THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Thursday, February 27, 2020 |A
Bodhisattva
Of Compassion
The Dalai Lama: An Extraordinary Life
By Alexander Norman
(Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 410 pages, $30)BOOKSHELF| By Tunku Varadarajan
O
n July 6, 1935, was born a boy to a family of peasants
in the village of Taktser in the far northeast of Tibet.
Its inhabitants spoke a coarse dialect that was
incomprehensible in Lhasa, Tibet’s storied capital. The boy,
Lhamo Dondhup, was one of only seven siblings, out of 16,
who survived into adulthood.
Although the village was remote, it was not godforsaken.
At barely 2 years of age, Lhamo Dondhup was identified as
the reincarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama, who had died in- Solemn portents and divinations had led a party of
monks to Taktser, where the lively little mite convinced his
visitors that he was next in a line of Tibetan Buddhist god-
popes stretching back 600 years.
In “The Dalai Lama,” a biography written with generous
access to its subject, Alexander Norman describes the scene.
With the monks looking on, the boy picked out, unprompted,
a series of objects that had belonged to the Great Thirteenth.
Locals spoke of a rainbow appearing over the boy’s house at
the time of his birth. “This was a theogony,” writes Mr.
Norman, “the coming of a god.”
A rival candidate was in contention, a well-born child in
Lhasa; but there could be no doubt that the boy from Taktser
was the next Dalai Lama, the paramount monk who is Tibet’s
spiritual and temporal leader. It is an office like no other on
earth: “The profundity of the emotional connection Tibetans
have with the Dalai Lama,”
Mr. Norman writes, “is
beyond anything that others
can easily imagine.” The one
in whom “thebodhi—the
awakened mind of the
Buddha—resides is not merely
a monarch. He is someone who
connects, in himself, the seen
world with that unseen.”
The subtitle of Mr. Norman’s
book, “An Extraordinary Life,”
is an understatement. The 14th
Dalai Lama, regarded as divine
when he could barely speak, was
enthroned at the age of 4. After a
childhood in which he had no friends and
was forbidden to play soccer, he took on full
political duties at 15, outgrowing his oppressive regents. At
23, he fled to exile in India, crossing the border, Mr. Norman
tells us, on the back of adzo, a cross between a yak and a
cow: “And it was on this humble form of transport that the
Precious Protector, the Victor, Lion Among Men, Wish-
Fulfilling Jewel, Ocean of Wisdom...quit his homeland.”
That journey occurred in 1959, when it became clear that
Communist China intended not merely to obliterate Tibet’s
culture but to imprison the Dalai Lama himself. Exile from
Tibet—which continues to this day—was not just personally
devastating to the Dalai Lama; 80,000 Tibetans fled to India
in that year alone—to the consternation, Mr. Norman notes,
of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s prime minister, who was
petrified of upsetting Mao Zedong.
The Tibetan diaspora numbers 150,000, most of them
(including the Dalai Lama) residing in India. The population
of the Chinese-occupied Tibet Autonomous Region is put at
three million, of which 90% is ethnic Tibetan, according to
Beijing’s own reckoning, which certainly undercounts the
Han Chinese interlopers. Given that China’s “ascent as a
world superpower looks set to continue into the foreseeable
future,” laments Mr. Norman, fewer countries “will dare risk
their trading relations with China for the sake of a few
million Tibetans.”
Mr. Norman knows the Dalai Lama better than most,
having helped him to write his autobiography. His new book
is rich, sometimes heaving, with detail; his supple prose,
often beautiful, is as adept at explaining Tibet’s theology as
it is at describing its spiritual world. “Every feature of the
landscape and every creature dwelling within it,” he writes,
“falls under the aegis of some sprite or spirit or deity. Even
the bolts of lightning in a storm were said to issue from the
mouths of celestial dragons.”
Yet the most potent forces against which the Dalai Lama
has grappled have been infernal. His two regents were, Mr.
Norman says, martinets who coveted the power they enjoyed
when he was a minor. The first was jailed by his successor
and, as one account has it, killed by having his testicles
crushed. Remarkably, the man who emerged from these dark
beginnings has proved to be a serene statesman, known for
his beatific smile and ecumenical diplomacy.
The Dalai Lama is among the world’s most feted figures.
Mr. Norman explains how he has done more to promote
Buddhism in the Western world than any person in history
and stresses that it is his charismatic wisdom, even more
than his campaign for freedom, that makes him a darling in
the West. His appeal transcends ideology, and he has had
admirers as diverse as Allen Ginsberg, the Beat poet, and
George W. Bush, along with Hollywood stars galore. Mr.
Norman’s book, while respectful, is not adoring: He doesn’t
flinch from offering examples of his subject’s behavior that
are awkward. These include an instance in Norway when the
Dalai Lama giggled and told a teenager she was “too fat.”
