As the Republican National Convention approaches, the shouts of victory resounding in the tents will easily conceal the broader political forces at work in the party beyond this fall’s hopeful decisive victory.
The strategy of these forces are visible in the past Republican presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul. To some, Paul’s stubborn persistence in the campaign has been just that: a stubborn unwillingness to lie down and die despite evidence of sure defeat. But what they have missed is a common misperception of a subtle yet powerful age-old strategy at play.
The strategy of the Paul campaign, explicit or not, is the archetypal shi (pronounced “sure”) strategy expounded and employed by Chinese philosophers and military strategists for thousands of years.
Shi has no single, obvious translation, though the best seem to be strategic- or positional-advantage, or potential energy. We might call it cultivating the influence of the present on the future. Shi has been traced back as far as Laozi and the Daodejing, the fourth century BC political treatise attributed to him, with its counterintuitive processual and indirect approach to conflict. Over the centuries that followed, it gained more military-specific development starting with Sunzi.
The quintessential metaphor for shi is water, flowing ever downward in the most naturally powerful and effective way, ultimately overcoming everything in its path. Paradoxically, it is one of the softest and yet strongest forces in nature.
Shi’s antithesis, li, is the strategy of decisive victory in each present battle, typically a more natural, comfortable, and coherent approach than the greater subtleties of the shi approach. While li is seen as a very western world view, it is that forward-looking strategic-advantage orientation of shi that has been the basis of the advancement of western civilization itself—from capital investment and production to the ceaseless pursuit of innovation and, as in Paul’s case, freedom. Rarely have these advantages been realized immediately, while their costs typically have.
Throughout history, perhaps the clearest and most pedagogical example of shi at work has been in the Chinese board game weiqi (pronounced “way-chee”). In this simple yet most complex and calculated of games, opponents (one with black stones and the other with white) each try to surround the most territory on a square grid. The obvious initial strategy is to dive for the corners (the easiest territory to surround) in pursuit of immediate points. The extreme example in this picture shows that li strategy’s allure yet great disadvantage.
White is far ahead in terms of tangible territory right now. But black has established a strategic advantage and intangible edge by moving into the center to command the rest of the board. Black, employing the indirect and circuitous shi strategy, seeks future opportunistic potential, rather than applying direct force like the chess player bent on annihilation. Although white has scored at least 13 points out of the gate, and black has scored nothing, black is well-positioned for an eventual, but patient victory.
Thus, the future-oriented shi meets the present-oriented li—and wins. It requires a profound understanding of the Daoist concept of how current loss leads to eventual gain—or, as Laozi said, the soft overcoming the hard.
We see the shi strategy of Ron Paul in the great patience and nonaggression that favors the slow buildup of influence and strategic advantage over the decisive all-or-nothing clash. First, in the evolving GOP economic platform, Paul’s promotion and teaching of the Austrian school of economics and its business cycle theory has made the destructiveness of Federal Reserve interventionism a constant point of discussion in the primary race, which perhaps has been far more significant than the number of delegates won. Consider, for instance, Mitt Romney’s support of Paul’s current “Audit The Fed” bill, as well as his recent position on the inefficacy of further (as well as past) Fed quantitative easing; it remains only a question of degree with Romney, but a position that nonetheless would have been unlikely without the pressure from the Paul campaign—especially given Romney’s otherwise very simplistic Keynesian-leaning views.
Second, we see the shi strategy in Paul’s ever-expanding influence at the local and state level. Rather than winning at the GOP convention, the Ron Paul shi strategy has been to accumulate delegates in more and more caucus states, and thus control the states’ party apparatuses; from that base it will influence and back future like-minded libertarian-constitutionalist candidates for many years to come.
More than anything else, we can see Paul’s greatest shi advantage in his outsized support among the young. What better representation of the weiqi image than the potential in these well-positioned “stones” on the areas of the board of so little current consequence? Although undesired by political opponents today, their development will provide tremendous influence and advantage to Paul’s cause later.
In this society of immediate gratification and winning right now at all cost we need to ask ourselves: why should future elections and platforms matter so much less than the current ones? There are powerful cognitive biases at work—among them the temporal myopia of hyperbolic discounting, or excessively undervaluing the future, while focusing on the nearer term—which make fuzzy in our minds the importance of victories in the years ahead (a view that is promulgated by the media).
Romney wins the current decisive battle for delegates, and his fight with Obama will be critical, but a protracted campaign will continue to be waged. The ultimate war is against intrusive, burgeoning government, in the ongoing insurgencies of the battles yet to come—Ron Paul’s grand shi strategy.
Mark Spitznagel is the founder and Chief Investment Officer of California-based Universa Investments LP.
This article originally appeared on Forbes.com. Reprinted with the kind permission of the author.
