China or BLM?
The typical Republican (whether of the Trumpist or Romneyist variety) tends to bloviate about the supposed threat of China. The charges against China are quite diffuse and weak: preventing Islamic terrorism, having too good a COVID response, opposing Hong Kong independence, having the long-term desire to conquer 台湾 (which the U.S. sells arms to, but refuses to defend or promote the defense of), having bases in the South China Sea (which 台湾 also has), getting tennis stars to shut up, making too much of the West’s stuff, and copying Western intellectual achievements (something all countries do). This is quite bizarre if you think about it. China isn’t funding terrorist groups against Israel (or 台湾 for that matter), and it hasn’t invaded any country since 1979. It has supported existing non-democratic regimes, but it has not set up any new ones. The 台湾 question is real, but it’s not clear how the locale should be treated differently from, say, Finland and Austria are today. Ironically, the U.S. saber-rattling against China has ramped up precisely as China has become more self-sufficient and Sino-American trade has stagnated. Times of stagnant or declining trade (e.g., the 1930s) tend to coincide with growing international tensions, and this is no exception. And, of course, in this time of increasing tensions, this turn away from rapidly expanding trade has been very advantageous for China (the less it is reliant on trade, the less it can be pressured by sanctions), and likely not at all advantageous for the U.S. As China grows richer, the U.S.-China trade relationship increasingly resembles the U.S.-Japan trade relationship, which was a big issue back in the day, but noone but the most moronic economic nationalist would describe as harmful to the U.S.
Today is a week after the twentieth anniversary of China’s entry into the WTO. The economic charge against China must be addressed here, since it is such a core component of the bipartisan Trumpian criticism: the rise of China must be seen in the U.S. as the rise of the U.S. South in the 1940s-1960s was to the U.S. North. Might the North have been hurt by economic activity moving South? Perhaps. Would it have made any sense for the North to implement protectionist measures against the South? No. Would the South have still developed had the North placed sanctions and protectionist measures against it? Yes, but later and to a somewhat lesser degree. Would it be a desirable goal for the U.S. North today to make the South poorer or to cripple its leading industries? No. Does the U.S. North benefit today when the South benefits? There are winners and losers in every economic change, but, on net, yes. Does the U.S. benefit today when China benefits? There are winners and losers in every economic change, but, on net, yes. Is there a struggle between the U.S. and China when it comes to economic matters? No. Is there a struggle between the North and South when it comes to economic matters? No.
And this is the biggest kept secret of “Great Power competition” in the twenty-first century: there is nothing to compete about.
In a proof of their intellectual unseriousness, the China hawk Republicans, by concentrating their ire on the oppression of Muslims or whatnot in China, direct attention away from the much more important question facing the U.S., as well as Europe and South Korea: the racial question. The left brings it up all the time, but the right refuses to touch it with a ten-foot pole, attempting (and, by extension, failing) to replace CRT with what it replaced -thus ultimately doing nothing more than replacing CRT with CRT. The right has to acknowledge that either the Black man and the Mestizo are held down by “systemic racism” or by their own inherent abilities, tastes, and preferences (and, no, acknowledging “systemic racism” and then doing nothing to stop it is not an option). It has to acknowledge that unlike the economic struggle between the U.S. and China, the economic struggle between the Black race and White in America is completely real. It has to acknowledge that Black advancement is not its goal (except in the trivial sense of improving their behavior) and that race relations can result in multiple equilibria -and it has to acknowledge that, due to the tendency of the Overton Window to move until another force stops it, equality of outcome or equality of opportunity are the least likely general equilibria. It has to acknowledge it has to generate force in its own direction to help stop the onslaught of crime and Black advancement. Crucially, it has to reckon with the fact of White decline and figure out ways to reduce and reverse it. This is much harder than criticizing China for oppressing its Muslims while themselves supporting the oppression of the Palestinian people and genocidal sanctions on the people of Iran and Syria, but it is much more worthwhile to any genuinely right-wing cause.
Come to think of it, these “National Conservatives” don’t have much to say about the gay and trans agendas. Or about immigration, either. Strange, that. But they have a lot to say about China (which is not a problem) and breaking up Big Tech, which they won’t do even if in total power (just stop using their products, man, it’s a free country). And, of course, they talk a lot about defending FOSTA/SESTA and going the Korean route on the porn industry. I ask you: would you buy a used car from this man?