His views on homosexuality are not in lockstep with those
of Western progressives, and no one can deny that his judg-
ment faltered when he granted audiences to the leader of a
cult that went on to murder people with sarin gas in Tokyo.
If he has shown himself to be fallible, on occasion, his
understanding of China cannot be faulted. The horrors heaped
on Tibet during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural
Revolution abated with Mao’s death, but it is still a land that
lives under brutal subjugation. A realist, the Dalai Lama has
stated for decades that he would accept China’s sovereignty
over Tibet in exchange for autonomy. But China dismisses
him as a separatist under the sway of “hostile foreign forces.”
In 2011, the Dalai Lama announced his retirement as
leader of Tibet’s government in exile, giving the role to a
democratically elected minister. The next Dalai Lama may
well choose to undo this political reform, and yet, in thus
“handing over political power,” writes Mr. Norman, “the
Precious Protector brought to an end...centuries of
theocratic rule.” It was the act of a thoroughly modern
monk—the first democrat to lead Tibet’s people. It breaks
the heart that he has, in China, a foe so all-consuming.Mr. Varadarajan is executive editor at Stanford
University’s Hoover Institution.A Westerner with rare access to his subject
writes an authorized biography of one of the
world’s most feted, and charismatic, figures.Where’s That 3% Growth?
P
resident Trump is re-
portedly planning an-
other tax cut. If so, he
should figure out why the first
one was a dud.
As a card-carrying supply-
sider, I was certain tax reform
would at last lift the U.S.
economy out of its rut of 2%
growth. On Dec. 16, 2017, a
few days before he signed the
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Mr.
Trump told reporters: “The
economy now has hit 3%. No-
body thought we’d be any-
where close. I think we can go
to 4%, 5% and maybe even 6%
ultimately.”
But the increase in gross
domestic product hasn’t hit
3%. It was only 2.3% in 2017
and 2.9% in 2018, when the
cuts kicked in. The U.S. Bureau
of Economic Analysis esti-
mates only 2.3% for 2019.
Overall, annual GDP growth
under Mr. Trump has averaged
only a few tenths of a point
better than that of President
Obama’s second term.I supported the 2017 corpo-
rate and personal tax cuts, ex-
pecting them to add incentives
to work and invest. Businesses
were supposed to plow tons of
money into new factories and
machines. Instead, in 2019,
real private nonresidentialfixed investment fell.
Economic growth lifts all
boats, and it is disappoint-
ing—but probably inevitable—
that the Democratic presiden-
tial candidates have focused
on redistribution rather than
increasing GDP.
Still, why didn’t the tax
cuts have the desired effect?
Perhaps they did but were
overwhelmed by losses from
other policies. Tariffs on for-
eign goods harmed growth by
raising prices for consumers
and producers and disrupting
supply chains. Restrictive im-
migration policies helped cut
U.S. population growth to less
than 0.5% last year, the small-
est increase since the 1918
Spanish flu epidemic. A grow-
ing population, especially of
working-age immigrants, is
crucial to economic growth.There’s another likely de-
terrent as well. Mr. Trump’s
erratic behavior and penchant
for economic and diplomatic
isolation have almost cer-
tainly dampened the enthusi-
asm of both foreigners and
Americans to devote capital
here. Foreign direct invest-
ment has dropped for five
straight quarters.
The Obama years were
hardly brilliant for the econ-
omy. After a bad recession, we
didn’t get our usual roaring
recovery. Instead, we puttered
along at little better than 2%.
Unfortunately, we’re still put-
tering along.Mr. Glassman, a consultant
to businesses and nonprofits,
served as undersecretary of
state for public diplomacy un-
der President George W. Bush.By James K. Glassman
The Trump tax cut
hasn’tliveduptoits
promise. The reason
may be Trump.OPINION
S
ince winning the popular
vote in the Democratic
presidential race’s first
three contests, Bernie Sanders
has received generous acco-
lades. He’s been crowned a
strong front-runner, with
many already declaring him
the presumptive nominee. It’s
said he has an insurmountable
lead and a powerful hold on
the party faithful.
The senator from Vermont
may well become the Demo-
cratic nominee in July but let’s
put things in perspective.
There will be 3,979 “pledged”
delegates at the Democratic
National Convention in July.
That doesn’t include the
superdelegates (now camou-
flaged as “automatic delegate
votes”), who can vote only if
there’s a second ballot.
A candidate therefore needs
1,990 pledged delegates to win
on the first ballot. So far only
101 have been allocated. South
Carolina’s primary Saturday
will award 54 more, but that
will be a small part of the
crowd in Milwaukee’s Fiserv
Forum for the convention.
