Singapore

Source: Bigstock

America did not lose its factories because the Chinese outworked us, the Mexicans undercut us, or the robots replaced us. It lost them because we decided to. More precisely, a ruling class decided that making things was vulgar, while moving numbers around a screen was sophisticated—and then built an entire political economy around that assumption.

The postwar United States once treated industry as a national asset: steel, autos, machine tools, shipyards, chemicals, avionics—things you could point to, touch, ship, and, in a pinch, turn into tanks. Then, beginning in the 1970s and accelerating through the Reagan–Clinton era into the globalist sugar high of the 1990s, we slid into a new faith: that finance was not merely a service to the real economy, but the real economy. The factories could go. The spreadsheets would remain.

This transformation had a name—financialization—and it reordered incentives with surgical cruelty. Corporate America stopped behaving like producers and started behaving like hedge funds with logos. Long-term investment gave way to quarterly theatrics. By the 1960s, a chief executive typically earned twenty times the pay of the average worker. Today it is closer to 300—sometimes 400. The gap did not widen because CEOs suddenly became twenty times more brilliant. It widened because the system stopped rewarding production and started rewarding extraction.

So we sanctified “shareholder value” as if Milton Friedman had brought down tablets from Mount Sinai. Executives were paid to “beat expectations,” not to build capacity. Corporations became cash-extraction devices: buybacks instead of investment, mergers instead of R&D, consultants instead of machine shops. General Electric—once a symbol of American industrial muscle—mutated under Jack Welch into a bank with a nostalgic attachment to turbines, its profits increasingly derived not from engines or appliances but from financial engineering. Welch himself retired with a $400 million farewell bouquet.

Other countries chose differently. Germany protected its Mittelstand and treated skilled trades as an honor, not a fallback. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan built developmental states using coordination, export discipline, and relentless focus on production. Even China, with all its distortions, grasped one basic truth: You do not remain a great power by specializing in apps and debt.

America’s alternative path hollowed out not only industrial capacity but also national seriousness. Reindustrialization is not a slogan or a branding exercise. It is a long, disciplined campaign—and one that requires saying no to Wall Street.

Which is why the current fashion for invoking Singapore is so irritating. The Davos class treats it as something you can bottle, label, and ship to Cleveland. Add a light dusting of “best practices,” sprinkle in some bike lanes and ESG jargon, and—voilà!—a Midwestern city is reborn as an Asian marvel. This is nonsense, but it is fashionable nonsense, which is why it persists.

What this managerial cargo cult misses is that Singapore was never a model in the abstract. It was a response to contingency. Its success cannot be reduced to policies, metrics, or governance frameworks because it was not assembled from interchangeable parts. It was imposed, under pressure, by a particular man at a particular moment—one uniquely suited to a small, exposed city-state with no room for error.

That man was Lee Kuan Yew.

Born Harry Lee Kuan Yew in 1923 to a British-educated Straits Chinese family, Lee was neither a mystic nor a romantic. He was a lawyer—Cambridge-trained, razor-minded, and unsentimental—who came of age watching empires collapse, communism metastasize, and multiethnic societies tear themselves apart. When Singapore was expelled from Malaysia in 1965—suddenly independent, resource-poor, ethnically volatile, and strategically exposed—Lee inherited not a nation but a problem set. No hinterland. No army. No natural resources. No margin for error. Failure was not an option; it was extinction.

For three decades as prime minister, and decades more as the regime’s guiding intelligence, Lee built Singapore into a first-world state by rejecting every fashionable illusion of postwar liberalism. He imposed the rule of law where chaos beckoned, merit where patronage tempted, and long-term planning where short-term sentiment intruded. He crushed corruption, enforced public order, demanded educational seriousness, and made economic competence—not ideological virtue—the sole test of legitimacy. Under his leadership, Singapore transformed itself from a humid trading post into one of the four Asian Tigers: a manufacturing hub, financial center, and logistical artery whose per capita income now exceeds that of its former colonial master. This was not accidental. It was administered.

Lee did not believe history bent toward justice. He believed it bent toward entropy unless someone pushed back—hard.

But even that is only half the story. The other half—the half politely ignored whenever Singapore is held up as a model—is demographics and social capital. Singapore was not built on magic dirt. It was built on people: a Chinese-majority society alongside Malays and Tamils, organized not as an accident of history but as a matter of statecraft. Lee understood, from the race riots of the early 1960s onward, that a multiracial state dominated by ethnic politics would not survive—and that stability required a clear demographic center of gravity. “In a multiracial society,” he once remarked, “if you let numbers alone determine outcomes, you will get paralysis, not harmony.”

Since independence, Singapore has therefore maintained a Chinese majority hovering around three-quarters of the population through deliberate, state-managed immigration. This mattered. Chinese Singaporeans had—and still have—fertility rates far below replacement. The state did not leave demographics to chance.

Critics denounce this as demographic engineering, even racial hegemony; Lee was unapologetic. “I do not believe you can mix different cultures and expect it to work out by itself.” In the West, we prefer to pretend everyone is interchangeable and culture is merely cuisine. Lee preferred reality.

America’s own rise followed the same pattern. It was not, despite the children’s books, a geographical accident. Plenty of nations enjoy fertile land and navigable rivers and have managed to make a spectacular mess of them. What distinguished America was the people who built it: predominantly Anglo-Celtic settlers—the four British folkways David Hackett Fischer maps in Albion’s Seed—reinforced by Germans and Dutch, who brought habits of self-government, legalism, Protestant work discipline, and a stubborn insistence on order before indulgence. They built institutions that worked because the population broadly shared the cultural software required to make them run. Lee understood the same truth generations later.

Which brings us, inevitably, to Donald Trump. Trump is not Lee Kuan Yew. Anyone pretending otherwise is either unserious or auditioning for cable news. Lee was austere and disciplined; Trump is theatrical and impulsive. Lee ruled like a mandarin general; Trump governs like a demolition crew with a bullhorn. And yet—this is where the modern West struggles—Trump is necessary.

Trump’s role is not to be the builder. It is to be the disrupter—the man who kicks over the polite furniture and forces the room to acknowledge the smell. He forced immigration and the border back into the realm of enforcement rather than abstraction, shattering the taboo around demographics and sovereignty and returning them—against elite protest—to the national conversation. America is not going back to the 1970s demographically, or pretending it can. What he did was insist that numbers matter and that a nation has the right to decide who enters it.

A true American Lee Kuan Yew would look very different from Trump. He would be quieter—and far more feared. He would understand that reindustrialization is not a slogan but a program, and that mercy without order is cruelty. He would not confuse tolerance with surrender.

Whether America can still produce such a figure is an open question. Civilizations do not summon reformers on demand; they earn them through necessity. Trump may not be the man. He may only be the moment.

Singapore did not become great by being nice. It became great by being serious. America, if it is to recover, will need the same rude awakening.

Naturally, our betters disagree.