Even if the primary motivation for going into China is that it makes commercial sense for the company - as indeed it must do, since US law is quite harsh on boards that take actions which could damage shareholder value - it also makes political sense.

Dude, first point – no one gets into fiduciary trouble when the stock is going for more than $300 a share. While it is always possible that the stock might tank, it is going to be a long time before the decision to do business in China has an impact on it either way. Thompson’s second point, which has also been made by such disinterested types as Bill Gates and Google’s founders, is that by increasing the flow of information into China the search engine will actually be helping -- not harming -- freedom in the Middle Kingdom. And while there is some slight merit to this, it’s not like the Chinese were being underserved by search engines. The aforementioned Yahoo! and MSN and many others are there.

Wouldn’t a moral stance taken by the US’s hottest internet company have done more good? Wouldn’t it have had a bigger impact if Google had said, “We can’t do business according to the standards of a government that is against everything we allegedly stand for.” News of that certainly would have gotten through to the Chinese, thereby heartening and reassuring people trying to reform the government. It might have galvanized public opinion outside of China and kept the issue front-and-center for a while, as opposed to the 15 minutes of huffing and puffing it will now get from the press and Congress – where our captains of internet/tech industry are being summoned for a ritualistic wrist slapping. A public decision by Google not to take this particular lesson in Chinese would have given a official imprimatur to the idea that being a good corporate citizen sometimes means doing things for the good of the society and not for the company.

But what is the point of a moral stand anyway? Who remembers that William Jennings Bryant resigned as secretary of state over President Wilson’s decision to get involved in World War I. Who remembers that Eliot Richardson resigned rather than follow Nixon’s orders to fire the special investigator into Watergate? Who even remembers James Robertson? He is forgotten already despite the fact that last month he “resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush’s secret authorization of a domestic spying program.” Where was the profit for any of them?