Mr. Sanders has won 45
delegates thus far, Pete Butt-
igieg 25, Joe Biden 15, Eliza-
beth Warren 8 and Amy
Klobuchar 7. While Mr. Sand-
ers leads, he’s nowhere near
what’s needed to win. This
race still could have a long
way to go.
It’s also worth noting that
Mr. Sanders won the first three
contests with very low shares
of the vote. While he took Iowa
with 26.5% of the final caucus
Last Stand Against Bernie Sanders
vote earlier this month, in 2016
Hillary Clinton edged him out
with 49.8% to 49.6% among
pledged delegates. (Vote-share
figures weren’t released.) With
a split field, Mr. Sanders’s
share of the vote this time was
the lowest among winners in
the history of the Iowa caucus.
At 26.2%, his delegate share
was five points below the next
lowest among Iowa winners,
Rep. Dick Gephardt’s 31.3% in
1988.Similarly, Mr. Sanders took
New Hampshire with 25.7% of
the vote this year, the lowest
in that state’s history and 34
points less than his 60.1% in- Only in Nevada did Mr.
Sanders’s 46.8% share of
county convention delegates
last week approximate his
share from 2016—when he fin-
ished second in the Silver
State.
The large number of more-
traditional Democratic candi-
dates to his right is helping
the self-proclaimed democratic
socialist win contests with low
vote shares. In New Hampshire
the moderate (comparatively
speaking) trio of Mr. Buttigieg,
Ms. Klobuchar and Mr. Biden
received a combined 52.6% of
votes to Mr. Sanders’s 25.7%.
Yet because Democratic Party
rules award delegates propor-
tionately among those candi-
dates who receive more than
15% of votes in a state or con-
gressional district, the Ver-
monter took 37.5% of the Gran-
ite State’s pledged delegates.
This distortion will become
more pronounced on Super
Tuesday, March 3, when Mike
Bloomberg appears on ballots,
boosted by a massive ad blitz
and an army of organizers. Mr.
Bloomberg will dilute the non-
Bernie vote further, causing
more-moderate candidates to
fall below the 15% threshold in
more states and districts. This
in turn could boost Mr. Sand-
ers’s delegate strength even
higher above his share of each
state’s vote.
The overly crowded lane of
Democratic candidates who
appeal to moderates and tradi-
tional liberals is fueling the
sense that Mr. Sanders will in-
evitably win the party’s nomi-
nation. Poor Super Tuesday
numbers and the lack of funds
that will follow, however, may
thin the field, perhaps allow-
ing one traditional Democrat
to emerge as Mr. Sanders’s
lone bête noire.
The contest could still sur-
prise us, especially if Mr. Bi-
den wins South Carolina
soundly and picks up momen-
tum for Super Tuesday. Alter-
natively, if he craters, tradi-
tional Democrats could move
toward someone who looks
like he can stop the Bern.
To win, ordinary Democrats
must realize they risk losing
2020 to Donald Trump and
their party to the loony left.
Yet they won’t peel away
Sanders voters by arguingover electability. Primary vot-
ers tend to identify their fa-
vored candidate as the most
electable. So it is with Sand-
ernistas, who dream of raising
a revolutionary army of here-
tofore politically inactive stu-
dents, people of color and
blue-collar unionists.
Nor will traditional Demo-
crats convert Sanders support-
ers by charging him with the
biggest proposed expansion of
government and spending in
history. His backers love him
for his promises to spend tril-
lions, raise taxes and make
radical changes to American
capitalism and society. Still,
these attacks could rally the
other Democratic voters,
though at the risk of exposing
weaknesses that President
Trump will surely exploit if Mr.
Sanders is his opponent.
If Democrats throw in their
cards and reconcile themselves
to a Sanders nomination, it’s a
sign they’re resigned to fol-
lowing the British Labour
Party to a crackup and a sting-
ing defeat. Uniting the party’s
less radical wings to prevail
against the hard left, on the
other hand, will require grit,
courage and alacrity. Time is
short, and it may be that Mr.
Sanders is unbeatable. But
make no mistake: With a so-
cialist on a trajectory to be the
Democratic nominee, Republi-
cans couldn’t be happier.Mr. Rove helped organize
the political-action committee
American Crossroads and is
author of “The Triumph of
William McKinley” (Simon &
Schuster, 2015).Can traditional
Democrats unite and
rally in time to stop
the slide to socialism?By Karl Rove
After a high
official of the
U.S. Centers
for Disease
Control and
Prevention
said Tuesday
about the cor-
onavirus that
“we expect we
will see com-
munity spread
in this country,” the Dow Jones
Industrial Average closed
nearly 900 points down for the
day.
By now, everyone knows that
coronavirus community spread
equates with quarantines. “Pan-
demic” is suddenly a household
word. We aren’t there yet, and
may never be. The CDC went
public because the Covid-19 vi-
rus spreads more easily than
previous viruses such as SARS
or MERS.