Somebody tell Libertarians that writing-in Ron Paul is a vote for Obama. If he wins you can take your Shi and shove it as it will be worthless as Obama people are ardently opposed to everything Libertarians believe in. You have NO voice in the Democrat party. Along with the Tea party, Libertarians can keep the Republicans, if they win, from de-railing like they did under Bush.
Squire advises us: vote for evil in the short run. Who cares about the long run – we need to panic and support the Republican traitors right now!
Sure we do.
I am pretty confident that a vote for Romney is the same as a vote for the statist keynesian machine already in power.
For example a little thing called Obamacare was heavily modeled on a program called Romneycare. This is an important bullet point on this man’s resume.
I think Squire could just as easily write ‘Romney people are ardently opposed to everything Libertarians believe in.’
If you view the website ontheissues.org, Obama is listed as a Hard-Core Liberal, and I would agree he is not a good representation of Libertarian values, but Romney is listed as a Populist-Leaning Conservative, Populist being the antithesis to Libertarian, as Democrat is supposed to be the opposite of Republican…
Also ontheissues.org has a listing of quotes that I believe do a good job of showing how Romney loves his government large, centralized, and in charge of your life and business.
It looks to me like Romney people are very much opposed to what Libertarians believe in.
Well if it is posted on a website that I have never heard of, I will be sure to accept it as Bible. Another great post, Joe…
Ontheissues.org’s claimed mission “is to provide non-partisan information for voters in the Presidential election, so that votes can be based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity.”
Information which from what I looked at is sourced and is obtained from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites.
I would never ask anyone to take anything as “bible”; I do my own fact checking, if you like to take these things on faith that is your prerogative. I don’t see why you took the low road while offering nothing to further the discussion.
Awww, the low road, huh? Sorry if I hurt your feelings. How about this for substance – some website lists Romney as “populist” which you claim to be the “antithesis” of Libertarian – which is wrong; authoritarian is the antithesis of libertarian. Also, according to you, the same website says that “Romney loves his government large, centralized,…” – see any problems there? “Loves” is not exactly sound policy or political analysis. Centralized? Romney probably leans towards larger gov’t, however we cannot yet make that determination on the national level yet. Although he would be no Ron Paul, I doubt that he would be authoritarian on a centralized national level like Obama.
I did not say “the same website says that “Romney loves his government large, centralized,…”” The quoted context was my opinion, backed by relevant data I sourced to that website.
So you have used a straw man on my comments, criticized me for using a source “on a website that I have never heard of”, and nitpicked the rest.
Did you have your own logical argument or were you just going to continue using fallacies to try and discredit my opinion? Either way thanks for the replies, good day.
Even worse that this brilliant analysis was your opinion. I copied and pasted where you wrote: “Romney loves his government large, centralized,” – either you don’t know what a straw man argument is or you have amnesia… maybe both. Either way, you (unfortunately) have the right to vote… scary. Anyhow, thanks for the laugh.
” I think Squire could just as easily write ‘Romney people are ardently opposed to everything Libertarians believe in.’ ”
Do remind me – just who is the Ron Paul equivalent in the Democrat Party?
Thanks for playing, but you fail miserably.
Consider a longer time frame. The Shi strategy is not dependent on the November battle at all. (There is another … :^)
To understand Shi, consider the Chinese’ longer term thinking shown by their actions and how ingrained it is in their society: I remember the Chinese backing up the truck to buy 30 year Treasuries in the mid-80s when they were yielding nearly 20% and more recently opted to not buy Facebook stock. Many Chinese business and govt leaders get it better than ours. It is all about wealth created from real cash flow. Not fake trillions signified by a blip on the FED’s hard drive. Clearly, the majority of Chinese strategists recognize their ultimate goal is win by BUYING Japan, the USA and the rest of the world.
Key Point of Chinese Logic for the WIN:
As Sun Tzu said in the Art of War, (paraphrasing) The good general is not the one that wins many battles, but he that wins with ease … without fighting.
AKA … Ronald Reagan
Current USA Business and Military strategy currently makes most of the anecdotal mistakes Sun Tzu warns against if you read the Art of War. The Chinese recognize our long term strategic failures completely … to their pleasure. If you think I exaggerate about their zeal to implement this unspoken strategy, read what Tzu says about the “Importance of Spies” and how they should be compensated. Then read up on the stats on US business, technical and military espionage.
We face three enemies and they are not Obama, the Chinese and the Russians. They are the Loss of Critical Thinking by our people, Loss of Ethics/Morality in our people and Loss of the Rule of Law for our people. America will be lost if all three are not regained.
The USA has a fair chance to survive the Obama II millstone around our necks if that is how it turns out. The purge and convulsion of the education/economic/legal system will just be deeper and more painful … possibly deadly if critical systems fail.
America needs to reverse course and develop long term resources and bend or own metal again. The future belongs to the Chinese unless we go back to work and start doing the right things … and soon.
Best regards,
Bruce
Interesting article. Gives one hope for the future.
Actually, I am ok with with a collapse.