, they push hard to develop the economy, build warships, develop high-tech. That's like taking that rusty link in the chain and forging it into a steel bar with the best material. Sounds perfectly reasonable, right?

But Goldratt would say, that's just the beginning. What happens if you only focus on making that one link incredibly thick, and ignore the other links in the chain?

For example, you push for rapid economic growth (that's one link of "strength"), and you build factories like crazy, but then you pollute the air and the water. Well, then the people aren't happy, and their health suffers. At that point, "the happiness and health of the people" becomes the new "weakest link." Your chain might be thick economically, but it's broken in terms of people's quality of life.

Or, you pursue national stability and control (another link of "strength"), so you manage things very strictly internally, everything has to go through the top. What's the result? People's creativity is stifled, new ideas don't emerge, and society becomes rigid. At that point, "innovation and social vitality" become the new "weakest link." Your chain might look solid, but it can't move forward faster.

Or perhaps, you always feel you have to be very "strong," so you act very tough externally, constantly arguing with your neighbors. What's the result? Nobody wants to do business with you anymore, and everyone starts ganging up against you. At that point, "international cooperation and the external environment" become the new "weakest link." Your chain might be thick, but it's isolated.

Goldratt would say that the true goal of a system is its "throughput," its output. For a country, that "output" is "the long-term well-being and prosperity of its people." If you only focus on making the "strength" link super thick, but it causes other links to weaken, or even break, then your "output"—the people's well-being—hasn't truly increased, and might even have decreased.

So, this goal of being a "strong nation," if it only refers to military and economic might, then it might not be the only path to achieving "people's well-being," and it could even be the wrong choice. Because it might trap the country: you solve one old "weakness," but you create many new ones.

A truly "strong nation" shouldn't just have muscles. It should have:

• All links strong enough: Economy, military, technology, culture, environment, people's happiness, social fairness and justice, international relations... none of these should have obvious weak spots.

• A knack for continuous improvement: Always looking for the current weakest link, and then strengthening it, instead of clinging to an old definition of "strength."

• A clear goal: All efforts are for the ultimate "people's well-being," not for some abstract concept of "strength."

If a country only focuses on building muscles, but forgets to keep its house in order, forgets to get along with its neighbors, then its "strength" is like a bad-tempered bully. Nobody dares to mess with him, but nobody likes him either.

So, shouldn't we rethink what a country's true "strength" really is? Maybe it's not a destination, but a state of being. A state where people can live securely, happily, and with dignity. And that state, often, isn't achieved by brute force alone.

(He picks up the chain model, gently places it on the desk, then looks at the camera, a hint of resignation in his eyes.)

And that's the way it is.