This is a moment when the
public of any affected coun-
try—China, Italy, South Korea
or the U.S.—expects the people
atop its government to provide
political leadership. This being
the U.S. in our politically de-
graded times, we are getting
no such thing from Democrats
or Republicans.
One has to wonder: If an-
other 9/11 happened, would
Chuck Schumer within an hour
accuse Donald Trump of “tow-
ering and dangerous incompe-
tence,” as he did Tuesday? Of
course he would. Just as Mr.
Trump amid the crisis would
find time, as he did Tuesday,
to tweet-smack “Cryin’ Chuck
Trump Versus the Coronavirus
Schumer”: “He didn’t
like my early travel clos-
ings. I was right. He is
incompetent!”
Virtually within mo-
ments of the CDC an-
nouncement, Health and
Human Services Secre-
tary Alex Azar found
himself under assault at
a hearing on virus prepa-
ration by grandstanding
senators from both par-
ties—the GOP’s Richard
Shelby and John Ken-
nedy and Democrat Patty
Murray.
By day’s end, the
seven cage fighters in the
South Carolina Democratic de-
bate were piling on. Sen. Ber-
nie Sanders ridiculed the
“great genius” in the White
House and naturally called for
expanding the World Health
Organization.
Let us simplify: If anything
close to “community spread”
occurs in the U.S., two political
careers will be at risk—Donald
Trump’s and Bernie Sanders’s,
in the middle of a presidential
campaign.
If the virus expands in the
U.S., both the content and the
qualityof the response will be
on President Trump. As such,
the coronavirus could be the
issue on which Mr. Trump fi-
nally blows himself up with
Twitter.
It will be a situation in
which the public is looking to
him for leadership. But on the
evidence of the past three
years, it will be child’s play for
Mr. Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Mr.
Sanders or the media to goad
Mr. Trump into a low-grade
Twitter spat, which will look
as if he thinks the coronavirus
is about him, not the American
people.
Mr. Trump’s presentation at
Wednesday evening’s press con-
ference on the virus was fairlymeandering. Maybe it was jet
lag. The administration officials
who spoke, including coronavi-
rus team leader Vice President
Mike Pence, sounded solid. But
if there is a public breaking
point to the familiar Trump mo-
dus operandi, a coronavirus cri-
sis could surface it.
A public faced with any
chance of restrictions on its
personal movement—whether
in New York City or Podunk—
won’t want happy talk from
the president’s aides or tweets
from him filled with faux ex-
clamation points. To simplify
further, will Mr. Trump man-
age the coronavirus in a way
that doesn’t sound like a guy
on a bar stool?
But consider Mr. Sanders,
who in these debates is sound-
ing more and more like the
loudmouth at the other end of
the bar. If the coronavirus be-
comes a live issue in the U.S.,
Mr. Sanders will have a bigger
problem than Mr. Trump. It’s
called Medicare for All.
A grim reality for medical
science is that deadly mutating
viruses are inevitable, as are
antibiotic-resistant infections.
We are in a race between a vi-
rus calamity and the ability to
create effective vaccines andantiviral therapies.
Imagine if for the past
40 years, the U.S. health
care system were run
like Mr. Sanders’s two fa-
vorite alternatives—the
U.K.’s National Health
Service or Healthcare in
Canada. It is only a slight
exaggeration to say...
we’d be dead.
Every day, the Demo-
crats’ socialist front-run-
ner condemns “the
crooks who run the phar-
maceutical industry in
America today.” Crooks?
Does even Bernie’s base
believe this?
A Medicare for All system in
the U.S., with minimal private
hospitals or physicians, would
collapse beneath a real virus
crisis. Medicare for All would
smother the public-private in-
frastructure in the U.S. that de-
velops, manufactures and dis-
tributes lifesaving therapies for
viruses—or anything else.
The Wall Street Journal this
week wrote about Moderna
Inc., an 800-employee drug
company in Cambridge, Mass.,
that is working around the
clock to create a coronavirus
vaccine within months. If
BernieCare happens, they’re
gone. No, you won’t be able to
import the coronavirus vaccine
from Canada.
Everything but the kitchen
sink will be thrown into this
year’s presidential election.
We’d do worse, though, than to
settle it over one issue—which
man’s politics is most likely to
protect us from a genuine
health crisis, now or in the in-
evitable, viral future.
This is an argument a presi-
dential Mr. Trump should be
able to win. But if the corona-
virus debate comes down to
Trump of Twitter versus Crazy
Bernie, all bets are off.
Write [email protected].The virus exposes the
political weakness of
both the president
and Bernie Sanders.
WONDER
LAND
By Daniel
Henninger
Rome’s St. Peter’s Square WednesdayMATTEO NARDONE/ZUMA PRESS